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!
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.
Could someone put the pacifier back in his mouth?
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.
My eyes well up with tears of appreciation for you all!
More later.
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.
I think this is the best explanation I’ve seen yet for his behavior.
I’ll admit to being curious about his magnum opus, 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.
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?
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.
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. 
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}
What qualifies as “something”?
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.
Do you think he will be master posting like a motherfuck?
Bryan, that sums it up pretty well. It a perfect summary of the “ignore list” thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.