I already pitted this woman. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120708
Interestingly, when I searched for the post, it turned out to have had exactly 666 hits. That may be significant or it may be not.
I don’t disagree with you about taggert’s post being satire, Rex. What I take exception to is the fact that, when it comes to politics, he appears to have no real opinion outside of, again, alledgedly witty satire. Even non-political discussions (like the USPS link posted by sailor) veer off, apropos of nothing, into weird rants about “moral clarity” in which he free associates from one button pushing topic to the next. His posts actually punish those who read them and take him seriously. If someone points out that he’s being satirical, he’ll go off on another bizarre and nonsensical rant about satire being a liberal tool that he would never, ever use. Reading a post by taggert is a lose-lose situation.
You mentioned the possibility of mellowing out. I agree with you that most people settle down. I see basically three options for the future of taggert:
- taggert owns up to the fact that 90% of his posts are not serious in nature. This means, basically, he’s been saying crazy stuff to get a reaction.
- taggert keeps up his usual routine: posting insane rantings at the drop of a hat. Eventually, he’ll cross the line in his desire to offend, and say something a little too offensive.
- taggert actually reveals his true opinions and stops attempting to hijack every thread he participates in into a discussion of “moral clarity”. He will, of course, have to ignore his behaviour for the first month after he registered, and hope that others will do the same.
I can’t really run the probabilities on these choices, and I won’t speculate as to which one is the most likely. Seeing as how the chance is there that he will one day cease to be so annoying, I was out of line for saying “eventual banning”. I should have, instead, said “either his eventual banning or reform”.
I find the observations of thegrimspectreofreddeath cogent. (As a hijack, let me say that whenever I see that user name I always wonder if there is also a lighthearted spectre of red death, spectres of varying emotional orientation of other-colored deaths, spectres of varying colors and emotional makeups of other anthropomorphic personalizations, etc., and then wonder if Death posted here, would he be flamed for posting in ALL CAPS?)
Anyway, taggert, whom I have been assured is posting satirically, seems to do effectively nothing but (though I have not run a search to validate that fact). I’m curious as to where one draws the line between relatively witty deadpan ironic posts and actual trollery. Numerous people have come on this board with the intent of creating hostility by taking stances they did not hold and which were unpopular among a majority, and arguing them at length. And they have been regularly banned for it. In what way (aside from wittiness) does taggert’s ongoing series of ultraconservative-voiced and sometimes apparently bigoted posts differ from these posters’ behavior?
I’m not calling for his banning or anything of the sort. I personally rarely post ironically, preferring to state my views as objectively and non-hostilely as possible. Others’ styles differ. And I can see a spectrum of styles. (I could not possibly bring myself to post in TheRyan’s style, but I do respect him.) But at what point does extended irony turn into trollery? I think it’s a question worth discussing.
And, to get back to the OP, WV_Woman espouses unpopular views, sometimes not defending them well, but apparently with sincere intent. Though that does not preclude a Pit thread zapping her views (this one), is she being offensive in taking the stances she does? If so, how, and with what consequences?
>> is she being offensive in taking the stances she does? If so, how
Drive by posts, with no intention of engaging or participating, just a spout and run, are disrespectful to those participating in the thread. It is the equivalent of a group of people in their living room discussing something of their interest and someone wlaks in from the yard for a second, spouts some inane stupidity and walks out again with no intention of participating. It is plain rude.
Kudos to Polycarp and Fred:
In addition to their excellent points, Taggert isn’t even doing parody as such. Lookit his response in Lynn’s “Discuss the new Pit rules” thread. His attempt at parody is “Conservatives want to ban parody! Hyuckkk!” :rolleyes: It’s only funny if there’s some truth in it.
Frankly, I see no difference between him and SweatWilly except their choice of target.
Fenris
This thread gave me the funniest mental image–WV_Woman with a Tec-9 and a pimpmobile, doing a drive-by on yet another thread, and then affixing an SDMB sticker to the front panel of the car a la fighter jets or bombers.
WV_Woman–you are free to your opinions. Just please be prepared to defend and/or back them up, and stop crying like a little baby when someone (horrors!) disagrees with you.
Oh, and did we ever find out for sure if whiterose was her sock?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
**Bite me. You’re about a cunt-hair less of dribbling idiot than WV_W, and have been dropping steaming loads of acrimonious bullshit all over the place. No doubt you don’t like to see her called on her stupidity- It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if you fantasized about her nightly, while masturbating into a crusty sock. What has Brutus brought to us?[ul][li]If the CIA was a worth a damn these days, we would have never heard of [John Walker Lindh]. He’d be in some shallow unmarked grave in Afghanistan…[]Why should the President give a serious listen to ‘those critics’? We elect a President, not a panel of critics.[]It is so simple to NOT get AIDS, that I have zero sympathy for those who engage in risky behavior and then bemoan their fate.[](Re: Ann Coulter) Since she is not some bull-dike leftist, I know she won’t be too popular with most of the folks here, but she is quite popular among conservatives.[]I am gratefull that we have a president with enough common-sense to not lead America into the [International Criminal Court].[]Until the various terrorist-breeding peoples of the world love us or fear us, they will keep churning out terrorists. And it is far easier to make them fear us then love us.[/ul]…and on and on. Suffering Christ, man, you’re not only a moron, you’re fucking loud about it. **[/li][/QUOTE]
Not to sound like too much of a fan boy **Larry Mudd **, but that post was a well-reasoned, well-supported first class Pitting. I am officially throwing my support behind your posts. Well done!
That’s sarcasm, right, elf6c? 'Cuz I think that’s the first time I’ve spewed vitriol over another SDMB member and I can’t help feeling vaguely ashamed, even if I do think he’s a pinhead. I disagree with him about as much as is humanly possible, (and I do think he’s a bigoted pinhead,) but he does at least argue his points, and real argument, as opposed to mere bickering, is usually a constructive thing.
WV_W is much more of a waste of skin and bandwidth.
It’s just that Brutus’s petulant response here got up my ass.
Brutus, WV_Woman etc. they all read like they’ve been smoking Dirty Tina.
I don’t think it was. I think it was a compliment on a well-researched, succint and erudite post. Take a compliment as it’s meant, Larry. (smilie here)
Polycarp, you had me LOL with this:
I anxiously await posts from The Mildly Perturbing Spectre of Beige Death.
I always thought it was The Grim Spectre o’ Fred Death.
IE: Fred Death died, and this is his grim Spectre!
Fenris
What pisses me off is she whines about “pansy-ass liberals”, yet apparently, she’s so weak she can’t bear to have her views challenged.
Oh poor me, pity me, because people actually except me to back up my posts with facts and not my own stupid prejudices.
Oh woe is me!
Interesting point, and the woman in question does have a knack for driving post counts up across the board, but just take a look at the number of times many of the same folks chime in again and again telling of WV_W off in the same way - ::I don’t roll eyes::
Some of ya’ll are starting to grow anther head and its butt ugly!
It was. 
However, the screen name was apparently to many characters without spaces for the board to handle. So, the name was torn arbitrarily asunder – by Nazi Admin’s!
mmm… Paul Gross… Michael McManus… Geraint Wyn Davies… Nigel Bennett…
<looks around> Oh, sorry–this isn’t the Canadian Actors Drool thread, is it?
“Drive by posting” is a particularly apt description of WV_Woman’s style and that is what pisses me off. She flies into a thread, drops her smelly turd of ignorance, and then flies away. She never backs up her point or actually participates in any thread in any depth.
Polycarp, you’re a Good Omens fan, I take it? 
I am so glad that i found this thread i was starting to feel like a bitch for dis-liking WV_WOMAN but now that i see that so many other people are unhappy with her it makes me feel just a little better but still pissed off that she aggrees with the abuse of children
It was because you don’t normally rip people- Brutus badly needed to be called out for his posts, and you did so in a humorous manner, while at the same time using well labled links fully supporting your strongly, but fairly made points. I had thought the same thing, but you had put it into place better then I could have. While some of the language was a bit on the harsh side, it was IMHO, appropriate given the nature and tenor of Brutus’ post.
Spot on Francesca. Thanks !!
I like Pratchett – he makes me question my assumptions! (So, for that matter, does Fred’s spectre;))