# The good doctor's post was okay - it's Bodoni's that's idiotic **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 12, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325 "2006-04-12T03:27:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/41 "2006-04-12T09:45:54Z")
I agree with **mstay**. The One (dun-dun-_dun_) is without doubt the thing I most fiercely anticipate every morning when I log on. Please \*_drmark_, don’t keep us hanging! ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/42 "2006-04-12T09:59:33Z")
Personally, I’d pit the fucker just for gross misuse of “shibboleth”. Never mind the egregious jerkitude. Certainly not hanging around waiting for his megaOP. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/43 "2006-04-12T10:20:35Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Oh for fuck sake **roger TOOLhill**. There is no such rule in the pit you whiny sissy. Now fuck off back to MPSIMS where you can pass your lame ass off as witty. We don’t have to be polite to your pathetic bullshit here in the Pit. Could someone put the pacifier back in his mouth? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/44 "2006-04-12T11:50:17Z")
My vote would have been **not** to close the thread. Its OP could indeed be called, with some justification, idiotic. But some of the responses it was getting were thoughtful and worthwhile, and the thread as a whole was not nearly as much of a train wreck as it could have been. And its not unusual in the Pit for someone to, in good faith, post an OP that’s actually wrong or stupid or not well thought out, and to have people come along and pile on and explain in detail just what’s wrong with it; sometimes those are the best threads. Was **drmark** posting in good faith and expressing his honest point of view, or was he just trying to stir up a reaction? I don’t know. I would have given that thread the benefit of the doubt, while keeping an eye on **drmark** himself and seriously considering whether to suspend his posting privileges. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > drmark’s behaviour, I have observed, is to contend that life is meaningless and to heap scorn on those who disagree. There’s little in his behaviour that suggests the scholarly maturity I think might be expected from someone who holds a PhD in clinical psychology and some experience in that field. That many express doubt that he actually has such credentials is, I feel, unsurprising. > [@They Might Be Giants](#): > > They call me Dr. Worm. > I’m not a real doctor but I am a real worm > I am an actual worm ---
**Author:** ![drmark2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@drmark2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drmark2000)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/45 "2006-04-12T11:58:19Z")
My eyes well up with tears of appreciation for you all! More later. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/46 "2006-04-12T12:18:52Z")
All that I am seeing is “being a jerk” is having views not in the majority. I hate cats, I am sure if I started a pit thread about the feral cat population around here, hoping someone would poison them bastards it would be inflammatory. Drmark may be serious he may not\* like marriage, he may not like women, he may not like homosexuality, he may be a racist. But those our his opinions. If you do not think you can change his views, ignore him. If you hope to enlighten him, post. But banning people who are against what you find politically correct is more than a slippery slope it smacks of elitism. What happens next you ban anyone not on the right side of political correctness? So then those that are left can pat themselves on the back believing a majority of people are just like them? Fight his ignorance, or ignore his posts. \*Not having read through all the offending posts I do not actually know what he likes or dislikes just using examples. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/47 "2006-04-12T12:21:13Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > If **drmark2000** does, in fact, hold a PhD in clinical psychology then the only explination I can see for his behavior is that he is conducting stimulus-response experiments on the SDMB posting community. If this is the case then he is posting in bad faith and jerking people around just to see them jerk. I think this is the best explanation I’ve seen yet for his behavior. I’ll admit to being curious about his [magnum](http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/magnum-pi-selleck-1.jpg) [opus](http://www.heedme.com/~omar/gfx/opus.gif), but it probably won’t be as entertaining as I imagine it. It’s probably just an analysis of the way people behave over the internet. We’ll probably be told that we’re acting this way because of the anonymity that the internet allows. We’re overcompensating for something. And we’re not as intelligent, funny, or nutritionally balanced as we would like to think that we are. Ah well. If you get banned before you can post it, my email is in my profile. I’d like to see what this board shattering thingy is all about. If I may make one more joke, I bet this board shattering thingy is a kung fu guy. Those dudes break boards all the time. Sometimes they even break bricks. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/48 "2006-04-12T12:23:41Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > As **Frank** noted, insulting changes to usernames don’t belong in quote tag attributions, even in the Pit. I’m not going to chalk it up as an official warning this time, but if you do it again it’ll be both a warning and an unrelenting barrage of expletives so filthy they’ll make anyone standing in the same zip code as you blush. ( **Veb** ’s been practicing…) Since when has this been a rule? And what on Earth is the reason for it? I can understand requiring the text _within_ quote tags to be authentic, but the _name_? What purpose does that serve? Also, pedantically: The rules specifically allow altering words in the quote box to be altered to make a point: _Quote tags may be used as a formatting tool to display another’s words altered to make a joke or to make a point (e.g. replacing the word “Democrat” or “Republican” with “axe murderer”)…_ So why can’t a poster’s name, which isn’t even quoted text, be altered to make a joke or point? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/49 "2006-04-12T12:28:13Z")
**Abbie** , I don’t think that **drmark2000** is being attacked for his opinions. I believe that his history here has been to start threads with premises stated in such a way that they will evoke strong responses, which is okay. He then usually refuses or fails to support his points, and flings insults and superior comments at everyone. Lots of people have opinions here which others strongly disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/50 "2006-04-12T12:36:40Z")
I’ve read a few of his posts and I think **drmark2000** serves a greater purpose here on the SDMB as a uniter. No matter what subject people disagree on: cats, religion or politics, it seem we all agree that **drmark2000** is an imbecile and has earned the right to be treated as such. And _if_, as some have pointed out, he makes a “good point” every now and then, well, I think it only goes to prove that even an imbecile can accidentally get something right once in a while. I’m for keeping him around. Every village needs its idiot. Just keep that tazer thingy handy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/51 "2006-04-12T12:41:06Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > **Abbie** , I don’t think that **drmark2000** is being attacked for his opinions. I believe that his history here has been to start threads with premises stated in such a way that they will evoke strong responses, which is okay. He then usually refuses or fails to support his points, and flings insults and superior comments at everyone. Lots of people have opinions here which others strongly disagree with. Seconded, \*\*Crotalus \*\* summed it up great. To understand why **drmark2000** ’s pit thread was closed, you need to look at his posting history. The Pit thread was not worthy of closing on its own merit, but because of the Poster himself continually starting threads of a certain type, I understand why \*\*Lynn \*\* acted swiftly. **Abbie** if you start the pit thread about cats, a lot of people would rail against you, someone might start a pit thread about you, a few might call for you to leave, but the Mods and Admins would do nothing to you if you didn’t break a rule. Now start one a week and continually insult posters for their lack of intelligence and you would get a very different response from the mods I believe. Another good example is \*\*Clothahump \*\* started very right wing pit threads almost monthly at one point. He took lots of abuse and got little support but never a warning or a closure. He is a member in good standing and his pit threads actually improved in Quality. Jim {Sorry for bringing you into this Clothahump, you are the best example I can think of} ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/52 "2006-04-12T12:41:50Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Because it’s another one of his bullshit ramblings about nothing? What qualifies as “something”? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/53 "2006-04-12T12:53:15Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > What qualifies as “something”? Perhaps a subject and a premise that one believes in and is willing to support? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/54 "2006-04-12T13:08:30Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Perhaps a subject and a premise that one believes in and is willing to support? It occurs to me that drmark’s “support” for a thread premise tends to be: drmark: [Observes behaviour that seems unusual to him. Asks proponents to explain] respondents: Said behaviour isn’t at all unusual to us. d: Yes, but _why_ isn’t it unusual to you? r: It just isn’t. You’re asking about an arbitrary preference. d: But _why_ do you feel that way? r: What do you mean, why do we feel that way? We have several reasons. We don’t understand your objection to the behaviour since it affects you in no way. d: But _why_ don’t you understand my objection? r: We explained it several times already. Are you on drugs? d: The fact that you ask that says more about you than about me. r: So you _are_ on drugs? d: I have a PhD. r: We doubt it. d: Your doubt says more about you than it does about me. Typical. …and so on. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/55 "2006-04-12T13:13:46Z")
> [@mstay](#): > > Please don’t ban him before his master post is online. I’ve been so looking forward to it! Do you think he will be master posting like a motherfuck? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/56 "2006-04-12T13:18:34Z")
> [@FordPrefect](#): > > Do you think he will be master posting like a motherfuck? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/57 "2006-04-12T13:20:38Z")
**Bryan** , that sums it up pretty well. It a perfect summary of the “ignore list” thread. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/58 "2006-04-12T13:24:49Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Perhaps a subject and a premise that one believes in and is willing to support? Seems like he had an issue with marriage. His claims may have not been factual, but the it seems like his claims support his issue with marriage. Whether you agree with it or not, its obvious he dislikes marriage. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > d: I have a PhD. I read it as an acusation that he didn’t have a PHD in Clinical Psychology. No where did he come off in the thread as claiming to have a PHD, until another member questioned it first. And while were at it, is it now the rule that one must be what their screen name says? Should we be pitting **Gangster Octopus**? Because I seriously doubt that he’s a Gangster, or an Octopus. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/59 "2006-04-12T13:27:56Z")
> [@zut](#): > > Since when has this been a rule? And what on Earth is the reason for it? I can understand requiring the text _within_ quote tags to be authentic, but the _name_? What purpose does that serve? > > Also, pedantically: The rules specifically allow altering words in the quote box to be altered to make a point: _Quote tags may be used as a formatting tool to display another’s words altered to make a joke or to make a point (e.g. replacing the word “Democrat” or “Republican” with “axe murderer”)…_ So why can’t a poster’s name, which isn’t even quoted text, be altered to make a joke or point? I would really like to hear the answer to this question. Names are changed in quotes all the time. There is not the same problem of changing the text. Where the text is changed then others might think that person actually said what was in the changed text. When a username is changed whats the worst, somebody thinks we have a member named t00lhill when we really do not. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325/60 "2006-04-12T13:31:48Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > **Bryan** , that sums it up pretty well. It a perfect summary of the “ignore list” thread. I had in mind the marriage thread, the “having children is the greatest cruelty” thread and the “what benefit has humanity been?” thread as well. The “if you could live indefinitely” thread was a bit of a variation, since he started to demand reasons why people agreed (rather than disagreed) with him. Same result, though. He doesn’t adequately support his own position, while demanding others support theirs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-good-doctors-post-was-okay-its-bodonis-thats-idiotic/352325.md?page=4)