You can probably expect a complaint thead about it in Cafe Society.
Not really. He paid his money and has the right to post as long as he follows the rules. That means putting threads in their proper place and not pitting Shodan in IMHO. He does not have the right to post anything he wants anywhere he feels like it. Within threads he is responsible for following the rules of the forum he is in.
He’s been around long enough to know better. I’ve seen newbies with less than ten posts get banned because they refuse to read the forum descriptions and shit all over Great Debates/General Questions/whatever.
Tom, you have now given us an answer to the challenge inevitably posted when someone is pitted. Now, when asked “Why does it matter to you? Why not just ignore it?” we can say…
Won’t someone please think of the mods?
Holy galloping gonads. I had to reboot my brain after reading his first post there.
Yeh, Scott, another leftist here cringing at the thought of being associated with you.
If you do pack a lunch, duffer will eat it.
:: points and laughs at tomndebb ::
Yes. Yes, it is.
Scott, I’m a lifelong Democrat, a liberal, and an atheist. I say this so you have the context. I don’t agree with **Bricker **or Shodan, but I would far rather read their posts in GD than yours. They may make me angry, but they don’t leave me feeling like I have been breathing paint fumes.
This is failure, Scott. You’re failing to convince me of your points, and I started out agreeing with you on some of them. Why? Because you’re incoherent and apparently don’t understand how debating works.
Your friend who pointed out that your post was hard to understand? Listen to him. Learn how to write coherently, how to frame your argument so that your audience understands, how to support your point so that people agree with you.
Until then, please stay out of GD, and seriously consider staying out of the Pit. Please.
Could have been. Obviously, you = out, although I can’t exactly explain how the former morphed into the latter. Maybe ol’ Siggy-boy knew wherefore he spake afterall. 
Why do you assume it was a complaint?. It was an observation. A warning bouy in cyberspace for fellow travellers who might stumble upon that thread accidentally and wonder: WTF???
Just a quick note before I sign off, till tomorrow. If you really want to point and laugh, see me attempt to defend my statement on that thread, later. Don’t “worry”, I have not abandoned it.
While you’re at it, you might explain what you meant in this thread about the BBC. ArchiveGuy and I are both wondering what the hell you’re on about.
Scott, I don’t know you and you don’t know me. I have never debated you and though I’ve seen your name in other threads, I never took note of you, since I don’t post in GD or ATMB. I opened this thread on a whim. I’m just telling you this so that you know my advice is sincere and not coming from some previous ill feeling towards you.
I suspect you’re pretty young and writing is not your strongest mode of expression. Some of your posts are so poorly written that, even though I know what you mean, you make so many errors in grammar and syntax that it’s very hard to take you seriously. I teach 7th grade English and I see papers like this all the time-- this is not a comparison I’m thrilled to be making about a fellow liberal and Doper.
My advice: either proofread your posts more carefully or compose them in Word and run them through a spelling and grammar checker before you hit Submit. Everyone makes mistakes, but you make whole word substitutions or use tortured syntax which cripples your ability to make your point.
Here are some choice examples, chosen not for the views they espouse but for their incomprehensibility:
“However, once people find the freedom of controlling a large business affords them, I think that the end result is often more positive then negative.”
“In order to attrack converts, pretty much every religion on earth teaches that good is good. The founders either really believe that all thought would lead to that conclusion, were big fat liars who really hoped they wwere right, but feared they were wrong, or some other thing.”
“However, people look at arguments in favor of Bush’s bald-faced lying, and come away from it with the idea that people are making the claim that bush lied, proof-positive.”
“Usually, when one is in a thread, and is challenged on a point made, a response is given. Now, however, Bricker is acting as if nothing has been answered in regards to gay marriage, ever, and is stating the same old reasons.”
Please read these aloud, or have someone who you know is a really good writer or who is highly literate read them and explain to you why these sentences are hard to parse. In fact, they are irritating to read, so much so that even people who agree with you 100% cannot help but get aggravated with you.
I hope you will endeavor to learn how better to express yourself so that your often excellent points get through. Otherwise, I fear you will find yourself continually frustrated and your POV unrecognized and unsupported by others.
If I may make a suggestion, Scott, you might want to take a little more time–or a lot more time–pondering your statements, much less defenses. Since your erratic, frothing-at-the-mouth ‘debating’ style pisses off even your allies, what did you want to achieve in the first place?
Only a damned fool keeps running into parked cars.
Not that our towing lot isn’t littered with plenty of dented, bashed, mangled wrecks, mind. The rust, creaks of settling metal and occassional sad fluid drips are pitiful. And junk up the neighborhood.
Makes much more sense to learn to drive first, hmmm?
Scott, I’m another who holds nothing against you.
“Winning” a debate here is an elusive thing. The best most can hope for is stating their best case with authoritative sources to back up their statements. If you even make a dent in someone’s opinion, you are a rare bird indeed.
I’ve probably shifted a little in my views since I’ve been here, but only by coming to respect individuals and then having them present something from a POV that is new to me. Often it is personal experience that sways me when political arguments don’t.
Try reading everything aloud before you post it. Your ears will catch mistakes that your eyes will gloss over.
I don’t bother to do that myself. I use old age as an excuse. If others don’t like it, I hit them with my cane.
HA HA! You caught me! I have the worse impulse control. 
Comments duly noted and thank you for your civil responses. I really do appreciate.
Doh, I did not mean anywhere anywhere. I meant post anywhere responsibly. (Maybe you give him “posting condoms,” maybe ribbed for your pleasure?) I was not trying to dismiss what was obviously immature and improper posts. I meant more in the “he can post reply or begin posts (following the rules) anywhere he wants.”
Scott,
Take Rubystreak’s advice to heart. And to add my two cents–
It is a sign of respect to take the time to read a post, and compose a well-thought out reply. It is clear to most of us, from your writing style and your many errors, that you cannot be bothered even to preview your posts, much less proofread them with a critical eye.
Disrespect wears after a while.
This post took me over 10 minutes to write, as I have very minimal keyboard/computer skills. However, my words on the Dope are Carved In Stone, (as are everyones) so I take the time to make my points as well as possible. You give the impression that you really don’t care.
On behalf of the side of people who were raised by hippies, I’d like to say that Scott doesn’t represent our side well either. Some of our hippie parents taught us to think critically, honestly.
Also, most of us know that Batman is fictional. (I’m sorry, anyone who pits a comic book character is loony.)
Thank you for your advice. I already do the spelling thing, but often, I post from dumb terminal with no copy of Word. Also, it seems like my judgment is seriously off, because I just read those sentences, and they make perfect sense to me. I will, as I said earlier, take some time off to reconsider my writing style. After, that is, I have responded in full to this thread. Don’t expect immediate change.
I am about to, after I finish responding to this thread.
Let’s take them one at a time.
“However, once people find the freedom of controlling a large business affords them, I think that the end result is often more positive then negative.”
Note bolded word. Perhaps you meant to say "freedom that…?
In this case people is the subject, find is the verb, and freedom is the object. “Controlling a large business” modifies “freedom.” To say “freedom of” is incoherent.