…Meanwhile, an actual anti-Semite conspiracy theorist shows up in the thread and you’re busy pitting Tom for pointing out that your off-topic sniping was off topic and snipe-y. 
Well, if Der Trihs starts a thread to complain about something tom did, he’ll get the same scrutiny.
That’s true.
Shouldn’t it be “Tomndebb are lame”? Just clarifying…
Debb’s not here, man…
If that handle really is short for “tom and debb”. However, as far as I can see, there’s only one person behind the handle, presumably someone called “Tom”. Is there a Debb out there somewhere as well, perhaps no longer sharing the handle with Tom? (There may be a story here well-known to people who’ve been on this board longer than I have.)
That is exactly the point. We should know why you’re pitting somebody by the time we get to the end of the OP, and following your link to the thread in question should just be out of prurient interest. If I get to the end of an OP and I have no idea what the person’s ranting about, I just assume it’s a joke thread.
So, good one!
Typically, Der Trihs fails to actually hijack threads. Most posters read his stuff, see the boilerplate condemnations rooted in a set of inflexible assertions, see the byline “Der Trihs,” shrug their shoulders, and move on.
As such, his rants are not really disruptive to the board. A newer poster throwing a misplaced comparison into a thread is much more likely to invite correction from a larger number of posters, (with counterclaims by still other posters), leading to trainwrecks. (This is what happened with lekatt, who could have been a harmless drive-by had most posters simply ignored his sillier claims.)
As a person, I would like to support justice at all costs.
As a Mod, I am interested in order, not justice. For one thing, my sense of justice would very likely run counter to the views of many others, which would result in even more destroyed threads.
The SDMB survives because we maintain order and it has not turned into a chaotic screaming match, not because every idea from every poster is treated as a new blossom to be treasured. No poster is deprived of life, liberty, or property by having certain comments or language restrained, so I am willing to sacrifice some justice for order that I would not be willing to sacrifice in the real world. To a certain extent, the SDMB has lessened in quality and value as certain perspectives have been driven from the boards. I have made some limited efforts to prevent that–not all successful–but I suspect that a ruthless attempt to enforce (my view of) civility would have the same damaging effect from the opposite direction.
In any given case, who determines that a post should be allowed to go unchallenged when there are many posters who view it as ridiculous?
Hijacks tend to be unavoidable in free-ranging discussions. There are, however, two types of hijack: what I call organic hijacks and what I call disruptive hijacks. An organic hijack occurs when a poster challenges or seeks clarification on a specific point, (typically relevant to the discussion) , and one or more posters chip in with their own facts or opinions. A disruptive hijack occurs when someone either makes a big deal of claiming the thread is pointless because the OP is lacking validity or simply posts something so outrageous and off-topic as to evoke further off-topic resposes from other posters. I tend to leave organic hijacks alone. They arose from the discussion, contribute to a fuller understanding of the central point of the thread, are often more interesting than the OP, and are generally fun. I tend to try to shut down disruptive hijacks because they are irrelevant to the discussion, they contribute little or nothing to fuller understanding, and they tend to turn people away from participating.
We are relying on my judgment for which hijacks are organic or disruptive and I will not pretend to have a perfect record judging them, but I think I do a decent job.
It may not be fair to permit one poster to interrupt a discussion of evolutionary theory by an appeal to the work of E. O. Wilson while preventing another poster from interrupting the same discussion by an appeal to Genesis or by claiming that it is “just a theory.” Each poster has the nominal “right” to post their thoughts. However, the second poster’s actions are going to reduce order on the SDMB, making the board less likely to survive.
Der Trihs is sufficiently ignored that he does not fall into the disruptive category at this time. lekatt, whose views provide something of a counterweight (or counterweightlessness) to Der Trihs, did fall into the disruptive category. It is probably not fair to put restrictions on lekatt’s posts that are not applied to those of Der Trihs, but it will not make it more fair to do the same thing to Der Trihs, (and then to Elucidator, and then to Shodan, . . .)*. I prefer to interfere as sparingly as possible.
- These are two (of many) posters of whom I see frequent complaints that they are threadshitting or posting hijacks, although I do not see that many hijacks originating from their posting. This should not be construed as a comment on the quality of either poster, just on the perceptions that some posters voice about them.
I’m with our kindly moderator on this one. I don’t think tom of tomndebb is lame.
I think the OP had hurt feelings, resulting in this very odd pitting.
I’ve read that what causes mosquitoes’ bites to itch is a numbing agent they produce, and that bites itch most if the feeding is interrupted before the mosquito finishes her drink. More of the numbing agent is left in the skin then, and the swelling and itching are more severe.
That’s my guess as to the OP’s meaning.
Tom, that was a thoughtful response. Thanks.
Holy turd on a crumpet. You’re a fascist moderator? Except as regards Der Trihs, Elucidator and Shodan? Really? That’s your criteria? Really? You prefer order over justice? I was wondering why I was reacting so much to this, and you’re right, it’s asinine, arbitrary and an abuse. And it was entirely unnecessary. The discussion required that it be pointed out the old Pearl Harbor thing was crap, debunked many times over, point out who was producing the particular crap, why they produced it and that they are producing it now as an agitprop cover up for Bush’s 9/11 failure to heed warnings except as to John Ashcroft not getting on public flights, etc. You seem to miss the point as to why people (righties in particular) have trotted out Pearl Harbor and FDR’s supposed complicity. My post was a bit tu quoquo, but that ain’t against a SDMB rule by any stretch. The only thing off kilter about the original article as compared to the usual accusation was the author was openly anti-Semitic.
Order over justice is neither. Justice itself is orderly. Order for its own sake is arbitrary and essentially contrary to human nature.
And since you are not two people, I withdraw two of the four buttcheeks.
Now that’s an A for effort and content. Now I know how Charles Dogdson’s ghost feels about all that annotation. Not that I deserve such a comparison.
I don’t often agree with brazil84 on political questions, but IMO he called this one precisely correctly. It would be entirely legitimate to draw parallels between the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, in terms of what a President and his intelligence community might reasonably be expected to know about a generalized threat from an inimical group or power, what specific evidence might make him/them culpable of failing to prevent the actual attack which historically happened, and the state of (lack of) such specific evidence.
Such a post, however, was not what the OP here actually posted, and the post he did make comprises a partisan political rant that was out of place in that thread. That I happen to agree that Mr. Bush is in general incompetent is irrelevant to the inappropriateness of that post. And the Crystal/Palance side comment was just OTT, whatever its purposes may have been.
But it is necessary for well run message boards.
Here I thought I’d wander into the thread and see some fine smack down on ole Tom (not that I have anything against him, mind). No such luck though (ok…I’m militantly unsurprised). These thread never seem to work out well for the OP. Sorry (well, not really), but Tom was completely correct on this.
I have to agree with Bryan Ekers here was well:
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! Thanks for playing! If you will see the girl behind the curtain we have some top shelf parting gifts for you…including this fine ceramic dog! as well as the non-players addition of the SDMB…
-XT
Well, to the extent that the moderators are accountable to the Reader for the performance of their functions, it is order, and not justice, that they are charged with maintaining.
Where in the blog entry did you find anything to support the assertion that its purpose was to insulate the Bush43 White House from criticism of any kind?
Lastly: Dude, why did it take you five days to complain about it? I mean, I’m not arguing for a statute of limitations or anything, but, it’s not like you were away from the boards in the interim.
None of which was really required for that discussion and none of which was actually provided by your barely coherent interruption.
You have already declined to open a thread to actually discuss your odd assertions, indicating pretty clearly, to me, (along with the further rant following the portion of your post I quoted, here), that I was correct that your primary, perhaps sole, purpose was to make one more cheap shot about G W Bush that would probably have the effect of turning an actual discussion into a trainwreck.
If you lack the constitutional fortitude to open your own thread to propose and defend your thesis, you should probably quit whining about how I was so mean to you for urging you not to hijack the other.
Have a nice day.
Lame! If you were a jackboots on the face kind of Mod you’d tell him to go fuck himself with a rusty, blunt spoon! Then you’d kick his puppy and send him on his way! Or, um, something…
-XT