Bush has done plenty to complain about, but that’s no reason to get dirty like that. 
I was going to suggest expanding the concept – a single thread for “I got poor customer service from an underpaid teenager whilst trying to get a while meal for three bucks” rants (and perhaps even combining it with the “Whilst giving poor customer service to a guy trying to get a meal for three bucks, the guy was surly to me” threads), but it turns out canby likes them. Go figger. So how about a single thread for “Something terrible happened in the world and I’m entirely unconnected to it but I found it on Yahoo news so I’m posting it so we can all compete to see who’s more outraged and wait for that one idiot who will defend the indefensible.”
This is sarcasm, right?
Whew, for a moment, I thought you might actually believe it would silence him.
:: sniff ::
:: wipes tear from eye ::
It’s rare to see a perfect post. And you got the tone juuuuuuust right, too.
:: applauds ::
Brilliant.
I doubt that any one is using the word “insane” in the clinical, padded room sense, but more in the “he’s nutz/annoying” sense. If some one comes back in w/claims that it’s in the clincal sense, I’ll withdraw this objection.
so? censorship =/ automatically wrong, bad, evilllle etc. and, of course, since this is a private message board vs. the ‘government’, there’s even less of an issue.
as for the actual concept here, I got the impression that this action was taken not to supress Bush bashing (there seem to be plenty of other threads left open) but more for the style/ annoyance factor, almost decemberesque if you will. the : {here’s a cite from some obscure questionable source displaying some minor faux pas of Bush} and some pithy comment from Reeder such as “comments?” or “when will it stop?” or the like.
there’s plenty of real shit to bash Bush about. and Reeder if you can come in here on the second page and believe that “only” right wingers are against you in this thread, you don’t know your audience well. THere were several notable liberals commenting.
again, theres’ any number of real issues to pit Bush about. when you continue to trot out lame ass unsubstantiated pettiness as if it were WoMD, you become more like that that you despise and become an easy target for the opposition, and allow them to point and laugh, thus weakening our side.
Charter member of the “liberal but not a fucking lunatic” society.
No, it’s because he’s fond of starting non-substantive threads that basically say nothing but “Bush is a poopyhead” without providing any meaningful material for discussion. It’s the utter lack of substance in Reeder’s posts, and their annoying frequency, that’s the caused this thread.
Indeed (and I realize this is a debatable point), there’s a reasonable case to be made that the SDMB has a solid leftward tilt, and that most members are opposed to Bush and his reelection. There’s certainly no institutional desire to squelch anti-Bush posts, so long as they are substantive in nature. Dare I say the mods are being kinder to Reeder than they were to december, a longtime poster of a rightward bent who was banned for posting similarly foolish anti-Democrat OPs.
Una: I concur, that was brilliant (and here I thought I was being clever). I should at least get credit for an assist, right? 
Heh. december just could never get it through his head that the rules are different down here than up in GD.
Maybe it is censorship. But so what? The SDMB doesn’t yet represent the fedral gubmint.
The policy already seems clear, manhattan, that multiple threads on the tame topic are closed or combined or redirected. The Chicago Reader is within its rights to do so, to conserve web resources and front-page space. In fact, it makes more sense for the Reader to do this; one does not plaster eight Bush stories on the front page when there is other news to report.
I don’t see this as an essential change in policy because we can still have five dozen threads on Bush-bashing as long as Reeder doesn’t introduce any new ones. Lynn Bodoni hasn’t shut down commentary on Bush in all ways, after all.
It’s also a little bit disingenuous to describe political bashing as working toward dispelling ignorance. One person may want higher taxes to pay for more welfare programs; another may want lower taxes and less welfare. Are they going to settle their differences through simple education and fact-finding? Probably not. Is yet another Reeder thread about a Bush faux pas going to re-educate Bush supporters, or will ten threads by Reeder accomplish what one will not? I doubt it. I’m not prepared to say that Bush supporters (or detractors) are ignorant and in need of re-education. Many highly-educated people on this board nevertheless disagree how to apply the knowledge they possess and what should be done in acting upon that knowledge.
The incessant Clinton-bashing on the radio and TV was wrong when he was in office; it’s wrong now, even though I happen to agree with the sentiment. Thank you, Lynn.
You have thoughtfully implied acknowledgement of the idea that opposition to “Bush and his reelection” is not, by itself, a reliable indicator of a “solid leftward tilt.”
Honestly, if I was Reeder, I’d use this post every day. I somehow feel it was meant to silence him. I don’t know Lynn very well, but I suspect she’s a Bush supporter. If he continually uses this post, it’s the next best thing to a sticky.
If his topics weren’t “first page worthy”, people wouldn’t reply to them and they would soon be “page two”. But they DO reply to him. Enough proof that its thread position is merited, though I don’t believe I’ve replied to any one of his Bush-Bashing threads, nor had much interest in them.
Work it baby, work it! Shove it in their faces, Reeder. You just bought yourself premium land, man. Better than land Disney wants to turn into parking spaces.
Congratulations!
nope - the thread that prompted this had 12 replies, one from Lynn, closing it, two from self identified liberals noting the lameness of the OP, 3 on relating to a hijack about sucking a penis, one reply from Reeder and a few more just poking fun at him. Some of the lamest OP’s get replies simply 'cause they’re lame.
Ahh, yes, the conspiracy theory. Well, maybe deep in her little black heart, she does, but since she’s described herself as an athiest liberal, I doubt it.
Can we stop the conspiracy crap? It just reeks of the December Was Ousted By All The Damn Liberals theories from not too long ago.
Exactly. Without the headline, the story just isn’t interesting for either the author or the reader (or the Reeder ).
Let’s get a few things straight.
First of all, I’m practically a yellow dog Democrat. To those who are unfamiliar with the phrase, a YDD, when presented with a ticket which has a qualified Republican and a yellow dog as the Democrat option running for the same post, will vote for the canine. I WILL vote for a qualified Republican over an unqualified other candidate, but the other candidate has to be pretty damned bad. I voted for Clinton twice, and I’m happy about those votes. I think that all in all, he was a pretty good president, even though he was a philanderer. I can think of worse faults to have in a president.
I am embarrassed that G.W. Bush was my governor, and even more embarrassed that he is now my President. I never voted for him, and I have always believed that he stole the presidential election, and I plan to vote against him again this fall, no matter who the opponent is (unless the opponent is disqualified by reason of being dead, and even then I might consider the corpse to be less harmful to the office). This being Texas, I doubt that my vote will count (we’re heavily Republican these days), but I will vote. Anyone who believes that I am a Bush supporter has NEVER read any of my comments about him. I don’t believe that I’ve ever made any positive comments about his political actions. I’m sure he’s a good old boy, but I don’t think that he should be in charge of anyone or any business. IMO, he just doesn’t have the right mindset for it. I think that he grossly betrayed his position by starting the MidEast war based on outright lies. I cannot stress how unhappy I am that he is the President of the United States.
Reeder has essentially spammed the Pit with his Bush threads. While I certainly am outraged by many of the news items he brings up, and I think that Bush does need to be held accountable for his errors, Reeder is bumping other threads off of the front page every time he posts a new thread. I have received numerous reports over the various threads, most of them wondering why we tolerate his obsession with Bush. The whole moderation staff crew has discussed this issue, and this solution, of allowing him one thread at a time, was proposed and discussed. Most mods were in favor of it, so I put it into action at the first opportunity.* If and when another poster acts similarly, by starting multiple threads on the same topic, then I will also instruct that poster to confine him/herself to ONE thread on the front page at a time. In the user agreement, there is the statement “Do not post the same or similar messages or threads to multiple forums; multiple threads on the same topic; or an excessive number of threads on any topic within a limited period of time.”
The moderating staff has discussed making this a board-wide issue. I am all in favor of allowing each poster to have only one or two OPs on the first page of each forum, for instance, a person could only start two threads in GD and have them on the first page at any one time. I think that this would make people think a bit more deeply about WHICH questions and topics they want to post about. For most people, this wouldn’t matter. However, we do occasionally get some folks who feel the need to start 10 threads in GQ, for example. I’m not sure how we’d implement this, and if it becomes much of a problem, then the staff will discuss it further and perhaps make a policy. If anyone has a problem or comment on this, I would ask that you start a new thread, as this one has been hijacked more than enough. Also, if you have any criticism or praise or just a neutral comment, I’d also ask that you start a new thread.
*In fact, many of my actions are because of staff discussions, and when I see an opportunity to implement the decision, I do it.
“*In fact, many of my actions are because of staff discussions, and when I see an opportunity to implement the decision, I do it.”
Well, it sounds good but things are looking more like a “Bodoni Board” than a SDMB, at least to me.
What if a few days old OP, that a mod may not have noticed had already dropped off thhe front page is bumped?
Did you even bother to read the rest of her post?
You assume he can read. He can’t see “Fire Lane” in big orange letters…
In case anyone feels that was an unwarranted swipe, see earlier in this thread where he called me a fucking moron without provocation…
I love you. May I bear your child?
Not true. I never referred to you as a “fucking moron” in this thread and as far as “without provocation,” well, that is subjective.