Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Haha. Hoho. Hehe. Lack of belief in God or gods is not an idea.
While rebel Mung happily takes on those in charge at
UDTSZ.Oh, the bravery involved.
Glen Davidson
I don’t know where I fit in with those cases, or where you think I fit in.
But keiths case is unambiguously rule breaking.
His comment to me that needs to be moved to guano consists of only two lines from him;
Rule breaking.
No matter how anyone tries to spin it.
No matter who happens to be on whose side.
You must supply A REASON!
Now if that don’t make yer pecker shrivel I don’t know what would.
You’re worse than Dumbest. You’re a self-deluded self-sanctified ASS. Your claim that _hotshoe “cant’ take” something you’ve said about her is just pure unadulterated Dipshitness. Hurry up and retire already. And be careful who you expose yourself to. You might regret it, if you aren’t too senile.
Does that bother you? You and Richardthughes? Tough shit.
Hopefully the Convergence is far enough along for a simultaneous Mung/hotshoe meltdown.
It looks like we might be headed in that direction.
Jealous, little man? Are we converging on what is true? God, that would truly suck, for all you pathetic liars.
Mung:
I notice that you keep mentioning my early retirement. Why are you so obsessed with it?
No, dumbass, I’m used to you being a hypocritical weasel. Still worth a chuckle.
Glen Davidson
Not really. There’s nothing sexual about a corpse turning into a zombie, unless you’re just some sort of freak.
I typically win bets made with retail store clerks.
It is my opinion that people often use their retirement to do things they have never done before.
Think keiths!
Mung,
So?
What a bunch of losers. No wonder you all look to _hotshoe to validate your manhood. But she’s not your mother.
No question. The diifference of opinion was on Your post, not keiths, which is unambiguously rule-violating.
Mung, you’re a treasure sometimes.
If I were not the only real mother on this board (nowadays, at least, with Lizzie sadly missed) that would have been … verging on creepy. But you scored; that’s literally laughing-out-loud funny to me.
walto,
Hotshoe’s comment is also unambiguously rule-violating…
…but neither comment should be Guanoed. What would it accomplish?
The proper response to someone like hotshoe (or Mung) who can dish it out, but can’t take it, is to point out the hypocrisy — and laugh.
As I said, I think her post was rule-violating too, but your buddy Napoleon said the same type of post wasn’t–just a couple of days ago (even though the guy who posted it conceded it was). So, take it up with Patrick. Consistency is, like his thing.
Okay, got it, thanks sweetie.
I’m still here. And I did read your earlier suggestion re guano.
I don’t think I expressed a thought on the question one way or the other. Seems to be a case by case thing, and context matters.
I generally just pay for my stuff and move on.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so is it true that Patrick is, umm, unfoolish to be inconsistent in his moderation? Unfoolish to ignore comments in a vein of “everyone who says X is an idiot” from people on his side, while guanoing the direct response from his opponent Mung? Big minded if he inconsistently guanos my “Dumb says X” comment while ignoring keiths gratuitous insult that came next?
Well, what else would we expect from the great mind – oh, never little, never accuse him of being small minded – that is the Napoleon of Moderation at TSZ? We expect great things!
I can dish it out but can’t take it since when? Poor self-deceived keiths. keiths should post his rule-breaking comments in Noyau, originally knows as the “whine cellar.” Originally established specifically for keiths. Whiner-in-chief.
#WhinerInChief
Thanks for being here.
Please tell my why, then, is keiths gratuitous insult – directed at me by name – and with no other content in his comment besides the insult – still standing in thread instead of moved to guano?
What’s the factor that I’m not seeing?
You must supply A REASON! Richardthughes and Patrick sez so.
Mung places a bet.
I thought you’d conceded that your post should have been guanoed. Sorry if that’s not right. I thought it was ad hom, myself–because of the context–hotshoe’s too.
Given your history of wagers with retail clerks I can’t say I blame you. Perhaps you should stop making such wagers.
Yes, and it was ad hom, but not an instance of “Anyone who believes X is an idiot.” Rather, I intended Schopenhauer’s comment as a characterization of Mung, specifically.
Is it Friday yet?
I took into account the context of the post to which he was replying.
I’m an angel!
That’s completely illegitimate, Neil.
Keiths comment was inexcusable. I didn’t force him to reply that way. My comment about a hypothetical “Dumb” — which indirectly may have referred to him but certainly did not name him directly as Mr Dumb — is absolutely no cover for keiths choosing to break Lizzie’s rules to address me directly by name then call me Dumbest.
Do your job, Neil, instead of hiding behind “context”.
If you think my comment was provoking, but managed to stay within the rules, then tough shit. Keiths needs to grow skin in that case and you need move on to guano keith’s unequivocal (however provoked) rule-breaker.
Or guano my comment anyways – whether I broke the rules directly, or not.
Either way, keiths comment needs to go.
I’ve known for at least a year that Patrick is a shit moderator. No surprise that he can’t treat me fairly in this case. I hope to be able to continue respecting your ability to be a fair moderator.
And Patrick is a moron. Because, you know, he just doesn’t get ad hominem. Unless it’s from someone he disagrees with. Or directed at women generally.
Sometimes I must admit I bet them they aren’t true skeptics. The people behind me in line always nod approvingly my mastery of the turnabout.
It is not his fault that he was circumcised. He can’t just grow back that skin no matter how hard he masturbates.
Lucifer was an angel
It is worth the try
That was kinda funny (in an adolescent way).
I laughed anyhow.
I’m not giving up, myself.
hotshoe,
Neil declined to reward your hypocrisy. Stop whining and deal with it.
Seemed about the right level of discourse
While you still haven’t provided any evidence for your opinion of my moderation decisions, I am aware of your animosity. That’s why I asked Neil to look at the comments in question rather than Guano’ing both of them.
You’re rule lawyering. I enjoy doing that myself from time to time, but it doesn’t change the fact that what you wrote was clearly an insult at two readily identifiable participants and hence in violation of the rules. I asked Neil to deal with it in the hopes of avoiding yet another Moderation Issues flame war. That didn’t work so well.
You’re capable of writing incisive, interesting comments. This bullshit is beneath you.
I call it reading comprehension combined with fluency in English.
If you have an objection to a specific moderation decision I’ve made, please provide the details in this thread.
I agree. I also consider your original comment to be in violation of the rules. Neil has chosen to leave them in situ. I’ll support his decision.
Like I said, consistency is kind of Napoli’s (can I call him that?) thang.