So you think you’ve got an inherent right to use the Chicago Reader’s property in any damn way you see fit, regardless of what they say?
There’s no need for surrender. This isn’t a war, it’s a friggin’ message board.
Hell, I’ve been here for over a year to the tune of 2600 or so posts. In that time, I think I’ve said about 12 relavent or intelligent things, and I’ve not been banned. I don’t think I’ve ever even been warned by a moderator. Ferchrisakes, I’ve never even had a Pit Thread dedicated to me.
This is rocket science.
It doesn’t matter what you “feel,” snookums, provided you have your head fully removed from your ass in the future.
Clare,
maybe we should start an “outcasts” thread somewhere in a forgotten corner of the SDMB.
A kind of “Lepers Colony” where normal folks daren’t venture for fear of catching a disease.
…yikes, ducks for cover…
You’re bloody lucky, Jack!
Blowing a kiss at someone got me into trouble on here!
With the ego-inflated moderators and their sycophantic clique.
. . . and we’re having trouble with reading comprehension as well.
John Corrado said:
Put the hard-ons you have for the moderators back into your pants, kids.
Oh, gee. Sorry, I’m just a sycophant. :rolleyes:
Clare, in case you couldn’t be bothered to check the link, the forum description for GQ is:
Do you understand how the threads you started do not fall under the heading of factual questions?
Wouldn’t
be better written as “inflated-ego moderators?”
As is, all I can think of is Manhattan with a tube pumping fluid into him from a big tank labeled “ego.”
[sub]Doing my best to nitpick asinine complaints the world over[/sub]
Right, you did no wrong. :rolleyes:
This thread was closed because your “general question” as it was, had been answered (although the OP itelf had no general question). Although, wishbone’s e-mail is available at the bottom of his posts, you chose to call him out in the GQ forum.
You followed that up with this thread, also posted in GQ. Again, it was personal conversation between you and wishbone and contained no general question.
Finally, this one, AGAIN in GQ, although it AGAIN has no general question.
The forum descriptions page has been made available in above posts in this very thread, if you hadn’t read it when you joined.
Now, stop and separate yourself from the situation. Think back about what you did. GQ is not the place for light-heartednes, MPSIMS is. GQ is not the place for rants and venting your spleen, The Pit is. A Public Message Board is not the place for personal conversations between two people, e-mail is. See how simple this is?
Yet you still consider yourself blameless, although you broke the basic and easily understandable rules for the forum you were posting in.
I’m confused. Since you broke the rules, how do you not consider yourself at fault?
No actually I think ego-inflated was more correct than inflated-ego within the context.
In this sentence the object (the ego) is of more importance than the subject (the inflation thereof).
Therefore the object should appear first since that is what the speaker wished to emphasise.
Ego-Inflated Moderators and their Sycophantic Clique would make a hell of a good band name.
Now that you’ve mildly amused me, Clare, go the fuck away and whine somewhere else.
Jeez, a guy tries to make a body feel to home …
You don’t get it. You don’t stir the shit and you don’t get stinky. This is a simple concept despite how your attacking it.
Ooops, wait a minute I have a message coming in from Manhattan
… what’s that? … uh-huh … ok … ok … yes boss … no, no you’re absolutely right … what ever you say … yes sir, right away.
Clare I apologize for being a flippant smart ass. Welcome aboard and I look forward to your many stimulating additions to this fine board. Why I’m sure The Chicago Reader’s stock will rise simply due to your presence.
The whole thing modifies “moderators.” Therefore, “inflated-ego” describes the (hypothetical) state of the moderators, whereas “ego-inflated” implies that they are being inflated by their egos–not that their egos are inflated (which I believe to be the whiner’s intent).
“The inflated-ego moderators” does not make as much sense, in English, as the “ego-inflated moderators”.
If one were to use the former term then the hyphen would not be necessary.
The hyphen would only appear if you were using the latter phrase.
The meaning of the speaker was that the moderators were inflated by their egos thus they were ego-inflated not “inflated-ego” - this doesn’t make sense!
(I can’t believe I’m about to post this)
I agree with xanakis on this. The phrase “ego-inflated” works better than “inflated-ego.” Like the phrase “air-filled balloon” you wouldn’t say “filled-air balloon.”
Well, I thought that the meaning of the OW (Original Whiner) was that the moderaters had inflated egos, not that they were being inflated by their egos. In general, people speak of egos being inflated…
Now, I don’t deny that “ego-inflated” has a better ring to it; it just doesn’t seem right to me. Also, I can’t get the image of bloated mods (a la Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) out of my head.
Band name? Hell, we’re well on the way to a song!
And the dreep, dreep, dreep,
Of their Syco-phantic Clique,
Had them shootin’ penicillin,
'tween their ears.
Ok, I think it’s a matter of intent, though. “Air-filled” describes something that is filled with (or by) air. Likewise, “ego-inflated” describes something that is inflated with or by ego. Now, if that’s your intent, all is well and good. It’s just that–in my experience–people usually refer to the ego being inflated.
So Clare: which is it?
Ah, see, more trouble caused by the OW. It’s all her fault! Of course, she’ll fail to see that though, as I gather she’s not responsible for her actions. It’s all the mods’ and sycophants’ fault that she repeatedly posted in the wrong forum, but I digress.
Myrr, let’s never let a whiner like Clare come between us again.
Clare Ashworth said:
There’s disagreeing with a moderator, and disagreeing with a moderator. If they’re posting as a member, and you disagree, then the same rules apply that apply to everyone else. If they’re posting as a moderator (i.e. discussing the rules or behavior), then it’s a little trickier. Why? Because they are the judges here. It’s one thing to disagree and provide a logical argument. It’s another to whine “You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong”. Similarly, refusing to drop the issue after the official decision has been made is bad. It’s like in court. If you disagree with the judge on a decision, he may hear you out, but then at some point his decision is final. If you continue to argue, you will be slapped with contempt charges - leading to fines and even jail time. Now our moderators are the judges here, and at some point they make a decision and it is final. And if you won’t drop the topic, they whip out punishment. Of course they can’t fine you or have you hauled off to jail, but they do have one punishment at their disposal - banning.
Which is not to say they ban everyone who disagrees. But realize there are ways to do things. First, the boards are not really the best way to tackle the problem. If you must post, then follow the forum descriptions and post in The BBQ Pit. But really the resolution of problems is handled by email. And not by whining, but by providing information and logical arguments and evidence why the decision was inappropriate.
And no, the moderators here are not facists or NAZIs or evil egomaniacal maniacs with delusions of godhood and squads of ass-kissers. They’re just reasonable people trying to keep the board running smoothly, keep posters following the rules, and enforcing those rules.
Ultrafilter could care less if you want to flirt or not. Notice he didn’t flirt with you. He was explaining what you did wrong. You’re the one making it about flirting. What you did wrong was post a personal comment to another poster in General Questions, which as has been explained is the forum intended for factual questions, not personal comments and casual witticisms and flirting. For that, see Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share.
No, he is hoping you will read the forum descriptions and actually obey them like everyone here is expected to, instead of disregarding them like you appear to think you’re allowed to do.
Pardon? Where does that come from? Manhattan was “acting like a control freak” by doing his job as moderator, and correcting you on your repeated errors. Can you not see that as moderator, his job is to close threads in GQ that are not General Questions? His job as moderator is to explain to posters when they make errors. Suddenly he’s a control freak because you have made the same error three times in a row and been instructed twice before on the same point?
Nope. First, notice how you’re still here? I guess you’re not such a good prognosticator. As for why you would be banned, it most definitely wouldn’t be for telling the truth. It might be for refusing to follow the rules.
Here’s a helpful hint: try reading the board for a while before you post again. Look up a half a dozen threads in each forum, get a feel for what goes on in which forum, for how people here act, etc. Then maybe you’ll understand what we’re talking about when we say “These types of questions don’t belong in this forum.” And if you have questions about the forums or what behavior is allowed, ask in About This Message Board.
And don’t go accusing the moderators when you’ve been here, what, 2 days and posted all of 14 posts? (I note your registration date is May 2001. Don’t know what that means - you’ve been too busy to check in? You lurk a lot? If the latter, I would think you would know the rules by now.)