Spongemom - cooling

The BBQ Pit
141

Looks like we got us another…


                                O                              O                                                       
                                    O                          O                                                           
                         {}    {}           _                                              
 ____     _____  [_]____[]           []_____[_]   _____    _____                      
[____]  [_____] [_______]             [________] [_____] [_____]                    
  o==o    o==o   {O}-----o  >________< o------{O}    o==o     o==o
142

Well, folks. That originally looked like an ascii “train wreck”. Something went wrong with the hamsters!

143

Can’t, Slacker my brain is melting and this has actually gotten funny so I’m laughing too hard to boot. It was a stupid hasty post, and all hell broke loose.

Hey, Uncommon! I did mention it, in post seventy, but forgot.

I think it boils down to:

Looks like SDMB could get in trouble for in some way allowing (via post or membership) the causing of physical, criminal harm to someone and the situation involves a mod, fingers will be sprained as they delet the threads.

If a situation arises where the existence of a thread can some way allow (via post or membership) allow the causing of physical criminal harm to someone and you’re not a mod, you are shit out of luck.

I suppose I could try and be more incoherent or unclear, but I’m not sure how. My unclearness is not intentional unless intentional is defined as previewing posts/responses less than three times.

144

How to be more clear:

  • Preview a couple more times.
  • Include links to what you’re talking about. What threads have resulted in “physical criminal harm” to anyone here, mod or not?
145

Could you put some shaved chocolate on mine, but only if it is good chocolate. If it is crappy/waxy chocolate please hold the chocolate. No, on second thought, cancel the frappucino if the chocolate is not first rate. K?

Man. I read the whole thread and LHoD’s mention of a double frapp is was the only really interesting thing I found. :wink:

146

Your sentences are impossible to follow. Mainly, you seem to stick completely unnecessary prepositional phrases into them, and change the focus of them in midstream. They are rife with side-thoughts.

I get dizzy.

“for in some way allowing” could just be “for allowing”.

“the causing of physical, criminal harm to someone” could just be “causing harm to someone”

and what on earth do you mean by “via post or membership”?

and it SOUNDS like you’re talking about one poster causing harm to another poster, but then you say the harm involves sprained “mod” fingers as they delete a thread. Is that criminal harm?

You might be able to get away with any one of those pieces, but put them all together, and it’s fucking gibberish. You’re impossible to read, and the more words you use, the worse it is.

147

And, I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi or a spelling nazi. I don’t really care about those things, and mess them up myself. But, I can still usually formulate a coherent sentence.

148

Now it’s all coming together! F’n brilliant, dude! :cool:

149

And it looks like golden chocolate coins could fall out of the sky, but that ain’t the way to bet.

My cat’s breath smells like shoe leather.

150

I got it, I got it!! All those angsty teen years spent pouring over the works of eecummings finally paid off! :smiley:

Think I can finagle this into a high-paying job as an interpreter for the UN?

151

Ponder not sure how.

I could have posted:

Post deletions when a Staffer is involved in a possible legal SDMB tangle?

But when a user could come to potentially legal harm (phyiscal or harassment) you don’t delete it? Why the double standard?

Then a bunch of dicks who want to post who have no clue but must post anyway who might have possibly missed the exchange in all the hub and bub here start screaming for cites, links, examples, and it comes up anyway.

And yeah, I apologized to Spongemom for this fuck up way early on in this thread.

On preview Slacker As far as I know, all threads related to The Admin Who Must Not Be Besmirched and the Situation That Must Not Be Discussed and the banning of One Who Must Not Be Named that was part of it are gone.

As for links to the Spongemom - haste, again, and as noted above to Ponder, I’d get smacked for dragging Spongemom in and smacked for not citing it in the OP.
Trunk: I’ll delete a few more words, then:

SDMB seems to have no problem deleting threads when something criminal could or does happen involving posters and a Staffer is tangently involved*.

SDMB seems to have a problem deleteing threads when something criminal could or does happen involving poster but no Staffers**.
whomever: Bastille Day - soda down the wrong pipe and out a few wrong ones, too.

I don’t think I can possibly back up any further - the chain that binds me to this desk 10 hours a day has no further slack.

  • the thread(s) in question only mentioned the unpleasentness and known involved persons and known Staffer mis-deeds, the threads did not facilitate too much, if any, further “something criminal” or potential “something criminal”. Deleting them does help keep the remaining teeming millions in line.

** the thread(s) in question do seem to facilitate the seeking, finding, and ammo of our Celluloid Female Parental Unit, and it seems that deleting them would help stem any new, further, “somethings criminal” or potential “somethings criminial”.

And for folks picking on my sig - it’s been like that for months. Flatter not yourselves.

152

I’m going to go sit on the confusion couch. Would anyone care to join me?

153

You know Mynn, that meth may be doing wonders for weight loss but it really fucks up your creative writing ability.

154

What the hell are you talking about?

155

And under The BBQ Pit (same page, just a little further down), it says:
This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding the administration of the SDMB.

And yet your sig, in the OP you started in the civilized place of discussion, says “There are fools, damn fools, and teeming millions.”

Can’t have it both ways, sweetie. Even if you’ve had that sig for months.

156

I finally understand the point she was trying to make, I think. Whether it is a valid point or not could possibly be a decent discussion.

Clearly she is some not so distant relation to Scott Plaid. Either that or they went to the same school.

157

It that really wise to admit to, in front of the rest of us?

Bullshit. The lamb lies down on Broadway!

158

My second quote above is from Mynn, not Greathouse.

159

I see your point. I now return to my previous position of, “What the fuck are you talking about?”.

Holy shit, man. That was fucking brilliant. Everyone in the office enjoyed the hell out of it. Very funny.

160

**Mynn ** is pointing out a double standard here. Threads that may involve the Chicago Reader or its employees in legal difficulties are deleted; threads that may involve “us” in legal difficulties without involving the Chicago Reader are spared. Thus the SDMB cynically shields itself from “bad things” while exposing us to those same “bad things”.

Here, **Mynn ** is saying that s/he would like to link to threads that illustrate his point above (specifically, Tubadiva and, um, Voldemort?), but they have been deleted. Thus proving his point.

I figured it out! Therefore, I win!