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

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ParentalAdvisory

No where did he come off in the thread as claiming to have a PHD, until another member questioned it first.

I’ve created a composite pattern from several of his threads, not a summary of that particular one.

[Crotalus]

@ParentalAdvisory

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.

Yep, that’s clear. His statistic was incorrect, his coin-flip statement nonsensical, his indictment of the wedding industry was off-topic (not germane to his own stated topic: I pit people who get married). He received replies and baited and flamed rather than offer any supporting information.

@ParentalAdvisory

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.

He has volunteered the “fact” that he has a PhD in clinical psychology, from “an accredited university” no less, on several other occasions. His posts and OPs have given many here cause for reasonable doubt on the veracity of this claim. It has been an issue in several threads.

[What_Exit]

ParentalAdvisory: If you are trying to say he had a point, you are right.
If you are trying to defend his posting style & habits, please read the points made by many in this thread and take the time to look at his posting history. It will probably be an eye opener.

Jim

[Crotalus]

@Bryan Ekers

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.

Given that you weren’t even thinking of the “ignore list” thread, it’s amazing how closely that one follows your model.

[Ponder_Stibbons]

From the other thread …

@wring

@drmark2000

Gauntlet laid down!

you mis-spelled “mitten”.

@askeptic

He left out the “Foot stomped petulantly” part as well.

This got me wondering. Maybe we’ve all got drmark2000 wrong. Maybe he’s really a 14 year old girl living in Tokyo who has been writing all along about her “Hello Kitty” obsession, but it’s just that her spelling is atrocious. Really, really, really atrocious.

[enipla]

@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.

This is exactly what I thought. I simply can’t beleive that a psychologist could be so out of touch with human nature.

[askeptic]

I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on the Ph.D thing. I could care less, if he actually has one it won’t make him any less of an idiot. People make false claims around here all the time. Libertarian called himself Liberal mark calls himself dr. same same as Lib would say.

What difference would it make if he really was a Ph.D? I say none whatsoever. To say that nobody with a degree would act as stupid as mark is giving way to much credence to degrees in general. I have known many stupid out of touch motherfuckers with graduate degrees. Shit, Ted Kaxinski was some kind of math super genious. That didn’t make him any less nutty.

Just like roger erudition doesnt make him any less of a tool.

[What_Exit]

@askeptic

I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on the Ph.D thing. I could care less, if he actually has one it won’t make him any less of an idiot. People make false claims around here all the time. Libertarian called himself Liberal mark calls himself dr. same same as Lib would say.

What difference would it make if he really was a Ph.D? I say none whatsoever. To say that nobody with a degree would act as stupid as mark is giving way to much credence to degrees in general. I have known many stupid out of touch motherfuckers with graduate degrees. Shit, Ted Kaxinski was some kind of math super genious. That didn’t make him any less nutty.

Just like roger erudition doesnt make him any less of a tool.

I think you are changing the direction of the thread, which I think is okay in this case.
What makes you say Roger is a tool? I haven’t noticed it, he rarely offends anyone. He doesn’t post BS in GD or GQ from what I have seen. Do you just dislike him, or do you have a specific reason to think Roger is a tool?

Just curious,
Jim

[saoirse]

@askeptic

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.

Giraffe posted an FYI thread about it.

[askeptic]

@What Exit?

I think you are changing the direction of the thread, which I think is okay in this case.
What makes you say Roger is a tool? I haven’t noticed it, he rarely offends anyone. He doesn’t post BS in GD or GQ from what I have seen. Do you just dislike him, or do you have a specific reason to think Roger is a tool?

Just curious,
Jim

I don’t dislike him per se, I just think he is a tool.

While I was trying to change the direction of the thread, I was not trying to change it to roger “the tool” thornhill. I was trying to shift the focus away from whether mark really has a Ph.D. It is really immaterial. Hell I have a juris doctorate and plenty of people consider me an idiot. Degrees don’t make people less stupid. Stupid people get degrees all the time.

[askeptic]

@saoirse

Giraffe posted an FYI thread about it.

Thanks.

[What_Exit]

@saoirse

Giraffe posted an FYI thread about it.

That was the one I was remembering, thank you for clearing it up.

askeptic: That’s fine, I actually think it would insult the Dr. more if this thread stopped being about him. Using my complete lack of a degree in Pyschology, I think he craves attention and enjoys it. But he probably thinks I am a tool or at least a fool.

Jim

[Guinastasia]

@Q.E.D.

“Bent” is old British slang:
[url=http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/b.htm]

And I was supposed to know this how? (I’m addressing Roger, not you, Q.E.D.). I figured that something said on The Simpsons is pretty tame as far as insults go.

[What_Exit]

@Guinastasia

And I was supposed to know this how? (I’m addressing Roger, not you, Q.E.D.). I figured that something said on The Simpsons is pretty tame as far as insults go.

Roger may have been attempting humor and whooshed both of us. I know I didn’t get it either an appreciated Q.E.D. information.

Jim

[Mtgman]

@askeptic

I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on the Ph.D thing. I could care less, if he actually has one it won’t make him any less of an idiot. People make false claims around here all the time. Libertarian called himself Liberal mark calls himself dr. same same as Lib would say.

What difference would it make if he really was a Ph.D? I say none whatsoever. To say that nobody with a degree would act as stupid as mark is giving way to much credence to degrees in general. I have known many stupid out of touch motherfuckers with graduate degrees. Shit, Ted Kaxinski was some kind of math super genious. That didn’t make him any less nutty.

Just like roger erudition doesnt make him any less of a tool.

You’ll find no disagreement here about letters after a person’s name being no reliable indicator of idiocy.

It isn’t just the PhD thing, it’s the specific PhD he claims to have. This particular course of advanced study involves deep research into some of the topics drmark2000 has shown remarkable ignorance of. It would also introduce him to research techniques and resources which are better avenues of discovering, with more scientific rigor, the answers to the types of questions he has been asking than posts on the SDMB.

Let’s use lawyers as an example. Say someone claimed to be a laywer. If they showed ignorance of legal terms and procedures, this would cause suspiction that their claim was false. Here’s the point where Bricker is invited to post his link to the thread where he did exactly this to Beryl_Mooncalf(sic?). If this “lawyer” went on to ask questions of the SDMB membership which could be much more quickly, accurately, and definitively researched through Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis, Findlaw, or other common tools of the trade, this would cause further doubt.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Larry_Borgia]

I’ve gotta give drmark2000 credit though. He’s got another whole thread all about him almost without posting at all. I’m a little disappointed at his brief post on page 1, it kinda ruins the whole zen-like purity of the thing.

I see no reason to doubt mark has psych training. He’s certainly adept at manipulation and button-pushing. There’s no reason one can’t be trained in something and then use one’s powers for evil, rather than good.

[El_Kabong]

@Larry Borgia

I’ve gotta give drmark2000 credit though. He’s got another whole thread all about him almost without posting at all.

Well, I just wanna say he hasn’t managed yet to sucker me into posting abou…

Oh, crap.

[Crotalus]

On the PhD issue, I think I remember this becoming a matter of contention because he cited his doctorate as a basis for authority on something that was being argued. I may be remembering incorrectly.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Crotalus

Given that you weren’t even thinking of the “ignore list” thread, it’s amazing how closely that one follows your model.

Well, actually, I said:

I had in mind [three other threads] as well.

They, plus the ignore thread, plus the immortality thread, are what forms my impression of him[sup]*[/sup]. I toyed with the idea of playing a drmark-themed trivia game in which I’d quote complete posts from the five threads and challenge readers to figure out, without checking, which quote belonged with which thread.

[sup]*[/sup]Well, those and his out-of-left-field personal attack on me in the immortality thread, if I’m to admit to all possible sources of personal bias. The thread was in GD and I found his comment telling:

@drmark2000

Now, now Bryan, both you and I know that when a GD thread degrades into a spit fight (which is perfectly ok by me, by the way) the mods get their panties all in a bunch. it’s the mods; it’s not me.

I gathered from this that he’s fine with turning GD threads into fights and the mods are wrong to stop it, not him for starting it. As far as I can tell, his contribution doesn’t come close to balancing his attempts at disruption. If he gets banned, we’re better off for it.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Can’t folks just ignore him on their own? COnsidering how many responses the thread got, it certainly seemed to raise interest. I don’t agree with the guy, but then again I just tend to ignore him. Threads like that should just die a natural death if folks are so offended or bothered by them. But apprently there were plenty of folks who wanted to defend marriage and there were even a few in support of the good doctor’s position. Why would such a thread need to be closed? If there is a problem, it is that other posters feed the beast. So apparently we need the moderators to protect us from ourselves.

The thread was harmless and should not have been closed.