wring – I do not believe in silent letters. How about if I pronounce it like an ‘r’?
rrrrr’ok r’eorge . 
Er, nobody said spell and grammar checking is vicious (I hope I didn’t imply that). We’re saying it’s lame.
----- Spiritus Mundi is far from being the only person to make the statement that Lib can’t answer what’s being said about him now, which is one of those “Yeh, but…” statements that I felt ought to be clarified.
I’ll see your Yeh but and raise you one. In practice, a swipe at an absent poster is basically going to just sit there. You’re correct that there’s some current controversy regarding the appropriateness of this behavior.
------- If SM has chosen to see my comments as an attack, that I feel says more about him than about me.
Well, it looked to me like a (lame) attack. I mean, c’mon, do you really think spell checking has any use in this context? “Kindergadeneres”: that appears to me to be a typo, not an error. If it was indeed an error, pointing it out seems off topic and not especially helpful. But hey, not everything I write is gem-quality either.
Is there really? You mean people seriously argue that it is acceptable to hurl insults at a person for 30 days while they cannot answer because after the fact said person could conceivably spend the effort to dredge up all of those past insults and give answer? WTF :smack:
That’s like saying it’s okay to beat on a child because after he grows up he can come back and give you a fair fight. Why in the world would anyone want to keep slinging filth at someone who isn’t in the room, anyway? The mind boggles? 
I found this post in a recent ATMB thread.
That would certainly seem to imply that throwing stones at suspended posters is still frowned upon. (I certainly hope so).
Spiritus, it’s true that their tools, by and large, are no match for yours. But to express doubt, on so little evidence, that these posters lack capacity for honest exchange or self-reflection is rather smaller of you than I remember you being.
While I agree that their dismissal of Lib’s throwaway remark on mortality was too quick and too crude, I think clearly the interpretation that it was a rhetorical gambit is an arguable one. I don’t agree with the conclusion, and I certainly don’t admire the way it was expressed, but I think if you’d started a thread to test the argument instead of to chastise the posters who leapt to it, then you might’ve created a better opportunity for them to exhibit those qualities you’d be so shocked to observe.
It might’ve been even more interesting and exciting to see your return to the 'Dope in that sort of a thread.
Ok. It’s spelled with a “t”, not a “d”. Got it. It’s from the German.
If ETF was actually trying to be helpful, then he was committing the lesser sin of insufficient softening and clarification.
Ironically, that’s what I accused Lib of.
Ironically, the previous sentence is an implicit attack on Lib which will just sit there.
On preview (before the Dexter quote):
Yeah, it’s a matter of discussion. Here’s how it works. A poster gets banned. A thread is opened. Lib jumps in and says we shouldn’t talk about people when they can’t respond. It’s pointed out that he always says that. Round we go.
Admittedly, I can’t recall anybody giving something like the ETF argument, but 30 day suspensions have only been around for a couple of months.
I should add that threads about the recently banned have been a (mod frowned upon) staple of the SDMB, at least during my tenure. Here, I think, entropy tends to push the collective towards the boundaries of unbannable (or much less bannable) behavior.
Lest I sound too morose, consider the alternative ignorance-fighting methods. I’m aware of few other venues that sustain a “Valid rhetorical conduct” ethos as well as ideological variety. Possible candidates include wikipedia and the 2 SDMB spinoffs. Are there others?
Naw, I didn’t take it that way at all from you. Just feeling somewhat piqued at the (to me) unwarranted nastiness of SM’s response to my initial comment, wherein he chastised me for a perceived grammatical error while ignoring (or missing?) the point I was addressing – a point, I would argue, which is relevant to the discussion at hand, i.e., other Dopers’ treatment of Lib.
And you are correct that taking swipes at the absent, even though they can pick up the cudgels at a later date, is not a desirable course – one which I have refrained from once I was aware of the suspension. But I do perceive a difference between banning and suspension on this matter. I’m also aware that the administration prefers that such behavior not take place.
Nor am I an error-free poster, by any means. If you perceived my comments as attacks, I apologize for framing them so poorly as to imply a vitriol I do not intend.
On preview* **Measure for Measure, I’m a she, not a he.
Ponit taken, xenophon. Nobody likes having their behavior questioned. But I really was not interested in starting a thread exploring teh true state of liberal’s health. It was, and remains, not a curiosity I felt entitled to explore.
I have several pages of evidence with no contrary data points. I may indeed be shocked, and it would be a pleasant shock, but I remain pessimistic.
Well, I posted in a few other threads prior to starting this one, but I must agree with your point. I would have preferred to be spending this time on a more interesting discussion as well.
You know, it’s embarrassing enough to screw up one’s coding; it’s damned humiliating to do it in an “On preview” comment. :o
SM - I’d just like to note that my criticism was offered in the knowledge that I live in a glass house myself, and purely in the spirit of fairness. Possibly misguided, but I have a bit more faith in the capacities of those named than you appear to. And I have well founded faith in your capacities.
Welcome back, in any case!
I sincerely hope I’m not alone in gradually coming to the conclusion that if there are to be feelings of shame among us, Spiritus Mundi could start once he realizes that he’s gradually devolved into a great flaming jackass.
EddyTeddyFreddy
Your initial post did appear to me as simply someone sniping at me with a trivial grammatical correction (mostly because it never occured to me that anyone would seriously proffer the argument that that it was okay to attack a poster during a 30 day suspension since that poster could always respond the next month.) I answered in the same vein, and since you say that your post was in fact a serious attempt at debate I apologize to you for that tone.
I find it curious, though, why you felt it necessary to raise that point in answer to my sentence, “Nothing like calling a man names when he cannot answer, I guess.” After all, I was not making a point about the duration of liberal’s inability to respond. My point was clearly that I felt such sniping was unworthy. In your last post, you also express this opinion.
So . . . I find myself still confused about exactly what point you were trying to make? After all, I had already commented that liberal was suspended and not banned, so there would appear to be no need to clarify that point. Can you enlighten me?
Oh, and while your at it could you tell me what debate point you were trying to raise with the corrected spelling of “kindergarteners”?
No worries, xeno. It’s good to see you again.
Please elucidate. I am sure that learning the details of your ethical judgments will be educational.
Oh, it’s hardly a matter of ethics. Jackassery laughs at the self-imposed straitjackets of ethical behaviour, then it kicks over the dessert table and drunkenly sings Karaoke at 110 dB.
How compelling. It’s always a joy to see people stretch their limits.
wow–the only compelling argument in this whole trainwreck.
Oh-fucking-wah.
You think I’m going to feel bad because, what? Our resident drama queen is being a drama queen?
I was expressing an opinion about a flaming asshole. It’s the same opinion I had when he was posting here, and it’s the same one I’ll have when he gets yet another reprieve because he’s apparently the SDMB mascot.
You want to keep defending the asshole, go ahead. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s an asshole.
-Joe
You’ve apologized, Xploder, but you knew perfectly well sock accusations were out of line. Don’t do it again.
TVeblen