Circling round and round the same argument over and over again is worthless? What kind of a doper are you? 
And thanks but no. I’ve already got one. Cheers.
Lest anyone misinterpret my intent here, I’m not at all arguing that UncleBeer be reprimanded in any way. In fact, I think the whole elevation of accusations of trolling to the status of that-which-shall-not-be-mentioned is silly and odd. I’m just trying to counter Scylla’s pathetic attempt to score some kind of politics-of-the-SDMB point by having Elvis unjustly reprimanded. I saw it the same way as Harborwolf.
And let’s face it - this thread never started out as any sort of meaningful discussion. In fact, it hasn’t really changed at all. It’s been Scylla’s whine that he has been wronged the whole time. Only the subject changes - rjung, ElvisL1ves, whoever’s next…
Word is Charybdis left him for another sea monster. Pitting to follow.
It’s a double entendre. I didn’t think I would have to explain that words can have more than one meaning in a sentence.
You see, I was called “friend, Scylla.” Unclebeer commented about the friend friend, Scylla “hivespeak.” Somebody else asks why the thread is on page two. Unclebeer says “Scylla Chummed the lefties.” You see, it is both a clever play on his the previous post “friend, Scylla.” and a comment on the action of the lefties, suggesting that they may say “friend,” but act like sharks. Double entendre. Two meanings at once.
Not really all that difficult to understand.
Chummed. Chumming. I wasn’t exactly quoting, but it makes no difference.
[/quote]
Well, you put it in quotes. If you weren’t exactly quoting, what exactly were you doing?
[quote)“Befriended” the lefties makes no sense at all in this context, whereas “threw bait in the water to rile up” the lefties makes perfect sense.[/quote]
No, but I am “chum” to the lefties in both the “friend, Scylla” sense and that they behave like sharks (in the context of Unclebeer’s post.)
Did you not see the previous post by Unclebeer?
No. I’ve been laboriously trying to explain the other half of the double entendre.
Is the concept I’m explaining really so complex that it is beyond your grasp and you assume I’m being disingenuous? I know you’re not that dumb. Did you simply miss the “friend, Scylla” exchange Unclebeer had just earlier?
It should be easy in your imaginary world.
Not even close. Any reasonable impartial casual observor would conclude that Unclebeer was not accusing me of trolling. That same observer would reasonably conclude that Elvis was.
A competant moderator would see that, and, without having to be told, would take appropriate action, likely warning Elvis.
You neglected to do that. You neglected to do that when it was pointed out to you. You’re willfully negligent. You do not treat me with respect so I see no reason to accord you any as you’re both rude and incompetant.
With all this talk of chumming, perhaps UncleBeer is Glaucus the fisherman.
Shit on a fucking hickory stick! Unclebeer wasn’t fucking accusing Scylla of fucking trolling in the message board sense, he meant Scylla threw the lefties some meat to chew on. As in, “check this out and comment” not " I am just trolling this board."
Fucking shit!! Fucking Og, this board is jumping the fucking shark with all this pedantic elitist bullshit, perceived trolling, veiled references, and plain moronic crap.
Whine whine whinge. It’s turning into sixth fucking grade.
Og, I miss Wildest Bill and JDT, at least they were for “real”.
Fucko off.
I’d like to see proof that you are impartial and reasonable please.
And in case you missed it, reasonable (Hamlet) and impartial (yours truly) already discussed this and found it to be inconclusive. Beers were had and the issue was settled. If you wish to keep this up, get on down wit ya bad self, but no beer for you.
Not that I’ve made the claim and must back it up, but I’m curious. What would you consider satisfactory evidence?
Perhaps you could just show me what constitutes satisfactory proof by offering it in terms of the claims you make for Hamlet and yourself that I may emulate them.
So, if I stop posting to this thread on that specific issue you’re saying you’ll give me beer? How many, what brand?
There really is no amount of proof that would be sufficient. Your posts to Ike are far from reasonable and I would imagine that impartiality would be impossible since you are, for all intents and purposes, the subject of the claims. Evidence for that would be that you went for the most personally offensive interpretation of Elvis’ post.
I would imagine that since the mods have not responded to your requests (you did use the report post function, right?) that they have reached the same conclusion as Hamlet and myself. That or all of the mods have a grudge against you and are remaining silent just to bug you.
Not sure. The initial offer was Hamlet’s. You’d have to take it up with him. 
Lamest pitting ever. You’re getting on his ass for saying the word “apologist” a lot? Unbelievable.
:eek:
I, for one, am not turned on. This is the second time in two days; apparently I’m one of only two who doesn’t find a woman painted all over and hairstyled like a cat sexy.
Am I insane, or is everybody else insane?
fuste
Considering my name is in the title of the thread, I felt it’d be worth popping in just so Scylla doesn’t get the mistaken impression I’m ignoring him (what can I say, weekends are busy).
That said, I don’t know whether to be amused at his effort or boggled at the sheer lameness of it.
Sooooo…are you apologizing for staying away so long?
Just kidding, I thought it was kind of cool you stayed away, you know along the lines of not dignifying the bullshit with a response.
Oh well, you’re here now, so, Hi rjung.
Alternatively, how does boggled at his effort and amused by the sheer lameness of it work for you?
Why ask then? Plus, if you claim to be impartial how can you do so when you admit that nothing would be sufficient to dissuade you from your preconceived notion?
I noticed that since you didn’t claim to be reasonable, this may not be enough to get you to back off your claim of impartiality.
But, if you fail at impartiality, and don’t even lay claim to reasonableness, how can I take your criticism to heart?
Well, there is a contect and a history to my animosity towards Ike. I won’t go to the trouble to cite, but to summarize, he made a rather rude statement that I, and others interpreted to be an unwarranted personal attack on my abilities as a father.
He claimed there was no such intent and offered to buy me a beer (I’m guessing it was a metaphorical beer.)
Later though, he made the same sort of attack. Rather than attack back I asked him point black what his issue was, and invited him to discuss it with me in email, if he wished, with the purpose of resolving it. He did not reply either in that thread or email.
So, when he makes his little drive by attacks, I make things as difficult for him as possible. I never go after him, but when he goes after me, I make a big deal of it. Hopefully, he’ll decide it ain’t worth it, and desist.
Furthermore, I do think it was pretty clear that Elvis was breaking the rules, and Unclebeer was not. Whatever else I think of IKe, I don’t think he’s a moron. I think he sees that. If he only seeks to enforce the board rules when it suits him he is a poor moderator. I think he has made bad choices in terms of engaging in personal attacks while a moderator and by his selective moderation. They are bad because he may be called in to moderate against me justly, and may not be able to do so, for fear of being accused of engaging in vendetta, particularly if the call is controversial.
So, I emphasize his lack of impartiality and consistent failures to behave appropriately according to his responsibility so that if he ever does come after me as a moderator, I can point to his track record of animosity and willful negligence.
Admittedly, it also makes me feel good to put the fucker on the spot.
That is my “reasoning.” Whether or not you find it reasonable, I leave to you. I think it is, and at any rate, that’s the road I’m on.
Again, it’s not a matter of “personally” offended. I’m personally offended by Ike. Elvis doesn’t really engender very strong feelings. Insinuating trolling against another member is clearly prohibited. Elvis clearly did so. Ike willfully neglected to perform his job function. I’m giving him a hard time about it to the extent I can.
Heh. In point of fact, I did not use the Report post function. Ike is aware of it. He is a moderator. It would be redundant to use it. Plus, I’d prefer that it stay with Ike. I have no say in that, of course, but I won’t help it along.
I won’t solicit, but you know, if beer is offered, anything is on the table.
Why ask then? Plus, if you claim to be impartial how can you do so when you admit that nothing would be sufficient to dissuade you from your preconceived notion?
I noticed that since you didn’t claim to be reasonable, this may not be enough to get you to back off your claim of impartiality.
But, if you fail at impartiality, and don’t even lay claim to reasonableness, how can I take your criticism to heart?
Well, there is a contect and a history to my animosity towards Ike. I won’t go to the trouble to cite, but to summarize, he made a rather rude statement that I, and others interpreted to be an unwarranted personal attack on my abilities as a father.
He claimed there was no such intent and offered to buy me a beer (I’m guessing it was a metaphorical beer.)
Later though, he made the same sort of attack. Rather than attack back I asked him point black what his issue was, and invited him to discuss it with me in email, if he wished, with the purpose of resolving it. He did not reply either in that thread or email.
So, when he makes his little drive by attacks, I make things as difficult for him as possible. I never go after him, but when he goes after me, I make a big deal of it. Hopefully, he’ll decide it ain’t worth it, and desist.
Furthermore, I do think it was pretty clear that Elvis was breaking the rules, and Unclebeer was not. Whatever else I think of IKe, I don’t think he’s a moron. I think he sees that. If he only seeks to enforce the board rules when it suits him he is a poor moderator. I think he has made bad choices in terms of engaging in personal attacks while a moderator and by his selective moderation. They are bad because he may be called in to moderate against me justly, and may not be able to do so, for fear of being accused of engaging in vendetta, particularly if the call is controversial.
So, I emphasize his lack of impartiality and consistent failures to behave appropriately according to his responsibility so that if he ever does come after me as a moderator, I can point to his track record of animosity and willful negligence.
Admittedly, it also makes me feel good to put the fucker on the spot.
That is my “reasoning.” Whether or not you find it reasonable, I leave to you. I think it is, and at any rate, that’s the road I’m on.
Again, it’s not a matter of “personally” offended. I’m personally offended by Ike. Elvis doesn’t really engender very strong feelings. Insinuating trolling against another member is clearly prohibited. Elvis clearly did so. Ike willfully neglected to perform his job function. I’m giving him a hard time about it to the extent I can.
Heh. In point of fact, I did not use the Report post function. Ike is aware of it. He is a moderator. It would be redundant to use it. Plus, I’d prefer that it stay with Ike. I have no say in that, of course, but I won’t help it along.
I won’t solicit, but you know, if beer is offered, anything is on the table.
I’ve heard that Scylla cannot be tamed, because he is impervious to pain, and always carries a spare roundhouse kick in his back pocket.
Oh, wait - that’s Chuck Norris.
Carry on.
Rhetorical question asked with a wink and a nod. Try not to take things to literally.
Right. Hamlet was reasonable. I was impartial. Again, taking things literally. I guess you really need a beer.
I don’t feel that I’ve failed at impartiality or reasonableness. This doesn’t involve me personally at all, and I’ve little in the way of feelings towards you, Elvis, or Ike. I’ve no problem looking at the posts objectively.
I hope you understand why I think this is very unreasonable. You seem to not care about rule breaking and more about putting Ike on the spot.
I meant only that you picked the most offensive interpretation of Elvis’ post. The fact that Hentor and I disagree with your interpretation and Hamlet agreed that one view was just as likely as the other means that the intent is not clear.
Now that’s just dumb. Ike isn’t going to pay attention simply because you are being an ass about it. If I were him, I wouldn’t either. I’d also think that your case against Ike as a biased mod would be stronger if another mod came in and made a ruling while Ike stood by.
Now now. I’d hate to have any agreement tainted by possible coercion.
(bolding mine)
Nah; I already pegged Scylla as such a pathetic loser that he’d have nothing better to do than to dig up old references, and there was nothing in the OP that was notably more amusing than the usual level of lameness in a typical Scylla-post to warrant any sort of amusement.