Gee, what a suprise. CarnalK stirring shit. Again. It may have escaped your notice, but this is a holiday weekend. A lot of the staff are on limited availablity. Ever tried using common sense? This isn’t an emergency and we aren’t going to short circuit the usual review process. Keep your shirt on.
You seem to find some kind of fulfillment in whipping up controversey but we aren’t about to blow off a banning review to create drama on your timetable.
TVeblen
Pit mod
Who said it was an emergency? It’s just the tone of your warning here seemed reluctant and had no mention of previous warnings. Review away.
Bullshit. Now you pore over the “tone” of warnings for possible hidden meanings and significance? If you were all the concerned, you could have just, oh I dunno, used e-mail? Putz.
“pore over”? Give me a break. quote: “since you insist on compounding fractures…”
That doesn’t sound reluctant? Maybe I need a tinfoil hat?
You need something. Ever hear of sarcasm? You know, like when somebody who manages to dodge a bullet, then makes a point of standing up and yelling, “Missed me, sucker!” Sheesh, whaddya want: graphs?
Well I think I really would be a putz if I assumed that was sarcasm.
Damn, Veb. Take a purge. If recalling your posts is “stirring shit”, then that doesn’t speak well of your posts. Yeah, I know you think I’m mean, but you’re not exactly sweetness and light here yourself. You’ve been a real bitch lately.
It’s not quoting the posts that’s stirring up shit, it’s the reason the posts were quoted, in essence, to say “So, you haven’t banned him yet. Are you gonna ban him? Why haven’t you banned him yet? Is he gonna be banned? Banned, yes, him, soon? Banned?”
CarnalK has no idea what agreements, discussions, etc… went on in email already between the mods and Desmo. For all he knows, Desmo and the mods hammerd our some agreement and he wasn’t walking on eggshells anymore. Who knows? But in any case, it’s not really for the board wide population to know that a member’s posting status is being discussed by the mods, and it’s not really an apropriate discussion for posters to be having.
It should’ve been taken to email.
You really think so?
Higher taxes? “Revoke the Bush tax cuts” gets mentioned fairly often. “Socialized medicine” - if by that you mean government funded health care for everyone, I’m betting it would get at least 80% support on the SDMB. “Small government” is a lot more vague, obviously, but if you mean “the Bush deficits are bad”, sure, everyone thinks so.
As far as “tough on crime”, not if you include the death penalty. And I am not sure what you mean by “tough on foreign injustices”. If you don’t include “injustices by Saddam Hussein”, maybe. 
And there is currently a thread in GD that is a “handouts to the poor/tough on crime” two-fer.
I just found this striking, as an example of a viewpoint of the boards completely different from mine.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Desmostylus is a racist and a liar, obviously. I didn’t think that was a disputed point.
Certainly the admins may ban (or not ban) whom they choose. It is theirs to interpret and enforce the rules, ours only to subscribe to them or go elsewhere. Having said that, some posters do seem to be given more leeway than others. The mods and admins are, of course, human (at least I assume so), and, as such, it would be unrealistic to expect them to be completely dispassionate in their judgements.
With this in mind, do the politics of a poster ever come into consideration during the discussion of a possible ban? (“This guy is to the right of Genghis Khan. Do we really want him on the board?”)
That’s quite a fucking charge that is completely unsupported by your link. Please provide some clarifying information or context to explain how your charge is born out with that link or retract it so as to prevent people from believing your charge.
It seems that there is a smear campaign afoot.
Shodan appears to believe that Demostylus is attributing this entire sentence: “The wingnut brigade is absolutely ecstatic over killing “brown skinned people” and sniggering at weenie Liberals.” to Bush. This is, of course, delusional on Shodan’s part. My evidence that this is what Shodan is thinking is his follow-up post, #134 in that thread.
Perhaps you could read the thread to which I linked.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a moot point now; Desmostylus has just been banned.
I’ll bet it won’t be you that starts the protest thread. 
I’m a little late to the game, but if we’re going to have a 'litmus test" for moderators, why stop at conservative? Let’s find us a conservative, obese moderator, given the level of touchiness on matters of weight I’ve seen on the board.
I started reading the OP with the attitude that this was going to be another whine-fest, decrying the liberals for being mean to the conservatives, calling them names, knocking over their books, and taking their lunch-money. Believe it or not, I now see your point, which can be summed up as so:
-
Being conservative does not equal blind support of the administration. Please stop making this mistake.
-
Espousing a conservative viewpoint, or one shared/promoted by the current administration does not make one a mouthpiece for government propaganda. Please do not vent your hatred of the White House on me; we are not the same thing.
I get it now, and I see your point. Really. However, as tiresome as it must be, changing mods or moderating styles is not the answer. Perhaps, in addition to the “Don’t be a jerk” rule and Godwins Law, we need an additional rule: “Whoever first invokes a Jeremiad against the Bush administration when inappropriate, loses” Call it …I dunno…“Reeders Law?”
So you believe the part where Demostylus says the “brown skinned people” phrase comes from a Bush press conference does not attribute the “brown skinned people” phrase to Bush. Or that a quote from Bush expressly repudiating the notion that brown-skinned people are capable of democracy is an expression of glee over killing them.
:shrugs:
If you don’t care to interpret words according to their standard meaning, there is little that can be done.
Regards,
Shodan
That is what Bush said, lifted verbatim.
Holy shit, I just saw your post upon hitting Submit.
No, you’re right, I won’t protest the banning. Good riddance.
Regards,
Shodan
He was being attacked for using the phrase “brown skinned people” (in quotes in the original), and was defending himself by pointing out that Bush himself had used it in a press conference. Partly wrong, as Bush did not precisely say “brown skinned people”. No, I do not believe he was attributing the entire sentence to Bush, and I am astonished that you can think he was, even taking into account the hostility between the two of you.