Overreaction in banning this guy?

The BBQ Pit
21

Let’s see. Gary doesn’t have a history of being a unquestioning mod lover. Badtz, you have a history of being shocked and appalled when it comes to various moderator actions. Which of you sounds more like they have a spastic patella?

Is manny’s reaction over the top? It would be if the post wasn’t so goddamn stupid.

The minute Cecil Adams starts answering questions in a manner completely devoid of sarcasm, insults and humor at the expense of the dense, then we as mods will do our best to be diplomatic and to ensure that no one’s feelings are hurt, even if they display profoundly dumb behavior.

Look, we’re not going to respond to raw cluelessness and snippy posts with nothing but a polite scolding and a shit-eating grin. That ain’t the Straight Dope way.

If the Straight Dope way ain’t your way then there’s the highway[sup]TM[/sup].

[sub]“My way or the highway” is a registered trademark of Road House. Please do not touch the dancers.[/sub]

22

As far as it looks to me, thread hijacks such as the tennis one in Silo’s thread (and which the one in this thread is clearly a follow-on to) is simply a way of commenting on the thread by invalidating the subject. “I find this thread so ridiculous that I’d rather talk about tennis” and by doing so, it takes the sting away from the general invective.

In this thread I interpreted it to be saying, in an indirect manner, “I find this thread equally as much nonsense as the Silo-banning thread”. By using a continuation of the same hijack, a parallel between the two threads is drawn. Made me laugh, anyway.

Fran

23

Tennis sucks.

Baseball rules!

24

Yup, that pretty much defines my intent in a far better way than I’d have done. Ta.

25

It’s how they go about invalidating the subject that’s so galling to me.

No thoughtful discussion whatsoever. No reason behind why they find the thread so pointless, just jibber-jabber about Wimbledon.

It’s was irritating the first time it happened in the Silo thread, in this thread it’s pathetic and cheap.

You disagree with the O.P.? How about saying why?

If peoples questions and concerns are so quickly and lamely dismissed outright simply because you don’t agree with them and you’re unwilling to say why, then what’s the point?

Why don’t you back up your jackass behavior with a serious response, for once.

26

Oh come on Cnote. . . . I think that most of us here are smart enough to understand that opinions don’t always have to be spelled out for a point be made.

27

Oh, honestly. Keep your undergarments on.

(Dammit, I’m having difficulty in expressing myself in a way that doesn’t sound like a parrot of Fran here)

Yes, it’s an expression of how ridiculous the topic is.

The Silo thread had rumbled on for several pages before L_C came in with his Wimbledon commentary. During that time, many people (including me) had expressed their views. It had reached the point where views were going round in circles and posters were starting to get annoyed at eachother for no reason. It was going absolutely nowhere except for the beginnings of a totally pointless yet all-out war. And then suddenly the sting was totally removed. As I’ve said before, it’s amazing how a little humour can defuse a situation. In one fell swoop dopers were back to amusing eachother with puns and riling eachother with international sporting rivalries. Friends again. Aahhh.

Then Badtz started this thread. It was promptly pointed out that the guy had not, in fact, been banned. It was further pointed out that the guy was obviously pretty fucking stupid to pursue an obviously illegal subject matter in an inappropriate way. Badtz, for reasons known only to himself, decided that he was going to pursue it anyway. In other words, we had the beginnings of YET ANOTHER BLOODY STUPID ANTI-MOD BITCHFEST. Uh-oh!

Then Gary, in what was in my opinion a HUGELY witty manner, elected to display his opinion of the thread by hijacking in exactly the same way as the Silo thread was hijacked. To me, that said far more about his thoughts than a 1000 word rant would have done. Furthermore, I was entertained. I laughed. And biggest of all, I thought he had an excellent point. Which is why I backed him up.

I’m sorry if any of you feel this is intimidating or ruins your lovely chance to bitch. Would you have preferred us to regale you YET AGAIN with the same tired old hackneyed posts that we all made less than a bloody week ago in the Silo thread? Would that have been more fun for you? Then some of you could have made the same paranoid counterclaims. And we could have repeated the dance another time. Mabel! Tell the band - 4/4 time and pick up the pace!

Personally, I thought the hijack was more eloquant. By far.

Is that an acceptable explanation for you Cnote? Is it wordy enough? Is it s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t sufficiently for you? Lovely.

Another Pimms please.

pan

28

Alternatively - what Diane said. Damn simulposts…

pan

29

So basically CnoteChris, we’re only allowed to answer if we explain ourselves absolutely seriously, preferably in small words, so you can follow us without any chance of confusion? You don’t think that might make for a rather dull discussion forum?

I don’t think this is the first time comedic device has been used in a debate. I doubt it will be the last.

[sotto voce Peter Cooke voice]
humourless cunt
[/sotto voce Peter Cooke voice]

30

No, Gary, I think what makes for a dull discussion board is a perfectly legitimate question being dimissed outright, and without reason, simply because you don’t like it.

Not only would that make this place dull, it would make this place ignorant as hell…

Question- “Hey, why did this happen, or could you explain this for us?”

Answer- “Well I could, but I find your question too beneath me to comment on, so I’ll talk about tennis instead. Isn’t that funny and witty? Tee-hee… You little knob-head.”

I don’t find it funny, witty, or accomplishing anything. I think it’s rude, childish, and smarmy as hell.

Who the fuck are you to decide when the discussion is over, simpy because you feel it should be?

31

I think I have a splinter in my finger.

32

Kabbes, I followed the silo thread from the start, as well as this one. I never bitched about anything one way or the other in it. Other people were doing that. But I did follow it and hoped that it would generate some kind of redeeming response or resolution.

It never did. In part due to the tennis hijack and in part, I believe, because the mods were never going to answer any questions in it.

But we’ll never know, will we, because it was far more important for a select few to decide the discussion was over and becoming redundant, and, well, you took it upon yourselves to make us a friends around here again.

You guys and gals, with your tennis hijack, ruined that. Instead of getting some kind of resolution, it got dismissed without any serious response.

33

He wasn’t deciding the discussion was over. He was making a comment on it.

How can anyone “decide the discussion is over” except for the moderators? Market forces work their magic on posts and threads as much as they ever do on pork belly prices.

He is, however, perfectly within is rights to let us know what he thinks of that discussion.

pan

34

I’ve got some tweezers if that would help…

35

:smiley:

36

The burning question that I have is where/how did Scylla get his splinter? Was it from playing tennis (a bad racket?) or from some other source? enquiring minds want to know.

37

I dunno, it looks like it’s in there pretty deep.

Maybe a needle would help.

38

CNote, you said yourself that you followed the Silo thread. Did you not realize that it had more than 5 pages worth of serious response? Newflash: At the beginning of the thread, there was heated debate over an issue which many people disagreed on. At the end of all the ranting and raving, all the “serious responding” that went on, there was still heated debate over an issue which many people disagreed on.

I disagree with your statement that the tennis hijack caused the thread to have no resolution. I think it caused the thread to have much more resolution than all that serious discussion did. The simple fact that the tennis hijack was allowed to take over the thread entirely with nary a word of protest should prove that.

If all of you people who felt that the issue hadn’t been resolved enough had wanted to continue arguing about it, you would have been free to. Nobody would have stopped you. But the fact that everyone involved got in on the tennis discussion and just basically started having fun again is all the resolution that we need. It shows that people from both sides had come to terms with the issue, and that we didn’t want to fight anymore. It provided a wonderfully friendly close to a heated debate.

Or would you have preferred that the entire argument end with everybody still being pissed? Would you rather have had everyone continue to rip into each other about it, with no end in sight? Would bloodshed have been preferable to tennis? Face it. That argument is over with and settled, largely thanks to the hijack which you hate so much.

That said, Gary, be sure to sterilize the tweezers first. Here, I have some matches.

39

Wring:

I don’t know where I got it, 'prolly doing yard work.

Maybe it’s one of those alien implants.

40

I think the whole business of splinters is a bad racket.

Wood. As if it really serves a purpose! pfft.