Really Bone?

In a thread about an alleged Manafort-Assange connection and an implied Assange-Russia connection that would make the former connection unseamly, it is not a contribution to question the latter connection?

In the same thread, pointing out that the evidence for the connection largely relies on statements by extreme hawks and known perjurers is also not a contribution.

Apparently featherweight potshots are a contribution judging from most of the threads around here. It’s only a problem when there is a devastating rejoinder from a right winger. Yes I understand the desire to be patted on the head by leftists as an approved conservative like Max Boot or Bill Kristol.

That is some petty stuff, bud.

…link please.


Since when does asking for the meat of a cite become a reason for banning someone from a thread? A bit strange.

Did you read Bone’s explanation?

You refused to read the information provided and responded with nothing but conjecture based on your “gut”. It was a good call by Bone.

Yes he said I “eschewed” reviewing cites provided. I read one and skimmed another and could not find what the poster was referencing regarding internal WikiLeaks communications. This ain’t a summer reading list, and I have never seen someone banned from a thread because they didn’t read a cite. Truly strange.

No. I read some of it, then asked for specific info. When the info was not forthcoming as it usually is, I assumed it simply didn’t exist. So far that information is still not forthcoming.

Virtually the whole thread was conjecture of the sort that is approved by SDMB.

There were four cites provided.
Maybe you should read (not skim) all four before declaring them useless.

I totally get your irritation; I think its misplaced, but I get it.
But when you decide that in addition to discussing the threadban, as suggested, you also decide to throw in this stuff:

Well,I get confused. Were your posts the “featherweight potshots” or “devastating rejoinder[s]?” Martyrdom for refusing to be “patted on the head by leftists?” I mean…I feel like someone else said it best:

Are you kidding? If a right winger posted 4 cites and the first two did not contain good info, you would honestly keep trudging through them?

I didn’t declare them useless. I asked for the meat and potatoes. If they decline that’s fine.

Beyond that, you were derailing the thread. While I’m not saying you were doing so, it is possible that could be interpreted as an attempt to change the subject away from what other people wanted to talk about. Bone didn’t give you a warning, he redirected the thread to return to the topic at hand and made sure the derailing couldn’t continue. He’s empowered to do so.

On the other hand, accusing him here of being a pet conservative is nonsense. It’s another attempt to distract from the cause of a thread with petty attacks. Don’t do it again.

I was derailing the thread by probing for info on the Wikileaks communications? Or was I derailing the thread by responding to monotonous and repeated potshots (by posters whose sole purpose is potshots) about my use of the term “gut”?

The while thread was getting derailed with the is too, is not variety. My intent was to keep it on track. Given your first post in the thread sought to downplay the topic with a shift to the French, it didn’t seem like you were interested in the topic. Combine that with the fingers in ears approach to not reading, it did not seem like you were interested in contributing to the thread topic.

If you’d like to start your own about the aspects that are of interest, not reading cites, the French, or whether influence is on par with control for the purposes of discussion, you are welcome to do so.

I wasn’t aware you self identify as a right winger. Live and learn.

Mr Joyce, 'zat you?
Sir Bone, violer d’amores, fr’over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war…

You were fortunate you were not given a warning for this post:

I have no problem with the moderation of that thread as WF was indeed sending the thread off the rails. There was a better way to handle the situation on WF’s part. And I say that because he should have simply asked the other poster to quote the part of his cites that back up his claim.

I think it’s a bad practice to dump a bunch of cites on someone and say “go read these”. I don’t know if it was the case this time, but often a person makes a claim, is asked to back it up, does a quick Google search, and then dumps a cite (or a bunch of cites) into a thread without doing anything more than looking at the headline. It’s not unusual for those cites to be bogus, and I don’t think we should penalize posters for not reading cites with no quotes associated with them. Not saying that was what happened here, but just to clarify for WF that it should be OK to question cites-- just do it in a way that doesn’t derail the thread.

That is good advice. Of course I did precisely that while also devastating potshotters. Perhaps if I wasn’t overwhelmed by feckless potshotters in every thread, I could stay on task better.

:rolleyes: Ego much?

Personally, I’m glad to see the mods start to reign in certain types of posters that seem fact resistant.