# TLDR; clarification, please? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108 "2006-05-25T00:32:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/41 "2006-05-25T16:58:37Z")
> [@1920's Style Death Ray](#): > > The difference between examples 1 and 2, and example 3, is that in the first two, the posters post to say they haven’t bothered to read the original post. In example 3, the poster states that he hasn’t read all of the thread, however, he has obviously read the OP and wishes to respond to it. This is a big difference, and I think you are being quite obtuse in failing to see it. I think really, you are just trying to find a pot of shit to stir. > > P.S., I disagree entirely with CKs post in that thread, it was rude and did nothing to help the situation, but it is in no way comparable to the other examples you’re giving. If you don’t like it, you should attack it on its own merits rather than trying to find some kind of double standard to jump up and down about. > Today 07:31 AM Pretty much what he said. But also note that one comment was posted in yet another mod-bashing bitchfest, and the other was posted in a thread about _someone’s mother dying._ I didn’t much care for **Dex** ’s comment in that thread either, but the context alone puts **deevee** ’s _waaaaaaaay_ out of the bounds of civilized human behavior. **Dex** was being a dick, and deserved the shit he got for it in that thread, but his post simply does not compare to **deevee** ’s. While I’m at it, I’ll add that **Revenant Threshold** was acting like a fucking putz for going on and on and on about it in the other thread. Save your mod hard-on for your own threads, and keep it out of threads about dying relatives, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/42 "2006-05-25T17:11:50Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I suspected you knew what I was talking about, which does make me wonder exactly why you started this thread. > > And don’t be dense. I didn’t say following someone’s suggestion on another board was trolling, I said what **deevee** did was trolling. Namely, posting a jerkish gimmick post in response to a dare on another website dedicated to stirring shit up here. If you don’t think that’s trolling, then I’m not sure what is. Assuming i’m allowed to say this, yes, I do think what **deevee** said was trolling, but not because it was suggested on the other board. All that fact does is help point out the trollish motivation to the rest of us; if that suggestion hadn’t been made, deevee’s response would still have been trolling. And as all suggestion from the other board does is help us understand **deevee** ’s motivation, and since following advice from another board is not breaking a rule, then it’s not a difference that should have any effect on making **C K** ’s post fine and **deevee** ’s or **SOAP** ’s not. It’s relevant only as to their motivation, not to making it any more jerkish. > [@Who\_me?](#): > > I disagree. Dex’s post contained content, the others did not. Question; at what point does that additional content make the initial tldr acceptable? Is there any difference if I make that comment and then follow it up with praises for the OP, or insults? What if I break a seperate rule, would I only be warned for the second offense? > [@Polycarp](#): > > Um. There are circumstances where it’s appropriate to post without having read the entire topic, and it then becomes a courtesy to preface your comment with such a note. Like Dex’s. If I happen to log in after a couple of days, see some controverted topic that I’m tangentially interested in is on page 5 and heading for 6, and on reading pages 1 and 5 I notice that it appears to have gotten hung up on arguing over a detail that I happen to have some useful insight in, I’ll post that insight – and note that I have not yet waded through all five pages of the topic, so forgive if the point has been made, but given the comments in posts #205-212 inclusive, it apparantly hasn’t yet. That would be understandable, I agree. But C K’s post was not a case of “Please forgive me for not reading the thread, but I would like to address this one issue, please”. It was “I haven’t read this thread and a I don’t intend to”; I see no admission that that may be a bad thing to do that’s present in your example. And his further content certainly doesn’t make it seem like he’s at all sorry about not reading the thread. > [@](#): > > Likewise, you don’t need to read 108 items of choice vitriol to get a clue what’s going on in a Pit topic. And I don’t plan to wade through whatever pushed people’s buttons about TubaDiva again (is this the Catsix episode redux?). Yep, that was about the catsix episode. No, you don’t need to read 108 items of choice vitriol to get a clue what’s going on; but if you want to say everyone in that thread on one side of an issue is a vitriolic idiot, you’d damn well better read the thread and make sure. To point out that you have not, and that you don’t intend to, but still continue to make claims based on specifics in that thread? Seems a mite unpleasant, to me. > [@](#): > > I will say this: there’s a code of conduct to which board moderators and administrators, on any board, should aspire, of fairness, equal treatment, rules evenly and justly applied tempered by mercy (you don’t bawl out the longtime member watching his wife die of cancer who happens to lose his temper – you just don’t). Within those bounds, though, they’re human. They have a right to moments of asperity, to personal hot-button issues, to a sense of loyalty. It is quite possible to push one of them to a limit where they actually show human emotions, and perhaps not the ones most highlighted on Captain Kangaroo. Quite so. I just feel that mods should have to abide by the same rules as posters, where that does not interfere with their duties. Can a member get a warning taken away by pleading provocation, or being in a mood? Yes, but it’s not going to be rescinded. So mods should be given a similar treatment. > [@](#): > > Dunno about you, but I think they’re entitled. I know that in Jen’s shoes, I’d have long since told this community what it can do with its impossibly high standard of judgment over admins., and it’s ridiculous demands, and wandered off into the sunset. I think she’s occasionally arbitrary and capricious, but overall does an excellent job – and I believe she’s entitled to be human. Again, I don’t feel that what i’m asking for is the world; just that mods and posters abide by the same rules, unless that constricts their duties. If Jen (which mod is Jen, anyway?) breaks a rule and offers a bad mood due to harsh treatment as her defense, I’d like her to be treated exactly the same as a member who does the same thing. > [@1920s Style "Death Ray"](#): > > The difference between examples 1 and 2, and example 3, is that in the first two, the posters post to say they haven’t bothered to read the original post. In example 3, the poster states that he hasn’t read all of the thread, however, he has obviously read the OP and wishes to respond to it. This is a big difference, and I think you are being quite obtuse in failing to see it. I think really, you are just trying to find a pot of shit to stir. I disagree; where does it say he’s read the OP? > [@](#): > > P.S., I disagree entirely with CKs post in that thread, it was rude and did nothing to help the situation, but it is in no way comparable to the other examples you’re giving. If you don’t like it, you should attack it on its own merits rather than trying to find some kind of double standard to jump up and down about. I did attack it on it’s own merits, in that thread. This is a seperate issue. > [@](#): > > In other words, grow up, find a spine, and debate CK directly rather than beating around the bush like this, it is distasteful. Tried that in the original thread,\*\* C K\*\* didn’t respond. Perhaps you should grow up, find a brain, and actually read the thread? I find your assumption that i’m attacking **C K** because I didn’t like that post to be distasteful myself; true, I didn’t like it. But he’s perfectly within his rights to say that in the Pit. This is a rule issue. So, thanks for calling me a trolling biased moron; I suppose at least I have the ability to fall back on my position of actually reading the threads in question, so i’m not an uninformed biased moron like yourself. > [@Miller](#): > > Pretty much what he said. But also note that one comment was posted in yet another mod-bashing bitchfest, and the other was posted in a thread about someone’s mother dying. I didn’t much care for Dex’s comment in that thread either, but the context alone puts deevee’s waaaaaaaay out of the bounds of civilized human behavior. Dex was being a dick, and deserved the shit he got for it in that thread, but his post simply does not compare to deevee’s. Well, to go with what the mods so far have said, context doesn’t change the rulebreaking nature of saying tldr. I may be wrong in this, but that’s what i’m reading from their responses. So while **deevee** and **SOAP** were definetly being more dickish, it doesn’t have an effect on whether or not they were breaking a rule. > [@](#): > > While I’m at it, I’ll add that Revenant Threshold was acting like a fucking putz for going on and on and on about it in the other thread. Save your mod hard-on for your own threads, and keep it out of threads about dying relatives, m’kay? True, that was stupid of me. I honestly didn’t think about starting another thread, or emailing a mod, and I apologise for that to\*\* Sampiro\*\* and everyone else who was insulted or annoyed by my idiotic hijacking of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/43 "2006-05-25T17:15:19Z")
[I think CK and his TLDR is a bunch of bullshit too.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=364305) If you’re gonna comment or moderate or administrate, you should at least know what the fuck it is you’re commenting or moderating or administrating on. Seems not many agree with me. Many are wrong, though. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/44 "2006-05-25T17:15:49Z")
> [@Arnold Winkelried](#): > > _UR dum_! no u ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/45 "2006-05-25T17:25:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > B. You and your sneaky mod tricks. C ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/46 "2006-05-25T19:25:34Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I see what you’re saying, but I think you’re overemphasizing the situation. While I normally couldn’t give two shits about what happens at other sites, when someone emails me a link showing without a doubt that a poster is trolling here to entertain some other board/site, that’s relevant. Just as it would be if a troll posted “hay guys im gonna troll the SDMB by pretending my mom died!” in their blog and someone found it. We don’t go digging for this stuff, but if you’re stupid enough to admit to your trolling publicly and in writing, we’re not going to ignore it either. I have no problem with the warning. I had a big problem with it’s lack of honesty. If you had made this explaination in the first place I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/47 "2006-05-25T19:31:37Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I have no problem with the warning. I had a big problem with it’s lack of honesty. If you had made this explaination in the first place I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. It’s not a “lack of honesty”. It was a simple mistake. Impugning the moderator’s personal integrity seems like a step _way_ overboard. I’m not sure what she was thinking when she posted the warning - it was crystal-clear why the post deserved a warning, and yet the warning didn’t seem to address the obvious issue at all. But she has since clarified what she meant. She expressed herself badly, the issue has been resolved. I don’t know why you imply that she was dishonest. If she was deliberately lying, what would she gain by it? You think she was rubbing her hands together and cackling with glee? Was it all part of an evil plot? Some of the moderators here engage in seriously problematic conduct. Calling this “dishonest” just hurts the credibility of those with legitimate complaints. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/48 "2006-05-25T19:59:55Z")
Look at the horse! It’s dead. A dead horse. See, here comes **Revenant Threshold** with his trusty whip. Flog that horse, RT! Lash that beast with every fibre of your being! You go! Hm. Still dead, huh? Ungrateful brute. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/49 "2006-05-25T20:39:05Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I have no problem with the warning. I had a big problem with it’s lack of honesty. If you had made this explaination in the first place I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. I actually don’t know if **TVeblen** knew about the situation with the other board when she gave **deevee** the warning. I’m giving the whole story here to counter **Revenant** ’s “aw shucks, are all acronyms illegal now?!” stupidity. Otherwise, I’d have just let it drop, secure in the knowledge that **Veb** ’s warning was doubly right. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/50 "2006-05-25T21:16:34Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’m giving the whole story here to counter **Revenant** ’s “aw shucks, are all acronyms illegal now?!” stupidity. Uhm, actually it’s been my position that **deevee** and **SOAP** were wrong, and deserved their admonishments, and i’ve said so. SOAP’s and C K’s replies weren’t even acronyms. I’m very confused as to where this characterisation has come from. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/51 "2006-05-25T21:18:56Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Look at the horse! > > It’s dead. A dead horse. > > See, here comes **Revenant Threshold** with his trusty whip. > > Flog that horse, RT! Lash that beast with every fibre of your being! You go! > > Hm. > > Still dead, huh? > > Ungrateful brute. What’s the horse in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/52 "2006-05-25T21:30:54Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Uhm, actually it’s been my position that **deevee** and **SOAP** were wrong, and deserved their admonishments, and i’ve said so. SOAP’s and C K’s replies weren’t even acronyms. I’m very confused as to where this characterisation has come from. Maybe it was [this:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7413012&postcount=22) > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > What part of it is jerkish? Just wanting to clarify exactly what deevee’s being warned for here, since i’m sure a reply of an acronym has been done before. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I skimmed deevee’s posts (only 22 pages of them) and could find no times when he/she has replied solely with an acronym. Followed by the OP of this thread: > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Is it simply a case of “tldr” only being jerkish if that’s the only thing you post? I disagree; for one thing, that interpretation of the rules only works if the rest of the post isn’t jerkish, and also I don’t believe there are any other “jerkish” behaviours which are diluted by further posting. Considering you’ve known all along about **deevee** ’s motivation for posting what he/she did, I find your dogged pursuit of “clarification” on this in both threads a bit disingenuous. It feels to me like you’re trying to create an issue out of something, not like you’re simply trying to understand the rules so you can be a happier, better poster. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/53 "2006-05-25T21:43:05Z")
The first quote; i’m asking what part of what deevee/SOAP said was jerkish, not questioning whether it was jerkish at all - hence the whole “just want to clarify exactly what deevee’s being warned for here”. I was looking for the rule broken. Second; was in reply to **Otto** ’s post suggesting the reason for the admonishment might be that deevee had replied solely with an acronym before; I pointed out how that wasn’t so. **TVeblen** later apologised for his/her post being unclear as to this. Third; Not really seeing why you brought that one up, actually. Both **SOAP** ’s and **C K** ’s posts weren’t acronyms, so clearly i’m not shocked that only the acronym “tldr” is bad. > [@](#): > > Considering you’ve known all along about deevee’s motivation for posting what he/she did, I find your dogged pursuit of “clarification” on this in both threads a bit disingenuous. It feels to me like you’re trying to create an issue out of something, not like you’re simply trying to understand the rules so you can be a happier, better poster. I’ll say it again (and hope this is ok to say); yes, I agree **deevee** was being trollish. Yes, I think that the suggestion on the other site was the motivation for their and probably **SOAP** ’s posts. However, had they not had that motivation, they’d still be warned - right? Or wrong? I’m unsure. I honestly am trying to find out what’s acceptable and what isn’t, here. So far, it seems that a post like this; > [@](#): > > tldr is not acceptable, but > [@](#): > > tldr > > You’re an idiot, and I don’t respect your position on this topic at all. _is_. Am I right or wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/54 "2006-05-25T22:01:40Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I’ll say it again (and hope this is ok to say); yes, I agree **deevee** was being trollish. Yes, I think that the suggestion on the other site was the motivation for their and probably **SOAP** ’s posts. However, had they not had that motivation, they’d still be warned - right? Or wrong? I’m unsure. > > I honestly am trying to find out what’s acceptable and what isn’t, here. Yes, both still would have been warned. The link to the other site was just the icing on the jerk cake. As for ‘tldr’ vs. ‘tldr, because it was boring’, we don’t have a quantitative, catchall rule for this, and we’re not going to – that’s why we have moderators. There are many cases where commenting solely on the length/readability of someone’s OP is fine (although I imagine we’ll always take a dim view of ‘tldr/lol/omg’-only responses). It depends on the thread and how you do it. In a thread about someone’s _dying mother_, we’re going to have a lot less patience for people coming in only to say “booooooorrrrrrrrring!” than in a thread about getting cut off in traffic. It’s not an issue of the number of characters or words in a post, it’s the message and the context. I’m not going to give you a magic rule for how to be an asshole and not get in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/55 "2006-05-25T22:03:45Z")
God damn it this is the second time I tried to submit this, last the hamsters ate it. Rev you are a fucking moron. I have posted tldr since the warning and giraffe posted right after me and ignored it. Excalibre posted a “No u” and was not admonished. Are you really so stupid you can’t figure out why devee and SOAP got in trouble. It has since been explained more than once. Your “aw shucks, I just want to clarify” ain’t foolin anybody. You are being a whiny prick. The last submission was more elequent and irate I promise, consider this an outline for my post that the hamsters ate. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/56 "2006-05-25T22:07:27Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’m not going to give you a magic rule for how to be an asshole and not get in trouble. It’s mystifying, because **Revenant Threshold** has _never_ been an asshole that I’m aware of. She just has a bug up her ass about the moderation. _shrug_ ---
**Author:** ![SpaceDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spacedog/32/9932_2.png) [@SpaceDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpaceDog)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/57 "2006-05-25T22:09:07Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I see what you’re saying, but I think you’re overemphasizing the situation. While I normally couldn’t give two shits about what happens at other sites, when someone emails me a link showing without a doubt that a poster is trolling here to entertain some other board/site, that’s relevant. Just as it would be if a troll posted “hay guys im gonna troll the SDMB by pretending my mom died!” in their blog and someone found it. We don’t go digging for this stuff, but if you’re stupid enough to admit to your trolling publicly and in writing, we’re not going to ignore it either. For what it’s worth I think I jerked my knee a bit far there, sorry. I’m glad you can see the potential problem, but on reflection I see the mods point in this case and it was right, the posts were jerkish regardless of whether or not they were prompted from elsewhere. As for the rest of the thread, I think various people have made their point and I doubt anyones opinions going to be changed by this but have at it. Just don’t make it too long – or I’ll not read it. SD ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/58 "2006-05-25T22:11:09Z")
> [@SpaceDog](#): > > As for the rest of the thread, I think various people have made their point and I doubt anyones opinions going to be changed by this but have at it. Just don’t make it too long – or I’ll not read it. OK, I’ll admit it – I laughed. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/59 "2006-05-26T02:27:46Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > It’s not a “lack of honesty”. It was a simple mistake. Impugning the moderator’s personal integrity seems like a step _way_ overboard. I’m not sure what she was thinking when she posted the warning - it was crystal-clear why the post deserved a warning, and yet the warning didn’t seem to address the obvious issue at all. But she has since clarified what she meant. She expressed herself badly, the issue has been resolved. > > I don’t know why you imply that she was dishonest. If she was deliberately lying, what would she gain by it? You think she was rubbing her hands together and cackling with glee? Was it all part of an evil plot? > > Some of the moderators here engage in seriously problematic conduct. Calling this “dishonest” just hurts the credibility of those with legitimate complaints. If the Mod in question were to say they didn’t know about the comments elsewhere I would have no reason to call them I liar. So far that hasn’t happened. The lack of honesty I sensed was not a lie and I never said it was. I meant a lack of honesty as in not telling the whole truth. I find it hard to believe that the comments on the other site had nothing to do with the warning. I have no problem with the warning but the entire reason should have been given. Quite frankly I thought it wouldn’t be addressed at all. I’m glad **Giraffe** came here and gave the entire truth. > [@Giraffe](#): > > I actually don’t know if TVeblen knew about the situation with the other board when she gave deevee the warning. I’m giving the whole story here to counter Revenant’s “aw shucks, are all acronyms illegal now?!” stupidity. Otherwise, I’d have just let it drop, secure in the knowledge that Veb’s warning was doubly right. I’ll have to take your word for it since **TVeblen** hasn’t come in here but I do appreciate your honesty. Case closed in my opinion. I’ll hand my bat off to someone else, I think this hind leg can be beaten a little more. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108/60 "2006-05-26T03:28:55Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > If the Mod in question were to say they didn’t know about the comments elsewhere I would have no reason to call them I liar. So far that hasn’t happened. The lack of honesty I sensed was not a lie and I never said it was. I meant a lack of honesty as in not telling the whole truth. I find it hard to believe that the comments on the other site had nothing to do with the warning. I have no problem with the warning but the entire reason should have been given. Quite frankly I thought it wouldn’t be addressed at all. I’m glad **Giraffe** came here and gave the entire truth. > > I’ll have to take your word for it since **TVeblen** hasn’t come in here but I do appreciate your honesty. Case closed in my opinion. I’ll hand my bat off to someone else, I think this hind leg can be beaten a little more. Apologies for my absence in this thread. I was out of town on vacation this week and didn’t have online access. Just got back tonight so I wasn’t deliberately ignoring you or this thread, **Loach**. I did a lousy job of explaining my warning in that thread. I was rushed with last-minute packing, etc. and should have left it **fluiddruid** or **Giraffe** to field. The post was reported as a possible problem. When I read it, it seemed like a no-brainer. I rushed through the initial explanation but the acronym was just a symptom, not the core problem: barging into a thread just to stay it wasn’t worth reading is obnoxious behavior. Most posters skip threads that don’t interest them. It’s pointlessly nasty to hijack a thread just to announce, “Hey, lookit _me, me, me_! I didn’t read this because I knew I wouldn’t like it!” Annoying as hell for other posters, y’know? Immediate feedback from posters made it clear that I _hadn’t_ been clear so I zipped off an apology and a clarification. I didn’t figure out the dare-ya-to-troll thing until a poster alerted me about it. It was a bizarre little riff, but nothing more, and it came well after I’d already warned **deevee**. Anyway, it was a valuable reminder to me to be clearer in explanations. The initial hijack seemed so obviously jerkish to me, even without knowing the extraneous stuff (and it _was_ extraneous), that I didn’t take enough time to consider a hasty warning wouldn’t be equally clear to others. Clumsily done but not dire, supersecret prejudices or anything.\* \*I am being facetious here, though it cracked me up to dump the whole mess in Giraffe’s lap with an equally hasty e-mail and a hearty “Good luck with THIS one!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tldr-clarification-please/358108.md?page=4)