That’s a radical divergence from the point I was making. I can’t rationally discern how you got from A to B on that line of reasoning dude.
Well, “eventful” is but one of the terms used to describe it.
And his claims that miracles happen all the time, but the liberal media won’t report on them? And the soul restoring experience of reading, “She Said ‘Yes’”?
But you do mention descriptions of them. And you link them with objectively negative traits such as deception and intellectual dishonesty. I actually think that by leaving out names you paint with a wide brush and anyone who reads this OP might think “What if he’s talking about me? Am I one of those nutjobs?” If you believe some of your fellow dopers are behaving in a dishonorable and dishonest manner because they are motivated to decieve or whatever, then gather evidence and call them on it. Truly dishonest and deceptive individuals are quite rare and odds are that at least some of the individuals you mention are behaving in good faith, albeit clumsily or in a manner which is not especially “believable”. In these cases I suggest polite and concerned interventions as opposed to clearly negative comparisons with the lost causes of the past. Communities can be self-policing and people can adjust behavior, as you have in this thread and as I am about to.
I can’t find the posts I remembered as being by you about the pyjama pants girl incident. Therefore it seems I had mistakenly associated you with some of the others who actively crapped on the parade. I apologize and I will endeavor to keep it straight in the future.
I don’t have a problem with nostalgia. Re-visiting the great trainwrecks of days gone by, as it were. My issue is with allegations of dishonorable motivations on the part of fellow dopers in good standing. Especially when they’re being associated with some of the most infamous characters in SDMB history. In my experience those who actually “[attempt] to hide their true motives and their animosity” are vastly outnumbered by those who are genuniely miscommunicating, ignorant, or terrible at describing things and thus do not paint a complete picture which we can understand. Then it looks made up as opposed to genuine and a poor wordsmith looks like a liar.
I don’t envy the moderators their jobs. Just as I don’t envy state prosecutors who must daily make these same determinations about the “true” motives of someone brought before them. Over time I would guess the increased exposure to bad apples tend to color the remainder of the barrel for those charged with rooting out the rotten fruit. At times I’d just like to buy them a Coke and help restore some of their faith in humanity. Would you like a Coke Hamlet?
Enjoy,
Steven
I guess I missed your point. The only other idea I can come up with was that you were concerned that I can provide no absolute proof about a posters intent. Or that I cannot prove that an unnamed poster is not being completely honest in their posts. Do I have it now? If those are your concerns, I guess there is something to that. Of course I cannot prove a homeless person did not take over a poster’s account and pretend to be that poster. But I see no problem with saying I don’t believe it for one second.
Since this is the Pit, might I enquire what the fuck that apostrophe is doing in the thread title?
You don’t make plurals with apostrophes, even in the BBQ Pit.
**ChocolateJesus **or something similar was a sock of hers too. I think that’s what eventually led to her banning.
Actually I don’t think I did give description of them, I described the “negative traits” and posting habits that they had. However, you are correct, as evidenced by Diogenes that some unintended dopers may mistakenly lump themselves in when they are not the ones I was even remotely considering when I wrote the OP.
But then I am specifically picking out one poster and calling them a troll, something I was trying to avoid. I may think that certain posters are behaving “trollish”, but barring an admission, how can I prove it? That’s why many of these posters stick around longer than others.
There is no doubt in my mind that a vast majority of posters on this board are, for the most part, honest and well-intentioned. The kind of posters I describe are in the definite minority, thank Og.
No worries. I don’t remeber crapping on him, but I certainly didn’t believe it either.
[qutoe=Mtgman]I don’t have a problem with nostalgia. Re-visiting the great trainwrecks of days gone by, as it were. My issue is with allegations of dishonorable motivations on the part of fellow dopers in good standing. Especially when they’re being associated with some of the most infamous characters in SDMB history. In my experience those who actually “[attempt] to hide their true motives and their animosity” are vastly outnumbered by those who are genuniely miscommunicating, ignorant, or terrible at describing things and thus do not paint a complete picture which we can understand. Then it looks made up as opposed to genuine and a poor wordsmith looks like a liar.
[/quote]
All true. And thank you for reminding me.
If I gave the impression I think the Dope is flooded by these annoying idiots, I apologize. Man, all this sensible discussion is making me thirsty. Yeah, I’ll have that Coke, thanks.
Ahem. I believe this thread is veering from its intended purpose, with all this rational discussion and whatnot. So, if I may be permitted to reiterate my feelings on the matter, so as to bring it back on track:
PANTY HAMSTER AIR BISCUITS!!!
Thank you.
BAND NAME!
Oh, and here’s your Coke Hamlet. Hope you don’t mind, all I had on hand was Diet, Caffine-Free, Vanilla Coke.
Enjoy,
Steven
Roger Dodger that Hamlet. I’ve gone to well of reasoned discourse twice in my original post and the rebuttal directly following it. I guess bright red, directional neon arrows are required for use to have a rational discourse.
:smack:
Understood.
I guess I owe a :smack: to myself as well. Now that I re-read your posts I am necessarially impressed by your wordsmithing skills.
The difference is I’m willing to flat out say that I think New Iskander is a fucking asshole who I sincerely hope is yanking our chains with bullshit like this steaming pile instead of being genuinely as fucked up as a person would need to be to mean what he says in that OP/thread.
Enjoy,
Steven
On the other hand, to welcome tomndebb as a Great Debates moderator, I’d thought of starting a thread discussing the origin of the modern Jews from the Khazar hordes, with obligatory references to the buttocks of the ex-First Lady Senator from New York. 
Go ahead. It would ensure my immediate installation in the halls of the Mod Olympus, (with a guaranteed dozen Pit threads, each running to six pages), to be the Moderator to have banned Polycarp.
START?! How could mistrust this face?
gum? I guess I don’t pay enough attention. Any links? She’s never seemed like a bad sort to me.
I had no idea who she was until this post which gave me some concern. Although I admit that that thread was my only dealing with gum so I may have a completely skewed view, so it was probably not the best example to give, only the most recent in my memory.
Okay… I see what you mean now. Yeah, that definitely changes my perception of her.
It’s an unappealing viewpoint, to be sure, but as I understand it, there’s a very strong fundamentalist Muslim movement in the Netherlands right now. I don’t know if that’s enough to cut her any slack, but it’s worth keeping in mind.
Ahh…the clouds clear. The light goes on. I have a feeling that I actually agree with the OP after all.