If you recall the few posts I’ve made in your threads, you will see that I usually supported you. This time however, my conclusion is “you’re full of shit.”
How did I reach that conclusion? You’re labeling yourself as martyr and you claim that the board want to silence you.
This is not the case: The Administration just wants you to limit yourself to one thread at a time. The way I see it, this does not necessarily has to be this thread. So you see, what they are doing is a measurement to reduce your frequency of posting.
If on the other hand you want to post a lot of similar threads, then you’re nothing more than a common spammer. But you are not, if you were, they wouldn’t ask you to limit yourself to one thread at a time. It goes to show that the board regards you as a member, albeit a somewhat overeager one.
Well, actually it does. You have thousands of posts. You are a valuable part of this on-line community. You are part owner (However much others would disagree). Without you and others like you, well, no SDMB.
The SDMB cannot just ban whoever they see fit, at least not for long. An axiom that I use goes like this, “if the whole class fails, you fire the school teacher.”
Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever. By registering and using the board you acknowledge this right and agree to abide by our rules and to submit to their interpretation and enforcement by our moderators and editors.
Just a reminder for those who read the user agreement such a long time ago you forgot what it said (you all did read it, didn’t you?).
Seriously folks. I don’t agree with every decision every mod and admin (madmins?) makes, but I’ll be damned if I can find another board thats one tenth as smart, funny, open and diverse as this one. They must be doing something right.
Out of 126 posts to this thread, 126 of them have been completely and utterly off topic. Really - go back and look at the thread title.
The stated purpose of this thread has not been achieved. Now what? Can Reeder request the thread be closed, since it is his thread (go back and look at the thread title again if you need to).
I’d like to know if Lynn thinks the thread is being used for its intended purpose, and if not, why keep it open any longer?
I believe that most of the time they are doing something right. That doesn’t mean that arbitrary bannings couldn’t or wouldn’t hurt this board. As far as that “agreement” goes - well, that is their thing, probably written by their lawyers.
And yes, they can certainly “ban” me as they see fit - they just can’t ban anyone in an arbitrary and capricious manner - see if they did, well you wouldn’t be talking about how great they were/are.
But, I digress, the point is that for this “community” to work, well, consideration must be given to the members. Our opinion counts. At least mine does, you decide for yourself.
Pissing contest. Hmpf. I call it, “examining a claim”. I would like to note, however, that I did pick 2 of his posts at random.
Um, you’re taking an example all the way back from November as typical? Hm. Furthermore, I actually seem to recall reading that thread: IIRC, Reader actually admitted error in that one. It is true that he made a core claim that was initially poorly substantiated, and later shown to be misleading or false.
BTW, it may have been inappropriate for me to hone in on DCU’s low-lying fruit. It seems to me that Una’s point is more telling.
Well, I part company with the “something inane” part. But the last sentence adequately captures Reeder’s MO, IMHO.*
The complaint seems to be that he puts too much burden on conservative readers to respond to a fact which, however substantiated, lacks a great deal of context and background.
Or perhaps others just don’t like to see so many attacks on Bush’s policies coming from one poster.
*Which, as I said, isn’t worth much as I have read few of Reeder’s missives.
county, nobody is permitted to take potshots at people, or carry a feud from one thread to another. Since you have a problem with me, your options are 1) STFU, and possibly even get over it 2) open a Pit thread or 3) complain to my boss, TubaDiva. 1 is probably your wisest course. 2 will probably end up with you getting your ass handed to you. 3 will probably get you banned, as people who plagiarize have been banned in the past WITHOUT the courtesy of a warning. But it’s your choice. You may not, however, continue to snipe at me in any thread that I happen to be in.
Well, first, I made one, maybe two comments in this thread Referencing you) that do not, IMO, constitute “sniping” - they were relevant to this thread and your charge is unwarranted. However much you disagree, my posts in this thread have been within the subject matter of the vast majority of posts.
Second, I think people who plagarize should be banned but failing to make an attribution does not constitute plagarism. That allegation was unwarranted and you know it. Nobody even thought I was trying to take credit for that article I pasted.
That said, rest assured that I will not refer to you in any future thread.
Optihut, you are a shriveled lump of camel dung, dessicated by a decade in the merciless sun of the desert. Your posts are the gurgling howl of a dying hyena disemboweled by a rabid lion. Small children point and laugh as you stumble down the wretched streets of your pitiful slum-home in a dipsomaniacal haze. Had you bothered to drag your attention along with your knuckles to my second paragraph, perchance even your subhuman reading comprehension would allow the marsh muck that passes for your intellect to discern my intended victim.
I keep hoping that Lynn or Reeder will contribute something to this thread that will lessen my feeling of dismay for the unfortunate precedent this thread sets.
Lynn, whether it was your intent or not, this thread has resulted in what I see as an abuse of your position and power. You have not succeeded in your stated intent–marshalling an overzealous poster (one of many) into a single platform, in order to save bandwidth. Instead, you have effectively censored the views of an enthusiastic, if not universally popular, voice on political issues that he thinks important.
If he has broken any rules, he should be called to task for those. (“Don’t be a jerk” has been abused here as an ill-defined coverall.) If you feel that new rules should be enacted to specifically address his behavior, then please by all means publish those rules for all of us to see. But I think the consensus is that such rules should be specific, so that each of us knows when we’re breaking them. (Reeder, AFAIK, had no sense that he was breaking any rules, and was essentially censored for getting under your skin.)
I for one would like to see this explicitly addressed by Lynn or or by another administrator.
So what? Reeder has a December 2000 registration date and over 3800 posts to his name. Four months is not an extremely long period of time in that context. He wasn’t a newbie when he wrote that OP.
And getting that admission required bludgeoning him with facts that irrefutably contradicted his claim. Reeder dragged his heels on that retraction until there was no possible way for him to spin his way out of trouble.
But that’s beside the point. The point is the utter inanity and stupidity of that OP. Reeder cited to a story about Bush visiting families of British troops and then asked “why oh why hasn’t Bush had the decency to visit the families of our troops?” It was the equivelant of saying “Bush is a poopyhead.” It was classic Reeder.
Respectfully, how does one define the limits of Lynn’s “position and power” such that she can “abuse” it in the first place?
Where are the limits of Administrators codified?
When did this stop becoming an internet message board and become a third-world Parliament?
I’m not trying to pick on you, but I feel you’ve missed the bigger picture.
The limits of “position and power” on the SDMB are, when it comes down to it, those set by the Chicago Reader. Since the Reader has historically allowed Ed and the Administrators free reign to use the resources and judgment to run this place as best as they see fit, complaining about “abuse of position” is somewhat…well, meaningless, right?
Stubborn as he is, at least Reeder is capable of admitting error. December outright ignored any contradictory evidence. The former is merely annoying, the latter is downright infuriating.
I don’t think either of the above statements are true.
There is a link above to the thread where Reeder started by posting, “Why hasn’t Bush visited any military hospitals? He sux!” Airman Doors (IIRC) followed in the second post of the thread with a link showing that Bush had done so. Reeder, without missing a beat, responded, “That’s just one time! He sux!” Followed shortly by another cite showing that Bush had done so multiple times. Followed, again without missing a beat, by Reeder saying, “Well, Bush still sux!”.
OTOH -
I could repeat such examples almost ad infinitum.
However, december allegedly broke the rules of the SDMB, and was banned. Reeder does the same, and is given his own thread.
