The good doctor's post was okay - it's Bodoni's that's idiotic

The BBQ Pit
221

Fair point - I’ll provide a bit more context and background. My post was in reply to one in which Hentor announces that he had a PhD in the same field as drmark2000, while generally evincing behaviour of a distinctly uncollegial nature towards his fellow clinical psychologist. (Here, as a fellow PhD, I am taking them at face value that they also possess one.)

In my post quoted above, my words about brushing up his reading skills refers to Hentor’s drive-by post to get his anger off his chest about another Pit thread I had started.

The thread in question was Shape up, US papers, and don’t be spazzes, in which I had pitted, rather mildly, sections of the US press for censoring in different ways a comment made by Tiger Woods after his final round in the Masters. Given the nature and the target of my pitting (made abundantly clear to the average reader in the title of the thread itself), HTB appeared to have his own agenda when he sarcastically wrote, “Next, **roger ** will demand apologies for our brazen references to fanny packs, or for our cop shows referring to Lieutenants as ‘loo’,” which one doesn;t need to be a psychologist to understand is suggestive of some sort of personal animosity that he couldn’t keep in check.

The only mention I had made of apologies was in the post in which I noted that Tiger himself had apologised for saying he putted like “a spaz” at the US Masters. In case he thought I was being anti-American (as his sophomoric jibes about “loos” suggest) or anti-Tiger, I had reported in the same post what the British golf correspondent has to say about the man: “[Woods] is among the most decent men in the game. He has his own programmes to help disadvantaged children, both in golf and education, while he shows extraordinary humility for one who has done so much at such an early age.”

Hentor’s"dumbass" comment (if the other crack was sophomoric, this one must be freshman) shows his true colours most clearly. The fellow was pissed with me and couldn’t hold it in any longer. So, he relieved himself on the thread.

Right. Glad we got that sorted.

222

Will I get in trouble if I say I think you’re correct?

223

Quit trolling for affirmation. Stuart Smiley wept!

:smiley:

224

We’ll probably ban you.

225

No, of course you won’t get into trouble if you declare one of the mods correct. You’lll only get into trouble if you declare one of them incorrect. Then they’ll let it out on you, alright!

226

I’m not sure that I’ve ever been labeled as engaging in a “vile and reprehensible practice” (at least not one that provides such little gratification on the HOT DAMN THIS IS FUN! scale), and I really don’t want to pass up the opportunity to be known as such an evil woman at any turn where it’d be tres hip to mention. I mean, such notoriety makes me quiver with delight at the very thought.

So, may I use this as my new signature dr? I would be so honored to finally truly walk on the message board wild side. Thank you for noticing me, one of the lowly people. I feel so in awe.

227

Nah - ask you to become a Moderator, more like.

228

Funny, I’m still here.

229

This is just a WAG, but based on roger’s recent complaints in another thread regarding the lack of response to many of his [intelligent, erudite and uniquely off-kilter] postings, I’m guessing he may be feeling somewhat conversation-deprived and has therefore decided to get down in the mud with the rest of us simply in order to be able to have actual conversations with other posters…you know, when in Rome and all that. Perhaps if some of you who enjoy roger in his previous incarnation will begin to respond to some of his posts outside the Pit, he will feel less inclined to wallow in the mud with the rest of us. :wink:

(Just my WAG, as I said. My apologies to roger if this armchair analysis is in error.)

230

Skipped right past all those posts, huh? I’m calling you out right here.

You’re a punk. That’s hard to say as punks are only a half-step above whom everyone here knows I despise.

I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt. But you’re a punk. As proven again and again.

I think we should demand to know where your bullshit degree is from so we can shun anyone and everyone that went to that school.

Wait, even a cite wouldn’t mean much considering your credentials. Care to be punked? Care to see someone with more legitimacy than you? Someone so full of shit his eyes are brown and makes you look like a tool?

OK. I was holding this one in reserve, but desperate times call for desperate measures. It’s fine and well you don’t want to back up your insistant claim of being so much better than us. If I held a “Ph.D.” and spouted what you did, I’d refrain from mentioning the school as well. I mean, nobody can identify you based on a Univeristy alone. Or even a city.
Meet Dr. Humble. A likeable sort, I guess, but has as much validity as you around here.

On page 2:

Got that? He has a Ph.D. in psychology. It isn’t stated from where, but I’m guessing ABC wouldn’t quote him in this day and age without verifying it was from a school accredited to issue the degree.

Then they focus on “Dr. Humble”. He calls himself Dr. Humble, but maybe it isn’t the full story. (As yours isn’t.)

For your enjoyment, Dr. Humble.

Even if you beleive your claims, it doesn’t make it so. Now care to answer a question? Why do you think you’re a legitimate doctor?

231

Let me start by saying that I have most definitely not read all the posts in this thread. Not even close. Regardless, …

I agree completely with roger thornhill. Why in hell was drmark2000’s thread on marriage locked?! It was a Pit thread for God’s sake! So, it’s not like it had to be logical, or factual, or civil, or anything else to remain ‘alive’. Yet, it was closed on the apparent whim of Lynn Bodooni. Why? Because, well, because it was “idiotic”. Hey, Lynn, you’re right. We can’t have any idiotic threads in the Pit. No way. After all, we’ve never had an idiotic thread in the Pit before, and we sure as Hell aren’t going to start now. Give me a fucking break.

Oh, and wise Lynn, I’m glad you’re not going to be content by merely locking a thread which you found “idiotic” (and apparently uniquely “idiotic” at that). No, you’re going to “discuss (drmark2000’s) future posting privileges with the other mods”. Are you fucking serious?!! Because you thought the thread was “idiotic”? Tell me, had anyone complained about the thread? Had it been reported? More importantly, are you saying that if you believe the OP of a thread is “idiotic”, even if there followed a lively and fairly civil set of responses to that OP (by Pit standards, at least), that that’s sufficient grounds to lock it? And maybe even sufficient grounds to threaten the OP’ers posting privileges? That’s fucking insane. It’s unfair. It’s stupid. But mostly it reeks of arbitrariness. It means that at the end of the day there really are no rules. It means that the only thing that matters is the subjective and arbitrary opinion of those with the power. Sad.

232

The treatment of drmark2000 is extremely similar to that of another poster, SnakeSpirit. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the one thing this board won’t tolerate is a poster who won’t back down, who won’t take a beating.

Bouncing back for more with a solid “fuck you” attitude is read as “being a jerk” or “trolling” and hence reason for banning. After all, if you keep getting a rise out of people, you must be pushing their buttons, right?

And how this board is itching for an auto de fe! Can’t you see how primitive this mindset is? It’s fucking Aztec shit, people: build social cohesion through periodic sacrifice. All bedizened with much ritual pissing and moaning and at last the orgasmic catharis of BANNED beneath the poster’s name.

Such sweet release. But how temporary.

I’m basically in the same category as drmark2000 and SnakeSpirit, except that I find access to the board useful enough that I’ve chosen not to be a sacrifice meet for the gods.

And what gods you are: deities of self-satisfied pettiness and mediocrity. drmark2000 isn’t the Satan of the boards. The real evil, the destroyer of what this board could be, as the doctor pointed out, is the usual cast of characters appearing in this thread: the pile-oners, ban-fanners, and mendacious little Star Chamber small-picture twats.

What a clueless bunch of fucks. Has it ever occurred to you that a 20 to 1 pile-on really isn’t all that sporting? I’ve never seen anyone involved in one of the board’s frequent gang bangs seem even slightly sheepish about this fact. “Guys, we’re in the right here, yeah, but it’s really just too easy for all of us to snark and high-five and validate whatever shit we’re spewing while just guffawing at whatever the victim comes up with.”

The method is always micro-oriented petty invalidation. The key example in this thread is the 50% statistic. Yes, drmark2000 was not wholly accurate when he cited the number, but he wasn’t wildly off the mark, either (what, it’s 41% or whatever instead of 50%; whoopdeedoo). The macro point is that a honking big percent of marriages end in divorce and this creates tons of misery for the adults and especially the kids involved.

Macro point taken? Not a chance. Nitpick, snark, impugn the poster’s credentials because he “doesn’t get statistics.”

Now I might advise dmark2000 to mea culpa on the stat because he was incorrect to a degree, and, more importantly, somewhat irresponsibly (but again not wildly so) stating a number that’s “in the air.” That would be sporting of him. But I can’t really advise that because sporting behavior is not rewarded in GD or the Pit (the two debating forums), but instead it’s always a game in which, as stated above, cackling boneheads win through sheer force of noise and numbers.

There is definitely a “bad posters drive out good” phenomenon at work on the boards (or at least the portion ostensibly devoted to intellectual exchange), and I pretty much feel that the work is done. What’s left is a hardened core of intellectual also-rans who back-pat each other, roam as a pack, and invalidate anyone who doesn’t agree with their blindered perspective. As far as I’m concerned, debate is dead on the SDMB.

And you fuckers are so unawake to your limitations that it’s sad. The conceit is that this is board of the big, rational brains fighting ignorance. Real intellectuals, people who have genuinely accomplished something, are looking at this board and laughing at you people. And I’ll join dmark2000 in his “arrogance” and say that I’m laughing too, or, in my particular case, spitting in disgust.

I’m treated like the villiage idiot here, the fruitcake New Ager, but the fact is I’m validated on an almost daily basis by multibillion dollar companies paying for my writing and using it around the world. What the fuck have you bright lights ever accomplished that you think you can piss all over drmark2000 and myself as you do without the sporting recognition that we might have accomplishments or admirable qualities that deserve respect? The fact is that you’re a bunch of frustrated cubicle bitches wanking over the SDMB because that’s all you’ve got.

No, the real intellects, if they lurk at all, are not even granting you a moderate har-har, because you aren’t interesting. At best it’s just a slight chuckle at how lame you are–thinking you’re all wise when it’s the same old message board shit of petty little battles and mods pontificating and adjudicating and nothing of import happening whatsoever.

I reupped a few days ago becuase it’s worth $8 to use GQ. But I gotta say that this board has slid into patheticness from which it will never recover, and you fuckers genuinely make me sick. I too look forward to the Magnum Opus, which will make the above seem like a paean to your wisdom.

233

The funny thing **Aeschines ** is that you have admitted before that you jerk-off to the posts of one of your critics. :slight_smile:

Anyhow, many others here do have a living, and there is no logical reason to attack what they are or are not, the only thing I get from your last post is only a perfect example of an attempt to discredit any New Ager movements, whenever some relative or friend considers that lifestyle I just need to point at a post like yours and ask them: can you feel the love?!?

234

GIGO, I can’t tell what the first line of your post about jerking off means.

As far as your criticism goes about “feeling the love,” I freely admit that you’re right. This board puts me in a dark place, which is why I intend to avoid debate hereafter, use GQ and CS from time to time, and basically tune it out.

IRL, I try to fulfill my New Age principles and be a giving and loving person. In general, I think I succeed but like anything else there is much room for improvement.

235

Starvers, as always, your concern for my well being is much appreciated, but I feel a little misplaced on this occasion. Allow me, if I may, to put you right. Regarding my post about feeling alone at the dope (or some such – I haven’t looked it up), it was tongue in cheek. Sure, many a true word and all that, but it wasn’t a cri de coeur. Many of my posts which attempt humour intend to carry a serious message, partly because that’s me - my style - and partly for the reasons touched on by Aeschines (and others in the past, including me).

Now, the reason that I’m spending more time in the Pit is simply because I started two threads there, which have proved to be incredibly popular. Well, one in particular.

Actually, ALL my incarnations are comfortable in each forum (apart from Comments on Staff Reports, of course).

Turning to KarlGauss and Aeschines - good stuff. Allow me to quote Samuel Johnson (with two honorary doctorates, though he “flunked” Oxford - like all true geniuses), who has some pertinent, and pretty honest, observations on a number of matters that have been raised in this thread. Sometimes it seems he could have been talking about the SDMB.

On fame and the desire to be considered greater than one’s peers:

“Men have a solicitude about fame; and the greater share they have of it, the more they are afraid of losing it.” (Boswell’s Life of Johnson, 279)

On the desire to be different/special:

“There lurks, perhaps, in every human heart a desire of distinction, which inclines every man first to hope, and then to believe, that nature has given him something peculiar to himself. This vanity makes one mind nurse aversion, and another actuate desires, till they rise by art much above their original state of power; and as affectation in time improves to habit, they at last tyrannise over him who at first encouraged them only for show. Every desire is a viper in the bosom, who, while he was chill, was harmless; but when warmth gave him strength, exerted it in poison.” (op cit, 294-5)

On preying upon others:

“It is a melancholy consideration, that so much of our time is necessarily to be spent upon the care of living, and that we can seldom obtain ease in one respect but by resigning it in another: yet I suppose we are by this dispensation not less happy in the whole, than if the spontaneous bounty of Nature poured all that we want into our hands. A few, if they were left thus to themselves, would perhaps spend their time in laudable pursuits; but the greater part would prey upon the quiet of each other or, in the want of other objects, would prey upon themselves.” (op cit, 227)

And on respect (which is what Aeschines is talking about):

‘To a lady who endeavoured to vindicate herself from blame for neglecting social attention to worthy neighbours, by saying, “I would go to them if it would do them any good;” he said, “What good, Madam, do you expect to have in your power to do them? It is shewing them respect, and that is doing them good”.’ (op cit, 297)

And, of course, I can’t close without a line from C.S. Lewis, my love for whom has already been noted (in this thread, I believe):

“The descent to hell is easy, and those who begin by worshipping power soon worship evil.” (The Allegory of Love, 188)

Cavete, Moderati!

236

Well… I’ve a very bad memory of names, let alone of nicknames (and actually rarely even pay attention to who wrote the post I’m responding to), hence am generally completely unaware of the posting history of Dopers. So, I had given my opinion on the basis of the thread currently pitted alone, as I usually do.

237

There are hundreds of posters who have neither backed down or taken a beating. It’s not difficult. Mea culpas where they’re warranted, debate in good faith. If you end up with differing axioms, then agree to disagree.

There’s an element of this, I grant you. But, people who deliberately piss in the pool need to be kicked out. There are people who enjoy the kicking out rather too much, and if you attend the kicking outs, you’re going to meet them again and again. But they aren’t the whole board, or even a majority of the board. It’s not as universal as you think it is.

Disagree. “Sporting behaviour” as you call it is rewarded with subtle increments of credibility in the minds of other readers. If people are shouting you down at the time, you get extra increments for class. Not necessarily from the people who are shouting you down, but from others. On these boards, credibility in the minds of the other readers is pretty much all you’ve got.

You are so angry. Your anger is filtering what you read, and not in a good way. There’s plenty of perfectly aimiable, interesting discussion going on.

Where? You’ve done little but spit hate and rage for a year or more, and receive response in kind. Your intellect has never been in question, although belittling the intellects of others is a favoured ploy of yours. Some fruitcake New Ageism would be welcome compared with the pure nastiness you generate. The worst of it is, you feel that your spite is justified because in your mind your targets deserve it. Why is this any better than the “Aztec shit” you deplore?

More hate. More rage. I know next to nothing about New Age attitudes, but I’d formed a quite different impression to the one you give.

Wow. Did something very, very bad happen to you?

238

No offense meant, but things are a bit far from sorted.

His first post in this thread, as I understand it, reads that although drmark2000 may be a dink and a manwhore he may still possess the PhD. You can be qualified and a jerk. If Hentor returns, maybe he can clarify.

As for the rest of your post. It’s a little ironic. You refer to him having “personal animosity that he couldn’t keep in check” and being “pissed with you and couldn’t hold it in any longer” and you drag in another thread to address him in this one when he hadn’t addressed you in this thread at all.

Aeschines, it took you five pages to come in and drag drmark2000 and yourself onto the cross of the persecuted intellectual? You’re slacking.

239

Way to miss the point.

By the way, how’s the balloon animal business going?

Oh, and Aeschines? The yawning chasm between your “New Age principles” and your vitriol-spewing behavior puts the Grand Canyon to shame. Quit declaring that you’re going to leave the Pit and just do it.

240

This is true. I would say it’s a 30/70 proposition that drmark2000 does possess a real live clinical psychology doctorate. It’s unlikely that you’d meet someone who made it that far along in the process who expressed himself and his ideas so poorly, or who spoke of having some sort of unique access to deeper understandings, but it is not impossible. It’s an even greater wager that you’ll meet a PhD who is also a “dink” and a “manwhore.”

An excellent point. I think it may be that roger’s just a very sensitive guy, if using the word “dumbass” indicates some sort of unchecked anger towards him. (My point, by the way, was that it was silly to hold Tiger Woods to the standard of the British connotation of the word “spaz,” and to insist that it just simply must be as bad a thing to say here as it may be there. Guess what? We are so barbaric that we still use the term “mental retardation”! And fanny packs! Fanny pack, you spaz! I feel a bit like a knight who says “ni” here.)