Uh, Marley...

About This Message Board
1

I just saw that I received a warning from you:

People were having some interesting discussions about immigration when BrainGlutton drops it a big heaping pile of straw that he found elsewhere, as is his style. Never mind that most of these topics were not being discussed, that most of them were pure straw, not in any way showing a position anyone had taken in the debate, and that most of them have been discussed on these boards before proving at the very least, the information offered was incomplete and woefully on-sided, but he just drops it in with ZERO analysis or commentary. Although he started the thread, his contributions were minimal. As usual. This is something he’s been called on before. Another poster commented that this latest offering was just a huge pile of straw, and then I made my post. In it, I described what he did as unhelpful to that debate and compared his action to the SNL character/talk show host, Linda Richman.

I knew I was in GD, so didn’t call him names or unleash invective (which would have been perfectly deserved because he does it so often). I simply compared what he did to the only person I know of who is known for the same type of action. In fact, she’s famous for it. THAT part of the character’s shtick.

So, are we now not allowed to compare poster’s actions to those of other people, real or fictional. Are comparisons to characters like Chicken Little, The Grinch, Karnac The Great, Inspector Javert, Eugene McCarthy, Nero, Ozzie Osborne, Jay Gatsby, The Dark Night, Pollyanna, The Wild and Crazy Guys, Eddie Haskel, Scarlet O’Hara, The Dude, Mr. Burns, Lolita, The Roadrunner, Svengali, Nate Thurm, Louis DePalma, Jim Ignatowski, Cliff Claven, Frank Burns, Elmer J. Fudd, Kramer, Mata Hari, Benedict Arnold, Joseph Goebbels, Oswald Bates (Damon Wayans as inmate), Norman Bates, Keith Richards, Lindsay Lohan, Barney Fife, Gladys Cravitz, Ralph Kramden?

I chose these characters because they can each be used rot make a point about someone, in a negative way, without becoming and insult strong enough to merit Mod action. On the other hand, in GD I’ve seen “bigot” and “homophobe” used rather regularly. The term “racist” is also used very loosely (possibly in that very thread) and often.

The point is twofold: one, I don’t se how describing BrainGlutton’s actions to that of Linda Richman rises to the level of “insult” that is forbidden in GD. It’s merely a way to describe the negative behavior in the light it deserves, without hurling ad hominems or invective. Is that no longer allowed?

Two, if this type of characterization is now forbidden, I think a simple admonition was called for, to communicate that the mods view that type of characterization as close enough to an “an insult” as to not want to allow it. I’d have no problem with that. I wouldn’t agree that it’s the right call, but I accept that they the powers that be have the right to mold the boards how they see fit.

So, in light of the above I request that you downgrade The Warning.

2

If you would like anyone to follow your thought, and voice an opinion, a link would be nice.

3

You did not attack his behavior. The entire post was about the person. You even called him a name other than his own and meant it as an insult. Where’s the confusion?

4

I remember the SNL skits, but don’t understand the connection to Linda Richman. Didn’t she just talk with a New York accent and occasionally become “verklempt”?

5

I was surprised, since calling someone a character is allowed around here. Marley even said so. See “The Newt” ordeal.

I am still irritated I was called by that scumbag’s name.

6

Tawk amongst yourselves.

7

Your link leads directly to a post where Marley23 tells Candid Gamera to “dial it back a notch” after CG called you Newt.

I spent 5 or 10 minutes reading on in that thread looking for something that supports your contention that Marley23 thinks it’s okay to refer to others by derisive character names. Didn’t see it.

8

If you’d only said “Linda Richman” I probably would have let you go with a note, but the entire post was an attack and it was insulting. There was no argument, and it was inappropriate for Great Debates. Of course, that’s what I said in the warning - not “you can’t compare people to fictional characters.”

9

If it was insulting it is only because I accurately described what he did. His actions. There was no argument he offered. No illumination. Nothing. It was just an old cut and paste from the web. And simply called him on it. As he has been called upon it before.

10

Oops. Sorry about that. Here it is.

The quote I already supplied was #159. The exchange actually starts at #152, which is further evidence that I was attacking what he did:

11

If you’d said something like “this is off-topic and doesn’t add anything to the discussion,” there would have been no problem. Since you went out of your way to phrase it as an attack on BrainGlutton, you got a warning.

12

Yes, I also saw that post. The fact that you were rude and abusive in two posts instead of one doesn’t help your case. It’s a further indication you were attacking rather than debating and your behavior was inappropriate. BrainGlutton didn’t even post in between your two criticisms of his posts.

13

First post was in response to his Post # 130. The second was in response to his Post #136. One might think that you’d know that posters time respond to posts as they come to them. 136, coming after 130, seems to qualify.

As far as being rude and insulting, I was being appropriate. And to refresh your memory, it’s not against the rules to be insulting in GD, along as you attack the argument or the behavior.

Now you can cling onto the notion that “Oh, but you called him Linda Richman.” And that I did. I just don’t see that as being out of bounds. If I thought there was any chance of you admitting you made a mistake even if I showed you 10 examples of others doing similar or worse, I’d comb GD for similar mentions just watch you try to juggle, tap dance, and do a Tarzan yell at the same time in further defense.

Look, the bottom line is that you made a bad and unnecessary call. You shouldn’t have peeped in at all. If you so felt the need to protect a poster from the oh-so-terrible characterization that he was acting like Linda Richman (shudder), a light and quick mod not would have done the trick.

14

Even attacks on a poster’s argument have to meet minimum standards of relevance and civility. Calling a post “a lazy heap of dung” and complaining a poster is “inject[ing] 20 fucking topics at once” does not meet that standard. It’s more abuse than argument. I suspect you’re aware of this on some level since you’ve claimed this is about comparing a poster to a character (it isn’t and I never said it was) and are now phrasing a Great Debates guideline in a way I have never seen before. It’s usually phrased “attack the post, not the poster” or “attack the argument, not the poster.” I’ve never seen a mod say “attack the behavior.” It depends on the situation, but attacks on a poster’s behavior frequently are attacks on the poster. Sorry, but I see no reason to downgrade the warning here. You’ve been here a long time and I don’t think it was unreasonable to expect that you would know this kind of attack belongs in the Pit, not Great Debates.

15

I think you should demand a retraction.

16

Take umbrage.

17

The OP is a Canardly. I canardly understand it.

18

Strenuously

19

:cool: Classic!

20

I strenuosly object, take umbrage, and demand a pony.