No problem. 
I beg to differ.
I started the thread about the rule, showing that particular gig as an example of said rule, stating specifically, that I had no particular beef w/the admonition as a violation of said rule, but that the rule itself was stoopid IMHO.
[QUOTE=wring
I started the thread about the rule, showing that particular gig as an example [/QUOTE]
Ah…
never mind
I hate Mondays…
Except it’s Tuesday. 
no problem.
[Donovan]
It feels like a Sunday in some ways.
[/Donovan]
And it comes back to bondage, which is what kicked off the first Pit thread. It’s the Circle of Life…
This rule really needs to be specifically defined. I was admonished by tomndebb for violating it in the BBQ Pit. I apologized. Later in this thread the issue comes up again. TVeblen has his to say, emphasis hers.
Confused I was, so I emailed her for a clarification. This was her response–
Now clearly, she thinks tomndebb has warned me in GD, not the Pit. Her explanation of the rule could nbot be more clear, however. It only applies to former screen names. Excalibre did not violate the rule, and his warning, as well as mine, should be erased.
Interesting. Thank you for unearthing this; I was not aware.
For the record, if anyone calls me any of the following names, I’m OK with it:
Smeg
Smegster
Smeggy
Smegtastic
Smegorama
Smegalamadingdong
I’ll get this memo right over to Rob Schneider.
Seriously, I thought the name abuse prohibition was more encompassing, because it indicates a fundamental antagonism so deep that it makes further interaction useless. It says “I don’t even respect you enough as a human being to call you by your chosen name” which cuts to a whole different level that ‘You’re a doodiehead and your ideas suck.’
What was that, Turtle-Man?
Ow! Stop hitting me!
I disagree. Some one fucking w/my name (especially as is usually done, in some childish play on words type of way, which is the norm for such inanity) is, IMHO, behaving like a petulant 3 year old badly in need of a nap and a blankie.
the fact that a poster is addressing comments to the other poster belies the “fundemental antagonism so deep that it makes further interaction useless” MHO.
refusing to address some one by their (chosen) name certainly is rude, childish (in many cases) etc. but I can’t see it as more deeply cutting than the aforementioned ‘goat felching’ etc.
[noob butts in]
Excuse my ignorance, but, can somebody tell me what is so deeply offensive about “G.E.D”? Excalibre claims that he was not intentionally insulting Q.E.D. by mis-spelling the username, and that it was in fact a typo. Now I’m not sure about that given G and Q’s mutual non-proximity on the keyboard, but I can easily imagine getting a letter wrong when typing a username which is entirely an acronym.
If somebody could explain to me what obscene sexual practice “G.E.D” stands for, it would help me better understand why Excalibre’s posting privileges are being discussed by the moderators.
Thanks
[/nbi]
A G. E. D. is a test one can take if one fails to graduate from high-school, that is considered equivalent to getting a diploma. The implied insult is that Q. E. D. was too stupid to graduate from high-school.
Aha! Thankyou.
:There’s no smiley with a lightbulb above the head, but if there was, it would be here:
Not to mention that a GED is equivalent to an 8th grade educational level.
I always understood it is the equivalent of a high-school diploma.
Well sure, but you’re lucky if you even get close to an eighth grade level after 13 years of puplic schooling (K-12)
;j