I’ll take your word for it, but that’s not at all clear from the paragraph you posted and I quoted. You made mention of a specific example and named me quite pointedly.
But, I will grant you this. You’re right; I chimed in during the so-called “pile-on.” But no, I did not jump right in against him. I jumped in and said my overall impression (overall meaning everything I’d read from him, not just what he’d posted here) was one of “mild distaste.” You are blowing that comment out of all reasonable proportions. You will also note that when Diane said “I am just bothered with the latest trend that appears (at least to me) that newbies must run a grueling gauntlet, fly under the radar, kiss ass, or sniff butts before they are considered eligible to stay. This is really what is bothering me with this Reverend thing,” I agreed with her. I said, “Oh, I agree with that all right. That’s why I’m encouraging the members to take a look at his other works.” You are impugning me with motives that did not exist. I encouraged people to step back, take a breath, look at things the Reverend had written outside the SDMB, (where presumably, a “pile-on” was not taking place and Mykeru would have no reason for being defensive and obnoxious) and make a more informed judgment as to the Reverend’s character. I’m not sure how encouraging people to review more data before rushing to a decision either before or against is “jumping right in against him.” I encouraged objectivity, nothing else.
“Joined in” meaning “posted,” yes, “joined in” meaning “piled on,” no.
Once again, I will say that I believe you have mischaracterized my words and actions - now in more than one instance. And frankly, I’m beginning to find that “mildly distateful.”
I could point out to my aged grandmother (Now ninety-six), who’s never ventured onto a message board, let alone the 'net, and bet her comments towards David B’s behavior would echo those of the late Rev.
Good gracious, that’s a leap Cnote. In what way did I suggest that they were?
Tell me - what do you understand by me bringing up the Reverend’s early entry into the slag-the-mods arena? Somehow I doubt that it is the same as what I meant by it.
Moron banned, stay tuned fot the inevitable axe grinding and free pot shots at the Nazi Mods and the evil Clique. Endless minor variations of the same refuted argument posted over and over. Rolleye’s smilies threatened with terminal overuse.
Sadly, this thread its self is turning into a cliche.
Although it did show us how to turn a foul mouthed troll into a object of revisionist history hero worship-- just Ban him.
One good thing from this (other then that moron getting Banned) was the phrase: “Pit vultures rejoice”. Truly excellent work.
Oh, he responded in kind all right. Responded in kind^10. Flamed without merit. Flamed Mods. Flamed those who were trying to help. He chose to behave that way. 'Tis a pity you can’t (won’t?) see that. His possible mood swing that I mentioned earlier was a definate improvement and I would liked to have seen it continue. He was most definately a waste of potential.
I guess our definitions don’t agree. I’ve heard the usage of trolling in a fishing context - slowly motoring through with your bait in the water, trying to hook an unsuspecting “fish”, and reeling it in. The second usage of trolling I’ve heard is the ugly troll under the bridge that flings insults at people going over the bridge, and is much less subtle. Both usages denote active stirring up shit on-line. I fail to see how searching the web looking for information could be seen as trolling in either case.
But I find the more interesting thing in your post your advice to me to not borrow trouble. Isn’t borrowing trouble exactly what you did when you started this thread?
No. That’s not what I meant. What I meant was that there is evidence for him being antagonistic before the much talked about “provocation” in other threads. What I meant most of all was that he was portraying this image of big bad net-warrior long before the Tool thread, the Countdown thread or anything else.
Stop reading what you want to read. I’ve never suggested for a moment that he should have been banned for what he said in that thread (or indeed any other thread as it happens. I support 100% the mod’s right to ban him but think that we’d all have been better served by letting him blow himself out and disappear). Nor have I suggested that he started it - there or anywhere else.
What I have said is that he was spoiling for a fight, lashed out indiscriminately, assumed the worst in those addressing him and generally behaved in an exceedingly unpleasant fashion to all and sundry, regardless of tone, content or approach. I can’t believe anyone would dispute that!
I’m alittle surprised at why some folk seem to be so exercised over this. Fortunately no one has expressly raised the “free speech/censorship” canard. But I feel much of the defense of the Rev gets quite close. This is a private message board, moderated by fallible humans. Sure, many of us may feel it has its merits, but it is what it is. Why would the Rev and his supporters wish to make it anything else?
I am not aware of anyone having been banned for the context of their beliefs. Has it happened? Any thoughtful Nazis or pedophiles (if there are such creatures) been precluded from respectfully representing of their views? Instead, folks get banned for attitude.
What type of communities do folk move in that they are surprised that an already existing community reserves the right to express an opinion on whether or not they wish to tolerate the attitude of a newcomer? I really liked Sauron’s analogy earlier about the cussing newcomer. Or I think of my martial arts experience. A new guy could come into the gym and be able to kick everyone’s ass, but no one would want to work with him if he were a jerk. And the flipside, I saw countless “tough guys” bend over backwards to work with folk who had little skill and ability, but had a non-aggressive/antagonistic/offensive attitude.
If the Rev and his like seriously wish to reform the SDMB, they might find that a more subtle, gradual approach might have more effect. It is highly unlikely that they will be able to topple the evil cabal of SDMB mods with one clean shot.
Moreover, to the folk who say the Rev was banned because he did not kiss ass - you are blatantly mischaracterizing what is required to exist, participate, and thrive on these boards. There is an incredibly broad continuum of behavior options ranging from kissing ass on one end, to being an ass on the other. I’d say you are pretty safe anywhere along that continuum except at the utmost extreme of assholiness. That is where the Rev chose to raise his flag. He could have moderated if he wished to, but he apparently didn’t. Great. That was his choice. But the repercussions were not unexpected.
And what is the big deal? Why would he want to hang out here anyway?
Oh yeah, whether I’m a newbie, oldie, or soewhere in the middley, I wasn’t even aware of the Rev’s existence until after he was banned. Apparently he just wasn’t of much interest to me. But I’m pretty capable of ignoring such stuff.
