I’m surprised if the rules are really meant to range over what you can wish for. I think the intent has to be to restrict what wishes you can express on the board. Otherwise, the SDMB is nuts. Which is possible. But still…
-FrL-
Oh come now. The wishing harm part is obvious, even when phrased as a refution of the thought. It’s like a scary guy in a dark alley saying, “You should be careful, a pretty girl like you could get hurt around here.”
I must confess that I didn’t think to report the post either, despite my shock when I read it that Polycarp would say such a thing. But I do think that it’s a clear violation of the rule.
I don’t know…how do you interpret the part I highlighted in red?
Pssst:
Having been raped, and having watched three family members and a dog suffer through cancers (three fatally), I just have to disagree.
The problem is, she didn’t have rape wished on her for showing sadistic glee over the demise of a public figure by cancer. It was a rather inexplicable wish of gang rape because she expressed an arguably controversial opinion that fell well short of sadistic glee. This had already been acknowledged by the pitted.
Saying that he “didn’t wish rape on her” and therefore she has nothing to complain about is a disingenuous reading of what he wrote, and since he already owned up to it and apologized, revisionist interpretations are senseless at this point.
I agree with Risha-- it was a clear violation of the rules as highlighted in red by Sarahfeena. I don’t expect any action will be taken.
It appears that the matter has been resolved in a positive way. How would some moderator action improve upon it?
Fuck.
There, are all you Pitizens happy now?
It would appear that Sarahfeena would have more than her pound of flesh.
I think that it is possible for some people to find one kind of response inflammatory and others to find another inflammatory. We can agree that she is thoughtful and conservative. We disagree about how productive her thoughtfulness is and how incendiary her remarks are.
Her suggestion that Polycarp’s negative breaks a rule is really a stretch. To do that after he has apologized for the post is graceless.
Suggesting that Ted Kennedy is a murderer was cold, Sarahfeena, and unfounded. The irony is that that is what I find most incendiary about many of your posts: their cold ignorance wrapped in smugness.
I’ve never wished cancer on any dog, even the evil neighbor lady’s mutts that threatened me as a child. To be pancaked by runaway semis, yes, but never cancer.
Oh good. I await with anticipation your condemnation of Brain Glutton who quite baldly stated that he would dance and shout with glee when and if he got news of Dick Chaney suffering from a painful terminal illness, and wish him more pain and a faster death. Is your dislike universal, or only when the perceived target is a liberal politician? Inquiring minds want to know.
Do inquiring minds want to provide a link?
And the award for the most graceful understatement of the year goes to…
Thanks for the link. I had missed it.
Just speaking for myself: I think I dislike Cheney as much as anyone I can think of, but I would take no pleasure in his suffering. I don’t think I will feel any grief when he has gone. But I would feel sorry for his family. And if others here felt sorrow at his passing and expressed it – or if I knew that he were widely respected among Republicans or conservatives here (I don’t think that he is), I certainly wouldn’t gloat over his death.
As long as he remains in good health, I have no qualms about labelling him for the horrors that are a result of his position of power. And, after a reasonable time of mourning, I would again feel free to label him.
But I wouldn’t be vague about it. And I would back up my accusations. I wouldn’t just claim that he was a public figure and should get used to accusations.
Calling Ted Kennedy a drunken murderer and referring to it more than once, talking about how he had gotten off because he was privileged, claiming that he never apologized or repented and then admitting that you knew he wasn’t really a murderer – under these circumstances – is trolling and being a jerk.
You know Zoe, your husband is one of the luckiest guys on this earth to have you as his partner. I’ll bet he knows though. There is just no way he couldn’t.
One is a fundamentally decent man who made a serious mistake which cost a life. The other has caused the death and mutilation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in an illegal war, created and emboldened terrorists around the world and made the USA a torture nation. You work it out.
Good grief. No it’s not. He was drunk, and his actions while drunk started a chain of events that led to a death. Do you dispute this? Acts similar to his have been punished by charges of murder in recent years. Do you dispute this? He is phenomenally privileged. Do you dispute this? Our justice system is biased toward folks with privilege. Do you dispute this?
Sarah admitted she’d forgotten about the apology. That was an honest mistake. There are different definitions of “murderer” (legal and moral, for example), and Sarah admitted that he didn’t fit the legal definition of murder.
None of her posts consisted either of trolling or of being a jerk. You’re way off base.
FWIW, I don’t agree with her about Kennedy. But she’s not put the argument forward in a remotely jerkish or trollish way.
Daniel
Irrelevant. The Pit rules make no such distinctions.
I don’t wish for there to be any retroactive moderator action at all, I just want to understand a mod’s thought process when they see something like that and just ignore it. That’s all.
Ted Kennedy is not a member of the SDMB, and I broke no rules with what I said. I also wished NO harm on anyone, and in fact said that is did NOT want him to suffer. I believe being inflammatory in the Pit with the expression of one’s own opinions is allowed and indeed what the Pit is meant to be for.
The next person who claims that I said I wished cancer on someone is REALLY going to have to provide a link showing where I said it. Really.