It’s kind of a shame when you have to use a phrase like “I believe” to start a sentence even in the pit. But you know what, it shows some of us what kind of heart you have.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
Your final line is the most humorous as it describes you more than any other poster on the dope that I can think of.
**Sarahfeena ** did not ask for a mod to now take action, she clearly requested clarification as to why **Giraffe ** did not. I am going to go with the assumption he did not even see it until much later, but that is just a guess.
Zoe you are constantly a foul hearted harpy in the pit and you never back off. You hide behind a facade of offense taken and psuedo-politeness but damn I greatly prefer the honest hostility that others show. You are not the nice person you pretend to be.
Jim
I have. Your statement is partisan bullshit. I’m not fan of Dick Chaney, but I’m less a fan of double standards.
Okay, fair is fair. Dick Cheney[sic] is a fundamentally decent man who made a serious mistake in causing the death and mutilation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in an illegal war, creating and emboldening terrorists around the world, and making the USA a torture nation.
You’re missing the point intentionally, aren’t you?
Frequently.
I don’t understand what the big deal is. It’s not like **Polycarp ** raised the issue of whining like CarnalK did.
Learning the art. Much work to do.
Fair question. I don’t think Polycarp post deserved a warning. Although it did strike me as uncharacteristically harsh, the sentiment was indirect enough that I didn’t read it as an actual wish for harm to you, but rhetoric to make a point. Just as we are far less strict about the use of racial slurs in discussions about hate speech if we think they are being used to make a point, I didn’t want to be too quick on the trigger to invoke the “no wishing death” rule on people arguing in a thread about feelings about the death of public figures.
So because of the topic of the thread and the indirectness of the statement, the post fell below the warning threshold for me. Not far below, mind you, but far enough to not draw a warning. Polycarp’s reputation and history with the board came into play only in that it made me fairly confident he wasn’t trolling or trying to break rules without getting caught, as we haven’t seen any behavior like that from him before. Most posters would have gotten the same benefit of the doubt.
After reviewing Polycarp’s comments, I agree with Giraffe’s interpretation - while his post was uncharacteristically harsh, I don’t think it merited a warning. If this was a pattern of behavior I might have asked him to cool it, but, I think this was just a case of very strong rhetoric being used.
Thank you for your responses, Giraffe and fluiddruid.
This whole incident is very strange. Polycarp’s statement to me was strange in the first place, but he has apologized, and I think he feels bad about it. I’m good with that. What is even stranger in my mind is the reaction of some of the other people who seem to think that wishing gang rape on people is just part of the normal course of events on the SDMB, and that I’m apparently overreacting with my initial reaction of feeling very upset over it, and my continued reaction of not really being interested in continuing the discussion I was having in that thread.
It’s also a little bit strange to me that the SDMB is apparently a place where posters can get a small admonishment for calling each other “losers,” but when gang rape is wished on someone, it’s passed by with nary a mention. But whatever…as I said before, I certainly don’t think Polycarp needs to be warned after he’s already apologized.
Remember–moderators don’t neccessarily read every post. I’m far more likely to report a post with “losers” in it in another forum than I am any post in the Pit. In the Pit I don’t know where the lines are drawn, so I usually skim over posts which I find over the line. But personal attacks are much more permitted in the Pit than they are elsewhere. Outside of the Pit, I sometimes report very mild possible insults in the interest of having a Mod type “Hey, cool it, guys”, rather either seeing the thread continue to heat up or risk drawing fire by attempting to tell people to cool it myself.
While this is of course true, I’d just like to point out that this fact has no bearing on the moderation response in this case. I was keeping a fairly close eye on that thread, and saw the post as it happened. It didn’t trigger my warn instinct, even though I did think it was rather over the top.
I’d also point out that our not reading every post is not an excuse for inconsistent or sloppy moderation. It may be the reason for it in some cases, but I wouldn’t put it forward as a defense.
Although I know others have already pointed this out, it remains a matter of interpretation as to whether or not Polycarp actually did what you’re claiming he did. In my interpretation, he did not. That you continue to state that he did in the face of a number of posters pointing out to you that it’s really not clear that he did so seems, to me, to be of a piece with your behavior in the orginal thread. (By which I mean your acknowledgement that Kennedy is not actually a murderer, followed quickly by your resuming using the word murderer to describe him).
Those posters to this thread who do perceive Polycarp’s post as wishing gang rape on you have emphatically NOT behaved as if it’s ‘just part of the normal course of events,’ but have disapproved of it strongly. In fact, like most, if not all, of the posters who don’t perceive Poly’s post as a wish-for-harm, I too disapprove of it and find it uncharacteristically harsh of him. Just not worthy of a warning because it doesn’t violate any rules that I know of.
And this is beyond diningenuous from a poster with your long familiarity with this place. You know there’s a difference between what’s allowed in the Pit and what’s allowed in other forums. So why in hell would you link to that post as if it’s in any way pertinent to your argument that Poly’s post, which was in the Pit, was beyond the pale?
Diningenuous? You mean like when a patron gives birth in a restaurant?
rimshot
In my interpretation, he did. Some posters seem to dispute that, others don’t. Also, in post #59, I said that I did not believe he was a murderer, and I never again said that he was. It is not true that I resumed using the word murderer to describe him. All I said was that I was sure that he doesn’t like it when people use the word murderer to describe him. That’s not the same thing as calling him one, but merely acknowledging that people have been known to call him that.
I never said that ALL people behaved as if it’s just part of the normal course of events, I said that SOME people did. Obviously, some have been vocal in their disapproval, and I appreciate that immensely.
I understand that the Pit has different rules, and that’s fine. But my point was that I think that concern over one poster wishing harm to another poster might be of a higher priority than that over people calling each other losers.
Not a defense, just a reminder that context is if not everything a lot of things.
(On the other hand, I might not have made that post if I’d read your previous post as indicating that you had in fact read Polycarp’s objectionable comment soon after posting and decided it wasn’t worth a warning. Re-reading your post now, I’m not sure whether that is clear.)
and in others he didn’t, and he’s not come through and state that he did mean that. In the absence of that declaration, and in the spirit of his apology and your verbal acceptance of it, it seems rather odd that you keep on stressing your interpretation of his words when describing it. Or rather not particularly odd given your participation in the other thread. (the “Fuck off” to Zoe of recent note) And although you did not say “Ted Kennedy is a murderer” again, seems to me that you kept repeating the word.
See your post # 80, where you brought up lack of statute of limitations upon murder, in direct response the the bridge itself (ie a Kennedy reference). So, I call “bullshit” on your claim that you “never again” called him a murderer as of post 59.
Any characterization of me leaving that thread by “flouncing” or “in a snit” is going to pretty much get that kind of reaction from me. Anyone who thinks I should have continued on in that thread after that is going to receive a great big hearty “fuck you” from me. And as far as my interpretation of his words, I haven’t changed my opinion of what it was that he did, although I fully accept his apology for having done it.
I explained my point about the statute of limitations…that when people die, it can take a long, long time to get over it, if ever.
For the record, I will say again. I do not believe Ted Kennedy is a murderer. I would call him many things, some not so flattering, but that is not one of them. When I was using it in that thread, I was using it in a hypothetical sense, indicating what some do believe about his actions.
Sure, and in the same spirit, I can continue to interpret your postings as I have.
I’m sure it wasn’t, as I didn’t really address that in my first post. And I should have clarified that I didn’t intend my response to your post as criticism of it or you, merely that I didn’t think the benefit of the doubt you were giving us was warranted in this case.