Please Join Me for the Pitting of LinusK

He also has no concept that Capital looses can be carried forward until they are all used up. He sez “Uh, not the last time I read the tax code. (Which I admit was some years ago.)”

Say, *sixty *years ago?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773167&page=2

Has he found a convenient label to apply to everyone who disagree with his economic, er, beliefs?

He’s nattering on about ‘masculinity’, now.

Weird, isn’t it, how the biggest supporters of ‘masculinity’ are also the whiniest pussies ever to fail to detach from their mother’s tit?

The current thread is repeating, almost verbatim, the previous thread, with the same arguments and data about domestic violence and custody.

LinusK is, alas, a bear of very little brain.

The ex-thread. Curiously, when you posted that, the thread had been closed for the best part of an hour. So much for Great Debating.

As I noted at the time, in the previous pro-misogyny thread LinusK was already repeating himself.

He’s going to keep doing it unless/until he gets banned. Next time around I hope people will remember that anyone who attempts to debate or otherwise seriously engage with LinusK is wasting their own time and encouraging him to keep at it. These threads can’t take much effort on his part; he’s mostly just cutting and pasting.

Well, you can’t say the mod didn’t warn you. Don’t play nice with others, thread gets closed.

The pronoun you’re looking for is ‘us’ - though I did wonder if my comprehensive reporting of every personal insult and variant of ‘liar’ had led to the decision.

I thought the standard was ‘Don’t play nice with others, get banned’? Perhaps the prospect of banning several posters that at least one mod clearly considered to be on the ‘right’ side of that particular ‘great debate’ led to the end - a very swift and inadequately justified end, so soon after an unhelpful instruction to ‘knock it off’. More likely it was closed because nothing you or your tribe were adding to it was either ‘great’ or ‘debate’.

But enough about your posting.

Eventually, yes. As you will probably discover for yourself.

But in the meanwhile, you’re sticking with your suggestion that threads get closed down first? It seems a strange policy, are you perhaps as confused about that as you are by the notion of equal equality?

I can only hope to aspire to the dream of wishing to be as proficient in debate as the Great Debater who countered several reasonable posts with the response 'Rubbish. Rubbish. Butthurt rubbish." Cogent, concise, and with a poetic rhythm fit for that archetype of analytical argument, the soccer stadium. If only I’d understood that Great Debate is so much more than an earnest attempt at intellectual engagement. But I know the secrets of the masters (and mistresses!) now: Great SDMB Debate needs an unshakeable and unexamined faith in your own position, coupled with an ability to insult the other chap in a way that skirts (or trousers!) just inside the moderating boundaries. That’s how you get a debate shut down - and that’s the same as winning…

Jack, baby, you and yourself need to get a room.

Landsakes, Jackobabble, quit whining already about your getting spanked by a mod and how it wasn’t faaaaaaairrrrrr. Are you six years old, or what?

Like most of the other posters here, when I incur a moderator reprimand for behavior unbecoming a Doper (and it doesn’t happen often but it has happened), I apologize to the poster that the unbecoming response was addressed to and to the thread in general. And then I shut the fuck up about it. You know, like a grownup.

You can always tell the insecure crybabies in Great Debates by their incessant complaining that they’re being unfairly persecuted and the people on the other side of the argument get much more indulgent treament and waaaaaaaahhhh.

Fortunately, when they venture into the Pit we don’t have to mince our words about their tiresome boohoobery.

I certainly shan’t be apologising to those who misrepresented other people’s posts for pointing out that such behaviour can only be either malicious or negligent. The moderating, meanwhile, I consider flawed rather than unfair - that ‘Rubbish. Rubbish. Butt-hurt rubbish’ is considered an acceptable contribution to a Great Debate, for instance. If I’d behaved as you had in that thread, I hope I would have the decency to apologise - it was just as childish as your post above.

Jesus Fucking Christ Jack, but you’re a fatuous, tiresome, whining bore.

Learn the rules, crybaby. It’s perfectly legal in Great Debates to disparage the quality or correctness of another poster’s claims with terms such as “rubbish”, “nonsense”, “illogical”, “absurd”, etc.

What’s not tolerated includes, among other things, (1) directly insulting another poster rather than their statements, and (2) accusing another poster of deliberate lying.

You told another poster in so many words that he had deliberately misrepresented a claim and accused him of being deliberately deceitful, which earned your slimy ass a well-deserved moderator warning. No “flaw” anywhere in that proceeding.

Now, if you don’t like the SDMB policies for thread moderation, you are free to take your marbles and go off in a snit to play in some other corner of the internet instead. But just because you don’t happen to like the policies doesn’t mean that the moderators’ implementation of the policies is “flawed”.

I doubt very much that Jack of Words is terribly concerned with the “quality” of discourse on SDMB as much as he is in love with the sound of his own voice and the hot air generated by the sheer volume of his rhetoric.

He is accustomed to wearing people down with long winded commentary rather than succinct substance. That’s why he has so much trouble with responses like “rubbish”, “nonsense”, etc… Hard for him to respond to someone who’s not buying into his b.s. while also giving little purchase for rebuttal.

Jesus, Jack, if we started handing out warnings for bad arguments, you wouldn’t have lasted for more than five posts on this board.

Huh. Now that I put it like that, maybe there is something to this idea after all.

I think you’ll find that my first five posts weren’t arguments at all, but I’m beginning to understand that there’s little interest round here in even the most basic of research before venturing an opinion. Which would make your argument actionable on those terms, eh? Still think there’s something to it, you fatuous oaf? (I’m making the possibly unwarranted assumption that if you post it you can take it, and that when you moderate you’re above petty grudges, but who knows? I’m not overly impressed with either the moderation or the quality of argument here. The haikus have been pretty good though, so there’s that.)