Maureen, baby, how can you say such a thing? All my shots are expensive and high quality. Quite unlike yours, which needs quite a lot of work. You’ve got the being a jerk part of it fairly well, but there’s no real substance behind your shot.
Keep working on it. Your efforts do provide some amusement.
That one wasn’t too bad. At least, it was a marked improvement over “The librul media are TRAITORZ!!!1!” and then running away for three days.
Second vote for “WC’s not whooshing.” I’ve often wondered how he manages to post so carefreely despite all the abuse heaped upon him. Just call my original response a pre-emptive begging.
Um, it was Bryan Ekers who was whooshing, and quite a good whoosh it was too.
Jeez, you goofs. Otto was whooshed by Bryan Eker’s purposely improperly punctuated question.
That “Smartest doper” thread was certainly properly ruled on by SkipMagic but I’d like to see how he came to his “blatantly anti-Muslim” perception of Wesley. Doesn’t jibe with the posts I’ve seen.
Yeah, we believe you.
Wesley, Excalibre isn’t harassing you, and even if he has insulted you in the past, it’s not because you have a mental illness. It’s because you’ve been a jackass. Being mentally ill isn’t a free pass. Nor would being gay, for that matter, if you were insulting said person for being an asshole.
Honestly, get a grip.
:eek:
That’s so mean! Don’t you know he aint’s gots no hands!?
Why, how positively noble of you! I hesitate to call people martyrs, but in your suffering, you have truly shown the rest of us what it is to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. What a magnificent moral specimen you are - you don’t even harass gay people! I am truly in awe and I regret every unkind word I have ever slung your way.
From what I remember, the “mental illness” in question was the imaginary case of schizophrenia that was never diagnosed and that you cured yourself of.
Mind you, I’m not questioning the idea that you’re mentally ill - in fact, such a thing wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But I do wonder about your presenting yourself as some example of a person being harassed for your mental illness, given that there’s no evidence of what it might be. If, instead, you are actually trying to claim that you’re being harassed because of your bizarre behavior, and using your mental illness as an excuse, I would like to point out that you ought to consider seeking actual diagnosis and treatment - since, again, there’s no evidence you have a mental disorder at all, making it a poor excuse, and further since it might help you better control your behavior so as not to elicit this unpleasantness from others.
Don’t bother. He’s promised not to change. It’s some stubborn thing now; the rest of us have to “tolerate” him writing in an irritating - and deliberately so - manner. This is one of the themes of these rants of him - he wishes to act in an annoying manner, and the rest of us are morally flawed if we don’t “tolerate” him doing so, even when it’s over such a ridiculously miniscule issue as punctuation. He’s got this habit of being deliberately antagonistic and then acting puzzled and angry when people don’t like it.
Incidentally, I have to wonder what makes someone conclude that when 50+ people are apparently following him around to torment him that it must be all of them acting wrongly and it couldn’t possibly be his own actions that are problematic.
I can’t recall ever seeing Maureen described as a “jerk” before; I’m afraid such an idea is simply rather difficult for me to understand whatsoever. But I would say that when someone who is genuinely nice and decent - and though I am far from being one of those people, I certainly hold them in admiration - insults you, you should consider the source. If Maureen insulted me, I can assure you that it would sting quite a bit. Whereas when you insult me, Clothahump, it’s hard to feel upset at all. I’ve never noticed any particular rapier wit about you, and you rather lack something in terms of tenacity.
Incidentally, there’s something that puzzles me about Mr. Clark here. He’s claimed numerous times to be a chemistry student, but some of his posts don’t make much sense at all in that context. In this one, he claims that ammonia has a pH of 4. Now, with the assumption he’s discussing ammonia water at the particular concentration you’ll find at the grocery store (because otherwise it makes no sense to discuss its pH at all) he’s still vastly wrong. Ridiculously so. I don’t know the pH of that particular concentration of ammonia water because I’m not sure what concentration it’s sold at. Nonetheless it simply could not possibly be 4. pHs below 7 describe acidic solutions, and ammonium hydroxide is such a commonly-used chemical that it’s simply impossible for me to imagine any chemistry student not knowing that it’s a base, not an acid. But either Wesley Clark didn’t know this, or he is so unfamiliar with what pH means that he didn’t realize how impossible his guess was.
Similarly with this thread he started; he asks what strong acids are stored in. But even in high school chemistry I got used to working with strong acids; while I never took a general chem course in college, we certainly used strong acids on occasion in the organic chem lab course I took, as well as in my side job in another organic lab. Strong acids are fairly ubiquitous in chemistry; I mention my own limited experience in the area to point that out. I am not a chemistry major (though I briefly considered it - hence taking organic chem) - which makes the fact that the answer to this question is obvious to me particularly illustrative. If you’ve ever handled strong acids, then you certainly know that it’s usual to work with them in normal glassware, and that they are stored in glass jugs. His speculation about having to store them in containers made of some sort of long-chain alkane (perhaps he was thinking of paraffin?) is particularly puzzling, since the wording of the OP suggested a certain unfamiliarity with acid-base chemistry.
I’m just mentioning this as it’s something that’s puzzled me for quite some time. He seems to have trouble with very basic information that I would expect a bright high school student to possess, much less a college student who has spent any time in a chemistry lab. Other times he poses questions that are either extremely sophisticated (far beyond my rather pitiful knowledge of the arena) or perhaps nonsense - given the clear lack of knowledge indicated in the above questions, I’m inclined to wonder whether this question is genuine at all, or if perhaps it might have been cribbed from some other source in order to, well, make him look smart. Particularly since asking a question of that degree of technical specificity is certainly not the norm in GQ.
Just wondering.
Glad to hear it. I appreciate your vote of confidence.
Since, I believe, this is the only portion of your post dealing directly with me, I’ll respond to it. (You’re on your own for the rest.)
A few things:
1.) You’re right. I shouldn’t have closed the thread with a vaguely insulting personal view. (The “… usual territory” line.) It didn’t give you a chance to respond, and I can see where that’d rankle a bit for ya’. Sorry about that.
2.) I’ve no idea who thought (or thinks) you were weird, odd, perverted or what have you. There wasn’t a Wesley Clark-colored bandwagon rolling by that I jumped on, so whatever issues you had with other posters during that time remain separate from my post.
3.) Instructing you to e-mail me if you wanted the thread to live wasn’t me asking for an apology, it was a chance for you to clarify your OP. If you made your case then as you did in your OP here, I would have re-opened your thread and sent it North to GD.
I admit I’m a little surprised it’s been bothering you for this long, but I could see why you’d be a little off-put by my closing post. Should something similar happen in the future (I’m human, I make mistakes), you don’t have to nurse your gripe for so long; you’re welcome to e-mail me or start a Pit thread questioning my decision.
Good on you, Skip.
If you are willing, perhaps a hint as to why the thread was considered anti-Muslim?
Regards,
Shodan
Also this bit:
Could use some explaining. Does anyone else see Wesley to generally be blatantly anti-muslim? I haven’t searched all his posts but the ones I’ve seen don’t come off that way.
Wes
I have to repeat what a few other posters have mentioned and say that I don’t really understand your problem with the guy. But I would like to share that Skip is one of the few people from the board I know personally, and he is one of the most friendly, congenial people I have ever met. The bit of modding I’ve seen him perform has struck me as pretty even-handed and in the spirit of maintaining the guidelines set forth by the SDMB.
That surely doesn’t mean that you have to like him, but you would be wise to appreciate that you’re pitting a pretty decent guy bolster your argument accordingly, as I think it will be an uphill battle for you.
As Wesley stated in this thread’s OP, if he would have qualified his use of Muslims as “fanatical” or “fundamentalist” instead of making it read as if he were accusing every Muslim, regardless of belief, I would have just moved it and not really cared. Wesley clarified here that he was asking a question of a subset of Muslims; without those qualifications I read his OP as a generic slam against Islam and its adherents. (Basically, I saw it as akin to those silly threads where someone bashes all of Christianity for the actions of a nutty few.)
I probably could have handled it better (maybe verified Wesley’s intent before I closed the thread), but I certainly didn’t mean to stick a thorn that far into his paw.
Hm.
Well, thanks for the explanation.
I seem to see a lot of posts “where someone bashes all of Christianity for the actions of a nutty few” that don’t get locked down, but it would be a judgement call in any event. A certain poster who wears his Crimson Blouse backwards springs to mind.
Still, a demonstration of class on your part. Well done.
Regards,
Shodan
Pffft, class. Unless he’s got me on ignore he’s avoiding the question of why he’s pegged Wesley as a bigot. Again: