Wildest Bill. red_dragon60. Is the night of the long knives at hand???
Personally, I hope the screen door hit him on the way out…
That good ol’ boy shtick was well past its sell-by date.
For violating the Prime Directive?
You know, the one that says “Don’t be a jerk”.
WB asked a lot of questions that seemed to be aimed at annoying and angering people. He made a lot of statements that had the same effect. I guess there is a limit to the number of annoying things that you can post before you are declared a jerk.
A eulogy from a semi-professional lurker . . .
On the one hand, it’s completely obvious and understandable why WB finally got the Boot to the Head. With his recent erratic behavior it’s manifestly the right call.
But on the other hand, the man was truly unique. His posts were clear enough despite their utter disregard for grammar, spelling, capitalization, or topicality. He used enough straw men to keep Kansas busy for an entire growing season, but could occasionally put together a coherent argument. He was entertainingly loony, without being completely batshit. Even though reading his posts almost always made me upset and confused, I’d read 'em anyway just to see what the hell he’d come up with next.
In short, he was a study in paradox. The board might be better off without his Mexican fat burners, speeding tickets, false analogies, and coitus interruptus, but it’ll be a little bit smaller too.
Just my $0.02.
[sorry, Fenris, I didn’t see your link, PO’ed as I still was/am]
I have felt a minor calming in the force, as if a couple thousand souls sighed in relief all at once.
I’m stunned it took this long.
No prob, Duckster.
Y’know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you that mad before. :eek: Remind me not to piss you off! 
My God, you’re right! The SDMB clique has started the final purges! FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES!
[sub][dons funny little moustache] Historically, Poland has always been a part of the SDMB[/sub]
No, I have not come here to argue for or against someone’s banishment.
But I do have a question:
In the aforementioned “Clinton pardoned terrorists?” thread, WB asked what (in general) seemed a basic question: “I heard a rumor that X was true. Can anyone support this?”
A few members (namely Red Menace and Gadarene) asked for cites/sources, implying that this question was not worth answering b/c there was no proper source.
Now, I understand that if WB has a long history of “trolling,” then this question may be the rhetorical equivalent of “I heard a rumor that African-Americans roam in the cover of darkness and devour the newborn babies of middle-class white couples. Is this true and care to comment?” Based on my limited knowledge of WB, I originally thought the question to be an innocent query.
But what are the policies of asking a question such as “I heard rumor X. I cannot verify through my resources. Can the members verify or refute this rumor?”
This question is probably best suited to ATMB, but considering my confusion regarding the reaction to WB’s question, I thought it might relate to the matter at hand. Sorry if this is a hijack.
I just assume Bill was who he said he was. I can’t imagine that playing the character he did would be much fun if in fact he was somebody else.
He seemed none too bright, and pretty much locked in by his limitations.
Still, if I was in a trench in Afghanistan, I wouldn’t mind having him in my foxhole.
There are occasional advantages in the us or them, black and white perspective.
I think there are 3 kinds of people
-
Those who are who they are at all times.
-
Those who have doubts and shift their perspective like the wind.
-
Those who have doubts but can put them aside.
Bill’s a 1.
GQ is my home, that’s why. :mad:
Got any kind of cite for that? Any link to a thread that proves that someone was banned merely because nobody liked him?
I didn’t think so. And you shouldn’t go around frightening the newbies by saying that, because it’s not true. As it happens, there are lots of posters who are not generally “liked” by other posters, but that doesn’t mean they’re in danger of being banned.
If you think the SDMB mods and admins are jackbooted Nazis who ban people just because they don’t happen to like them, then maybe you ought to go find another message board.
Lynn said, on October 4:
And further down the thread:
WB was not banned merely because an admin didn’t like him. An admin admitted she didn’t like him, but allowed him to continue posting for another two weeks.
Ah damn it!
He was by far my favorite nutjob on this board. The imperviousness he had to reason, evidence, rational thought even was oddly reassuring. When my entire world is crumbling at my feet, I could always look to Wildest Bill – way out there in the wild blue yonder with his conspiracy theories about Clinton, the ACLU, the cops, the feminists, the scientists – as my rock of Gibraltar. The sun will won’t be around forever, but WB will always be a ass.
DDG-I’m thinking of when enough people complained about DanielintheWolvesDen.
Arturo:
It’s perfectly acceptable to ask to have a rumor confirmed or disproved. Debunking Urban Legends and conspiracy theories is probably 30% of GQ, anyway.
What WB did was tack a lot of smarmy anti-Clinton editorializing onto his OP. He didn’t merely ask, “Is it true that Clinton pardoned some terrorists?”
GQ is a place for questions that have factual answers. You could even ask, “I heard a rumor that African-Americans roam in the cover of darkness and devour the newborn babies of middle-class white couples. Is this true and care to comment?” as long as you didn’t tack on a lot of smarmy bigoted editorializing about, say, O.J. Simpson or Oprah Winfrey. You would ask your question, the reply would come back–“No”–and that would be the end of the thread.
But if the sense of the OP was that you just wanted to enjoy a slavering gossipfest about the horrible things that blacks do, then that would not be acceptable.
Since I have no doubt that he’s reading along, I’d just like to say good-bye to the ole WB.
Now I don’t have to stay out of threads for fear of having him on my side.
I liked him. I mean… the guy was pretty damned amusing.
I’m betting he’ll wait three days and then return like an internet Jesus to lead the forces of the far right to victory.
If he turns loose a plague of sock puppets, it will have to be known as our Tribulation.
And note, the GQ thread about Clinton wasn’t his first instance of trolling after Lynn’s warning, it was his second! (at least). {see here and the related pit-threadhere, where he said his goodbyes, (although he wasn’t banned for that one after all).
Fenris
So apparently you are unable to distinguish between “fellow posters” and “mods and admins”. Also between a “major factor” and and “merely because”. Frankly I don’t think you are in a position to be criticizing Wildest Bill.
Also bizarre is your asking for a cite and providing one in the very same post.
Seems pretty clear to me.
While on the subject, perhaps you would care to comment on whether you complained to the admins about WB and asked that he be banned? Your comments in the post that I linked to seemed remarkably prescient.
(Guinastasia, the other example that I alluded to was indeed DITWD).
Well, Guin, it wasn’t that “nobody liked Daniel~”, it was that he violated the “Don’t Be A Jerk” rule a number of times. And finally the admins pulled his plug.
We should distinguish between a full-tilt boogie “being a jerk” and merely “being someone who’s not generally liked”. There are posters whose threads make you roll your eyes and automatically scroll past them in the forum, but they’re not necessarily “jerks”, they’re just “posters you don’t like”. You think, “There he is, beating the drum for voter registration again,” but you don’t also think, “…what a jerk.”
And chacun a son gout, you know. There are posters who make you roll your eyes who other posters think are the cat’s meow. That alone would give the lie to Izzy’s statement, because you’d never be able to get a consensus as to which posters were “not liked” enough to ban.
I’m LMAO at the linked threads and can’t help feel a little melancholy that there’ll be no more like them. I’ll miss him in spite of myself.