I said only that Hamlet was wrong, and explained why too. That’s what we do in GD. If we can’t do that without a personal attack being imputed, it might as well be the Pit.
Those other terms are entirely your own inventions, your own imaginings, and under the circumstances constitute intentional misquoting for the purpose of misrepresentation - even if they might have made you feel good for a moment. The following comment
is particularly ironic, especially due to your refusal to address the use of the word “braindead” which had induced me to report an earlier post.
As a moderator, you have an obligation to attempt to be objective and honest in your evaluations. Your long history of letting personal animosities govern your actions show that you perhaps need to take a break here. Your credibility depends on a reputation for mature judgment which is, regrettably, nowhere evident in that thread.
Perhaps, short of taking a vacation and trying some outside life for awhile, you could at least consider recusing yourself from ruling on matters involving posters for whom you have a known animosity? I have reported your own post quoted here, as I have had to report others of yours in the past, even recognizing that it puts you in the comical position of ruling on your own behavior.
An improvement to the board’s administrative procedures might be to close that loophole, so that reported posts made by a staff member are ruled upon by someone other than that very poster. Lynn, is that a reasonable suggestion?
**Tom **does not understand the meaning of “recusal.” Please drop this subject–it has been raised before and bashed against the foreheads of those who’ve tried introducing this difficult concept to Tom.
Different mods have different styles. On this point he might be less than perfect but on the whole he’s one of the more reasonable and evenhanded mods out there. (Not that I have a problem with any of them, truthfully)
As with almost all complaints or issues though I wonder why any of it’s a big deal. In the end it’s just a message board. I do support your right to address your greivances, don’t get me wrong…it just seems that in the grand scheme of things there’s other battles more worth fighting, both here and in the real world.
Classic threadshit. Classic SD kiss-ass. Classic “Did I really just re-open this thread to find out that someone in the world doesn’t think the OP contains vital, earthshattering information and may well disagree with certain unspecific points that the OP implies”?
What? It’s at times like this I really wish I had a spare $1,000.
I read the relevant part of the linked thread, and while I agree Tom’s comment was perhaps a little heavy-handed, no warning was issued, so why worry about it? Just don’t stray so close to the line next time.
First, the adjective “braindead” was applied to the noun “opinions,” not the name “ElvisL1ves,” which is an attack on the argument, not the person. (Very much the way that your attack would have passed muster if it had not wandered into the realm of potentially calling another poster dishonest, which is already a thorny issue in Great Debates.
As to the context, you are shifting the goalposts. Your claim was that the other poster could not, in this instance, deny an evident truth which clearly implies that on the other occasions that poster had denied an evident truth. And this was based on a debatable claim that you insist was not debatable. It also followed several earlier posts in which your comments were far more personal than necessary for the discussion–as were some of his.
My post indicated only that the two of you were both getting too personal in the discussion and that you should back off on the personal comments in that thread. (Even if you believe that your point could not be debated, taking a swipe at another poster, at a point where the two of you were not directly engaged, definitely qualifies as making the fight personal.)
Classic PRR. Stand behind a wall of strawmen throwing ad hominem attacks at anyone who dares offer an alternate perspective. It’s a good thing they don’t ban posters for intellectual dishonesty or we’d have been rid of him long ago.
picker, while I appreciate that your comments could be construed as an oblique defense of my actions, I really don’t think we want to turn this into a Pit thread on other posters.
Fair enough. That was the intention of my first post, along with a general statement regarding a tendency on the part of some posters to grossly overreact to perceived slights.
PRR’s reaction to my post illustrated my point admirably and my response was intended to point this out. You are correct however and I shall refrain from further comment.
I have not participated in that thread except as a moderator and have expressed no opinions on the topic. My only posts have been to admonish both sides in a minor exchange of frayed tempers. Recusal has no relevance in this context.
Please.:rolleyes: If that distinction mattered, then “lying” would still be OK but “liar” would not.
“Potential” conduct is a thorny issue? Isn’t there enough trouble with real conduct?
“Potentially”, that is?
Which, if you’d actually read the thread instead of looking for a Gotcha, you’d have seen was actually the case, not “implied”.
If you really think that a prisoner taken in a war is not a prisoner of war, kindly say so in the applicable thread for the appropriate discussion, instead of using it as a threadbare excuse for personal sniping.
Would you care to say where I’ve made a personal comment beyond simply calling someone else’s argument wrong? I’ve asked before, you haven’t, and the conclusion is getting inescapable.
It would have been if I had done so in fact, instead of merely “potentially”.
To reject prr’s advice and try to explain a point that has obviously not gotten across: The policy of recusal I suggest refers to your moderating actions, not your posting in threads. Hamlet, are you sure you want your own conduct to receive more attention than it already has?
I’m truly enjoying the laugh I’m getting at your expense with this thread. You spent that thread accusing me of being eager to “denigrate and ignore the law”, of being “dangerous”, of disdaining the law, doing nothing more than “handwringing”, and then, when you take one last of your idiotic potshots and FINALLY get called on it, you come whining and crying here.
But to top it all off, what REALLY makes me laugh, is that the entire time you have absolutely no clue about the points I made in that and other threads, and have to resort to simply misrepresenting my posts in an effort to gain some imaginary reason to try and insult me. And now you come here to complain about some imagined unfairness. It brought a smile to my face.
This thread has drifted from a complaint about Tomndebb to posters slapping at one another. Should I move it to the Pit so y’all can really go at one another or close it and you can take your disagreement elsewhere?
You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.
If you like, I could take a half hearted slap at tom for letting Elvis get away with his crap and instead chastizing me.
But I’d much rather drift away to Semisonic:
Closing time - time for you to go out, go out into the world.
Closing time - turn the lights up over every boy and every girl.
Closing time - one last call for alcohol, so finish your whiskey or beer.
Closing time - you don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.
If it’ll get it back on track, I’d like to note that as a mod, I hated when the last person to post before I made a general “knock it off” post took it as a personal insult specifically directed at them. The sort of insult that would make them sing:
I woke up in a Mexican whorehouse,
'Cross the street from a Catholic church.
I wiped off my revolver,
and buttoned up my burgundy shirt.
Shouldn’t “knock it off” posts be directed specifically at the offenders by name? That way the intervening posters don’t mistakenly think the mods are addressing them. It’s not a good idea to post general “knock it off” posts especially if one debater in an argument has broken a rule and the others haven’t – although there may be contention on both or all sides.
(BTW, I always thought the “Tweet!” of the referee’s whistle was a good attention-getting devise without a lot of muscle-flexing.)
I didn’t take tom’s comments to be a personal insult, merely a reminder that I needed to tone down my rhetoric, which was absolutely true. But it was aimed solely at me, quoting mine words, and nary a mention of Elvis or his actions. But, again, it wasn’t a big deal at all, if it was, I would probably sing:
"The morn’ that I was born my old man beat up the doctor
He clocked the doctor cause the doctor said I looked like Chewbacca
The doctor said sir you’re misled sir which infers you mistook me
I did not mean your lovely wife was shackin’ up with a wookie
What I mean is Wolverine is less hairy than your son
He’s looks like Chewie Baba Booey Baba Booey and Hong Kong Phooey all in one
To put it mild your new-born child’s completely nutty fu-fu lookin’
I’d shove him back into the oven until he is done cookin’ But why’s everbody always pickin’ on me?
Somehow I have a problem picturing you in that situation. I always thought it would be a Costa Rican whorehouse, 'cross from a Pentacostal church with you wiping off a machete and buttoning up your navy blue skort. Such is the internet.
