10001. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 1:15:21 PM
GONE
10002. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 1:15:43 PM
YOU COW!!!!! I knew you were gonna do that!
10003. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 1:15:47 PM
Nice ficus, bitch!
10004. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:15:54 PM
Damn straight. I've lost like five in the past month.
10005. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:16:17 PM
What I don't get is that when we suggest killing a thread like Home & Garden, we hear "But we LIKE that thread!"
True. You like it.
But when a thread that some other people like is proposed, all of a sudden Threads are like bars of gold which cannot be handed out on a whim.
10006. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:17:12 PM
Why we can't have the Man Thread: A bunch of ball-breaking women and one post-menopausal Swede run this place.
TableTalk is no good as a solution. Same management class, plus no pictures.
10007. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 1:18:01 PM
Forget it Ace, Indy. It's Chinatown.
10008. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:18:02 PM
But when a thread that some other people like is proposed, all of a sudden Threads are like bars of gold which cannot be handed out on a whim.
You proposed thread reduction because you wanted more interaction. But you want a "man's club" thread because you think the Cafe is too "chicky". But it's not. It's your thread every bit as much as it is anyone else's. It's the socialization thread. So why create a separate place to cause further balkanization?
10009. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:19:54 PM
Forget it Ace, Indy. It's Chinatown.
No, it's not. You used to be a regular in the Cafe all the time. You aren't any more. Why? Are you saying that Diva and Christin are hostile to you? If not, why is it now a demand for your own place?
10010. wabbit - 3/16/2001 1:20:13 PM
Message # 10006
I am not post-menopausal.
10011. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 1:20:43 PM
"Threads are like bars of gold which cannot be handed out on a whim."
Weren't you the guy who was just bitching upthread about too many frivolous threads being created too often?
Face it, your beef is really "Why don't I get the thread that I want?"
Why not just say that rather than freak out about the good of the forum or some rot?
10012. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:21:14 PM
Oh, please, Cal. You wouldn't want us in the Mote Cafe, posting the sort of crap we posted in the Man Thread.
You're inviting me to come into the Mote Cafe and say, "Hey, Fielding! Want another cup of steaming hot Mote Coffee?"
"Why thank you! How are your kids!"
"Splendid! Thanks for asking, Chum!"
Yeah, right. Come over and socialize-- on our terms.
I think it's fine that the Mote Cafe is so chipper and friendly and Regis-and-Kathy-Lee. Do I want to post there? No. Do I want to offer FU some Cyber-Coffee? No.
10014. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:21:32 PM
wabbit: Nor are you Swedish. FWIW, I don't put you in the ball-breaker category either. If you were still in charge, we'd have our Man Thread.
10015. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:22:06 PM
(At least as far as I know you're not Swedish.)
10016. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 1:22:29 PM
I've made no demands.
Ace
How are the begonias coming along?
Did you go with the chiffon?
10017. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 1:23:15 PM
Wabbit,
You're not Swedish, either, are you?
Anyway, I gotta split again. It's payday and we have checks to stuff.
Gawd I live for busywork.
10018. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:23:54 PM
I'm painting this weekend. Is this a good color combination for a bedroom: rose, powder blue, and cowslip?
10019. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 1:24:29 PM
Give'em The Man Thread. It was one of the few threads that genuinely pleased and distressed so many so thoroughly for so short a while.
Again, meld complementary threads.
10020. Wombat - 3/16/2001 1:24:50 PM
Although Ace is going on like a quota queen--er, king about it, I did enjoy the Man thread. Perhaps divide the Cafe into "Fern Bar" and MacSorley's?
10021. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:25:06 PM
You wouldn't want us in the Mote Cafe, posting the sort of crap we posted in the Man Thread.
Who cares what I want? It's every bit as much your thread. I can't stand your "good man" = "anything that's not female" posts, but my objection to the Man thread was based on the fact that I didn't like a specific place for those posts. If you want to post hostilities to women, then by all means do it in the Inferno. If you want to get together and exchange cheerful profane and probably disgusting insults at each other, I see no reason why that isn't the Cafe, and there's no reason I can see that this isn't every bit as much a part of the Cafe as those cybercoffee offers.
10022. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:25:07 PM
I think it would be darling with a Dicken-esque border of an English village papered around the middle. I saw just the thing down at the gallery.
10023. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 1:26:02 PM
Indy
That's so Southern Living.
10024. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 1:27:27 PM
Can we have another Gay Thread?
10025. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:27:36 PM
Oh darn. I was hoping for the expensive yet tasteful look.
10026. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 1:27:46 PM
Indy you dense muther!! I gave you The Man Thread!
ME!
ME!
ME!!!!
It wasn't Wabbit and it wasn't Pelle and if you don't get it straight I'll have to do something drastic like tattoo it across your forhead so every time you look in the mirror you'll be reminded of who went out on the limb for you that you now call a ball-busting chick.
Now leave it alone or I'll put your nuts in a vise.
10027. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 1:27:50 PM
CalGal, the Mote Cafe is not the place for The Man Thread. A pollyanna can see that.
10028. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:28:53 PM
How about The Roughhouse?
Whatever. Keep the name "Man Thread" out.
10029. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:29:29 PM
Scott,
No, not "the man thread". But it's just as much a place for profane chatter as it is for kaffee-klatching (sp).
10030. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 1:30:14 PM
"The Roughhouse"? Are you kidding? Something more your style like...The Fart Wagon.
10031. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:30:32 PM
Chris: I'm just a mouthpiece for Frankie. He likes to play good cop/bad cop (among other "games").
(Sorry, FU, but those are my only set.)
10032. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:30:43 PM
Riiiiight... we can say whatever we like in the Mote Cafe, as long as it's not demographically offensive.
Swell.
10033. seadate - 3/16/2001 1:31:35 PM
A new gay thread ..... "The Cell Block".
10034. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 1:31:53 PM
Ace:
The Inferno was supposed to be a place when insulting each other was wlcomed, not just depositing deleted posts. Off color language, insults, etc....
I thought seadate had a good idea in making the "Man Thread" a side bar to the Inferno. Like a smoking room off the bar.
10035. wabbit - 3/16/2001 1:32:43 PM
Nor are you Swedish
Hmmm, 6'tall, blond, last name ends son...but I don't care for herring.
10036. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:32:48 PM
Where did I say it couldn't be demographically offensive? You can be as hostile to women as you like while chattering profanely.
However, it was you who made the comment about how fewer threads will make for more contact. Yet you refuse to post in the Cafe, instead demanding a place for you and yours.
10037. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 1:34:14 PM
Surely Jefferson was not Swedish?
10038. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:35:15 PM
I like "The Smoking Room." And sure, hide us in the Inferno.
You can hide us. But you cannot hide our spirit.
10039. seadate - 3/16/2001 1:35:52 PM
..it was you who made the comment about how fewer threads will make for more contact.
Hey, Real Men should be afforded the right to change their minds.
10040. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:36:33 PM
I like "The Smoking Room." And sure, hide us in the Inferno.
You can hide us. But you cannot hide our spirit.
10041. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:37:35 PM
Why should there be a place specifically intended for men? There are none specifically intended for women. That Ace declares them such is proof only of his limitations.
If whatever this place is can be clearly distinguished from the Inferno--which I very much doubt--and can also not be turned into a MAN'S thread, then I suppose there's no reason not to. But I really don't see why you think the Cafe has to be chick chatter.
10042. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 1:39:44 PM
IT wouldn't be for Men only. Women are welcome.
But no "Want a Cybercoffee?"
10043. wabbit - 3/16/2001 1:40:28 PM
The Investment thread is now Finances and Careers. Employment/Careers is archived.
10044. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 1:43:31 PM
Wabbit,
But your hair is only blonde sometimes. How's a body supposed to fit you into the racial profile if you keep expressing your individuality?
10045. seadate - 3/16/2001 1:44:13 PM
Cal, you'll never get it, sugar.
10046. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:50:20 PM
Actually, yes, seadate, I do get it. I just disagree with it.
Frankly, I think that Ace, Francie, and Indy are pussies for letting the chick chat win out in the Cafe thread.
10047. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 1:51:43 PM
You gonna' take that, Ace and Indy?
10048. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 1:52:27 PM
I like the idea of them being contained to their own little place.
Diva might not care for them running all over the place, spilling beer and dropping ashes on the sofa.
10049. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:53:21 PM
Frankly, I think it shows our superior tolerance. We are willing to allow discussion that doesn't interest us to continue and not insist it take the form we prefer. We could go disrupt the Cafe by shaping it in the direction we want, but we respect the Cafe regulars' right to exist and keep their 'hood the way they want it.
Unfortunately, we are not accorded that same right.
10050. seadate - 3/16/2001 1:53:57 PM
Any who fully understand fully embrace the idea.
It's a bonding thing, Cal .... where insults hurled land on the heads of the worthy. *Not* for the Cafe.
10051. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:54:05 PM
I like the idea of them being contained to their own little place.
I don't, and I frankly find that statement as annoying as Ace saying that only gays and chicks talk about gardening. Who is this "they", Judith?
10052. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 1:54:42 PM
Err...Ace and I could disrupt the cafe. FU could hold our coats.
10053. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:55:45 PM
We are willing to allow discussion that doesn't interest us to continue and not insist it take the form we prefer. We could go disrupt the Cafe by shaping it in the direction we want, but we respect the Cafe regulars' right to exist and keep their 'hood the way they want it.
That's definitely pussy talk. Jesus.
A thread is a thread. It's not "theirs". If the talk is pleasant, if profane, any discomfort experienced by people who prefer "have some cybercoffee" is no more relevant than that experienced by those who think 'have some cybercoffee" is an idiotic thing to say.
10054. CalGal - 3/16/2001 1:57:02 PM
It's a bonding thing, Cal .... where insults hurled land on the heads of the worthy. *Not* for the Cafe.
If it is purely insults, it's the Inferno. If it insults contained in chatter, then it is indeed for the cafe.
10055. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 2:00:02 PM
Who is "they, Judith?
Anyone who is bristling for a friggin' argument, CalGal....what is with you lately?
Jesus, let them go into the Cafe, I don't give a rip...
Despite your desire to deny it, there are some things men like to do on their own. They said women are welcome...hell, Jen went into the Man thread, even.
Sorry to be so bloody offensive. I find lots of things offensive but I don't go around trying to ramrod everyone into doing what I want.
10056. seadate - 3/16/2001 2:00:58 PM
Cal,
You're trying to strap pussy belts on Real Men.
10057. seadate - 3/16/2001 2:01:59 PM
Nice Rant, Judith!
hehe, Judith understands.
10058. RosettaStone - 3/16/2001 2:02:37 PM
I don't have time to read 60-plus new posts in this thread since I left this morning. But I give my vote to ACE.
I trust his judgement. Whatever he wants...
10059. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:06:25 PM
Despite your desire to deny it, there are some things men like to do on their own.
Don't be an ass. I have denied nothing. I like this "they" again--you mean men? I saw Ace say it. Does he speak for "them" all?
I oppose any thread created purely for one gender or the other. I think that is incredibly problematic. I also think the notion that the Cafe is only for "certain" people to be really unpleasant.
If it's the chatter thread, then fine. If there are going to be two chatter threads, then what is the distinguisher? Gender? I find that unpleasant. Politeness? Then what makes the second thread different from the Inferno?
but I don't go around trying to ramrod everyone into doing what I want.
Quite true. You are, instead, the queen mother of passive aggressive and really should be smacked more often for it. I'm amazed you've gotten away with it this long. But in any event, I'm not trying to ramrod anything. I disagree with the proposed thread for the reason stated. I can't see any reason for a new chatter thread unless it is to be distinguishable from the existing one.
10060. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:09:27 PM
You're trying to strap pussy belts on Real Men.
I certainly wouldn't need to waste any effort on you, if that were the case.
But no, I'm not. I am saying, rather, that there is no justiifcation for a "man" thread. The current thread is not a "woman" thread. Feel free to move in and be just as active participants--under your own terms--as the current people are.
If screaming occurs, let it occur. Then it can be dealt with. But there is no mandate for the current norm, so I think it should be challenged.
10061. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:11:00 PM
It seems that it is accepted that Language will be still exist in memory of Irv's and Hashke's early contributions. Am I right? Do you all agree?
10062. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 2:11:13 PM
Can we have an Otter Thread?
10063. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 2:12:09 PM
Well, please don't hold back...smack away.
I also think the notion that the Cafe is only for "certain" people to be really unpleasant.
I never said it was only for certain people.
10064. vonKreedon - 3/16/2001 2:12:17 PM
How about an Odder Thread?
10065. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 2:13:23 PM
Give em a "Man" Thread, for pity's sake -- somewhere they can light their farts and compare their dicks.
10066. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:14:19 PM
I meant that Language won't be merged with any other thread. Would someone answere me, please?
10067. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 2:15:04 PM
Cal?
10068. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:15:23 PM
answere, answer
10069. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2001 2:15:46 PM
Cal?
10070. seadate - 3/16/2001 2:16:02 PM
HAHA, Cal you gotta do better than that if you're trying to get under my skin. Lighten up, chick.
Cal, if I feel the need to blow a fart, I'm going to be polite enough to excuse myself from the table (although it's my *right* to stink up the joint). If I leave the table and walk into the men's room and let 'er rip, all the guys 'll laugh.
Nah, you've no clue.
10071. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:16:14 PM
Thanks for answering earlier, Indiana.
10072. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:21:43 PM
Seadate, I am profoundly uninterested in getting under your skin. Besides, I require no effort to annoy people.
Your rebuttal was idiotic. But I suspect you know that.
Indy, I don't know what your constant question is.
10073. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:22:36 PM
Read my post above, please, Cal.
10074. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:24:03 PM
That's not mine to answer.
10075. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:28:47 PM
Cal, I am asking every one , Cal. What is your opinion on Language? Would you like to see it merged with another one?
10076. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 2:40:00 PM
Silence. I may just have my answer.
10077. seadate - 3/16/2001 2:43:23 PM
Your rebuttal was idiotic. But I suspect you know that.
Analagous to the obvious, but obscure to the threatened.
10078. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:46:09 PM
Hardly obscure. Idiotic.
10079. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:46:57 PM
Yc, you don't have your answer. The thread will be there until someone says it will be deleted, which I haven't seen.
10080. seadate - 3/16/2001 2:55:01 PM
Glad you held your ground on that one Cal, 'cause you're right ... I feel it's important to address someone in terms they can understand.
10081. CalGal - 3/16/2001 2:57:59 PM
Gosh, I think he called me stupid.
Imagine my devastation.
Come back when you actually understand the point and, if I don't find it too tedious, I'll converse on it again.
10082. seadate - 3/16/2001 3:08:15 PM
Sorry I'm not blessed with your gift of true brilliance and articulation. I'm sorry to see these gifts utilized largely to establish dominance by inflicting pain by hurling personal insults as if there is not a *person* with feelings to whom your posts are addressed.
10083. seadate - 3/16/2001 3:08:56 PM
signing off
10084. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 3:24:33 PM
Or we could just play Thread Survivor and vote off a thread every week until we get to a 'comfortable' number.
10085. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 3:26:44 PM
Do we get an Immunity Idol?
10086. Uzmakk - 3/16/2001 3:29:39 PM
I don't know, Loar, if I am forced to interact with Ace and Jexster I might be forced to slap them both silly and then kick both their fucking butts simultaneously.
Nothing wrong with a little experimentation. Cut the number of threads. Its not like we're trying to put a man on Mars here.
10087. Uzmakk - 3/16/2001 3:31:01 PM
I suggested the same thing two years ago.
10088. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 3:31:13 PM
Maintain Language, International, Politics, Sports Bar, Home & Garden, Mote Cafe, Movies/Television, The Inferno, Technical Issues and the Slow Thread. Lit/Poetry/Arts & Music will be folded in one Art - Popular & Esoteric. The rest may come and go according to topical interest.
10089. Uzmakk - 3/16/2001 3:33:04 PM
Sorry folks, my posts are way out of sequence. I posted from the butter bar.
10090. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 3:33:12 PM
"Or we could just play Thread Survivor and vote off a thread every week until we get to a 'comfortable' number."
This is the best idea I've ever heard.
10091. AytchMan - 3/16/2001 3:34:59 PM
Jeez, I can't believe I just waded through the last hundred posts.
Merge three of four threads, already, and see what happens for a week. Merge a couple of the artsy threads, they're civil and people won't mind. After a week, revisit and either stand pat, reverse or continue.
But the only long-term solution is more posters.
And don't merge Politics with anything save a maximum-security prison.
10092. CalGal - 3/16/2001 3:36:55 PM
And don't merge Politics with anything save a maximum-security prison.
Absolutely. Ace and Francie would make a lovely couple of bitches to be handed round.
10093. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 3:37:13 PM
Message # 10088 revealed in a dream by
10094. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 3:37:40 PM
Ugh. Pain.
10095. CalGal - 3/16/2001 3:38:49 PM
No, no. More Nimoy with the cement burger.
"Paaaaaaeeeen!"
10096. janjon - 3/16/2001 3:39:33 PM
don't protest too much, frankie.
10097. ScottLoar - 3/16/2001 3:40:50 PM
I composed my listing based on the persons who habitually post there and keep the thread moving (yes, even the Slow Thread has its small coterie).
10098. janjon - 3/16/2001 3:42:29 PM
don't merge anything into the Cafe. It is a perfectly fine place for those who like that kind of thing. Absolutely gooey for those who don't.
Sort of a reverse of Politics. Merging it with anything is bound to turnoff some of the posters of the other thread. Same with any thread merged into that place of sweetness,light and coffee.
10099. CalGal - 3/16/2001 3:43:24 PM
So you support the idea of two chat threads? Distinguished how?
10100. janjon - 3/16/2001 3:43:33 PM
Loar's suggestions are more or less in sync with some others up above, and seem sensible to me.
10101. CalGal - 3/16/2001 3:46:35 PM
I think Loar's suggestion is fine but I hesitate at merging the Poetry thread with Arts/Music. It has been around forever and it is used regularly by its participants. Moving Stories in with Poetry is fine, since Poetry gets to stay. But any further seems a bit much.
10102. janjon - 3/16/2001 3:47:34 PM
virtually all of the threads can be or turn into, at one time or another, chat threads.
not sure I am advocating two chat threads. It is just that that particular thread is avowedly, openly and actively hostile to anything that doesn't smack of how are you, what are you wearing, what are your weekend plans, oh aren't we all such nice people palaver.
Fine for those who want or need it. Certainly won't pull in people for whom that kind of chitchat on a sustained basis is a bit or more of a drag.
10103. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 3:50:20 PM
I think we need a Virtual Survivor Thread, with votes every Monday morning for expulsions from the thread.
10104. Uzmakk - 3/16/2001 3:57:22 PM
Hey, Cal, what is this "no threads distinguished by gender" business? Who says? Tell me the nature of the great evil that you fear.
10105. Uzmakk - 3/16/2001 3:58:20 PM
otoh, I read a great deal of the Man Thread and I wouldn't waste my time on it.
10106. Fielding - 3/16/2001 4:01:25 PM
This has got to be the stupidest conversation I have ever seen on the Mote. Stupider even than some of the arguments I had with CalGal.
1. The Mote is not broken. Their is no need to do anything too drastic.
2. The biggest problem here is what Aytch said: We lack critical mass in many of our discussions. The biggest cause of this, IMO, is that newcomers are treated badly. There is too much inside humor, and too much easy callousness. Some people here get off on the sound of their own voice arguing. I have tried to bring a few people to the community, and they have all said the same things. Its our loss.
3. Fewer threads will not solve any problems. Indeed, we already lose good discussions when one topic overwhelms another.
4. I don't understand the desire to reduce threads. Frankly, it smacks of sour grapes. For example, I have never visited the Poetry Thread, but if others enjoy it, I don't see the harm of continuing it.
5. There seems to be some desire to RIP the Rants thread. Again, I don't see what harm its doing, but if people want to get rid of it, I won't stand in their way. Maybe we should make it a sub-thread of the Inferno.
6. I can see why Ace and co are pissed about The Man Thread. There is no good reason why a group of upstanding members of the Mote Community shouldn't have a thread that they want. The actions of the moderators to remove it were arbitrary, capricious and hypocritical. If enough people want it, it should exist. This isn't the fucking USSR.
7. That being said, I don't like the name "Man Thread", because it implies exclusion. If people want a "Man" thread, they should come up with a name that is appropriate. I nominate "Iron John". :)
10107. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2001 4:01:51 PM
When I logged in I thought the Mote unusually slow for a Friday night. And then I hit on this!
Many funny posts. The funniest of all is that even I, a Fucking Foreigner, understand that many of them were made in jest but some real Murricans got quite worked up about them.
Now that wabbit has owned up to being a Swede in disguise, it can be revealed that this place and its predecessor has been ruled by foreigners for a long time. It started with Irv, the swarthy Indonesian who recruited one who shall remain nameless to post for him in the sports threads.
10108. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 4:03:44 PM
Can I have a thread on Housing Starts?
10109. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2001 4:06:14 PM
Of course you can. Lay out the agenda.
10110. janjon - 3/16/2001 4:07:20 PM
And, the more I think about it, it would be a mistake to lose a thread like, say, War. It offers a unique opportunity for almost always interesting (and, yes, civil) discussions on topics that are in their way timeless. I know I for one have learned a lot from reading (and occasionally participating) there. It definitely adds a positive character to the place.
I suspect that on reflection I will feel the same way about, say, Short Stories (although putting together with Poetry shouldn't hurt either).
In other words, lets play around with the formats a bit, but not go overboard.
10111. Francis Urquhart - 3/16/2001 4:08:12 PM
I. Housing Starts
II. What is a house?
III.How do you start one?
IV. How has the cocksucker Clinton screwed housing starts for the next 60 years?
V. Eat my poopstain, poopstain.
10112. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2001 4:15:09 PM
Impressive. Well worth considering.
10113. Autodaffy - 3/16/2001 4:18:03 PM
ChristinO,
Please check your mail.
10114. Wombat - 3/16/2001 4:19:14 PM
FU:
Shouldn't it be "Clowntoon?"
Pelle:
How do you say "poopstain" in Swedish?
10115. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:19:20 PM
ycm:
To answer you:
Yes, Language should be continued as an independent, permanant, Most-Favored-Nation thread. It cannot be merged with another thread, and it is a tribute to Hashke.
10116. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2001 4:20:12 PM
janjon
I agree about War. I also agree with wombat's earlier observation that there are people who could contribute but who don't. jexster is a point in case. He really knows a lot about WWII but in his present state of tunnel vision ...
I also like it because it occasionally draws posts from LohrM. I know him from TT, a fellow of enormous erudition which he doesn't use to slam others. He reminds me in some ways of Hashké (bless his memory).
10117. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:25:03 PM
Keep War.
However, I think we should let some of the specialty threads attrit a bit (naturally), and not replace them quite so quickly.
Okay, so we're not going to change anything.
We're not cutting threads; we're not merging threads. Okay, we may merge a couple. No more than three.
So threads are not gold bars. They are not a precious commodity to be horded.
That said, why does Dr. Smith rate a thread, and yet real MEN don't?
10118. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:26:26 PM
By the way. I just saw a beautiful pair of patent leather pumps on my way back from a job interview.
Should I buy them, or should I use that $200 to get my ass properly waxed?
10119. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:29:17 PM
Well
Whatever happens, I think the International thread should be renamed the Israel thread, and then a new thread should be created for the discussion of the rest of the world. I miss lurking on interesting world discussions that manage to avoid mentioning either Israel or Palistine.
I like the idea of Poetry and Stories combined; Home and Garden with the Cafe, and a catch all administration thread that combines Try the Mote, Technical and Suggestions. I never could understand why these were all separate. And Inferno and Rants could easily be together. I mean, what's the difference?
Since everyone else is putting in their two cents, I also don't see anything wrong with a man thread. I always thought the sports thread was sort of that, but I guess it doesn't serve the same purpose. As long as pornography is kept out (which I would strongly urge is a ground rule), I can't see any reason not to let people hosts threads that have a mass appeal.
I'm game for a Survivor Thread Game, too.
10120. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:32:25 PM
horded = hoarded
My spelling has been on the MsIT level for a week now.
I must be getting my "woman's troubles" early this month.
10121. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:32:58 PM
Ace
I'd nix either. Put the $200 away for some new electronic toy.
The pumps will give you foot problems of the really serious kind, the waxing won't last long enough for summer so there's really no point.
10122. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:34:20 PM
Hey!
I've been better for a while now. And it's all your fault anyway. Everyone who ever made fun of my spelling skills ended up with a chronic case of it themselves. I notice it's of the permanent variety as well.
10123. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:35:33 PM
"The pumps will give you foot problems of the really serious kind, "
Who cares about foot problems? I gots to get me a man, chile.
10124. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:37:01 PM
I think the Inferno and Rant Threads should be merged into a Poopstain Thread.
I am all for a Man Thread. Will it include instructions in how to find one?
10125. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:37:05 PM
What about a Humor Thread?
We don't have Humor Thread.
I only post in Politics because it's the only place I'm allowed to be funny.
If we had a Humor Thread (read: Man Thread, baby!), maybe I wouldn't post so much in Politics.
10126. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:37:26 PM
Well then, make sure he has insurance because bunions are expensive to remove and painful to boot. Not to mention they require wearing really, really ugly footwear for at least 4 months; long enough for that man to get a divorce.
10128. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:38:10 PM
Well then, make sure he has insurance because bunions are expensive to remove and painful to boot. Not to mention they require wearing really, really ugly footwear for at least 4 months; long enough for that man to get a divorce.
10129. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:38:30 PM
"long enough for that man to get a divorce."
He can have his divorce. I just want to get married. I don't want to stay married.
Mmm-hm.
10130. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:38:44 PM
Ace
Every thread should allow humor unless it has been specified to be serious, dour posters only, like the International Thread.
10131. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:38:46 PM
Marriage would really cut into my dating.
10132. janjon - 3/16/2001 4:38:57 PM
marshame - as I recall (dimly), your problem hasn't been finding one.
10133. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:40:13 PM
"Every thread should allow humor unless it has been specified to be serious, dour posters only, like the International Thread."
The thing is, the Dour Nord always says I'm "funny," but I doubt he'd permit my shenanigans in his precious Isreal-Palestine-Pakistan-India (IPPI) thread.
I like the Poopstain thread idea, Marsh. I've been an advocate of that for some time.
10134. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2001 4:40:25 PM
wombat
I don't even know what 'poopstain' means in American. Explanation and ethymology please.
10135. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:40:28 PM
Janjon
Finding the *right* one. Okay, the *right enough* one.
10136. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:41:19 PM
Isn't "tire tracks" a euphemism for poopstain?
(Or something like that...)
10137. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:42:27 PM
Swedish,
The etymology is thus:
Poopstain
Poop = Poop
Stain = Stain
Got it? Get it. Good.
10138. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:42:33 PM
We should not be talking about find a man and poopstains in the same conversation. It's too confusing.
10139. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:43:15 PM
Now when I hear bunion, I always think: woman.
10140. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:43:21 PM
Poopstains are just nature's way of telling a man to turn his underwear inside-out.
10141. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:43:37 PM
Good for another week.
10142. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:46:56 PM
Fielding
Wrt #2 in Message # 10106
It's a lie, whatever they said. I haven't been mean to a newbie in a long time.
Wrt the inside humor, I'm not sure how to reduce this other than to cut down on the number of friggin' chat threads. One of the reasons I like Ace's basic suggestion of combining threads is because I agree that not enough people interact with each other in the discussion threads.
Wrt the easy callousness, well, it's going to be hard to eliminate that. Some personalities thrive on it, some wither in the face of it. First rule of a faceless discussion forum is to toughen up. It might seem people are being purposeful in their callousness but generally it's much less studied.
Anyone who comes looking for love and instant bonding in an anonymous internet forum needs to get a reality check. If that happens at all, it happens only slowly, and over a long period of intereaction. The investment in time necessary for that sort of interaction is the same regardless of whether it's online or in person.
10143. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 4:49:34 PM
ycm:
To answer you:
Yes, Language should be continued as an independent, permanant, Most-Favored-Nation thread. It cannot be merged with another thread, and it is a tribute to Hashke.
Ace, it is extremely gracious of you to answer my query. Thank you.
10144. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:50:28 PM
"The investment in time necessary for that sort of interaction is the same regardless of whether it's online or in person."
FU started calling me all hours of the night and sending me "Thinking of You" greeting cards the first goddamned week I was here.
10145. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 4:51:25 PM
Ace
What can I say. It's 109.
10146. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:52:38 PM
Is FU the old Niner??
I just can't keep up.
10147. janjon - 3/16/2001 4:54:55 PM
His nimble soft shoe is a dead give away. I've always assumed he had some ballet training as a kid.
10148. marshame - 3/16/2001 4:55:51 PM
Since his original moniker was 109109, I think he should now be dubbed FU-2.
10149. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 4:57:14 PM
Since his original moniker was 109109, I think he should now be dubbed FU-2.
He implies that with his posts.
10150. janjon - 3/16/2001 4:57:41 PM
whoa. he pranced through Jack Vincinnes in between the two.
10151. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 4:58:21 PM
It was sort of creepy.
I post three words to this idiot and the next week there's a basket on my doorstep containing a two kittens. The card reads:
"I call them Ace and Niner. I hope they'll be together, forever!"
What the fuck is that?
Needless to say, I didn't want the kittens, so I gave them to some shelter. Both contracted lyme disease within a week and died, they tell me.
But every once in a while I get a phone call at 2 am, and a tweety, shivery voice asks me, "How are our kittens?" And I say, Fine, and I hang up on the creep.
But they're not fine, you know. They're dead. They've been dead for two years.
10152. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 5:01:21 PM
Marshame
FU-2? Very droll.
10153. ChristinO - 3/16/2001 5:28:54 PM
Autodaffy: got your mail and responded. You can also reach me more quickly through instant message at AOL --bridgeburner69 or on ICQ #14021875.
10154. marshame - 3/16/2001 5:31:21 PM
Ace
Yes but he says you ate the candy he sent.
10155. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/16/2001 5:34:50 PM
ATTENTION
Because the strutting, jack-booted petty tyrant Pelle Nilson has continued his affrontery to my person and domicile, I, Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane, demand his unconditional abdication from his office. By the good graces of my personage, I allowed him 24 hours to correct his grevious error, yet he has failed to do so.
Rather than punish many for the bumbling pride and incompetence of one, the good doctor is prepared to extend a second interlude of grace to this Mote's innocent bystanders.
Demand that this miscreant resign and you shall be spared. Should this stoodge stay upon his throne, I shall be forced to adopt more drastic measures.
Time is short, friends. My patience grows thin while my list of grievances lengthens.
When my restraint reaches its limits, the Mote shall tremble.
10156. marshame - 3/16/2001 5:37:10 PM
Yes Dr. Coltrane, but more importantly, can you give us the etymology of "poopstain"?
10157. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/16/2001 5:41:40 PM
I prefer answering from my office once Nilson is forced out and my thread restored.
10158. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/16/2001 5:42:35 PM
I suspect poopstain and Pelle Nilson have similar etymologies.
10159. MsIvoryTower - 3/16/2001 6:31:09 PM
Pelle
Resist! You know what happens when you give into blackmail. Honor is now at stake.
10160. RosettaStone - 3/16/2001 7:22:37 PM
Dr. X: Pelle has been trying to axe your thread from the day you started. I think he thought you were the banned poster cazart, and you didn't kiss the right rear-ends here.
But did not Pelle e-mail you before he chainsawed your thread?
If not, then that's very tacky.
10161. RickNelson - 3/16/2001 7:32:16 PM
Jaysus!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe what I'm reading!!!
When there's some common sense talk, let me know, I'll join in and give my ideas. I'm not for consolidating threads except for the idea Calgal proferred some 150 posts back. That is to keep general, specific threads and end those which have run their topics course.
Dr.X, tell me why you rate the pull to oust Pelle? You're new here aren't you, or are you? If you know best, why do you have the gall to threaten the serenity of the entire Mote? Pisses me off to read such crap!!!
10162. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 7:37:12 PM
I think that Dr. X is Pelle.
He knew that he was on the verge of being thrown out for being such an incompetent, overbearing, boring, hypocritical buffoon.
Now that he's been 'threatened', he can expect the Mote to back him up and his tenure as co-moderator is secure.
Ingenious.
10163. RickNelson - 3/16/2001 7:41:22 PM
No, Pelle isn't the creative type, he's an intellectual and not prone to deeds of misdirection and deceit. A Swede who has his ways and they're not all bad. I'm used to him, why are mostly malcontents the ones who complain about him?
10164. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 8:11:14 PM
War, Huuhn, good god y'all, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. RIP it.
In honor of the memory of my favorite TV and Film star, Alfalfa, I suggest calling the "man" thread the "He-Man Woman Hater's Club".
10165. Autodaffy - 3/16/2001 9:32:00 PM
ChristinO,
Check your mail.
10166. RosettaStone - 3/16/2001 9:46:00 PM
I agree with bubba, the trasher.
RIP the War thread. For awhile.
Unfortunately, the serfs with the pitchforks will soon be fighting the high flying, high-tech Israelis looking for more "living space." Or the drug-selling, mafia Albanians will decide to take over another country and and we can start a thread looking at their civil wars.
10167. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 10:02:50 PM
Do Not Kill the War Thread.
Personally, I think we ought to leave well enough alone, aside from a few minor thread adjustments. If people want and think we need new members, they'll act in a way that encourages people who come in to stay, first off, then maybe encourage new participants with some sort of promotion whether on a large or small scale (which I doubt will happen, fwiw). If not, we'll continue to be what we've been, for better or worse, no matter what cosmetic changes we make.
From a strictly selfish standpoint, it's still a fun after-work diversion for me, and I still enjoy reading a lot of the posts. I like seeing some new and knowledgeable people around, several of whom have taken an active interest in the site, and hope the trend of slowly growing new IDs continues without much siphoning off of the old ones. It disturbs me that some familiar faces are gone--people who'd been committed contributors for years. I'd like to know what their thinking was when they decided not to be a part of the Mote anymore.
10168. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 10:06:30 PM
Arky
I was joking. And even if I hadn't been joking, I'd have to reconsider now that Rosie has weighed in.
10169. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 10:07:06 PM
But I'm serious about the "He-Man Woman Hater's Club".
10170. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 10:08:31 PM
I was poking Rose. Slow Friday night.
10171. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 10:09:25 PM
Whaddya mean, slow? There's been at least 10 posts in the last hour.
10172. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 10:11:44 PM
I think it's a great idea, Bub. The Man's Thread didn't bother me at all, and I thought most of the posts were funny, and the tone was somewhat like the HMWHC. Must be what deer camp is like.
10173. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 10:12:50 PM
Hey, Mr Under-30--guys your age are supposed to be living it up on Friday nights. Besides, I meant slow at my house.
10174. dusty - 3/16/2001 10:23:27 PM
Marshame - very clever
10175. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 10:25:31 PM
Slow here, too. The better half is reading for his class tomorrow morning and has left me to my own devices.
10176. joezan - 3/16/2001 10:26:09 PM
Hey, Mr Under-30--guys your age are supposed to be living it up on Friday nights. Besides, I meant slow at my house.
Stop hitting on the youngsters, Arky. Remember - you're a married woman.
10177. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 10:26:19 PM
By the way, Marshame, they're known as "skid marks".
10178. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 10:27:39 PM
Hey, you're right. I turn 30 next Friday, so I'd better enjoy my last Friday night out as a 20something.
Night arky, all.
10179. joezan - 3/16/2001 10:28:25 PM
bubb:
My dad referred to them as "bacon strips".
10180. joezan - 3/16/2001 10:29:10 PM
...referring to my brother's bvd's, of course.
10181. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 10:33:30 PM
Seeya, Jon.
Look what you did, Joe. You messed up my strategy. Now I'm gonna have to try to pry Bob out of his recliner.
10182. joezan - 3/16/2001 10:35:41 PM
You've just gotta learn to be a little more subtle with your hints, Arky.
10183. bubbaette - 3/16/2001 10:36:20 PM
It's nearing 11, so I can go to bed now without feeling like too much of a geezer.
Joe
Of course they were your brother's BVDs.
10184. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 10:40:46 PM
Gee, thanks for the advice, Joe. I'll keep it in mind next time.
Eleven where Bubba is is ten where I am. But I'm at the teen's-out-I'm-waiting-up stage of life, as Joe so "subtly" reminded me.
10185. Raskolnikov - 3/16/2001 11:48:02 PM
Comments:
The number of threads should be a function of interest and activity (duh). Based on the current number of participants, we may indeed have a few too many threads. But if participation increases substantially, such as if TT closes down, I think the existing thread system would drown. Politics, for instance, already moves nearly as fast as a chat room. I can't count the number of times I have dropped out of a discussion because it would take too damned long to find out where it left off, and the topic has changed 5 times since. If even a half dozen of TT's more prolific posters showed up, the thread would become unreadable.
10186. Raskolnikov - 3/16/2001 11:49:21 PM
I guess that should have been "comment"
10187. RustlerPike - 3/17/2001 7:09:41 AM
Who are the triumvirate? Why was I not informed of their existence?
10188. vw - 3/17/2001 11:04:16 AM
As a relative newbie to the Mote, I think some (not all) of the consolidation ideas have merit.
At the same time, I think we’re missing a thread dedicated to a very large part of online discussion … Social Issues. I’m referring to a place for topics such as the mechanics, research, theories, polices and laws surrounding marriage, divorce, welfare reform, education, domestic violence, child abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, racism, sexism, gender equity, etc.
Though some of these topics touch on the political, they don’t belong in Politics. Social Issues rarely have anything to do with the day-to-day antics of Beltway Politics. The focus is not on what GWB thinks of a social issue (because quite frankly career politicians don’t think about them except as the Constituency Concern De Jour) but rather on what the researchers, theorists and thinkers are talking about today that will eventually be used to shape a political policy two years from now.
A Current Event often triggers a Social Issues topic, but it very quickly surpasses the Current Event arena. You can’t discuss welfare reform comprehensively without going back the Depression era. You can’t talk about Custody support law without tracing back it’s evolution from the 1970s Divorce reform movement. Those of us who are Social Policy wonk-wannabes, joyfully arguing over the minute details of how rebuttable Joint Physical Custody would work, can drive a Current Events person insane by filling a thread with 46 posts going back and forth over the definition of a single word.
(cont)
10189. vw - 3/17/2001 11:04:28 AM
As far as increasing the interaction between self-created ‘classes’ of posters, it has been my experience that Social Issues tends to bring forth people of all POVs. People that don’t want to talk about Partisan Politics are often willing to discuss the politics of gender. People that don’t have the least interest in potty training often have a strong opinion of the validity of the “tender years” doctrine in custody cases.
I would guess (but can’t back up) that Social Issues in TT draws the most diverse cross-section of TT posters of any of their 24 topics. I think it’s worth a try here.
10190. ChristinO - 3/17/2001 11:21:39 AM
Autodaffy: got your email and replied with yet another new plan.
10191. Francis Urquhart - 3/17/2001 11:31:01 AM
Health Policy/Parenting = Social Issues
Notices/Try the Mote/New Thread and Feature Suggestions/Technical Issues - Administration
Rants -RIP
Quiz - RIP
Arts and Music/Books - Arts and Literature
10192. Francis Urquhart - 3/17/2001 11:32:02 AM
Seven threads zapped - like that.
10193. arkymalarky - 3/17/2001 11:40:04 AM
The quiz thread was nicely defended, and I think the decision was for it to stay. Maybe quizzes, puzzles, and games would be an idea to expand it?
I like VW's suggestion.
10194. vw - 3/17/2001 11:40:43 AM
I disagree that "parenting" equates Social Issues. There is a difference between discussing the day-to-day practicalities of raising a child and social policies about children. Some of the bloodiest flame fests I’ve ever seen online (most recently on TT, though also on other forums) have been between people wanting to talk in excruciating detail on how to get Junior to eat his peas and a theorist spouting stats from fourteen studies about the negative/positive ratio effect of folic acid on the developing brain.
I think there is a tendency to want to combine topics with little regard to thread “voice”. I maybe out of line in thinking that “voice” should be a consideration here. But I do think that taking note of it is necessary.
10195. JudithAtHome - 3/17/2001 11:45:55 AM
I think there is a tendency to want to combine topics with little regard to thread “voice”. I maybe out of line in thinking that “voice” should be a consideration here. But I do think that taking note of it is necessary.
Amen to that...and I like your Social Issues idea, too.
I don't know why there is such a rush to "zap threads" but it seems to be catching on with several people. And it's rather amusing how they want to zap threads they seldom visit or combine threads they never visit but want their faves to remain untouched.
10196. ScottLoar - 3/17/2001 11:53:42 AM
JudithatHome;
I think you're being a bit harsh. There are too many threads, and any reasoned suggestion to cut has noted the longevity of several threads which should remain inviolate regardless of whether or not they have general appeal: Politics, International, Home & Garden, the Mote Cafe, the Slow Thread and Language are excellent examples and do not always share the same reservoir of correspondents. Less viable are topical threads which wax or wane according to the spur of the moment.
10197. ScottLoar - 3/17/2001 11:55:32 AM
The main theme seems to be those threads which are complementary can be melded with no loss of interest or contributors.
10198. ScottLoar - 3/17/2001 11:56:38 AM
Yes, I do mean the example of Poetry with Arts & Music and Books, which three together can inspire more intercourse between like minds, or so I would think
10199. ScottLoar - 3/17/2001 11:57:57 AM
I think Current Events can be deleted, despite the heroic efforts of the thread host whose conscientious vigor could be well applied elsewhere if he so chose.
10200. ScottLoar - 3/17/2001 11:59:37 AM
I think Message # 10088 the best suggestion.
10201. ScottLoar - 3/17/2001 12:01:18 PM
Unfortunately, commenting on this has become a referendum by committee: jaw, jaw, jaw and nothing done.
10202. JudithAtHome - 3/17/2001 12:01:40 PM
main theme seems to be those threads which are complementary
Yes, the main theme seems to be that but you can't deny some were suggesting things like combining H&G with the Cafe and mixing others that didn't seem all that compatable. I may have been harsh in saying that about "their faves" but yesterday, even you were appalled about combining whatever it was with International...I thought it was a bad idea, too.
Things got somewhat overblown at times yesterday, wouldn't you agree?
10203. arkymalarky - 3/17/2001 12:04:13 PM
I think Poetry should be kept separate, or combined with Stories. I'm virtually certain we'd lose a few long-time people (even if they do appear rarely any more) if poetry were merged any other way.
Current Events is one of those things you don't need until you need it. When the shooting in CA occurred it was the place to discuss it. Most daily news fits in the other threads. Because of Grey's efforts (and RobertB's and MGleason's lately) it's a cool lurking thread. I like to pop in and see the latest weird stuff they've found. Another idea for it might be to do like the feature in Slate, Today's Papers, but that's pretty labor-intensive.
10204. JudithAtHome - 3/17/2001 12:05:04 PM
I agree with you about #10088, by the way...
I just think, for instance, Survivor with Movies&TV is a horrible idea as is combining H&G with the Cafe, both ideas which were mentioned yesterday.
10205. DanDillon - 3/17/2001 1:12:30 PM
My suggestion:
R.I.P this thread because it's causing too many factions. Let it be known that I hate all of you, and I'm going to go lock myself in my room until you all go away. Before I go, I have one more thing to say. The Mote itself should be done away with. It's ugly and stinky and degenerate and poopy and yucky. Everybody talks too much without saying anything, and I just hate it when everyone disagrees. Disagreements make me want to run away and hide and grab my blankie and fondle myself. You are all animals. The Mote makes us all animals. I hate healthy debate. The Mote breeds anit-christs. I hate all of you. Omigod! I hate myself, too!
-SLAM-
We're bored, and incest is looking pretty appealing. So we opt to redo the place. Cool it. Self-interest destroys everyone's fun.
10206. ycmeehan - 3/17/2001 1:40:54 PM
The Education thread was languishing for long periods of time when we had it. Why can't we add Education to Parenting since elementary and second educations topics are very much part of parenting?
10207. ycmeehan - 3/17/2001 1:42:17 PM
mayb be we discussed that before. I forgot to check today's posts
10208. JudithAtHome - 3/17/2001 1:46:29 PM
There's a proposal for a Social Issues thread that might encompass education issues, I believe. VW has stated the case for the SI thread very persuavisely upthread.
10209. CalGal - 3/17/2001 2:10:01 PM
I fourth or fifth the SI thread and I think VW would be a terrific host.
On the Quiz thread--is there any reason it can't be in the Cafe? One thing I have noticed recently is that use of the News feature really makes a difference. I am starting to wonder if Alistair can make the creation of news items a privilege for people whether they are hosts or not. I can also increase the number of News items from 13. Alistair is right about this feature--it really does drive participation and conversation.
Anyway, if someone posted a Quiz in the Cafe and then also put a link in the News (or ask a host to do so, any host) I think that will accomplish much the same thing as the Quiz thread. I think it will also do much to dispel the notion that the Cafe is only for certain "sorts"--an impression that seems to be fairly prevalent and one that I'm sure the hosts of the thread would be appalled by. I'm not suggesting this to disenfranchise Fielding; in fact, maybe he should be added to the hosts of the Cafe where he can be keeper of Quizzes.
Try the Mote: I really like having a practice thread. However, it just occurred to me that we could have it without putting it on the front page. Right upper corner, Mote Links, we could put a new link called TEST POSTING. That could take them to Try the Mote--but it wouldn't be on the front page. The main person to check with on Technical combining with Suggestions is Alistair.
10210. CalGal - 3/17/2001 2:10:18 PM
I agree that N&Q can go away--again, I think we can accomplish the same thing with News. Ditto on Rants, although I tell you,it's a fun thread to read.
I like Current Events. I think it will often lead as a springboard to social issues, and if we had an SI thread we could be more aggressive about moving it there. But for Grey's cool stories alone, it's worth it.
I think the combo of Books, Arts & Music is excellent if Uz and JJ don't mind. It's the one other definite thing I'd like to see come out of this because I think there's a lot of synergy.
10211. CalGal - 3/17/2001 2:19:43 PM
On Parenting. I think Parenting splits into two parts--the chit chat on parenting and the societal issues on parenting. One can definitely go to Social Issues, one can (but doesn't have to) go to the Cafe. This same split is true of Health Policy--part of it makes sense for social issues, part is the general exchange and request for information on health problems.
This split can be handled either way--by keeping the two threads for subject specific interchanges of the how-to and help--or by saying the Cafe is the place for that and again, using news articles more assertively to alert people to it.
I strongly encourage all hosts to add conversations on any thread and any topic--even more than one per thread, if relevant.
For those who say all this discussion is bad, boring, etc: I disagree, but then I'm a process geek who finds value in exchanges even when no action is taken. But actions have been taken, which should satisfy the more task-oriented among us. Thus far I see that the administrators have implemented at least two of the suggestions and I think at least one or two more will take effect. So it clearly hasn't been wasted.
10212. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:23:22 PM
If quizzes can go in the cafe then Grey's stories can go in a social issues thread. Hopefully such a thread can be called something besides "social issues" so we don't look any more like Table Talk's little buddy...seems to be a creep in that direction lately with employment, finance, & parenting.
Not sure if a news link would solve the problem of quizzes in the cafe. It would still be easy for quiz responses to get lost in the shuffle even though the quiz itself would be easy to get to.
I think the idea that the cafe is "only for certain types" (of posts at least if not posters)is pretty justified whatever the hosts would think of the idea. On the occasions when I do read it it's not uncommon to see a host or two eschewing conflict of any kind. But so what? Every thread is for "certain types," namely the type of person who likes to make the type of post the thread is for. The cafe has an implicit purpose and feel just like every other thread.
Why again would we lose longtime contributors if Poetry were merged with Stories? I don't get that.
I don't think there's much point in just removing threads from the front page. If a thread like test sits down at the bottom until it's used for its intended purpose, why is that a problem?
Likewise there wouldn't be much harm in moving stuff like that to a linked second page, but that sounds more like different than better.
10213. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:28:17 PM
ace's "molecules" argument -- paring threads would cut both ways if some molecules simply left the site rather than went to other threads to bump into more molecules. Several posters check the site largely to see what's happening in one or a couple threads (I think) and then maybe wander into others once in a while just to see. But without their anchor threads they wouldn't come by.
10214. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:33:23 PM
The main problem with molecular interaction, as I see it, is not that people need to be forced to go from their personal anchor threads to other threads and therefore have more bumps. Many of us have been around for a very long time and we know what other posters have to say, their styles of arguing, etc. Even when new people come we know the "voice" as vw said of the threads they may be going to. There is a conscious choice to focus on a few anchor threads, in which a poster has a particular personal interest. Reducing the number of anchor threads would very likely just make this place less interesting to these types, rather than make other threads more interesting.
10215. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:34:49 PM
(Sorry if I'm behind the curve but I presume that is still the reason for paring threads.)
10216. CalGal - 3/17/2001 2:36:31 PM
Likewise there wouldn't be much harm in moving stuff like that to a linked second page, but that sounds more like different than better.
Agreed, but given the high demand I was offering different.
Not sure if a news link would solve the problem of quizzes in the cafe.
Well, most quizzes are immediate. I agree that if they aren't, it could be a problem. But the more wonkish long-term quizzes could certainly move to your thread. Actually, all quizzes could be in the thread that they belong in, in that case.
BTW, I have no problem with the Quiz thread either. I am suggesting different here, too.
I think the idea that the cafe is "only for certain types" (of posts at least if not posters)is pretty justified whatever the hosts would think of the idea. On the occasions when I do read it it's not uncommon to see a host or two eschewing conflict of any kind.
"No conflict" is fine. I am talking more of tone. Ace was implying that his and Francie's sort of discourse didn't belong there. I disagree--moreover, I can remember a time when that sort of discourse did go there.
I agree with your 10213.
10217. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:52:18 PM
Conflict is Ace's personna, and more importantly, if we are talking about a man thread substitute, of the kind of things they are asking about.
I can remember a time when that sort of discourse did go there.
Do you mean a period in the past or a specific instance?
10218. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:54:48 PM
Maybe someone should delete the news item linking to XavierTColtrane's car discussion
10219. JudithAtHome - 3/17/2001 2:56:28 PM
I can remember a time when they went there but not a time when the "man thread" type of "chat" went on there...and by they I mean Ace and FU.
10220. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:59:05 PM
...so as a result of 10213 & 10214, I think this place is the best of all subotoptimal worlds. Sure, merge Music, Arts, & Books. I take it nobody expects this to do anything about our fundamental problems as a community, but it can't hurt.
And that is what's become of the great consolidation campaign of 2001.
If anything, in fact, we need more big threads. Then maybe people will get to see a new style of argument from the same old same old and think it's worth haging around.
10221. Slackjaw - 3/17/2001 2:59:52 PM
suboptimal worlds
10222. CalGal - 3/17/2001 3:25:51 PM
hanging around.
10223. pogie - 3/17/2001 6:26:32 PM
If one is wanting more/less threads, or smaller bite-size threads, is there any way to make better use of the whole subthread thing? Politics could easily support several subthreads, if there were an easy way for people to notice and use them.
10224. RickNelson - 3/17/2001 8:08:32 PM
Some good ideas are being written. What about FU's most recent list? Seems somewhat fair, and I would like to read what we think about merging Poetry with Arts and Music? It might be a good idea, yet I'm reluctant to miss a chance to watch poetry grow on its own, It's just not happened for to long. If JJ would write what he thinks, maybe the idea would become a deal? I love the poetry work and readings of the Mote and There are many fine links and more could be added.
A lot of you have popped in over time. That's cool, I think Poetry has a lot of lurkers. Poetry is as much for readers as for writers, but what about activity in the thread? I'm not sure it's such a big deal that posts are sporadic. I do wish for feedback, NuPlanetOne is one of our poets who for a long time has produced fine work and I would like to read what the community thinks about it. There is room for more poets, poetry links, feedback, refinement, etc...
Well, I can talk poetry all day, 'nuf for now.
later
10225. alistairConnor - 3/17/2001 8:48:46 PM
Message # 9876 and passim FUrq, you haven't been paying attention. I wish to point out that I am not a (D) but a (G-Fr).
10226. rubberducky - 3/19/2001 10:12:13 AM
i'd like to see someone step up to host Politics. i dont have the time and i'm just not on theMote much these days.
10227. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 11:00:13 AM
I'd like to see someone step up to host Religion. There used to be an awesome 'hands-off' host. Nostra-something or other.
The current host is deleting/moving posts willy-nilly and his tone is unacceptable.
10228. Fielding - 3/19/2001 11:05:57 AM
Jon:
I strongly disagree. The current host of Religion has brought that thread back to life.
10229. Fielding - 3/19/2001 11:26:27 AM
"On the Quiz thread--is there any reason it can't be in the Cafe? "
This is an unbelievably stupid idea.
Lets say somebody posts a puzzle in The Mote Cafe. Its a tough one, so people need to think. The usual Mote Cafe banter continues for several posts. Then somebody asks a question to clarify the puzzle. Then, there are another 30 or so posts about the color chartreuse. Then the Puzzle poster responds. Then come 20 posts on the Motie Men Calendar. Then somebody gives a partial answer to the puzzle. Then come 35 posts on pleats, etc.
What you end up with is a puzzle surrounded by 100 posts on feminine hygeine. It would become very difficult to follow the progress of puzzles. In short, it would be the death of The Quiz Thread.
I post in The Mote Cafe often enough and have no animosity towards The Mote Cafe or The Sisters Of No Mercy (even though nobody has been willing to identify them). Nonetheless, I will not participate in a merger of those two threads. If the powers that be decide to merge the two threads, you can count me out as Thread Host.
10230. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:33:35 AM
As far as hosting Religion goes, I resumed the duty to salvage the thread. If someone else wants it and can do a credible job (i.e., not someone with Jon's history and quasi-legal status), I will gladly hand over the reins.
Jon: Did you ever get unbanned, or are you just flouting the rules? I expect your post above is the first step in your twice-repeated record now of running more and more off the rails until you get punted again. It's one thing to skulk back into the bar after the bouncers have evicted you, but another to come in, prop your boots on the counter, and start demanding service.
Why not put in some "quality" time before again being shown the exit door?
I also begin to suspect you are a serial complainer. During the thread consolidation discussion, you gave the appearance of supporting the rights and power of thread hosts. Yet now you critique that power's exercise. As I recall, your problems with Stone on the Religion thread resulted from your exercising your host power excessively. So it's odd to hear you lament about "moving posts willy-nilly" and characterizing your own style as "hands-off."
If your reinstatement is legal--which I doubt--Politics apparently needs a new host. Why not try your game there?
10231. Webfeet - 3/19/2001 11:39:09 AM
alistair--congratulations on Lyon and Paris--im amazed at how the power of the greens has increased since I was there. but then again, the issue of food safety and OGM's was hardly an issue back then.
by the way, i think it's deplorable that Bove dumped Alice-- and so brutally! what machismo.
10232. CalGal - 3/19/2001 11:39:56 AM
Its a tough one, so people need to think.
Well, that sort wouldn't go in the Cafe, as I mentioned. Quizzes could be put in the thread they most belonged in--tough quizzes in the Slow thread, movie quizzes in movies, quick general interest quizzes in the Cafe.
There seems to be a lot of support for removing the Quiz thread; I just came up with a way to provide the same function without the thread. I don't really care one way or the other; it's just that if the thread is removed I'd like to still see that we can still have quizzes.
10233. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:43:15 AM
I also support keeping the Quiz Thread separate.
I don't think either the Man Thread or X's thread should have been deleted. If a willing host is available and the thread has activity, it should not be removed without the host's acquiesence--except for extreme egregiousness.
(The reason I supported FU's thread consolidation measure was boredom and the sense that we need to do something to reshuffle the deck around here.)
10234. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 5:49:16 PM
Fielding
Perhaps Religion was better off dead given what it has become. The only person who could truly revive the thread is Kooligan and I haven't seen him since I came back.
None of the current thumper crowd have the inclination, tickets, or intellectual honesty to engage in rational discourse. This has led many in the atheist/agnostic group to feel frustrated. Which has led to a few, rather mild, outbursts.
Stinky
I made my case against you in the Policy thread long ago. My opinion hasn't changed. We both know what kind of person you are, Cochise.
As to my status, I expected when I came back that my ID would be disabled within the hour. I was banned without cause, but afaik, the ban hasn't been lifted (although all of the PTB have certainly noticed my presence). I consider this extra time to be a bonus.
If 'quality' time were a prerequisite to being able to continue to post here, half of the Mote would be expelled forthwith, yourself included, Cupcake.
As far as host powers go, I think that any host should be removeable if a consensus develops that he's doing a horrible job. That didn't apply in my case. From where I sit, deleting posts willy-nilly just because somebody drilled you a new one is pathetic, cowardly and inappropriate. Banning somebody because they are obsessively slandering you (although not quite so nuts as to set up a website dedicated to smearing and stalking you, or something) is a whole different ball of wax.
But I'm only one ex-Fraygrant.
10235. theDiva - 3/19/2001 5:54:41 PM
WRT the merger....Fielding does have a point (BTW, Fielding, SONM are me, Bubb, and Chris, there's no secret and I think I may have posted that before and you just missed it), but as I am going back offline after this, whatever youse decide to do is fine.
Later, taters.
10236. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 5:55:56 PM
The merger idea is dead; it probably wasn't a good idea anyhow.
Now... about the Man Thread.
10237. Fielding - 3/19/2001 5:58:26 PM
Its amusing to me, Ace, that when it comes to advancing an agenda, you act like a Democrat. :)
10238. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 5:58:28 PM
Wabbit seemed to express support for a less-civil social thread (unless I misread).
You can hide it in the Inferno if you don't want the scariness on the front page.
Or, we can re-institute the Playpen, which would be a *real* playpen, meaning, fun rather than nastiness. Then the Inferno would become a subthread of the playpen, and truly nasty fights would go there.
All deleted posts would go there, too-- not into the playpen. No one wants deleted posts popping up in a genuine thread.
10239. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:03:53 PM
"Its amusing to me, Ace, that when it comes to advancing an agenda, you act like a Democrat. :)"
Actually, I act like a Republican. Democrats have nothing on Republicans when it comes to folding on sacred principles.
But it's also innately conservative. Conservatives believe in a thing called "cultural memory." We believe in traditions, because we think that traditions represent 10,000+ years of experimentation. Traditions are proven to work, in other words, by the test of time, and should not be lightly discarded just because some smart-alec thinks he knows better than thousands of years of civilization's lessons.
My proposal was "liberal" and "progressive" in the sense it sought to shove aside two years of Mote history and tradition in favor of a hare-brained idea which I supported chiefly because I'd thought of it. (Which is often the case with hare-brained ideas.)
Not surpisingly, no one really liked the idea.
The majority is probably right. They are reacting from the gut, with a conservative sentiment, though they may not realize it.
When they cry out, "We should not change the Mote, because this is the way we've done it in the past, and there are reasons we've done it this way," they are crying out like the best of conservatives, standing athwart history, yelling "SLOW DOWN!"
And I, the smart-alec hotshot, was the idiot.
10240. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:05:03 PM
I don't particularly oppose a "less civil" social thread, provided that there is no appearance that one is for chicks and one is for guys. I do think it is unnecessary, and that if people don't feel welcome in the Cafe that's the problem. The cafe is not for fighting, but that's different.
We could institute a thread solely for deletions. However, any thread can have a whole converseation appear in it willy-nilly, so I'm not sure why this particular objection is so relevant with the Inferno.
10241. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:05:10 PM
The Man Thread will rise again.
10242. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:06:18 PM
"However, any thread can have a whole converseation appear in it willy-nilly"
No "real" thread should be the dumping-ground for the nastiness and effluvia from other threads.
Would you support dumping delted posts into Movies & Television? No? I didn't think so.
10243. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:09:16 PM
This is just part of your campaign to "give" us the Inferno, as a faux man thread, which wouldn't work.
Which is the whole point of your campaign.
10244. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:09:33 PM
Would you support dumping delted posts into Movies & Television?
Actually, it happens reasonably frequently. Indy dumped the Woody Allen conversation into Movies. I let it run for a while and then dumped it into Parenting.
10245. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:11:34 PM
Remember, you're not talking about "deleted" posts. You're talking about "moved" posts. A host who moves argumentative posts to the Inferno is doing the same thing as someone who moves a movie conversation from Politics to Movies.
Now maybe we want to make a distinction between posts that are moved to the Inferno because it's a good fight and posts that are moved to the Inferno in lieu of deletion. Given that people squawk if a post is deleted, a host will often just move it to the Inferno so that no one screams of censorship.
10246. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:11:47 PM
"Actually, it happens reasonably frequently."
No, it doesn't. The dumb Woody Allen example is, well, DUMB, because that was obviously a movie topic which BELONGED in your thread.
And if there's a conversation which BELONGS in the Playpen/Man Thread/Smoking Room/What Have You, you can dump it into our thread, no problem.
But no off-topic bitchfests from Religion & Philosophy.
10247. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:13:00 PM
Oh, Cal, grow a pair for Christ's sakes.
You want to come to our Tree-Fort? Very well, here's your engraved invitation: YOU MAY COME TO OUR TREE-FORT.
You are utterly irrational on the point.
10248. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:13:41 PM
This is just part of your campaign to "give" us the Inferno, as a faux man thread, which wouldn't work.
I vehemently oppose the creation of a "Man" thread, regardless.
I see no reason for a second chat thread, given that we have the Mote Cafe for that. If people want to be rude and uncivil, I thought that was what the Inferno was for. Otherwise, I am unsympathetic to the comment that the "tone" of the Cafe is too bland, too "chickish", or whatever.
So it's not some plot on my part. I truly don't see why the Inferno won't do.
10249. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:15:36 PM
I don't want an engraved invitation; I am quite sure that you let girls in. That's not why I oppose it, and lord knows I've said why before so there's no need to repeat it.
But no off-topic bitchfests from Religion & Philosophy.
Off-topic bitch fests are exactly what your thread would be for. Just as someone could willy nilly move a chat about Jen's honeymoon to the Cafe.
10250. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:16:28 PM
"I truly don't see why the Inferno won't do."
Fine. The Inferno will do. Except that NO POSTS will be dumped there, no one will tell anyone else to "take it to the Inferno" unless the conversation is actually appropriate to the tone of that thread (wisecracking/joking around/posting cheesecake pictures), and we will of course need a new Moderator (Francis will do us nicely) and perhaps a new name.
10251. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:19:47 PM
"Off-topic bitch fests are exactly what your thread would be for. "
Wrong, Cal. It would be a different kind of thread. Sort of like... The Man Thread.
You're a goddamned loon. Over and over again, you offer these bullshit "solutions" -- oh, you can have the Man Thread in the Inferno, though of course it would remain the Inferno and not the Man Thread at all.
Or: You can post that stuff in the Mote Cafe, as long as you don't ruffle feathers and as long as you don't disrupt the Mote Cafe. In short, as long as you don't change the character of the Mote Cafe.
Next, you'll tell us we can have "The Man Thread" in Movies & Television, as long as our posts are about Television and Movies.
Wait a minute-- we were censored a couple of times for making "sexist" remarks about Chick Flicks in your thread. So I guess that wouldn't work, either.
10252. Cellar Door - 3/19/2001 6:21:03 PM
Oooo, Lookie -- it's Ace "Puffy" Spades!
10253. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:22:16 PM
unless the conversation is actually appropriate to the tone of that thread (wisecracking/joking around/posting cheesecake pictures)
But this is the Mote Cafe.
See, it keeps on coming back to that: there is nothing you want that isn't basically the function of the Cafe. The response is, "But we don't like the Cafe" because, apparently, the perception is that it can only be nicey-nice. Not just not arguing, but only a certain type of in-group chitchat. You have to specify whether or not you want sugar in your cyber-coffee, and so on.
That, to me, is a failure of either the thread hosts or a reluctance on the part of the non-regulars to challenge the norm. In either case, I think that is the problem.
Otherwise, the next thing is that Scott and others will be demanding their chat thread, because why on earth should they have to tolerate either the nicey niceness of Diva's thread or the faux wannabe manliness of your thread and I don't think it's a good idea to start setting up chat threads based on how many little cliques we have.
10254. Fielding - 3/19/2001 6:23:18 PM
Are we allowed to discuss porno in Movies and Television?
10255. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:24:08 PM
BTW, Cal, all of your "arguments" apply to every possible new thread.
Sure, we can "post whatever we like in the Inferno, or even the mote Cafe."
And yet, when someone asked for a Finances & Careers thread, you didn't respond: "Oh, you can post that stuff in the Inferno, or the Mote Cafe."
No-- you created a new thread.
Quite frankly, we can post stuff about Movies & Television in the Inferno. Or the Mote Cafe.
Why don't we do that?
And meantime, I'll take over Movies & Television and re-name it The Man Thread.
But don't worry! You can still discuss Movies & Television, in the appropriate thread, of course.
Which would be the Inferno or the Mote Cafe.
10256. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:24:21 PM
Ace,
I don't want "The Man Thread" period. Full stop. It's not a matter of oh, it should be here or there. If you want your own tone of chatter--including porn, sexist jokes, and the like--then what is wrong with the Cafe?
If it's chat, explain why you need more than one chat thread. And explain how then we don't just end up giving threads to every little clique who doesn't feel they belong in the chat threads that already exist.
10257. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:25:58 PM
"Are we allowed to discuss porno in Movies and Television? "
Fielding,
I am thinking of unilaterally declaring the rebirth of "The Man Thread."
We will make Movies & Television, or perhaps Suggestions, "The Man Thread." We'll just have The Man Thread wherever we like.
Of course, I'm going to need a couple of troublemakers for this endeavor. I can't do it alone.
Are you on board?
10258. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:27:08 PM
"If you want your own tone of chatter--including porn, sexist jokes, and the like--then what is wrong with the Cafe? "
Fuck you, Cal.
The conversation is over. Full stop.
10259. Fielding - 3/19/2001 6:28:37 PM
Ace:
I will serve the cause, sir! Let me know when you have rounded up other recruits, sir!
10260. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:29:47 PM
"That, to me, is a failure of either the thread hosts or a reluctance on the part of the non-regulars to challenge the norm. "
I don't want to "CHALLENGE THE NORM," idiot.
I WANT Diva to have a thread which she and many other people like just the way it is.
As Indy pointed out, we COULD behave like assholes in the Mote Cafe, but we don't, out of respect for other people.
Over and over again. The same bullshit from needle-skipping-in-a-track Cal.
10261. Cellar Door - 3/19/2001 6:30:13 PM
What he means is "The Castrated Man Thread."
(Ace is all "Puff" --and no dick.)
10262. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:30:21 PM
Ace,
Message # 10255 is absurd. I'm assuming you know that.
Obviously, all movie talk could go in the Cafe. As could all political talk. Career talk, rude talk, international, religious--everything could go on in The Cafe.
I know--we could just have everyone own their own chat thread, and people could post on anything they like wherever they like. People could each form their own little clicques per thread. Some dilettantes could move from "your" thread to "Diva's" thread, but others would be more monogamous--if it doesn't happen on "Scott's" thread, they don't know about it.
Or we could do what we do now, which is generally keep our threads separate by general topic. With one for chat. The periodic special interest thread. And so on.
Using that model, I am asking why we need two chat threads--which is all you're asking for. Your own place where you feel comfortable to talk the way you want. Which should be what the Cafe is about.
10263. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:31:51 PM
I WANT Diva to have a thread which she and many other people like just the way it is.
I don't, frankly. Unless, as I said, we want to start down the path of creating a bunch of chat threads for various cliques that don't want to play together.
I would rather the Cafe be stirred up--provided it isn't fighting, but people being pleasant together. Regardless of the form the pleasantness takes.
10264. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:33:10 PM
Fielding,
Get JanJon.
Forget FU... he's too fucking statist.
Indy will be on-board, I imagine.
I have decided to "challenge the norm"... of MOVIES & TELEVISION.
Per CalGal's suggestion, we will "challenge the norm" of the current thread-host by remaking it into a nasty profane beast more to our collective liking.
She told us to do this; and so we shall. We shall!
Repeatedly she has told us to merely take a pre-existing thread and upset its mission and social conventions in favor of our own... But she has always suggested we do this with OTHER people's threads, rather than her own.
We shall follow her advice, but we shall take over HER thread, rather than anyone else's. We shall!
We shall take over Movies & Television. We shall "challenge the norms" of the current thread hosts. We shall!
10265. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:34:45 PM
Cal,
As you now know, we have decided to "challenge the established norm" of YOUR thread.
Once we have five or six posters on-board, we will unilaterally declare The Man Thread in Movies & Television.
This is what you told us to do. And we shall.
10266. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:38:44 PM
Provided you're on topic, fine. If you're not, you'll end up in the Inferno.
You want "chat". Movies is not "chat". The Cafe is.
10267. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:42:00 PM
Fuck you Cal.
10268. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 6:43:17 PM
Hey, dipshit-- you told me to "challenge the norms" of current threads.
NOW you're complaining that I chose to "challenge the norms" of YOUR thread?
10269. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:44:09 PM
Actually, I moved it to the Inferno--but it just occurred to me there was nothing rude about it at all.
So if you have any other posts, I'll move them to the Cafe. Unless they are abusive, of course.
10270. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:46:15 PM
NOW you're complaining that I chose to "challenge the norms" of YOUR thread?
There is a difference between "challlenging the norms" and being off-topic. I'm sure with a bit of effort you'll be able to grasp the difference.
Besides, the whole thing is extremely hostile. Why get so peeved? I am saying that I think the Cafe is fine for one chat thread, and I really don't agree with the notion that we should have more than one chat thread based on cliques. That's not hostility. And I don't see why disagreement here involves you deciding to post off-topic stuff in the Movies thread.
10271. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 6:52:23 PM
My opinion hasn't changed.
Your opinion is uninformed despite my best attempts to correct it. The powers that be deleted most of our last exchange in the Policies thread, for reasons I didn't understand and was not a party to. Personally, I don't care at this point if you wish to persist in your ignorance because it's apparent to me that your sole desire each time you appear here is to make yourself as obnoxious as possible in an attempt to garner the attention you so pathetically need. That's too bad, because like a stopped clock, you do have occasional bouts with relevance.
If 'quality' time were a prerequisite to being able to continue to post here, half of the Mote would be expelled forthwith, yourself included, Cupcake.
I assume the above is meaningfully responsive to what I said in your mind, but beats the hell out of me. If what I guess is its intended meaning is correct, it goes a long way toward explaining the behavior pattern I've described above. Since you see your activity here as of a low quality association with low-quality people, it's no wonder that you compensate for the feelings of self-loathing continuing to persist in such activities generates by assuming faux egoism and lashing out at most everyone you come in contact with. If your posts about your age are accurate, perhaps with the added maturity of 30 years you'll learn to pursue more meaningful relationships than self-denigrating cyber masturbation.
10272. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 6:52:59 PM
As far as host powers go, I think that any host should be removeable if a consensus develops that he's doing a horrible job. That didn't apply in my case.
Must we really go through this again? Of course it didn't: you quit. A crybaby hissy fit as I recall, followed by a whining ultimatum. You let Rosetta Stone get the best of you, pup.
From where I sit, deleting posts willy-nilly just because somebody drilled you a new one is pathetic, cowardly and inappropriate.
That is not an accurate description of what happened, but you have always been and continue to be a liar.
Banning somebody because they are obsessively slandering you (although not quite so nuts as to set up a website dedicated to smearing and stalking you, or something) is a whole different ball of wax.
"Or something"? You certainly blow a loud horn for someone who doesn't know the song he's playing. What happened to your great email campaign with Jess Fine, eh? Heard back from her yet, Jonny boy? How long has it been?
FWIW, I thought you should be banned on general principles, but in particular you violated the RoE as far as I'm concerned. What you were actually banned for, I had nothing to do with. Regardless of my opinion, you are already starting down the same cycle again and will either a) be banned or b) grow bored and wander off because immaturity has a short attention span.
10273. CalGal - 3/19/2001 6:58:16 PM
Ace's porn posts in Movies reminded me of something I meant to bring up about posting porn links--many people access the Mote from work, and many corporations have networks that not only block porn sites, but do their best to find out who's accessing them on company time. That, more than any tender considerations of posters, is something that concerns me.
10274. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:04:57 PM
Hey Cal,
Since my porno pictures are really just "chat," why don't you move them to the Mote Cafe-- the one and only correct thread for chat?
Maybe that would "challenge the norm" there, too.
10275. msgreer - 3/19/2001 7:05:11 PM
Ace
Remember the good old days when Diva did have her own thread.
P
E
N
I
S
10276. CalGal - 3/19/2001 7:07:55 PM
Ace,
I was under the impression that you specifically made them on-topic, after the first few were moved to the chat thread. If you go back to posting "chat", I'll move it to the Cafe or Inferno.
BTW--Your first set of jokes, without the font, would have been perfectly apt for the Cafe.
10277. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:14:42 PM
No, I think I'll just continue "challenging the norm" in your thread.
10278. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 7:16:32 PM
Well,
Why can't there be a subthread created as part of the Cafe that is the Man Thread? I mean, if people don't want an upfront thread for this purpose, why not a subthread?
I was under the impression that creating subthreads was both possible and encouraged.
However, I really don't see the point of this argument. If some want a Man Thread, then why can't they have it?
Unless we combine all the specialized threads, there's really no good argument for not allowing another one if there's enough interest and someone willing to host it.
I really don't think pornography should be allowed though, for a number of reasons. First, it can get people who check in from government computers (which tend to be monitored) in a heap of trouble. Second, it could encourage an onslaught of people who think this site is a pornographic one, completely changing the character and quality of the site. Third, there are kids who do log in here occasionally (or, like my daughter, peer over my shoulder to see what I'm saying or reading), and those of us who have offspring simply might not want to run the risk of exposing them to something intended primarily for adults.
Two other unrelated comments:
Quizzes used to be placed in the forerunner of the Cafe all the time. They fit quite well, were fun, attracted a crowd, and often were the spur to some great interactions. There's absolutely no incompatability between quizzes and the chat in Cafe, at least based on history.
And someone asked about the SONM's. I simply want to go on record as noting that Diva, et al stole that name from the originals....
And they never even paid a licensing fee to us!
Humph.
10279. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:17:45 PM
"I really don't think pornography should be allowed though, for a number of reasons"
I agree. I don't think anybody *doesn't* agree.
10280. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 7:18:32 PM
Well then, why are you posting pornographic pics in movies?
10281. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:19:27 PM
I'm discussing movies, MsIT. But I'm "challenging the norms" of the current movie discussion, as CalGal suggested I do.
10282. MsIvoryTower - 3/19/2001 7:20:14 PM
I'm laughing...
10283. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:20:37 PM
BTW,
There was only one nude posted in the old Man Thread. I was the one who posted it. I immediately realized it was improper, apologized, and suggested we refrain from posting any such pictures in the future.
10284. seadate - 3/19/2001 7:21:36 PM
Cal Wrote: Ace, I don't want "The Man Thread" period.
?
10285. Cellar Door - 3/19/2001 7:23:58 PM
Oh give "Puffy" his own thread and let him post whatever in hell he wants in it.
10286. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:29:35 PM
Cal,
Right before the Man Thread was created, FU and I had a "sexist" conversation about movies -- in your thread.
Which you demanded we "take to the Inferno," because it offended you. Then you deleted posts.
Was that the sort of "challenging of the norms" you had in mind?
What happens when a censorious thread-host "challenges back," as you did?
10287. seadate - 3/19/2001 7:35:36 PM
How many people need to request a silly thread before it's considered?
10288. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:41:31 PM
Sea,
Usually four. But in this case, there are ten or twelve people who want the thread, and Management just refuses to grant it.
As much as an idiot as Cal Gal is, at least she contrives "reasons" for not wanting the thread. (NOTE the word "contrive." Her stated reasons are not her real reasons, as should be clear; she simply doesn't like sexist talk, and seeks to censor such talk.)
ChristinO, on the other hand, simply says "But I gave you the Man Thread for 24 hours," never quite explaining why a popular (and busy!) thread should have a life one-eightieth of the duration of Dr. Coltrane's boring, little-visited vanity advice thread. Nor why it is impermissible to recreate it.
Pelle is silent, meanwhile.
Only wabbit has uttered a peep against the Cal-Gal inspired orthodoxy, suggesting that perhaps we could have a subthread in the Inferno.
10289. seadate - 3/19/2001 7:42:50 PM
Let's have a dominatrix thread where _______ is permitted to post anything as rude, insulting, and hurtful as she feels at the moment yet exerts her power to delete other's posts at her discretion, alone!
oops, we already have that, sort of.
10290. seadate - 3/19/2001 7:44:31 PM
Ao Ace, who's in at this point?
10291. seadate - 3/19/2001 7:45:13 PM
*So*, Ace .....
10292. seadate - 3/19/2001 7:47:23 PM
There *has* to be 10-12. We're not sexist here, so we should solicit continued support from Bubb and Jen.
10293. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:51:07 PM
Who's in?
Well, FU, Jennerator, Indy, Fielding, JanJon, for four. When Ace, Jennerator, FU, Indy, Fielding, and JanJon agree on something, that's pretty remarkable.
Then there are the people whom I imagine support it, since they came by and seemed to have fun: Wombat, ScottLohr, VonKreedon, Majoribanks.
JonFeguson and RS support it, I'm pretty sure.
MsIT asks the common-sense question: "Why the fuck not? What's the bloody harm?"
Pretty much the only people who don't support it are ChristinO ("I always meant the thread to last for only 24 hours... Why can't it last longer? Because it can't, that's why") and Cal "Challenge the Norms, but not in my thread" Gal.
10294. Fielding - 3/19/2001 7:51:20 PM
I thought CalGal was a libertarian?
??
10295. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:53:42 PM
Okay, here's the deal:
Numerous people have supported an Ask Ace thread, including CAL GAL.
Now, I don't want an Ask Ace thread. I DID want one, but then Dr. Smith was given an Ask Dr. Smith thread, and that concept is forever tainted by his banality.
So, here's what I want:
An "Ace's World" thread. A humorous, ugly, nastly little thread. No pants allowed: That's the motto of Ace's World.
If Dr. Smith can have a vanity thread, so should I be so allowed.
Pssst: Ace's World will be a, uhhh, "manly" thread, if you catch my drift.
10296. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 7:58:00 PM
Ace's World
Ugly, nasty, brutish, and short. But enough about Francis Urquhart.
10297. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 8:00:29 PM
Ooh, I like that. It's also actually more descriptive than The Man Thread.
10298. seadate - 3/19/2001 8:01:46 PM
Pssst: Ace's World will be a, uhhh, "manly" thread, if you catch my drift.
Cool. The count is just rudimentary, then, but here's a rough count:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank (I expect)
That's eight plus possibly another eight:
Ms IT, Wombat, Bubb, ScottLohr, VonKreedon, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson, RS.
10299. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 8:03:04 PM
Of course you'll have to change the reference to Franc-n-Niner every couple of weeks.
10300. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:03:19 PM
I'm all in favor of the Man Thread. The fact that American politics is a form of current events doesn't stop us from having a separate thread for it.
Or if the redundancy argument is contrived to hold water on this particular issue, Ace's vanity thread should get around it.
10301. Fielding - 3/19/2001 8:05:53 PM
I don't think Hobbes used the word "ugly". :)
10302. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:06:23 PM
Ace's World
A bad idea whose time has come.
10303. Fielding - 3/19/2001 8:08:31 PM
A few months ago, we had Politics, Current Events and Election 2000.
10304. seadate - 3/19/2001 8:09:11 PM
Current count:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank (I expect)
VonKreedon (implied)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
That's twelve plus possibly another five (known):
Wombat, Bubb, ScottLohr, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson.
RS has been removed 'cause he didn't support the Man thread during it's existence.
10305. seadate - 3/19/2001 8:10:13 PM
Cal better get some help on her end of the see-saw.
10306. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:13:45 PM
Ace's World
Not the Man Thread. But an amazing re-creation.
10307. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 8:15:36 PM
Go ahead and take the (implied) label off of my name. My support is for Ace's Nasty World, not for The Man Thread.
I would also request that people not post any porno images directly to any Mote threads. If such is, for whatever reason, needed please post clearly labeled links rather than images that could get people in trouble with their management.
10308. Slackjaw - 3/19/2001 8:16:51 PM
Well the bottom line is, if the people with thread creating abilities really don't want a thread, it won't get created. Some argument can be found why we really shouldn't have it, why we've never had threads of that type, etc.
We could always rename the Slow Thread, however.
10309. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:17:27 PM
Agreed. I've always been against porno.
There is a problem, however, and that problem is cheesecake.
Cheesecake is psuedo-porn. It's chicks in bikinis and such. No actual nudity, but pure candy-snaps.
Cheesecake seems to be allowed in the Sports bar, as well as several other fora. Personally, I don't care if cheesecake is allowed or not; I suppose I'd lean *against* it, but then, everyone would make fun of me.
Input?
10310. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 8:21:27 PM
I suppose I'd lean *against* it... I bet you would, I bet you would, eh what squire!
10311. seadate - 3/19/2001 8:22:23 PM
vonK,
I agree regarding porno in this forum, fwiw.
Current count for a camo'ed Man thread (name yet to be determined, although it lok's like it'll be Ace's _________:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank (I expect)
VonKreedon (possibly, if he/she likes the thread name)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
That's twelve plus possibly another five (known):
Wombat, Bubb, ScottLohr, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson.
10312. Fielding - 3/19/2001 8:23:03 PM
Depends on whether the "cheesecake" includes Moties. :)
Personally, I would draw the line at Porno. I would even favor banning porno as a "Rule of Engagement" (posting pictures as opposed to links).
10313. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:23:23 PM
Planet Slackjaw
10314. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:24:17 PM
Fielding,
I'd bar porno, no question. I don't think anyone is agitating for porno.
10315. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:25:22 PM
I mean, I don't even think it's a question.
10316. Fielding - 3/19/2001 8:25:39 PM
Dipshit - you asked for input.
10317. seadate - 3/19/2001 8:25:49 PM
Outta here, guys.
10318. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 8:25:57 PM
Planet Slackjaw
Statistical analysis for the Y-chromosomed!
10319. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 8:26:14 PM
Toys
10320. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:26:25 PM
Fielding:
I asked for input on cheesecake, Asswipe.
Seadate:
Marshame has also supported a Man Thread.
10321. Fielding - 3/19/2001 8:27:56 PM
Translated for Ace and other idiots:
Cheesecake - Yes
Porno links - Yes
Porno pictures - No
10322. Fielding - 3/19/2001 8:28:46 PM
Exceptions for members of Ace's family.
10323. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:29:41 PM
"Exceptions for members of Ace's family."
Don't bring your kids into this.
10324. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 8:42:03 PM
bubbaette also expressed support for the Man Thread.
There's nothing stopping someone from posting porn on any thread. I assume the poster would be punished (if it's declared a violation of RoE and continues), rather than the thread.
At this point, though, a return of the Man Thread will be so grudgingly granted that its true utility will have been lost: it was fun.
Can't have too much of that now, you hear?
10325. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 8:44:29 PM
But it wouldn't be the Man Thread.
It would be Ace's World.
Completely different. Completely.
10326. seadate - 3/19/2001 9:10:48 PM
Current count for a camo'ed Man thread (name yet to be determined, although it look's like it'll be Ace's _________:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank (I expect)
VonKreedon (possibly, if he/she likes the thread name)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
That's fourteen plus possibly another four(known):
Wombat, ScottLoar, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson.
10327. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 9:19:28 PM
Pretty much everyone expressing an opinion is in favor of it, except ChristinO ("Of course you can't have a Man Thread! Why? Just because!") and Cal "We can't have everyone demanding a thread for their own little cliques... except for the Foreigners, and except for the Women, and except for those people interested in Politics, and except for those people interested in Movies, and except for those people interested in "The Future of Eductaion," and except for those people interested in "Ask Dr. Smith," and except for those people interested in Poetry, etc." Gal
10328. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 10:24:00 PM
What's the big deal about porn in the Man Thread?
It would display unprecedented arrogance and stupidity on the part of the PTB to deny Ace his thread.
10329. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:32:14 PM
Fielding, please define the difference between porno and cheesecake. And don't give us "We know it when we see it."
10330. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 10:33:29 PM
Are you really that stupid, wonkers, or do you just like listening to dirty-talk?
10331. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 10:34:38 PM
You're really asking Cap'n Dirty that question?
10332. DanDillon - 3/19/2001 10:36:04 PM
How depressing. My favorite watering hole has devolved into that puddle I'd feared.
10333. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:36:26 PM
I guess I'm really that stupid. What is one man's art is another man's porn. For example, what about cellar's 10-foot blue veiner linked today in the politics thread. Is that pornography, humor or schlock art?
10334. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:37:00 PM
And I like listening to dirty talk. But I prefer dirty pictures.
10335. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 10:38:05 PM
Dillhole, the creator of that idiotic conversation about 4 letter words, is offended, how quaint.
10336. Fielding - 3/19/2001 10:41:48 PM
Arky:
"You're really asking Cap'n Dirty that question?"
Are you referring to me?
10337. DanDillon - 3/19/2001 10:41:58 PM
Not offended. Depressed.
Read?
10338. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 10:42:31 PM
"What is one man's art is another man's porn. For example, what about cellar's 10-foot blue veiner linked today in the politics thread. Is that pornography, humor or schlock art?"
That was humor. Dirty humor, but humor.
The difference between pornography and cheesecake is the difference between Penthouse and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue.
For our purposes:
exposed Nipples, genitals, balloon-knot = porno
see-through clothing exposing the above: Borderline. Judgement call.
Chicks in bikinis (no exposed N, G, or B-K): Cheesecake
Duh.
10339. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:42:48 PM
arky, Cap'n Dirty sez, "Shiver me timbers, I'm touched that ye haven't fergotten me! How about a little moonlight cruise aboard the Tomater Sloop?"
10340. Fielding - 3/19/2001 10:44:20 PM
wonkers:
"Fielding, please define the difference between porno and cheesecake. And don't give us "We know it when we see it.""
That definition was good enough for John Paul Stevens. :)
Actually, I was using "porno" as short hand for nudity. I don't think we should post nudity on the site because of children, workplace issues, etc.
10341. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 10:46:24 PM
My mistake, Mr. Hole.
10342. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 10:49:02 PM
Fielding,
Would you go for First Mate? Wonk's had the Cap'n's Chair ever since I've known him.
Speaking of which,
Woohoo, Cap'n! Sounds divine. You have such a way with Southern girls, seeing how we all love tomaters.
10343. Fielding - 3/19/2001 10:51:09 PM
Arky:
He can have it. Not being familiar with the sobriquet, I wasn't sure which post you referred to. Never mind.
10344. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 10:54:03 PM
Fielding
It's not always about you.
10345. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 10:55:35 PM
General Motors (Hughes Satellite TV) and ATT Cable are the biggest sellers of porn videos in the world, but they fire employees who click onto porn sites at work, even during lunch hour! A bit hypocritical to say the least!
10346. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 10:59:20 PM
I still haven't heard a compelling argument against porn in the soon-to-be-released Man thread. The only vaguely rational one goes something like this:
A bunch of parasitic scumbag government employees are wasting taxpayer dollars by visiting the Mote while they're supposed to be serving the public and they want to infringe on my freedom of speech so that they can continue to do so?
I don't think so. Homey don't play that.
Give Ace his thread and leave it the fuck alone.
10347. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 11:00:23 PM
Wonkers
Are you a fucking idiot?
You think Budweiser lets its employees get drunk at work?
Moron.
10348. JJBiener - 3/19/2001 11:00:52 PM
Wonkers - Not hypocritical. Practical. They don't want to leave themselves open to a sexual harassment suit. It happens.
10349. DanDillon - 3/19/2001 11:01:54 PM
Not offended. Depressed.
Read?
10350. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 11:01:56 PM
JJ, if you're going to be slow, at least be good.
10351. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 11:02:46 PM
I was always careful to keep the door shut! And she never objected until later.
10352. JJBiener - 3/19/2001 11:03:11 PM
Jon - You think Budweiser lets its employees get drunk at work?
They used to. It became a big problem. They eventually had to stop several years ago.
BTW, I suddenly remember why you were banned the last time.
10353. AceofSpades - 3/19/2001 11:04:02 PM
"I still haven't heard a compelling argument against porn in the soon-to-be-released Man thread. "
Here's one: I wouldn't allow it. I have no desire to serve as a pornographer.
10354. ycmeehan - 3/19/2001 11:07:15 PM
Count me in.
10355. wonkers2 - 3/19/2001 11:07:40 PM
Oh, come on, Ace. You're a natural.
10356. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 11:08:07 PM
You know why I was banned? At last, a vaguely plausible explanation?
The only one I've heard so far is that I was too time-intensive on the 'volunteer' PTB.
10357. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 11:09:35 PM
I suggest a man thread run by the only real man here.
Me.
Ace talks a good game, but he's too much of a pussy.
10358. joezan - 3/19/2001 11:17:38 PM
All right.
I say we kick his ass now, before he gets out of hand.
10359. Jon Ferguson - 3/19/2001 11:24:20 PM
Joe
Get a life, loser. And please stop hitting on Jen, she's a married woman, now. Okay, Buddy?
10360. joezan - 3/19/2001 11:29:01 PM
Speaking of which....
...you do manage to "pop in" at the most opportune times, Jon.
Curious, or do you just miss us all every couple of months?
10361. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 12:34:10 AM
Ace's World
Grand Opening coming soon! Get your Golden Ticket today!
10362. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 12:39:35 AM
Ace's World
A place for chitty-chat. Extreme chitty-chat.
10363. Fielding - 3/20/2001 12:56:02 AM
Joezan:
I'm ready to follow you, sir!
10364. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 12:57:22 AM
Fielding's ready to follow everybody.
The perfect little apparatchik. I need sniveling little tools like him.
10365. Fielding - 3/20/2001 1:04:39 AM
"I need . . . little tools like him."
Isn't the little tool between your legs enough?
10366. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:07:41 AM
"Isn't the little tool between your legs enough?"
Don't bring your kids into this.
10367. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:11:15 AM
Fielding, I'm not a libertarian.
Ace, there are two separate issues. I oppose a "Man" thread. I said why a long while back, when it was first. I really don't care how many people support it; its popularity or support won't change the reason I object to it.
Second--and an entirely separate issue--I don't see the need for a second chat thread and I am basically against it for the reasons I've already stated. It seems that people are uncomfortable posting in the "chat" thread, and that's the problem. I think it is a bad idea to create a second chat thread so that those who don't like the Cafe thread can post there. That is equivalent to asking for a separate Politics thread--not because the topic is different, but because people don't like Jex's graphs or concerned's ranting, or the 15000th conversation about why it's a lousy idea to call Bush stupid.
If a second "chat" thread is created and isn't dedicated to "men", I'll continue to think it's a stupid idea, but I really don't care what is posted in it. At the same time, I see no reason why cheesecake and sexist jokes can't be posted in the Mote Cafe. It was never the content of the Man thread that drew my objection.
I did not object to the talk while it was on movies. It was when it stopped having even the slightest connection to movies that I said "enough". I generally boot off-topic stuff out fairly quickly, anyway. It will just be quicker if you are sneering at all things weak and worthless by calling them "female".
However, just because I dislike that sort of talk doesn't mean I think it should be stopped or not allowed.
10368. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:12:09 AM
I said why a long while back, when it was first.
first deleted. Don't know how that word got lost.
10369. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:13:16 AM
Current count for a camo'ed Man thread:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank (I expect)
VonKreedon (possibly, if he/she likes the thread name)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
Wonkers (implied)
YCM
Joezan
That's seventeen plus possibly another four (are there more?):
Wombat, ScottLoar, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson.
10370. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:15:32 AM
"That is equivalent to asking for a separate Politics thread--not because the topic is different, but because people don't like Jex's graphs or concerned's ranting, or the 15000th conversation about why it's a lousy idea to call Bush stupid."
Sort of like having the Current Events thread, which was explicitly conceived as a non-partisan version of the Politics thread?
Ace's World
Nothing can stop it now.
10371. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:18:08 AM
Or perhaps like having a separate "Survivor" thread, simply because some people didn't want to have to wade throught hundreds of Survivor posts?
Well, I don't want to read "Want some Cybercoffee?" posts, and many people don't want to read about my anal-sex-with-Fielding fantasies.
Ace's World
All your bases are belong to us.
10372. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 1:18:28 AM
Ace:
It was not Oscar Wilde, a guy who no doubt would've voted for a Man Thread but Walt Whitman, another yea vote vis a vis a Man Thread.
(In Politics...your quote...remember?)
10373. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:18:58 AM
Greystoke presumably supports the notion.
Cartman *would* support the thread, were he here, which he's not, but I have his proxy.
10374. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:22:08 AM
"Celeste, now that you've been voted Adult Video News' Performer of the Year, what will you do?" 
"I'm going to Ace's World!"
10375. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:26:50 AM
"It was not Oscar Wilde, a guy who no doubt would've voted for a Man Thread but Walt Whitman, another yea vote vis a vis a Man Thread.
(In Politics...your quote...remember?)"
Judith,
Yes, I'm sorry I didn't respond. Thanks for letting me know it was Whitman.
I originally wrote a post in response -- responding to your story about winning the Quote book -- that said, "Good for you, JAH."
But then I thought you would take that as a sarcastic "good for you," so I deleted the message, and didn't write another.
10376. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:27:10 AM
Current count for a camo'ed Man thread:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank
VonKreedon (possibly, if he/she likes the thread name)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
Wonkers (implied)
YCM
Joezan
Scott Loar (implied from the floppy tit comment)
anomieme (implied)
Greystoke (presumably)
That's TWENTY posters who can take a joke plus possibly another three (are there more?):
Wombat, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson.
10377. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:28:09 AM
Sort of like having the Current Events thread, which was explicitly conceived as a non-partisan version of the Politics thread?
No, Current Events is quite different and it generally is quite non-partisan. Survivor II is a great example of a limited purpose thread that has far more life.
Well, I don't want to read "Want some Cybercoffee?" posts, and many people don't want to read about my anal-sex-with-Fielding fantasies.
So? I don't want to read a lot of posts--much of what's in the Cafe, over half of what's in Politics, and I'd be happy if the Religion thread could completely avoid any scripture discussions because they are fucking boring. But new threads aren't created because members don't want to read certain sorts of discussions.
Besides, there is currently no reason why you can't post cheesecake shots, porn, or anything else of that nature in the Cafe. So I certainly can't see how you could ban perky posts about cybercoffee in whatever new thread you envision.
10378. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:31:06 AM
I chose to leave the Cafe one afternoon because I was grossed out by the discussion on how to properly fry and serve placenta (fwiw).
10379. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:32:06 AM
Cal,
Let me ask you this:
if twenty people want a thread -- for whatever reason -- why the fuck are you so hell-bent on denying them?
Once again, I *could* post titty-pictures in the Poetry thread. But I wouldn't do that, because I would be a DICK.
The whole idea of a thread is to HAVE FUN. Not to "challenge the norm" by pissing off a thread host.
Cal, this thread is going to happen.
You can get behnd it or you can get out the way.
Ace's World
Get behind it or get the fuck out of the way. It's coming, baby!
10380. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:33:40 AM
But Cal,
I'm sure you'll be happy to know I'll be posting pictures of pornographic models in the Movies & Television thread until we actually get the Ace's World thread up and running.
10381. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:35:32 AM
"So I certainly can't see how you could ban perky posts about cybercoffee in whatever new thread you envision."
We don't have to ban them. People aren't going to come to our thread to ask "How's your cybercoffee?", just like I'm not posting titty-pictures in the Mote Cafe.
What you don't seem to get is that people tend to be socially considerate, and they don't try sabotaging other people's idea of a good time.
Well, people other than YOU, I mean.
10382. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:39:05 AM
*ouch*
10383. Stumbo - 3/20/2001 1:42:20 AM
I hereby toss in my vote in favor of Ace's thread. I may not post in it much, but I'll probably enjoy reading it.
And -- regardless of my personal thread-topic preferences -- I'll reiterate a point made earlier, by countless others:
WTF is this place for, if not to satisfy the people who frequent it? And if a large proportion of those want some particular thread to be created, what possible reason can there be not to? After all, anyone who dislikes that thread can simply stay away from it.
Benefits: positive; costs: 0. Case closed.
10384. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 1:45:27 AM
But new threads aren't created because members don't want to read certain sorts of discussions.
I thought they were created because someone proposed a thread and if a certain amount of interest was shown, the thread was born. That's how Parenting and Travel and Survivor and War and Health Policy and even the Inuaguration Thread were formed, right?
10385. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:45:38 AM
Current count for Ace's thread:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank
VonKreedon (possibly, if he/she likes the thread name)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
Wonkers (implied)
YCM
Joezan
Scott Loar (implied from the floppy tit comment)
anomieme (implied)
Greystoke (presumably)
Stumbo
That's TWENTY-ONE posters who can take a joke plus possibly another three (are there more?):
Wombat, Majoribanks, Jon Ferguson.
10386. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:47:33 AM
if twenty people want a thread -- for whatever reason -- why the fuck are you so hell-bent on denying them?
Because I don't think it's enough that people want it. Besides, why do you care whether I oppose it? If my reasons are convincing and the administrators agree with me, yay team. If not, they'll create it anyway and what difference does it make if I posted my reasons why I oppose it?
Also, there are two separate threads under discussion here: the Man thread and "your" chat thread. I have different reasons for opposing each. I won't "get behind" either, but I don't like the reasons getting mixed and matched.
Once again, I *could* post titty-pictures in the Poetry thread. But I wouldn't do that, because I would be a DICK.
Well, you are a dick. But the reason you shouldn't post porn in Poetry is because it is off-topic.
The whole idea of a thread is to HAVE FUN. Not to "challenge the norm" by pissing off a thread host.
The thread already allows everything you want. Many people post sexist jokes in the thread (Joe, Frank, and Kuligin come to mind) and lord knows there is cheesecake galore. I'm sure they can cope with porn, if porn is to be allowed in the Mote at all.
I'm sure you'll be happy to know I'll be posting pictures of pornographic models in the Movies & Television thread
You are doing so purely out of hostility, and I find it pretty sad that you have to "punish" people who disagree with you. Apart from that, and apart from the general issue of whether or not we should allow porn for the reason mentioned, I don't really care if you post on-topic.
10387. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:49:33 AM
Jon Ferguson already expressly supported the thread, a page or too back. You can move him into the "supports" column.
That's twenty-two.
Uzmakk would almost certainly support the thread, too, I think. You can move him onto the list of the likely-to-support-but-uncommitted. Ditto AlD.
10388. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:51:16 AM
Current count for Ace's thread:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank
VonKreedon (possibly, if he/she likes the thread name)
Slackjaw
Judith (cause Cal's really been pissing her off lately)
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
Wonkers (implied)
YCM
Joezan
Scott Loar (implied from the floppy tit comment)
anomieme (implied)
Greystoke (presumably)
Stumbo
Jon Ferguson
That's TWENTY-TWO posters who can take a joke plus possibly another three (are there more?):
Wombat, Majoribanks, Uzmakk.
Supports in theory:
Wabbit
AGAINST:
CalGal
ChristinO
10389. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:53:19 AM
"You are doing so purely out of hostility, and I find it pretty sad that you have to "punish" people who disagree with you."
I am proving the point that no one -- including you, who invented the "challenge the norms" hypothesis -- wants the essential character of their thread changed by me or anyone else.
10390. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:54:47 AM
Also:
MsIT expressly supported the thread. Not in that she wants it, just that she, like so many other people, can't understand why Moties should NOT have a thread they want.
That's not implied support; that's actual support. In my book, anyway.
10391. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:55:01 AM
Current count for Ace's thread:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank
VonKreedon
Slackjaw
Judith
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
Wonkers (implied)
YCM
Joezan
Scott Loar (implied from the floppy tit comment)
anomieme (implied)
Greystoke (presumably)
Stumbo
Jon Ferguson
Uzmakk (presumably)
AlD (presumably)
That's TWENTY-FOUR posters not inflicted with penis envy and/or who can take a joke (are there more?):
Wombat, Majoribanks ?
10392. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:56:15 AM
xpost
10393. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:56:44 AM
People aren't going to come to our thread to ask "How's your cybercoffee?", just like I'm not posting titty-pictures in the Mote Cafe.
I wouldn't count on that. And since you can't disallow it: in the end, the only thing distinguishing the threads is "one is owned by Ace" and "one is owned by Diva".
I thought they were created because someone proposed a thread and if a certain amount of interest was shown, the thread was born.
People suggest topics. Generally, the topic is given a thread if it isn't something that is covered by an existing thread--or is a special interest thread that would otherwise take over a topic thread.
But suppose 20 Christians came here and demanded their own thread. Not to discuss religion, but Christianity. And while they didn't really mind if people came in and asked God hypotheticals, it's not what the thread was for. The thread is for Christians, so that they can hang out and not bug the other regulars in Religion.
That's a thread suggestion, it might have the support of 20 members, and it is roughly equivalent to asking for a new chat thread. So how many people do you think would say, "Yes, but we have a Religion thread"?
WTF is this place for, if not to satisfy the people who frequent it?
Satisfying the people who frequent it can be done in a number of ways.
In techie terms, there are requirements and there is implementation. This requirement can be met by the existing product. Instead, you are demanding a particular implementation. I believe that the particular implementation will hurt the existing product and, given that the requirement can already be met, I oppose it. That is both giving the users what they want and doing what I think is necessary to maintain the product.
10394. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 1:57:13 AM
and I find it pretty sad that you have to "punish" people who disagree with you.
Oh but it's okay to punish those of us who don't want this kind of "fun" in the Cafe? Has anyone asked Diva?
10395. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:58:11 AM
I am proving the point that no one -- including you, who invented the "challenge the norms" hypothesis -- wants the essential character of their thread changed by me or anyone else.
I don't think that porn shots change the essential nature of the movies thread. I've said so. The hostility bothers me, but last I checked there was a porn discussion going on. That's movies; I'm not objecting to it. My concern about porn has already been stated. Other than that, I haven't objected.
10396. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:59:02 AM
Ace's World
Where you'll never read incoherent babble like this: "In techie terms, there are requirements and there is implementation. This requirement can be met by the existing product. Instead, you are demanding a particular implementation. I believe that the particular implementation will hurt the existing product and, given that the requirement can already be met, I oppose it. That is both giving the users what they want and doing what I think is necessary to maintain the product."
And that's my solemn promise.
10397. seadate - 3/20/2001 1:59:45 AM
Not in that she wants it, just that she, like so many other people, can't understand why Moties should NOT have a thread they want.
but so hard to understand by a few ...
10398. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:01:38 AM
Oh but it's okay to punish those of us who don't want this kind of "fun" in the Cafe? Has anyone asked Diva?
Diva and others post cheesecake shots of men regularly. As I've mentioned there are often sexist jokes in the thread. So what, exactly, are you objecting to? Are you saying that Diva should create a set of thread guidelines that includes the ability to talk about periods and the great sex someone had the night before, but not sexist jokes and the cheerful sort of insults that Ace and Indy hurl at each other?
Last I checked, the only thing disallowed in the Cafe was fights. This isn't fights. Porn aside, what is Ace talking about that isn't allowed in the Cafe?
10399. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:01:54 AM
"Oh but it's okay to punish those of us who don't want this kind of "fun" in the Cafe? Has anyone asked Diva?"
Good point. I meant to say this myself.
Diva and the regulars at the Mote Cafe have their own form of interaction. They like it. They wouldn't like it disrupted.
Cal keeps saying, "Oh, you can do that in the Cafe." But of course we can't-- because, once again, we WOULDN'T. It would be very little fun to ruin someone else's thread.
It is not, as a matter of fact, much fun posting porno pictures in CalGal's thread, and she deserves it.
10400. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:03:39 AM
Diva and the regulars at the Mote Cafe have their own form of interaction. They like it. They wouldn't like it disrupted.
Are you serious? Do you think this would work as a reason in Politics? In International? That's absurd. I don't think Diva and the "regulars" are entitled to restrict everyone to "their own form of interaction". (I'm also not saying that they are).
10401. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:04:03 AM
"Are you saying that Diva should create a set of thread guidelines that includes the ability to talk about periods and the great sex someone had the night before, but not sexist jokes and the cheerful sort of insults that Ace and Indy hurl at each other? "
She doesn't have to create such "guidelines." The guidelines already exist. They aren't written down, but they are real guidelines nevertheless.
No one wants to walk into someone else's house and shit all over the fucking carpet.
Or at least I assumed so, before CalGal's "challenge the norms" Theorem.
10402. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:05:59 AM
Ace,
That wasn't incoherent babble. Even a lawyer could understand it. But in any event, I was speaking techie because last I knew, Stumbo was a techie. Asking a question that any techie should know the answer to.
10403. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 2:11:28 AM
CalGal, despite what you say, some of the guys in here leave the Cafe when talk turns to childbirth and various other "chick talk" starts. I would imagine some of the women might decide to do likewise when the guys start to discuss things germaine to their gender.
I know you don't like it but the sexes are different. They like different levels of discourse. It doesn't always mix well and it certainly doesn't mix well when it's forced to do so.
10404. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:12:53 AM
It's nonsense.
Given the choice between
A) Posting Man-Thread-type silliness in Diva's nicely-functioning thread, or
B) NOT posting such silliness at all,
I will choose B-- not posting it at all. It is simply not an option for me to go into Diva's thread and act up.
And this is your game all along. You propose fairy-tale solutions which solve nothing, because you want nothing solved. You just don't want to see this "ickyness" in your beloved mote.
Well, I'm sick to death about reading about the fucking Sopranos, Cal. Are you going stop to spare my feelings?
10405. seadate - 3/20/2001 2:14:05 AM
I'm up way to late, enjoying the fireworks.
Hey Judith,
I hope your knee's better.
10406. vonKreedon - 3/20/2001 2:14:28 AM
That is equivalent to asking for a separate Politics thread--not because the topic is different, but because people don't like Jex's graphs or concerned's ranting, or the 15000th conversation about why it's a lousy idea to call Bush stupid.
Can we please have a thread as described above? The only issue is how to enforce the parameters.
10407. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:14:56 AM
She doesn't have to create such "guidelines." The guidelines already exist. They aren't written down, but they are real guidelines nevertheless.
I would oppose any set of guidelines that disallowed the sort of talk you've been requiring. I've seen it in there all the time.
Look, if you want to have one "racy" thread and one "chit chat" thread, fine. But then no sexist jokes, no sex talk, no "lord, my period is overdue" in the "chit chat" thread. And the "racy" thread would have to tolerate all of that as well as the sort you want. That's probably unworkable.
If you create the Man thread then you may as well name the Cafe the Woman's thread. And that's separating by gender--which I find disgusting, no matter how many people support it. Or you separate by topic--which means no sex talk in one, no coffee talk in the other. I don't think any thread host wants to limit themselves that much.
Otherwise, you're creating threads for various cliques, and I think that's a horrible idea. Yes, many threads have regulars, but there's nothing inherent in the thread itself that supports it. Creating two "chat" threads, one for Ace and one for Diva, supports it. That's why I object to it.
But hell, Ace, you don't have to convince me.
10408. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:15:00 AM
"I know you don't like it but the sexes are different."
Too true.
CalGal, like many other radical feminists, thinks that masculinity is basically a sickness which must be "cured."
She doesn't mind men... so long as they behave like women.
She also can't stand the idea of a "separate" thread dominated by boys, because that implies that girls are "inferior," and that possesses Great Ick in CalGal's mind.
10409. seadate - 3/20/2001 2:15:14 AM
*too* late. Off to bed.
10410. Stumbo - 3/20/2001 2:15:29 AM
CG:
"But suppose 20 Christians came here and demanded their own thread. Not to discuss religion, but Christianity."
This isn't an exact analogy, since the requests for this thread have come mostly from long-standing members, not a swarm of newbies.
But, heck, let's suppose it were the latter.
What would it cost us to give them their damn thread? Or even 5 threads?
Nothing.
(I don't get any benefit from the existing Religion thread, for that matter. But do you see me ardently advocating its demise?)
10411. seadate - 3/20/2001 2:17:17 AM
LMAO at Ace's post!
10412. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:18:17 AM
CalGal, despite what you say, some of the guys in here leave the Cafe when talk turns to childbirth and various other "chick talk" starts. I would imagine some of the women might decide to do likewise when the guys start to discuss things germaine to their gender.
And they can keep on leaving when that happens. Just like I leave the Politics thread when you and others get too hackish. Lord, you can't think all women like the nonsense that goes on in the Cafe, can you?
I will choose B-- not posting it at all. It is simply not an option for me to go into Diva's thread and act up.
That's your choice. But it's not a reason to give you a separate thread. It's also not "acting up". It's entirely allowable, and isn't "acting up" any more than it is for someone to post about their placenta.
10413. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:18:18 AM
"Creating two "chat" threads, one for Ace and one for Diva, supports it."
Gee... and only a week ago you supported an "Ask Ace" thread, which would essentially be just another chit-chat thread.
But now the Ask Ace thread is stained by the taint of Great Ick... the Great Ick of the Man Thread.
10414. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 2:19:37 AM
I'm off to bed, also...'night!
10415. seadate - 3/20/2001 2:19:54 AM
Let's call it what it is .. "The Great Ick" thread!
10416. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:21:54 AM
"That's your choice. But it's not a reason to give you a separate thread. "
What a fucking buffoon.
Now I'm fucking pissed off. We give people separate threads to discuss separate things.
That's why no one wanted Home and Garden merged with Mote Cafe. And rightly so. We didn't say: "Fuck you, you can either post your recipes in the Mote Cafe or you can fuck off. It's your choice if you fuck off, so don't come crying to me."
Let me say this again:
We WILL have a new "Man-ish Thread." The only question is whether we will have it under the name The Man Thread, Ace's World, or Movies & Television.
And if you want to leave your own thread because you don't like the stuff that's being discussed there, then that's your choice and boo-hoo-fucking-hoo. No reason to give you separate thread, you know.
10417. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:22:47 AM
This isn't an exact analogy, since the requests for this thread have come mostly from long-standing members, not a swarm of newbies.
There are close to that many Christians here. But are you implying that newbies aren't allowed to ask for threads?
What would it cost us to give them their damn thread? Or even 5 threads?
It might cost a lot. You want a place where you can create your own threads and have anything you want, go find Tabletalk. Although they technically delete duplicates as well.
I would say the one important aspect of the Mote is that we don't have a forum structure that encourages factions and cliques. That doesn't mean they can't form, but the structure isn't encouraging it.
10418. seadate - 3/20/2001 2:23:36 AM
Skirting the issue are we?
10419. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:25:34 AM
Cal,
And when -- not if -- we get the Man Thread, you will have the choice of leaving the Mote entirely.
10420. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:27:01 AM
CalGal, like many other radical feminists, thinks that masculinity is basically a sickness which must be "cured."
Actually, I'm not technically a feminist at all. Those who meet the standard definition don't accept me--and not because I'm a "radical feminist", either. It goes without saying that the other bullshit in that post is rather pathetically inaccurate.
And if you want to leave your own thread because you don't like the stuff that's being discussed there, then that's your choice and boo-hoo-fucking-hoo.
I haven't checked it lately, but provided that you're posting on topic, I haven't complained. I'm not sure how often you need that stated. If it turns into a Porn thread, I suppose that it will increase the cries for porn to be disallowed--given our heavy contingent of government workers.
Now I'm fucking pissed off. We give people separate threads to discuss separate things.
I agree. It's just that you haven't defined anything you want to talk about that is "separate" from what is discussed in the Mote Cafe. Rather, you want your own little cliquish thread and leave that little cliquish thread (at least, it is perceived as such) alone.
10421. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:27:17 AM
See? You too will have choice. The same choice you offer everyone else.
10422. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:28:42 AM
"I haven't checked it lately, but provided that you're posting on topic, I haven't complained."
Good, because I expect I will be posting sixty to one hundred porno shots by the end of the week.
Challenging the norms, you know.
10423. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:29:58 AM
"I agree. It's just that you haven't defined anything you want to talk about that is "separate" from what is discussed in the Mote Cafe. "
Bullshit. It is quite obvious we want to talk about separate things, and that's why you're so pissed off.
It doesn't matter to me, Cal. There WILL be a Man Thread. It may be in YOUR thread, but there will be a Man Thread.
10424. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:32:11 AM
You too will have choice. The same choice you offer everyone else.
I don't recall telling people to leave if they don't like it. Although I agree that's always an option.
I doubt you will be posting sixty to one hundred porno shots by the end of the week. For one thing, you will have to have movie discussions for each one or I'll be moving them.
For another, I suspect if you do that the issue of whether or not we will be allowing porn at this site will move from a minor issue to a major discussion pretty quickly--and I suspect if it comes to that, porn may be disallowed or limited to one thread. So if you like the fact that you can occasionally post porn shots, you might want to reconsider whether or not you wish to force the issue.
10425. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:35:42 AM
"I don't recall telling people to leave if they don't like it. "
Yes you do. I say: "I cannot have the kind of discussions I'd like to in the existing threads. If I am forced to post what I'd like to post in Deeva's thread, I simply will not post."
Your response: "THEN THAT'S YOUR CHOICE."
I dunno... if we create the Man Thread, CalGal will leave.
What's the drawback?
10426. Stumbo - 3/20/2001 2:36:04 AM
CG:
"But are you implying that newbies aren't allowed to ask for threads?"
They can ask, by all means, but of course known regulars' requests should be treated more seriously.
"It might cost a lot."
I'll bet that running this place with 30 active threads does not cost more than 1% above running it with 25.
10427. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:36:20 AM
"For one thing, you will have to have movie discussions for each one or I'll be moving them. "
I will. I will rate each pornographic film as I post a picture.
10428. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:37:13 AM
It is quite obvious we want to talk about separate things, and that's why you're so pissed off.
????
I'm not pissed off at all. I'm not the one doing the insulting, mocking, and deliberately posting that which I hope is disruptive in a thread of someone I disagree with--so it's odd that you're talking about me being pissed off. I oppose the suggestions and am saying so. It's quite possible you'll get what you want anyway, and that's how it works.
Also, I am not opposed to you talking about "separate things", which I've said several times. Lord, you and Frankie go on and on about it constantly and I think I've complained about it twice--once in the Politics thread and once in my thread. You surely can't think that's the only times I've noticed it? I fully support your ability to make those posts. I just don't see them as substantively different from the sexual stuff that already goes into the Cafe.
As I said, separating all racy talk into one thread and leaving the other G-rated is structurally workable. But I suspect Diva wouldn't like that.
10429. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:43:26 AM
They can ask, by all means, but of course known regulars' requests should be treated more seriously.
Sez you. I would oppose it if I saw it going on in any formalized way. Since it doesn't--and you know it--there's no point in saying that newbies are treated differently, becasue they aren't.
I'll bet that running this place with 30 active threads does not cost more than 1% above running it with 25.
Um. I wasn't talking about money.
I will rate each pornographic film as I post a picture.
As I said, if you really want to risk losing the ability to post porn at all, go right ahead.
I suppose I could also declare that the Movies/Television thread can't post images, or can't discuss porn films. But I'll wait and see how the "should we allow porn at all" discussion plays out, first. Besides, you've got the attention span of a 3 year old, so no doubt this will pass.
10430. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:44:30 AM
"As I said, if you really want to risk losing the ability to post porn at all, go right ahead. "
Shivers. Geeze, I've always prized that ability so highly. I'd be just demolished if I lost it.
10431. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:47:43 AM
Well, if you won't care, then why the hell are you making such a huge fuss about posting porn in the Movies thread? You really think I'll get that fussed if it's only going to happen for a few days until either porn is disallowed or you move on to something else to get hyperactive about?
But I say again--this notion of punishing people for their opinions here is pretty repellent. I'd like to think that everyone is allowed to state their mind without having to risk someone deciding to spam a thread they happen to host.
10432. Slackjaw - 3/20/2001 2:48:25 AM
Maybe after the Survivor thread is gone we can have a thread on The Man Show so people can talk about the finer points of its content. If we can find a host.
10433. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:54:46 AM
"I'd like to think that everyone is allowed to state their mind without having to risk someone deciding to spam a thread they happen to host."
Once again, Cal, you told me I should "challenge the norms" of Diva's threads by attempting to re-make it into a thread I liked better.
I have merely taken your advice... except I am challenging YOUR norms, not Diva's.
Tell me, Cal, if it's okay to do this to Diva, why not to you?
Especially since it was YOUR idea -- I would expect you to lead by example.
10434. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 2:59:45 AM
This is a Chasey Lain/Celeste team-up, which I would think would interest someone around here.
Personally, I don't really dig Chasey Lain. But I know a lot of guys do.
10435. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 3:01:52 AM
Ooops. That was intended for The Man Thread/Movies & Television.
10436. CalGal - 3/20/2001 3:03:14 AM
Once again, Cal, you told me I should "challenge the norms" of Diva's threads by attempting to re-make it into a thread I liked better.
And you should "challenge the norms". I already said that porn was a slightly different issue. Other than that, I was quite clear as to what I meant--that there is no requirement that people post about cybercoffee in the Mote Cafe. As I've pointed out several times, there have been many sexual conversations in the Cafe, and plenty of sexist jokes. So if the "norm" is that "guys" can't go in the thread and cheerfully insult each other as they talk about whatever suits them, then I think that should be challenged. I see no reason why that isn't as acceptable as what goes on there now.
If you were seriously discussing porn movies in the Movies thread, I wouldn't object at all. As it is, I find it objectionable because you know perfectly well that you're spamming, and you're not doing it to "challenge the norms" of the thread, but because you want to be hostile and punish someone who disagrees with you.
Challenging the norm of the Movies/Television thread would be discussing Touched by an Angel, the TV show, not the porn movie with that name that almost certainly exists.
10437. CalGal - 3/20/2001 3:04:29 AM
"guys" can't go in the thread and cheerfully insult each other as they talk about whatever suits them, then I think that should be challenged
To be clear, I mean the overtly sexual and sexist chatter that you wish to have in "your" thread.
10438. CalGal - 3/20/2001 3:06:59 AM
Actually, I've just looked at the thread. Good lord, I thought you were doing something objectionable. I'd rather you space them out, but who the hell cares if you want to review porn films? Go right on ahead. Hell, I'll create a conversation for porn film reviews.
10439. CalGal - 3/20/2001 3:09:35 AM
I mean, I still find it unpleasant that you've decided to punish someone just for disagreeing with you, but this is no worse than Cellar deciding to post fifty reviews of obscure French films that will only go on the list of flicks I'll actively avoid.
Oh well, I'm off to bed. I'll leave others to debate whether or not Ace's pictures qualify as "porn" or just end of the spectrum cheesecake.
10440. msgreer - 3/20/2001 5:53:02 AM
seadate
Please add my name to the list. I am fine with Ace having a thread.
10441. ScottLoar - 3/20/2001 6:10:26 AM
A Man Thread? Yes. A thread devoted to Ace's fantasies? No.
10442. wabbit - 3/20/2001 6:32:31 AM
Well, I've just waded through a lot of crap.
Ace, is it possible for you to make a point without being such an asshole? I have no objection to an "Ace's World" thread, ala Message # 10302, or "Ace's Playpen". I would prefer it not be called the "Man" thread, just like I wouldn't want the Cafe called the "Woman" thread. I hope I don't need to go into a multi-post diatribe explaining that. Also, keep the pornography pictures out. Link to them if you must, don't post them. In Message # 10278 MsIT made a good case for keeping the pornography out, and Ace supported her reasoning.
Message # 10250
"I truly don't see why the Inferno won't do."
Fine. The Inferno will do. Except that NO POSTS will be dumped there, no one will tell anyone else to "take it to the Inferno" unless the conversation is actually appropriate to the tone of that thread (wisecracking/joking around/posting cheesecake pictures), and we will of course need a new Moderator (Francis will do us nicely) and perhaps a new name.
10443. wabbit - 3/20/2001 6:33:31 AM
It's just that you haven't defined anything you want to talk about that is "separate" from what is discussed in the Mote Cafe. Rather, you want your own little cliquish thread and leave that little cliquish thread (at least, it is perceived as such) alone.
Cal, the Sisters have set the tone for their thread, just as you set the tone for yours. Ace wants to be rude, but not in the Cafe. While the insults may work well in the Inferno, that thread is also a dumping ground for rancor from the other threads and as such is a disjointed reading experience on many occasions. True, I could create a "Graveyard" thread for those posts, but then we'd be in essentially the same situation. If Ace's thread ends up getting the bulk of the chat, perhaps we will consider merging the Cafe into Ace's World. Meanwhile, let's see what happens.
10444. seadate - 3/20/2001 7:38:00 AM
Current count for Camo'ed "Man" thread - shall it be "The Great Ick"?:
Ace
Jen
FU
Fielding
Indy
Janjon
Seadate
Frank
VonKreedon (Not named "Ace's ______")
Slackjaw
Judith
Ms IT (implied)
Marshame
Bubb (implied)
Wonkers (implied)
YCM
Joezan
Scott Loar (Not named "Ace's ______")
anomieme (implied)
Greystoke (presumably)
Stumbo
Jon Ferguson
Uzmakk (presumably)
AlD (presumably)
MsGreer
That's TWENTY-FIVE posters in favor of this silly little thread (are there more?):
Wombat, Majoribanks ?
10445. seadate - 3/20/2001 7:39:22 AM
TWENTY-FIVE!
10446. wabbit - 3/20/2001 7:44:15 AM
I guess the implication of post 10443 wasn't clear enough. The thread is ready and waiting to be activated by its host.
10447. seadate - 3/20/2001 7:50:46 AM
My apologies, wabbit. I misunderstood.
10448. wonkers2 - 3/20/2001 8:08:22 AM
Why not get Howard Stern to host the Man thread? Or maybe Ace IS Howard Stern?
10449. ScottLoar - 3/20/2001 8:33:07 AM
Who is AceofSpades? A novice lawyer who fancies himself rough and randy. Yet, he pushes papers, spends hours on the internet, looks for arguments and alludes to pussy about 68 times a day. Poor boy has an image problem.
He should take a cue from Fight Club. Pick a fight, boy, go into the kind of place where they don't like your kind and look for a fight. Hold your own against someone who wants to make serious damage on your face. Get up on your hind legs and see what you're made of.
No. He's not ready for serious shit. Too radical. So he comes back to familiar ground to worry down thread hosts and rile other posters.
10450. Jon Ferguson - 3/20/2001 8:34:50 AM
So is this a new precedent? To override Cal's veto, you need 25 supporters? And her veto over a thread's title is unbreakable? Or is 'I would prefer' language not binding?
2 months from now, Ace's World will be unceremoniously RIPped and archived by Pelle (without warning or cause) for being a 'Vanity' thread.
Ace wants 'The Man Thread.' 25 Moties either want it as well or support his right to have it. Give the Mote what it wants.
10451. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 8:47:32 AM
Well done, wabbit.
10452. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 9:39:50 AM
CalGal:
Lord, you can't think all women like the nonsense that goes on in the Cafe, can you?
Of course I don't think that, just as I don't think ALL women like to talk about their jobs or their children or movies or their health.
You can't think all men like to participate in the nonsense that goes on in the Cafe, can you? Of course not, and they don't ALL like sports or war or doing quizzes, either.
As I said, separating all racy talk into one thread and leaving the other G-rated is structurally workable. But I suspect Diva wouldn't like that
Has anyone asked Divas opinion on any of this? I think her input might be appreciated...
10453. JudithAtHome - 3/20/2001 9:46:17 AM
Day late and a dollar short; I posted this before reading the previous 20 messages. But it doesn't change my remarks.
10454. Fielding - 3/20/2001 9:51:23 AM
Ace:
"many people don't want to read about my anal-sex-with-Fielding fantasies."
Lets get this over with. Bend over, and I'll try to go easy on ya.
10455. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 10:10:07 AM
Two interesting links I found at Salon:
Life in the Commune
Interview with Howard Rheingold, author of the Virtual Community
10456. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:30:57 AM
Ace wants to be rude, but not in the Cafe.
But that's different from saying that the "tone" of the Cafe won't allow it. That's saying that Ace wants his own space.
If Ace's thread ends up getting the bulk of the chat, perhaps we will consider merging the Cafe into Ace's World.
That's exactly why I worry about the creation of such a thread. Competing chat threads. Even if the "bulk" goes to one thread, the "regulars" of the other will be upset--why should their thread be lost?
I still think that "tone" is a distraction from the real issue, which is that for whatever reason, the current chat thread is not perceived as welcoming to everyone.
Oh well, of the two it was the idea I hated less.
10457. Fielding - 3/20/2001 10:33:05 AM
You mean that you are not going to quit over this thread?
10458. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:34:52 AM
???
Not at all.
10459. Fielding - 3/20/2001 10:49:05 AM
What a tease.
10460. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:51:56 AM
Indy,
I disagree with that guy that "communities" mean that the process he describes (quite accurately) is inevitable. But anyone who think that article describes here hasn't been to TT. It is an extremely accurate description of Mothers Who Think, for example.
I think we avoid a lot of those pitfalls, although it's foolish to think that arguing can't be avoided.
Wabbit,
Long ago, did you see vw's proposal for Social Issues? Can we, can we, huh?
10461. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2001 12:18:51 PM
1) Give Ace the Man Thread.
2) If he keeps spamming porn in the Movie Thread, ban his well-buggered ass.
10462. PsychProf - 3/20/2001 12:25:25 PM
"Lord, you can't think all women like the nonsense that goes on in
the Cafe, can you?"
A new low Cal.
10463. Jenerator - 3/20/2001 12:35:56 PM
Indy,
In all of the research I've done on Internet addiction, virtual relationships and online communities, one thing does happen: people burn out. Generally speaking it's only a small percentage who stay on for several years. The Mote is a smaller group which does provide more cohesiveness and possibility for real-life interaction BUT, even here, people get disenchanted with the status-quo and real life relationships take over again.
That's one reason why some people consider Internet addiction more of a compulsive problem because the "addiction" usually doesn't last as long as chemical addictions do.
10464. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:54:34 PM
Cal and Jen: I posted both those links as two different takes. Not sure which I agree with more--the "community" interaction fascinates me, but I haven't observed it long enough and enough examples to reach firm conclusions.
Currently, I tend toward pessimism.
As far as the "addiction" aspect, I think you have to judge the tree by its fruit. If you can get something here that you can't get elsewhere, it's a useful tool. If you neglect real-world relationships, personal development, and find yourself feeling bad after being online, it's not so hot.
10465. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 12:56:18 PM
Wabbit,
Thank you. How do I activate the thread?
10466. CalGal - 3/20/2001 12:57:16 PM
Indy--I am still reading the second link, but I think that one is much more realistic--speaking of Howard's posts.
As far as "pessimism" and "optimism", I don't have much of either. I think it is what it is. Growth is critical, things change, what else is new?
10467. PelleNilsson - 3/20/2001 1:02:09 PM
Ace
I can activate it for you. Should I?
10468. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:09:22 PM
Sure, that would be appreciated.
Please send an email to Kevin_Blackthorne@yahoo.com with my password and the URL of the maintenance site (you know, the place I have to go to delete and such).
10469. PelleNilsson - 3/20/2001 1:14:22 PM
OK, done. You use your normal password. e-mail on its way.
10470. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 1:16:39 PM
Cal: That one appeared to have some worthwhile links as well. Point taken about the need to have a neutral attitude toward change.
Previous to the Mote and TableTalk, I was in another online community that held together pretty well for about a year. Then it totally disintegrated. Many just left, but the hardcore folk became really ugly as it wound down. I know only a little about the Rabbit Hole, but it seems to have some of the same track record.
TableTalk is a different animal, but at least in Politics and White House, it's little more than cyber paintball.
I think Jen's first paragraph describes the normal cyber community life cycle fairly accurately.
10471. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 1:18:00 PM
I should also add that my (limited) experience with real world groups and organizations has been somewhat similar--cycles between intense activity and burnout.
10472. Fielding - 3/20/2001 1:36:08 PM
Given the overlap between "Ace's World" and "Movies and Television", I call for those two threads to be merged into a "Porno with CalGal and Ace" thread.
10473. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 1:37:19 PM
Fielding,
Indeed. "Movies & Television" has not sufficiently defined a different mission from my thread.
Thus, no need for the balkanization. Merge 'em.
10474. Fielding - 3/20/2001 1:39:01 PM
I mean, its twice as much work to post pictures of Penelepe Cruz in two threads.
10475. Fielding - 3/20/2001 1:39:37 PM
That would be Penelope Cruz.
The excitement of this new thread is getting to me.
10476. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:47:21 PM
I should also add that my (limited) experience with real world groups and organizations has been somewhat similar--cycles between intense activity and burnout.
Yes, I was going to make the same point.
I would say that if you count the Fray's history as well as the Mote's, this "community" has avoided the disintegration that you talk about. And keep in mind that much of TT has, as well.
10477. Cellar Door - 3/20/2001 1:52:20 PM
Hey, can I get MY thread now?
10478. pogie - 3/20/2001 2:01:06 PM
The first article is misleading. In my online experience, if people stick it out more than a year or so, eventually at least a few of them will become real-life friends that just use being online as another way to keep in touch. Not all of a given forum group, but some people will do this. Also, that article neglects situations where everyone knows everyone else offline pretty much (locally based mailing lists/irc channels/bulletin boards, for example), but who choose to keep much of their interactions with each other virtual. BBSes are/were likely a collapsing of both situations. I will give that article points for mentioning the excess of drama and overblown angsting that often occurs in such online situations, though.
10479. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:10:20 PM
Oh, it describes it perfectly. It is incorrect in its premise that that sort of problem is inevitable, or attributable to the notion of "community".
10480. PelleNilsson - 3/20/2001 2:27:55 PM
It seems to me that we have had all these problems one time or the other but we have managed to pull back from the brink.
10481. RosettaStone - 3/20/2001 4:23:08 PM
For the record:
I don't think it's a good idea to have vanity threads in mote.
10482. ycmeehan - 3/20/2001 4:43:01 PM
What was yours, Rosetta? Didn't you talk about your kids often enough there? That is vanity, dearest Rasa.
10483. ScottLoar - 3/20/2001 4:49:32 PM
AceOfSpades' is a vanity thread, touted by his name from the shingle. Persistent bawling is sad reason to oblige him. A Man Thread oui (I do that to irritate the macho crowd that flocks to Ace's plastic porn), Ace's Idiocies nyet.
10484. ycmeehan - 3/20/2001 4:51:45 PM
Macho, me? You think?
10485. ycmeehan - 3/20/2001 4:55:19 PM
Scott,
Ace has changed. He is just trying a little too hard. That's all.
10486. ScottLoar - 3/20/2001 4:59:54 PM
AceOfSpades remains as he is, a pathetic paper pusher with too much time on his hands, now given over to garish imaginings centering on pussy. Hell, he could spend less than a thousand US$ and live the fantasy but... he's a cardboard cut-out of what he wants to be.
10487. ScottLoar - 3/20/2001 5:01:08 PM
I support a CellarDoor thread but only if he matches AceOfSpades in fantasized pornography, regardless of sex.
10488. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 5:06:55 PM
ScottLoar's just mad at my "Delete every post by a Foreign Imbecile" policy.
10489. RosettaStone - 3/20/2001 5:43:38 PM
I didn't see the Bush's Inauguration thread as a vanity thread, yummy. More of an eyewitness one.
Of course, it was erased by mote's management before most of the eyewitnesses could collect their thoughts on the event. Such is life when you're not a mote VIP.
Personally, now that the pathetic rubber has said he wants out and bbb has turned it down, I would like Ace to become moderator of the Politics thread.
10490. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/20/2001 5:49:53 PM
It should be obvious to one and all now the real game that was afoot here from day one. The strutting, jackbooted martinet Pelle Nilson wished to reallocate the good doctor's thread to his cohort from day one. When my superior reasoning abilities waylaid this subterfuge, they came up with a subtler scheme, the machination of which must have quite exhausted their pinheaded brains. Retire my thread for the most laughable of cheeseholey reasons and then after an indecent interval, create this latest farce.
Well, friends, my revenge is already in motion, and my enemies have just begun to taste what it means to incur my wrath.
Bit by little bit, I shall extract all my due from this Mote and all who would trifle with me.
10491. RosettaStone - 3/20/2001 5:58:01 PM
Not a good sign to annoy the doctor.
10492. ycmeehan - 3/20/2001 6:01:41 PM
Rosetta,
How did you know my husband's pet name for me, I would really like to know?
10493. RosettaStone - 3/20/2001 6:10:57 PM
A shot in the dark, yc. Since I'm not your husband, I won't use it anymore.
10494. ycmeehan - 3/20/2001 6:40:19 PM
Rosetta,
I was just kidding.
10495. Cellar Door - 3/20/2001 7:14:17 PM
"I support a CellarDoor thread but only if he matches AceOfSpades in fantasized pornography, regardless of sex."
Sorry, Scott, but any Cellar Door thread would have to feature plenty of This!
"Fair and Balanced" doncha know.
10496. RosettaStone - 3/20/2001 7:23:08 PM
Okay, yc.
BTW, I've just discovered another online forum of interest. The people at TableTalk are talking about it as a place they may move to if Salon.com goes down permanently. It's new and called Plastic.
Great story on Salon Wants Your Money in its media section.
If you didn't know, Salon is about to go to a two tier emagazine. $30 without ads; still free with big, big ones (like a third of the monitor page).
10497. AceofSpades - 3/20/2001 11:49:47 PM
"AceOfSpades' is a vanity thread, touted by his name from the shingle..."
This is an unfortunate consequence of the thread being named "Ace's World," I admit. I never
I am willing to change the name -- actually, more than that: I'd *like* to change the name -- if we could come up with a name that wouldn't offend.
I never really wanted Ace's World, actually. I just proposed that as a compromise.
It can be changed; I'd like it to be changed. I do not like the impression it creates.
10498. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 11:59:06 PM
C'mon Ace, quit second-guessing. You go all gang-busters when you have a cause, then when you've achieved your goal you get an apologetic tone. Get a cohost and call it Beavis and Butthead.
10499. JudithAtHome - 3/21/2001 8:21:23 AM
Ace:
I thought you had considered "The Smoking Room" before? Or is that too exclusionary...the Lockeroom? Boileroom? Atelier?
10500. marjoribanks - 3/21/2001 2:00:56 PM
For a long time now, this has been the most amusing thread in the Mote. I'd like to declare that I am a fan of Stone's continuing soulful loser routine here.
But I want to comment on Ace's statement that he will be okay with a name that "doesn't offend". Why would we want a name like that? It should offend. That's the whole purpose of an Ace thread.
If in fact it proves to be an inoffensive thread, it should be terminated immediately. In fact, the current name probably offends someone or the other. That's reason enough to keep it until a suitably more-offensive name can be found.
10501. janjon - 3/21/2001 2:15:13 PM
That ain't no routine. Stone IS a loser.
10502. marjoribanks - 3/21/2001 2:16:38 PM
Yes, but he's being soulful.
Somehow, it's quite amusing.
10503. janjon - 3/21/2001 2:24:21 PM
it is a fine line between soulful and just being a dork. You and I differ as to where Stone lands.
10504. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2001 3:14:14 PM
#10489-91 is an interesting sequence of posts. Is Rosetta trying to tell us something?
10505. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 3:15:25 PM
Must be all your fault, Pelle, as Cazart sez.
10506. ChristinO - 3/21/2001 3:27:31 PM
Doesn't matter whose fault it is, we always just dock Ian's pay. Saves hassles with bookkeeping.
Of course at this rate Ian would have to work for the next 3,894 years, but that's okay. He won't mind. He's a cheerful little bugger.
10507. ChristinO - 3/21/2001 4:32:34 PM
Big Duh, but did VW volunteer to host the Social Issues thread? If so I'll create it and wait for the go ahead to send it live.
VW please email me at bridgeburner99@yahoo.com if I'm on track with this.
10508. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 6:03:49 PM
Just the merest fingernail of my power has been exerted so far, Pelle Nilson. Resign or suffer far worse for your brazen incompetence.
When I see what a laughable condition your governance has created in this Mote, the good doctor is astounded your boobery is aloud to continue.
I will reiterate my demands.
The strutting, jackbooted martinet dolt known as Pelle Nilson must resign.
My office and domicile must be restored to its rightful owner.
If these demands are not met, worse will befall you and the cost to you of rectifying the situation will increase.
10509. CalGal - 3/21/2001 6:33:19 PM
XTC, I hate to say anything that might reduce the amusement value of your posts--which is considerable--but it seems to me that they are threats. I'm not sure where the line is on threats, but I thought I'd point it out.
Funny stuff, though.
10510. CalGal - 3/21/2001 6:33:34 PM
10511. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 9:51:09 PM
I have been a law-abiding citizen here and done nothing in violation of the rules. These rules have not served to protect myself or my domicile. I no longer respect these rules.
You say my "threats" are funny stuff. The rule says "If it is a serious threat, hominy hominy hominy." If my "threats" are funny stuff, then they are not serious.
The same rules say that strutting, jackbooted martinets like Pelle Nilson shall interfere with law-abiding hosts like myself only if I violate the rules. See Difference between Administrator and Hosts in the FAQ.
From the day my thread was born, the doltish Nilson criticized it continually. He decided unilaterally to delete it without debate or suggestion from anyone else that he do so. It had more activity than many other threads here, as well as a more attentive host.
Then this Christine Onassis woman shows up and tries to explain why Nilson did so. Do you want me to poke holes in her puny obfuscation as well? For the good doctor, it would be child's play.
I have merely stated my position. My position is no more a threat than what the buffoonish Nilson did when he RIPPED my thread and said my attempt to salvage it meant nothing. He was still going to do what he planned all along and what was within his power: destruction of my holdings.
Likewise, I am merely stating what I intend to do and is within my power. And my power is considerable.
10512. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 9:53:37 PM
Is that what the O stands for?
Learn something new every day.
Bye bye, Cazart.
10513. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:04:52 PM
I agree with Dr. X.
Citizen Pelle was heavyhanded in the way he handled the the doctor's thread.
It did seem as if our Swedish "leader" didn't want it here and was willing to do anything in his power to destroy it.
Citizen Pelle may have been influenced by some of of the complaints of his followers here who didn't like their "banter" removed from Dr.X's thread and put in Inferno.
10514. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 10:07:06 PM
Pelle was wrong. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last. He sucks. But with all this threatening of him, he will stay on. Rally the troops, etc., etc.
I'm more interested in that apparent privacy violation. Or is that name made up/incorrect? Or is that name public?
10515. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:10:17 PM
You concerned about people's privacy?
Not funny, Jon. And we all know why you're back, so cool it.
10516. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 10:10:38 PM
Rosetta Stone give further evidence of Nilson's corruption as well as strutting jackbootedness.
10517. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 10:11:13 PMgives
10518. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 10:12:24 PM
By the by, the good doctor would also consider a cessation of hostilities if offered the Politics thread with the condition that Nilson keep his meddling to his pitiful International joke.
10519. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:13:37 PM
This place has been a lot of pain for me for years, Dr. X.
10520. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:15:55 PM
I'll back that, Dr. X. The pathetic rubberduck wants out and we'll need a new moderator of the Politics thread.
But, you will have to be here on a regular basis to get it.
10521. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 10:20:52 PM
I have no interest in Politics, Mrs. Stone, but I now see how "favored" hosts can rename their threads whatever they like.
So any thread will do. Though in point of fact, I should hold out for Nilson's resignation.
Why in the name of Naxos this lethargic yet bitter civil servant is tolerated is beyond me. His must truly be a thankless job if that is the best that can fill it.
10522. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 10:26:00 PM
Didn't say concerned, Rosie, interested.
And please, do tell, why am I back?
10523. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 10:26:13 PM
Jon, I know you're Canadian and all, but you don't know who Christina Onassis is?
I say give Dr. X Politics. He deserves it. Really.
10524. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:29:08 PM
Because you finally returned from DisneyWorld, Jon?
10525. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 10:31:21 PM
arky
I know who Jackie Onassis is. I know who Aristotle Onassis is. I don't know all of the Onassis clan members, no. And even if I did, it's not inconceivable that others might actually share that last name, and ChrisO did have kind of an ethnic look in the picture I saw ...
I take it there was no privacy violation? That's good. Because I support Dr. X's position, although I am reluctant to take up his cause if he's about to do something very stupid (which he seems to be threatening to do) because somehow I would get blamed for it. He's probably better off without me arguing his case, anyway. But he has my vote.
10526. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:31:32 PM
Change is good, Arky. Citizen Pelle should be shown the door from mote management and become just another poster--for awhile.
Pope Wabbit is the only one who has life-long tenure.
10527. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 10:32:23 PM
I got back from Puerto Rico in December, Rosie. I still don't see your point.
10528. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 10:35:52 PM
She's Aristotle's daughter and a big mess, so it was not a compliment.
Rose,
Quit stirring things up. Before you know it you'll get people all riled again and then I'm going to have a laughing fit followed by a guilt trip again. You know that Pelle is just fine where he is.
10529. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 10:38:01 PM
I will say one thing. Politics needs an iron hand like mine and who is not afraid to use it.
The good doctor finds the subject matter as boring as an euchroma gigantea, but once ensconced I shall change the name to something more suitable to my fancy. Meantime, I shall have whipped the unruly mobbish louts who post there into order.
I daresay less than one in ten posts will escape the Inferno or obliteration.
10530. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:46:00 PM
If given the opportunity I would rename the Politics thread:
"Sweet Sweet Bubba's Bad Ass Song. A Tale of Romance, Passion and Sweet, Bad Love."
10531. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 10:48:06 PM
Hmm, knowledge of Japan, extensive vocabulary, a tendency to verbally beat people about the head and ears...PE, is that you?
10532. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 10:50:56 PM
I feel confident in saying that Pelle will NOT be shown the door any time soon. He had my endorsement when he was offered his position and he continues to have my endorsement. If you think this is the result of some sort of love fest or group-think, you are sadly mistaken. Pelle and I disagree about almost everything. The difference is that I don't believe that simple disagreement justifies the anger that is so often expressed here.
I know this has been said here before, but I believe it bears repeating. This is not a democracy. This is not a public accomodation. This is a group of people who have come together to share common interests and discuss the issues of the day. If you don't like the way things are done here, fine. You are welcome to express your opinion. If you still don't like it, you are welcome to leave. If you think you marking your territory by pissing on everything, you are mistaken. You just pissing on yourself and sitting in a puddle.
We have lost several Moties in the past few months because they could no longer stomach the bullshit that gets spread around here by a few angry posters. If I were in Pelle's position, I am not so sure I would be as tolerant as he has been. I can think of a few people that I would have shown the door.
10533. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 10:57:21 PM
I am glad that I can express my opinion.
The good doctor thought that even to the dullards among us, it would be obvious that was what I was doing.
I continually overestimate the intelligence of the local denizenry.
10534. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:57:25 PM
Or, (and this comes from the Washington Post's "In the Loop" column), let's help Bill Clinton with the lead sentence/graf of his upcoming bio.
"It was a dark and stormy administration. Suddenly a pardon rang out."
"I never lied to you. I never inhaled. I never avoided the draft....I never heard of her. I never met her. I never had sexual relations with that woman. I never said that. I never saw that. I never knew that. I never heard that. I never asked. I never told...."
"Once upon a time, there was a wizard who ruled the Land of Is. One day, a Rich man came to him seeking a pardon. The wizard said he would grant the pardon if the Rich man could tell him what the meaning of is is...."
"Plump, round and hot, he let his eyes feast on the prize for a moment before allowing his hand to stretch forward....Slowly, methodically--enjoying every second---he removed the delicate outer covering, revealing the warm flesh inside...and savored every morsel of the first Quarter Pounder with cheese since the divorce."
"Dear Penthouse Letters: I have recently concluded more than two decades of service as a prominent elected official..."
"As she had done so often over the past eight years, Socks jumped up on my desk in the Oval Office and licked my face. Then, the true leader of the Free World gave me my last set of instructions on my last day in office. 'Pardon Marc Rich,' she told me."
10535. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 10:59:24 PM
Actually, JJ. Your time should be up as host of the Music thread. Man, talk about a wasted opportunity.
10536. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:03:16 PM
Yeahyeahyeah, Dr. X. Just answer the question.
10537. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 11:05:50 PM
I am no longer in the business of answering questions.
Thanks to Mssr. Nilson.
No wonder such totalitarians stay in power with toadying shock troops like Biener here.
10538. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:09:02 PM
Ahhh. I see. A non-answer answer, immediately followed by the epithet "toadying shock troops."
10539. AceofSpades - 3/21/2001 11:09:08 PM
Everyone here needs to drink a tall, icy-cold glass of shut-up juice.
10540. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:11:03 PM
After you.
10541. AceofSpades - 3/21/2001 11:11:43 PM
mmmmmmmm
(silence)
10542. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 11:14:05 PM
X - I continually overestimate the intelligence of the local denizenry.
Gee, don't let us keep you. I am sure you have much more important places to go.
No wonder such totalitarians stay in power with toadying shock troops like Biener here.
Totalitarians. Yep. You got it. Exactly. I am sure you wouldn't want to associate yourself with such a terrible place. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Bye.
10543. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 11:16:04 PM
Arky - It is kinda strange to be on the same side of a discussion as you. You don't think this is going to become a habit, do you?
10544. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 11:16:52 PM
Rosie - Arts & Music is my thread. Get used to it.
10545. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 11:18:18 PM
Let me guess...Mr. Beano "passes" around here as the local wit.
"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Huh-huh. He made a funny. Huh-huh.
10546. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:19:46 PM
Only outside of politics, unless one of is coming down with something. Lots of times I'm reminded when reading or posting in the Mote of the cartoon with Wil E Coyote and the Sheepdog, where they greet eachother politely as they clock in for work, proceed to battle over the sheep, then clock out with polite salutations and head home.
Where'd Ace go all of a sudden?
10547. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 11:20:39 PM
Then do something with it, JJ. You have the technical and musical skills.
Look at TT's Music folder for some "sweet, sweet soul" inspiration.
10548. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:21:12 PM
OK, nevermind. I'm almost certain PE wouldn't be familiar with Beano. Too provincial.
10549. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:22:29 PM
Ace, come back! I didn't really mean for you to drink the Shut-up juice, I was just kidding! I can't believe what I've done. Hey, Rose, maybe you can take over Ace's thread while he's out of commission.
10550. RosettaStone - 3/21/2001 11:25:08 PM
I think it's outragious that thread hosts are able to use names of other posters in their headlines.
Nostradamnit was the first to do that last year.
Today both Fielding and Ace did it.
Both hosts should be punished. Maybe we can get Pelle interested in being the heavy..
10551. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:25:23 PM
Well, now that Ace has gone, this party's dragging. One more day of work, and I can be a nightowl for a week.
Nytol.
10552. AceofSpades - 3/21/2001 11:27:20 PM
"I think it's outragious that thread hosts are able to use names of other posters in their headlines.
Nostradamnit was the first to do that last year.
Today both Fielding and Ace did it. "
Oh, you're such a moron sometimes. Fielding used my name with my implied blessing; I used VK's name with his implied blessing.
10553. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:27:23 PM
Rose, before I go to bed, you know I'm not one of those obnoxious anal-retentive English teachers who go around correcting folks (unless I'm mad at them), but since you seem to use the word a lot lately, could you please spell "outrageous" correctly? I could take your righteous indignation much more seriously if you did.
10554. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 11:28:06 PM
Phew! I can sleep fitlessly now that Ace has reappeared.
Toodles.
10555. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 11:28:18 PM
Nilson is hanging on by his fingernails already. Thanks to me, he will no doubt curtail his abuse of power for the time being, lest even the doltish lackeys wisen up to his authoritarian strutting.
10556. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 11:28:25 PM
X - You are right. You really don't want to bother with us. You really need to find some place that appreciates your, uh, talents. Bye.
10557. AceofSpades - 3/21/2001 11:29:10 PM
Tomorrow I will probably change the name to "Francis Urquhart is a Loser Midget."
I hope that doesn't upset you too badly, Rosie.
10558. RosettaStone - 3/22/2001 8:07:12 AM
What type of answer is that, counselor?
"Implied blessings."
Outrageous.
And Citizen Fielding changes the Quiz thread, to "Ace's World", while keeping his useless Rant Chanting thread?
How does he get two threads when Dr. X's was erased?
Notice how master Pelle ignores this abuse of the system while rationalizing his deletion of a terrific self-help Q&A thread by real life doctor.
All because some of his friends were annoyed that their precious posters were moved from there to the Inferno. And he didn't like the tone of the doctor.
All the while another mote master encourages the newby to go "byebyebye."
It's all to in for this fray outsider.
But I do know that the boyish-looking Niner is in the city of (fallen) angeles learning new "tricks" on how to be a succesful Washington attorney from the notorious homosexual Cellar Door.
FU, indeed.
10559. RosettaStone - 3/22/2001 8:14:36 AM
posters=posts
newbie
10560. janjon - 3/22/2001 5:39:31 PM
In a serendipitous way (being irked at bbb's incessant off-topic posting in Politics, most recently manifested by several posts pulled from somewhere about Salon's current travails), it has dawned on me that the dot.coms per se could make a good, complex thread. At the risk of being deemed a bit full of myself, I will copy a post I just made in Politics:
"There is obviously a lot that could be said about the fall (and the rise) of the dot.coms. Its got it all. Common themes - how easy it is for even the "savvy" to get stardust in their eyes. How much people want to latch on to the "next automobile/tv/etc. surface vs. substance. lemmings. And, yes, there are aspects that relate/hit at Politics. But, only on the periphery or in very specialized ways."
10561. CalGal - 3/22/2001 5:42:16 PM
Sounds interesting. You wanna host?
10562. rubberducky - 3/23/2001 10:20:02 AM
i don’t care if DrX does take over hosting politics, but i hope the good doctor understands it will not be 'his' thread and that the participants won't put up with a lot of his bullshit, but, hell, could be amusing. politics is one of the most read and posted in threads, as such, it needs a more active participant and host than i am at this time. but, the thread is a different animal with a different climate - one i hope the god doctor can and will accommodate.
10563. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 10:23:08 AM
Another vote for the consciensious Dr. X.
10564. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 10:31:19 AM
I sort of felt guilty when RD took over politics. We read a Mark Twain story the other day, "The Genuine Mexican Plug," and I feel sort of like the auctioneer who unloaded a bad horse on an innocent victim. Politics is the most work-intensive of all the threads, and probably needs two hosts, but once out you won't see me getting back in that saddle again.
10565. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 10:34:11 AM
I don't think Politics would benefit from XTC at all.
10566. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 10:45:45 AM
How long will my good friend (and long-time reader) rubberducky be forced by the tyrranical Nilson to serve Atlas-like 'neath the weight of the world whilst a pair of brawny arms stands ready to ease his burden?
10567. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 10:47:31 AM
I dunno, Judith. The Good Doctor does love his scalpel. There's a certain appeal there, somehow....
10568. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 10:50:02 AM
Well, I'm sure my aversion is due to being a victim of that scaplel so many times....
And if it's true we get what we deserve in life, then he's definitely gonna get the job. Too bad, though; I've enjoyed it a lot.
10569. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 10:50:06 AM
A dual host system would be okay as long as it's clear the good doctor is in charge. My underling's job shall be to look after things whilst I attend to worldly matters, keep the discussion going lest martinet Nilson try another powerplay, and generally scrape, bow, and do my bidding.
My role shall constitute whatever I decide.
Perhaps Mrs. Stone is interested in being head toad for the good doctor.
10570. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 10:54:02 AM
Mrs. Stone would be head toad for anyone offering the job.
10571. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 10:54:28 AM
Hahaha. Before I'd even finished your post Rose popped into mind. You wouldn't happen to know him from another venue, would you Dr?
10572. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 10:56:09 AM
Notice how CalCal offers a dot.com-themed thread to janice without any problem.
I didn't think she was in charge of picking and choicing threads or their hosts. At least that's what she claimed in the past.
And I remember when the former poster Cazart wanted to do a similar such thread six months ago--and he was shortly aftwards banned.
10573. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 11:00:43 AM
Sorry, Arky, I couldn't handle the pressure. And whenever i saw the name "Bob," I would want to erase it.
10574. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 11:02:41 AM
Him? What kind of him has a name like Rosetta?
Mr./Mrs. Stone, forward your resume to drxaviertcoltrane@yahoo.com. The email address hoop martinet Nilson and his cohorts made me jump through in an earlier ploy to take my domicile away.
10575. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 11:03:30 AM
Haha! Alright, seriously...spill it. Tell us all you know about the Good Doctor.
10576. Fielding - 3/23/2001 11:04:46 AM
You dunce! CalGal said it was a good idea and asked if janjon was interesting in hosting. She didn't give janjon a thread.
10577. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 11:06:28 AM
By the by, has anyone seen this Nilson fellow lately? How long must he be gone before he is removed for derelict of duties?
10578. Fielding - 3/23/2001 11:39:02 AM
Saint Pelle is off looking for a definition of your "pulchitrodous".
10579. Fielding - 3/23/2001 11:44:58 AM
I would like to propose a thread for Cellar. It would be called "Totally Out". In it, he would identify which celebrities are gay, which are bi, and which are het. Then he could out a few moties.
10580. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 11:47:16 AM
Dr. X: After Pelle suggested Jexster be host of the Politics thread, he disappeared. He is based in Sweden and the time zone thing may be a factor
Thanks but I don't think I could work with you as co-host. You do seem have a strong personality and I'm weak-willed.
Plus, I'm still working on Pope Wabbit about being named permanent host of the Inferno. That's my mote home
10581. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 11:54:19 AM
Janjon,
If you're willing to host a Dot.com thread please email me and I can get it set up for you.
bridgeburner99@yahoo.com
10582. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 11:56:33 AM
See how easy it to start a thread when the masters sugggest it?
10583. Wombat - 3/23/2001 11:57:38 AM
See how easy it is to get thread when you are not an obstreperous twit?
10584. Wombat - 3/23/2001 11:58:01 AM
get "a" thread...
10585. Fielding - 3/23/2001 12:01:49 PM
"See how easy it is to get thread when you are not an obstreperous twit?"
Nice.
Even obstreperous twits get inauguration threads.
10586. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:03:03 PM
Yeah, but Rosie doesn't give good thread....so he has to try and be "blaise" about not getting it.
10587. MsIvoryTower - 3/23/2001 12:04:24 PM
So is that who the Dr is?
What a hoot.
10588. seadate - 3/23/2001 12:06:09 PM
... and has "never pretended to be pseudo-intellectual".
10589. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 12:15:20 PM
I'm not in favor of installing Dr. X as the host of politics. As Ducky pointed out it's an attendance intensive thread and the good Doctor has not shown that he can hold up to that part of the duties even in a thread devoted solely to his own desires. Additionally, Dr. X is far too capricious to be in charge of a staple thread such as Politics.
Ducky,
Who else has been proposed as host or has volunteered? I'll try and get it turned over as soon as possible. If it's really stressing you out I can change it over to a Moderator hosted thread in the interim.
10590. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 12:20:14 PM
My inquiry about vw and the Social Issues thread was apparently lost amid Rosie's badgering. If vw does not wish to host the Social Issues thread we need another victim.
ahem.
I mean host.
10591. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 12:21:10 PM
I suggested bbb. He likes to link.
10592. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:22:00 PM
Oh get real....bbb?
10593. vw - 3/23/2001 12:25:42 PM
ChristinO - check your email.
I'd be happy to host Social Issues but a co-host would be advised. As you can see by my finally responding today, my job occasionally causes me to "disappear" for a couple days in a row.
10594. Fielding - 3/23/2001 12:25:49 PM
What is the mandate of the Social Issues Thread?
10595. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:30:18 PM
I don't think it's for tea and scones....
10596. seadate - 3/23/2001 12:30:30 PM
I thought Social Issues was the underlying theme for this whole friggin' forum (g).
10597. CalGal - 3/23/2001 12:33:31 PM
How about Ohio for Politics? Also, in a weird way Jex might be a good idea, if he swore to stop spamming with duplicates. He could just fill the butterscotch bar with all his favorite links.
10598. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 12:34:16 PM
No, that's anti-social issues.
10599. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 12:35:23 PM
If CalCal wants it. IT WILL HAPPEN
10600. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 12:37:00 PM
Notice the reality. Jex spams and spams and spams and spams and spams and he's promoted.
While others, who follow the rules, are ignored.
10601. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:39:39 PM
Jeez, Rose...stop whining. Nobody likes a whiner.
10602. vw - 3/23/2001 12:40:52 PM
Here's where I described what I was originally thinking for Social Issues
10603. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 12:41:20 PM
I think Ohio would be a great host. Has he shown any interest?
10604. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:43:14 PM
I think Ohio would be great, too, but I get the nagging feeling he might be too busy.
10605. Fielding - 3/23/2001 12:46:05 PM
Ohio would be a good choice.
Just a thought . . .
The centrist in me would like to see two hosts of Politics, one from the left and one from the right. Any chance of talking JJ into sharing this thread with Ohio?
10606. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:48:23 PM
That's a great idea...we had that before, didn't we?
10607. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 12:50:02 PM
Can you believe it? You destory Dr. X's before its time, without telling him, and yet he forgives and offers to help with another one.
Instead of taking him up on it, you're desperately searching for the hacks who already are moderaters of two or three threads here.
Pathetic.
10608. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:51:22 PM
tsk tsk...you are suppose to act "blaise".
10609. seadate - 3/23/2001 12:51:35 PM
Chris, definitely anti-social ;)
10610. seadate - 3/23/2001 12:53:01 PM
Isn't "blaise" a way to cook chicken?
10611. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 12:57:07 PM
vw,
okay, got your email and responded
10612. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:58:00 PM
...and beef tips!
10613. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 12:58:55 PM
(seadate, we'd better stop funnin' around here of Christin will knock us around!)
10614. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 1:00:03 PM
or, or, or...I'd better exit now; need coffee.
10615. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:00:06 PM
Get real. I'm not Dr. X. Honest. When did you ever see me move posts. I still don't know how.
I don't even think the doctor is cazart, but I could be wrong..
Our masters' desperate search for a Politics host when people have already offered is outrageous.
All because they're now part of the in crowd here.
The bottom line is that Ohio only posts here early a.m. before work and JJ is way overcommitted.
(Now if he was willing to give up his Music Thread to someone new...I'm all ears.)
10616. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:01:04 PM
they aren't part of the...
10617. Fielding - 3/23/2001 1:02:48 PM
Rosie:
JJ told me a few weeks ago that he is not willing to give up arts and music.
10618. bubbaette - 3/23/2001 1:03:17 PM
Seadate, Judith
You're both wrong. Blaise is the color hunters are supposed to wear.
10619. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 1:04:44 PM
...and brunettes with olive toned complexions.
10620. Fielding - 3/23/2001 1:04:50 PM
New "Shimmer" is a floor wax and a dessert topping!
Blaise is a mathematician.
10621. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:06:00 PM
> you are suppose to act "blaise".
"Suppose to"?
Yes, my friends, we see all too well what the rules are here. No wonder the good doctor has so little regard for them.
I tried the law-abider approach and all it got me was a one-way ticket to Bazookaville.
Restore my thread, give me Politics (Arky Vaughn, Mrs. Stone, and my good friend Rubberducky agree), or provide a new thread. It shall be entitled "Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane kills the Mote."
The text desciption shall say "Such is the way your world ends, not with a bang but a whimper."
10622. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 1:06:04 PM
Rosie,
Any more posts on that subject will be considered spam. You've expressed your opinion clearly and repeatedly, now you're just harassing people. I heard you the first 50 times you said it. I don't agree with you and I will not comply. Judging from the lack of response from Pelle and Wabbit on this subject they also do not agree with you and will not comply.
Find a new whine.
10623. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:08:24 PM
> Judging from the lack of response from
Pelle and Wabbit on this subject
Yet derelict Nilson continues on while my thread is under lock and key in the Gulag.
10624. seadate - 3/23/2001 1:08:35 PM
Blaise is the color hunters are supposed to wear.
... only when sporting a fuchia(sp) hat.
10625. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 1:11:18 PM
> you are suppose to act "blaise".
"Suppose to"?
No sense of humor, either. I leave off a "d" to mock your (or Rosettas) misspelling of blasé and you fail to grasp the joke.
10626. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:12:20 PM
Tis find to chitchat aimlessly here about floorwaxes and dessert toppings, but address the subject of new threads and thread hosts and the jendarmes whip out their nightsticks, friends.
10627. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 1:13:41 PM
Dr. X,
Funny as your posts are they serve no purpose in this thread. Kindly move them to one of the chat threads.
10628. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:14:30 PM
Notice the only person who now has the masking tape over his mouth.
10629. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 1:14:44 PM
That's because they FIND this all so fine.
Tis find to chitchat aimlessly
10630. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 1:15:05 PM
Ahem, children, take the chatter to another thread.
Back to Suggestions:
Politics HostS--
Yes, it's an excellent idea to have a duo or trio to host that thread. I need to know which partisans are available to host. Ohio, Ronski, Joezan maybe?
10631. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:15:19 PM
Pardon me, but this is precisely the subject of this thread.
You have got to be kidding.
Check out 10618 through 10620, if you are in a headbanging mood.
10632. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:15:54 PM
I am ready to host and have said so.
10633. seadate - 3/23/2001 1:16:01 PM
:P
10634. Fielding - 3/23/2001 1:17:51 PM
"Tis find to chitchat aimlessly here about floorwaxes and dessert toppings, but address the subject of new threads and thread hosts and the jendarmes whip out their nightsticks, friends."
XTC is Ted Kennedy. Or maybe the bastard offspring of Ted Kennedy and George Bush.
10635. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:19:31 PM
Clearly the key is to get CalCal to go along with it, Dr. X
And it's because of the poor leadership of ChrisOh! that we have so few posters.
10636. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 1:19:34 PM
Dr. X,
Yes, and as I told Rosie, I heard you the first 50 times. My answer is "No". Now move on to a legitimate topic besides that blister on your ass or I'll treat you to some of your own favorite past-time and start moving your posts to the Inferno.
10637. Jon Ferguson - 3/23/2001 1:20:35 PM
Tubby
On what grounds are you refusing to let Dr. X host?
10638. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:21:05 PM
There is never a policeman or woman around when you need one. Here comes Fieldmouse again to heap attacks upon my person, but doubtlessly the local gestapo shall congratulate his "clever banter" while dousing the good doctor with pepper spray.
10639. Fielding - 3/23/2001 1:22:20 PM
Quick XTC -- Better call of them "Jendarmes".
10640. wabbit - 3/23/2001 1:23:31 PM
Dr. X will not be hosting Politics due to a demonstrated lack of interest in hosting his own vanity thread. End of discussion.
10641. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:23:45 PM
> I heard you the first 50 times.
If you have nothing further to say on the subject, then stop responding. What I am saying is on topic.
> Now move on to a legitimate topic
This is the legitimate topic. When someone else has been appointed host (as is obvious the intent of the politboron) then I may desist. Until then, I intend to fight it out along this line if it takes all spring.
Hoo-hah.
10642. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:26:39 PM
> Dr. X will not be hosting Politics due to a demonstrated lack of interest
in hosting his own vanity thread.
My thread was closed because of the personal animosity of Nilson.
If I cannot get satisfaction here any other way and am treated like a dog, then I shall behave like a dog.
10643. ChristinO - 3/23/2001 1:28:51 PM
Jon Ferguson,
Read back. I've stated my reasoning on that at least three times as have others.
btw refer to #3 on the RoE before you get in the habit of calling me names again. As a previously banned poster you've got about as much leeway as fart in church.
10644. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:29:57 PM
How can you say that, wabbit? He was out of town for a few days.
There are a lot of threads that don't have active hosts on duty 24/7.
Give him a chance.
10645. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:32:18 PM
Now calm down, mote masters. Count to ten and think again. You're just being stubborn because Dr.X didn't show the proper respect to Pelle and wasn't part of the in crowd.
Would you chance your mind if CalCal agreed to it?
10646. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:33:59 PM
chance=change
10647. seadate - 3/23/2001 1:34:12 PM
How about a "Redumbdant Thread" ... where those who care to can repeat the same verbose, quazi-profound, cut-and-paste posts ad-infinitum.
This will also provide a dumping ground for "redumbdant" posts in other threads.
10648. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:35:03 PM
Uh-oh, mass threats...multiple bannings appear eminent.
Do you hear the people sing?
It is the sound of angry men, it is the music of a people who will not be slaves again!
10649. wabbit - 3/23/2001 1:39:40 PM
Dr. X,
Your thread was archived because you weren't around. Pelle beat me to it by no more than a day. The thread was not only a vanity thread, it was ostensibly a question and answer thread that you as the host couldn't be bothered to maintain. You didn't disappear just once, it was a regular routine. You will neither be getting your vanity thread back nor hosting Politics.
Rosie,
WTF? CalGal has nothing to do with this and you know it. Showing the proper respect has nothing to do with it either, and nobody knows that better than you.
10650. seadate - 3/23/2001 1:43:08 PM
I just love the dumbfounded silence after Wabbit has spoken.
10651. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2001 1:45:10 PM
I see my abscense has been commented upon. There are three reasons:
1. Work has come my way.
2. The time difference.
3. I don't take Coltrane seriously.
10652. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 1:46:58 PM
But, Pelle, Dr. Coltrane has been of such great assistance to me.
10653. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 1:48:26 PM
Well, Pelle. You caused all this by badmouthing Dr. X while his thread was up and running and then happily destroying it before it's time because some posters complained to you that their posts had been moved to the Inferno.
10654. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:50:45 PM
> Your thread was archived because you weren't around.
I was as active here as many other hosts and has been pointed out many times. The day Nilson said he intended to archive it, I was here. He did so because of personal dislike.
Do you have an example of another thread that was archived against the host's wishes?
> The thread was not only a vanity thread
If a "vanity" thread is forbidden, why was I granted it in the first place? Why was Axe's World subsequently granted? No one ever said to the good doctor, "You need to be here more often or we'll deep-six the thread."
> It was ostensibly a question and answer thread that you as the host couldn't be bothered to maintain.
I responded to all legitimate questions posed. Nilson and his cohorts from the beginning tried to disrupt it. I daresay if Notices & Queries was treated the same way, its host would have to delete and move as well.
Even the "hosts" (a strangely friendly word, considering the treatment one receives here) of this thread threaten to move posts.
From the day I have been here, I have been accused of being other people and insulted. From the day I have been here, I have received less than equal treatment--despite my scrupleless adherence to the stated rules.
Face it. You people do not like outsiders and are zenophobes.
10655. Jon Ferguson - 3/23/2001 1:53:11 PM
I think you mean scrupulous.
scrupleless is a whole 'nother thing. (g)
10656. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 1:54:36 PM
Go, Dr. Coltrane, go!!
10657. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 1:55:50 PM
> Work has come my way.
Nilson is the only busy person in the world. Note all the compassion he showed for the good doctor.
> The time difference.
Zounds! I knew this server was slow, but did not know that posts took awhile to reach the four corners of the glob.
> I don't take Coltrane seriously.
You took me seriously enough to pry some time out of that jampacked schedule of yours and almost daily post on my thread "This isn't funny. This isn't funny." Of course that takes but a few seconds--well, in my time zone, anyway--but were you also reading my thread?
Yet more time in Generalissimo Nilson's hectic workaday consumed. If the busy civil servant would leave well enough alone, just think how much more time he would have on his hands for pinochle-playing.
10658. janjon - 3/23/2001 1:58:02 PM
Christin -
Sorry for the delay in the response, but real life intruded.
As, indeed, it will a lot in the future.
As an immediate example, I will be out of the country for about three weeks starting the middle of next week.
A long way of saying, thanks for asking but I can't host a dot.com thread.
Hope someone else will, however. It could be an very interesting multi-faceted thread.
10659. seadate - 3/23/2001 1:58:24 PM
Face it. You people do not like outsiders and are zenophobes.
Sorry for interjecting, but the practice of being an arse tends to keep one on the outside, no?
10660. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 1:58:47 PM
Do you have an example of another thread that was archived against the host's wishes?
The Inauguration Thread
10661. Jon Ferguson - 3/23/2001 1:59:19 PM
And to be fair to Dr. X, Ace and Cal (others did as well, but it didn't drag quite as much) debated over dozens of posts about the Man Thread without anybody saying boo. Why are you muzzling him?
As Dr. X says, it is patently unfair to arbitrarily end debate on this matter, particularly when the reasoning of the PTB is so flimsy, hypocritical, cliqueish and inconsistent.
10662. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 2:00:58 PM
Good points, Doctor X. They're sticking together because they don't want to embarrass Pelle.
By their silence, you shall know them.
Plus, he's the only male out of the three and females always follow their example.
10663. wabbit - 3/23/2001 2:01:08 PM
I was as active here as many other hosts...
And for many threads, an inactive host is fine. The purpose of your thread was far more interactive and it obviously didn't interest you much. Nobody has a problem with vanity threads, but they do require more upkeep than some other threads.
I responded to all legitimate questions posed.
Perhaps you should have made it clear at the outset that you meant the thread to be serious and that only "legitimate questions" would be entertained.
10664. marjoribanks - 3/23/2001 2:01:09 PM
I will weigh in with my (no doubt unnecessary) opinions.
Coltrane's thread, inane though it was, was retired in an unnecessarily personalized and arbitrary manner.
Of course the strange fellow should not get to host an institutional thread (Politics) but if he is so desperate maybe he should be allowed his own pulpit back under the condition that he shows engagement with it, and that it garners regular and sustained interest.
There is no reason to ban him, of course.
10665. CalGal - 3/23/2001 2:02:18 PM
Well, Ace and Cal debated over the thread late at night when no one was around to tell us to shut up. Besides, there's a big difference between a policy wonk discussion--which it was, even if laced thoroughly with Ace's particular brand of insults--and saying "I Want To Host!" 5,000 times.
Still, it ended when Wabbit said "knock it off".
10666. marjoribanks - 3/23/2001 2:03:28 PM
Ferguson, on the other hand, should not only be banned but have his hands shackled to keep them permanently away from a keyboard.
Terrible misfit, about as bad as I've ever seen online along with Bulle.
10667. janjon - 3/23/2001 2:04:28 PM
What horseshit.
As much as I have found the good Doctor to be fun, there is no question that, for whatever the reason, he let his own thread just whistle in the wind. And, it wasn't exactly a thread that could do much if anything in his absence.
Leaving aside his own announcements of what fun he would have playing God as host of Politics, there is no question in my mind that he would be a disaster there. Too many agendae, too many strong-willed people there to take it.
10668. wabbit - 3/23/2001 2:07:28 PM
Banks,
Pelle announced that the thread would be archived and the Dr immediately showed up to whine, then disappeared again. The thread remained for three days, which was stated way back when as the warning period, then it was archived. There was nothing personalized or arbitrary about it.
10669. janjon - 3/23/2001 2:08:39 PM
My horseshit pronouncement came without the benefit of having read the few posts that preceded it.
Banks is correct on both counts. And, as usual, I see that I mostly agree with the way Wabbit looks at things.
Bottom lines - I don't see any harm in reincarnating the Dr's thread on the condition that its groundrules (including as to what it will take for it to survive) be spelled out in advance. And, as mentioned, keep him away from Politics.
10670. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 2:11:54 PM
> Sorry for interjecting, but the practice of being an arse tends to keep
one on the outside, no?
Your presence here would indicate otherwise. In any case, I act no differently than the rest of you--you are just used to such horse-assedness from each other.
> The Inauguration Thread
Fill me in on the details. This sounds like a temporal subject whereas my thread was for the ages.
No doubt the Gulag masters are confabbing a reason to ban me to silence my voice. Nilson called in the reinforcements, but he has put them all in a bad situation this time.
Face it, friends. There's nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake instead of letting ego dig in.
I shall reduce my demands to this: Nilson apologizes and admits he removed my thread arbitrarily and capiceously. Then, he can stay on in office and I will cease agitating for restoration or to host any other thread. Quit hiding behind petticoats, Nilson.
10671. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 2:13:35 PM
> The thread
remained for three days, which was stated way back when as the
warning period, then it was archived.
This is not so. I assume you are relying upon misinformation spread by Nilson. Check the dates on the posts.
Further, it is absurd to expect someone to be here every day to host. You do not ask that of anyone else.
10672. marjoribanks - 3/23/2001 2:13:49 PM
Wabbit,
I will (as always) boq to your wisdom. You have done a very good job of keeping this creaky ship afloat.
And (I'm being nostalgic) I take it back about Bulle. He was a disruptive wacko, but had some redeeming qualities that made him bannable but about 100 times superior to the common-or-garden online potential serial killer.
10673. Wombat - 3/23/2001 2:15:02 PM
The only ego operating here is XTC's. Not a pretty sight.
10674. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 2:16:13 PM
Also, Nilson me by saying, "Dr. Coltrane's post such-and-such changes nothing." So he never had any intention of letting me salvage my thread.
10675. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 2:16:40 PM
> The Inauguration Thread
Fill me in on the details.
Ask Rosetta...I don't care enough about it to go into it.
10676. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 2:23:14 PM
> I don't care enough about it to go into it.
Quick to comment when no one asks, though, eh?
I think you have already given me enough information, however. It was Mrs. Stone's thread.
Ah. That explains it. So you treat newcomers as you do Mrs. Stone. Now I understand why he has been so supportive.
10677. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 2:23:30 PM
I found the doctor to be light, fluffy and fun. I am at a loss as to what this whole bruhaha is about.
10678. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 2:26:51 PM
> I am at a loss as to what
this whole bruhaha is about.
The pettifogger Nilson.
Well, friends, this is all I can devote to this subject for today. Assuming the Plotboron does not ban me, I shall return.
Otherwise, my minions will continue my good work.
Ta-ta for now.
10679. JudithAtHome - 3/23/2001 2:27:48 PM
Quick to comment when no one asks, though, eh?
Yes, I am...I responed to you in this instance because you asked but I didn't see the need to oblige you any further because I figured, correctly, that you would react in a snide and condescending manner.
Commenting when people ask is your bag...I'd rather just throw out little one liners and go my merry way.
10680. arkymalarky - 3/23/2001 2:28:00 PM
"Here comes Fieldmouse again to heap attacks upon my person, but doubtlessly the local gestapo shall congratulate his "clever banter" while dousing the good doctor with pepper spray."
That was hilariously funny.
Dr Z (borrowing the "X" to fix "X"enophobe--unless you meant to say Zena-phobe, which would be a very understandable condition),
Face it. Your thread was an Advice Q&A thread, and you rarely kept appointments. Your waiting room was filled past SRO, down the sidewalk around the corner. And to add insult to injury, people would finally get to the front of the line only to be summarily tossed into the Inferno.
10681. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 2:28:20 PM
It's wonderful to see Dr. X back down from his justified anger. Now, be a grownup and apologize Pelle.
I've done it a thousand times and I know it's good for the soul.
10682. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2001 2:28:25 PM
There is a commonly accepted procedure when a thread is called into question.
1. It is given the R.I.P. designation.
2. A discussion ensues.
3. It is archived or not depending on what consensus develops.
This was last used on War which I put a R.I.P. on. However, many people wanted to keep it so it's still around.
What some of you may have missed is that I put a R.I.P. on Coltrane's thread, but he decided not to play the game and removed it, no doubt because he knew it wouldn't be supported.
So, after a couple more days I sent it to Archives without bothering with the R.I.P. routine again, and there it will stay.
10683. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 2:32:44 PM
and there it will stay.
Maybe not.
10684. seadate - 3/23/2001 2:33:09 PM
I act no differently than the rest of you--you are just used to such horse-assedness from each other.
I hope this is frustration speaking rather than true colors showing. You're looking in the mirror through Rosie colored glasses, X.
X,
Fwiw, I enjoyed your thread, but you certainly did leave it unattended ... whether your absence was justified or not, mgmt's decision doesn't seem quite so covert to me as you're making it out to be.
10685. Fielding - 3/23/2001 2:38:12 PM
I'm in favor of letting Dr. X have his thread back on two conditions:
1) He comes clean on his identity; and
2) His thread is placed on the bottom of the butterscotch bar.
10686. Wombat - 3/23/2001 2:38:34 PM
Particularly if XTC removed the RIP
10687. Wombat - 3/23/2001 2:40:10 PM
10686 adds on to Seadate's 10684. (For those with impaired attention spans.)
10688. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/23/2001 2:40:40 PM
I knew if martinet Nilson thought I was gone, he'd sally forth, thinking the coast was clear.
> This was last used on War which I put a R.I.P. on. However, many
people wanted to keep it so it's still around.
Others said they wanted to keep my thread too. Suddenly (and it was RIPPED), a rule was announced that more people needed to say so. Also, many, many people posted on the thread itself while you had it under a death knell.
> What some of you may have missed is that I put a R.I.P. on Coltrane's
thread, but he decided not to play the game and removed it, no doubt
because he knew it wouldn't be supported.
You are the one who violated procedure, Nilson. The discussion should come first, then the RIPPING, rather than you vindictively deciding what is best. You had wanted to RIP my thread from the first day. Plus you had not said anything to me about RIPPING it. If it is not the host's perogative to unrip his thread, then I should not be able to. I cannot unarchive it, can I?
Strange how all these new reasons just keep coming up for why things happened as they did. Weeks after the event. That I unripped it offended your ego, did it not? And is not that the real reason we are here?
Have you not also posted how you cannot stand my style? That I have the stilted prose of a "self-educated" egoist? (As though self-education is an insult.) Face it. You do not like me. That is the real reason you did what you did. All the rest is creamy obfuscation. None of what you say is supported by the FAQ or the terms of engagement.
10689. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 2:42:50 PM
Swallow your pride and give the thread back to him, Pope Wabbit. Show mercy to the your serfs.
The mote peasants will remember this day with great happiness.
10690. RosettaStone - 3/23/2001 2:43:33 PM
delete the
10691. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2001 2:53:37 PM
Not "egoist"; "dilettante" was the word I used.
10692. PsychProf - 3/23/2001 2:56:26 PM
Ah, that explains all.
10693. seadate - 3/23/2001 3:17:27 PM
Just curious ... why was this thread never activated? Message # 10446
10694. vonKreedon - 3/23/2001 3:42:07 PM
Regarding hosts for Politics; on the thin hope that the thread hosts would impact the style of posting,my preferred hosts would be Cartman and Dusty. They are the two political posters who best practice critical reasoning and erudite posting styles. Neither of them is a hack for one of the two dominant US parties.
Of course, perhaps for these reasons, neither of them makes more than the most infrequent of appearances.
10695. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:43:48 PM
I miss Cartman. I hope he's okay; haven't heard from him in a while. Hope wife and baby are okay, for that matter.
Dusty or Ronski would be great.
10696. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 1:53:19 AM
X - You people do not like outsiders and are zenophobes.
We are NOT afraid of Buddhists.
10697. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 2:07:57 AM
I would like to comment on the suggestion that I cohost Politics with Ohio. I don't believe I would be an acceptable host to many of he regular posters in that thread. I would enforce a level of discourse that would eliminate 80-90% of the posts by certain individuals. I think that would ultimately cause more problems than it will solve.
10698. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 2:20:48 AM
X - I just went back and read your whining about how unfair you feel you have been treated. Let me explain the situation here. This is our forum. Many of have worked very hard to create this forum and some of us are still working to improve it. Since this is our forum, we can do whatever we feel like with it. If Pelle or Wabbit don't feel you should host a thread, guess what, you won't host a thread. Do you think that is unfair? Tough. Go somewhere else.
I don't see why you think you can come in here, piss on everything to mark your territory and then be outraged that you aren't welcomed with open arms. This is not a democracy. You have no rights. You have no voice in how this place is run. Get used to it. If you continue you will only succeed in gettin yourself banned
10699. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 7:36:21 AM
I guess we should be thankful that JJ doesn't want to host another thread.
Maybe the political thread shouldn't any any moderator since only "the special ones" are allowed to host and none of them want the honor.
But your wrong, JJ. Dr. X didn't come to mote and "piss on everything to mark" his territory.
From the beginning of his thread, he was "pissed on" by the regulars who didn't like his style of answering their questions (or not answering them to their satisfaction) and were put out by his moving of off-topic posts to the inferno.
They complained to Pelle, who likes being the mote-moderator heavy. Now the women folk have to protect their man--and so starts the coverup of what really happened.
10700. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 7:37:54 AM
any=have
your=you're
10701. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 10:36:41 AM
I think this should be added to the ROE
NEWBIES, PLEASE NOTE:
Since this is our forum, we can do whatever we feel like with it.
This is not a democracy. You have no rights. You have no voice in how this place is run. Get used to it. If you continue you will only succeed in gettin yourself banned.
Truth in advertising, and what-not.
At least we got a straight and honest answer from JJ. Thanks, JJ.
10702. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 10:42:38 AM
Upon further review, I guess I'll have to edit JJ's post slightly for it to make sense.
Last line should be:
If you continue to calmly and rationally express your opinion on how this place is run you will only succeed in gettin yourself banned.
And some people still wonder why there's a declining interest in this place.
HA!
10703. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 11:09:47 AM
"Should CalGal Be Allowed to Own Slaves?"
Talk amongst yourselves.
10704. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 11:11:05 AM
"Slavery: Just Another Name For Compassion."
10705. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 11:12:02 AM
"Slavery: A Faith-Based Initiative for the 21st Century."
10706. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 11:12:43 AM
"Slavery: Let's Make America Great Again."
10707. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 11:18:00 AM
Surely slavery would have prevented this embarassing incident.
10708. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 1:58:25 PM
"CalGal is Bob Barr's Love Child"
Discuss.
10709. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 2:41:16 PM
"Should Jon Fegueson Mate With CalGal the Better to Perpetuate the Glory of the White Race?"
Discuss.
10710. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 2:42:14 PM
I'll host. (g)
10711. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 2:51:22 PM
Jon - If you continue to calmly and rationally express your opinion on how this place is run you will only succeed in gettin yourself banned.
You must have a different definition of "calmly and rationally" than the rest of us. What I have seen has been neither calm nor rational.
We have plenty of other newbies who fit in fine. I suggest you (and some others) look a little closer to home to find the real problem. If you (or X or anyone else) don't like the way we run things, find another place to hang out. Or better yet, do what we have and create your own. Your frontal assaults will not acheive your goals.
10712. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 2:56:36 PM
I already know what the problem is, JJ. All of the other highly intelligent and articulate Moties have been driven away. What remains is a mediocre medley of mutual masturbation.
Your goal is to have everybody 'fit in.' Mine is to achieve a semblance of rational discourse.
It is consequently not surprising that we disagree on the 'problem.'
10713. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 2:58:20 PM
"All of the other highly intelligent and articulate Moties have been driven away."
Like who? Names please.
10714. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 2:59:50 PM
Res, Pseudo, to name a couple. Is this really debatable?
10715. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 3:01:30 PM
Res is an idiot.
Pseudo is far too testy.
I miss Elliot, however.
(CalGal, needless to say, does not.)
10716. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 3:02:56 PM
Jon - All of the other highly intelligent and articulate Moties have been driven away. What remains is a mediocre medley of mutual masturbation.
Then why are you here?
Your goal is to have everybody 'fit in.' Mine is to achieve a semblance of rational discourse.
Really? One could never tell from your posts.
It is consequently not surprising that we disagree on the 'problem.'
You think we are the problem. I think you are the problem. Why don't we do each other a favor and just part ways. That solves both problems.
10717. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 3:03:40 PM
10718. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 3:03:52 PM
Sure thing, JJ. Sorry to see you go. (Well, not really.)
10719. Wombat - 3/24/2001 3:06:44 PM
Ferguson=XTC=Cazart:
Rational discourse and you are strangers to each other. I've read enough of your purported "rational discourse" to see that. Products of a horse's ass (literally and figuratively) is closer to the mark.
10720. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 3:07:22 PM
Jon - My leaving won't solve your obvious problem. Your leaving will. Why do you continue to post if you don't like the people and don't like the way it is run? Are you a masochist? Do you take delight in pissing people off? Seriously, Jon, why are you here?
10721. arkymalarky - 3/24/2001 3:12:52 PM
"I already know what the problem is, JJ. All of the other highly intelligent and articulate Moties have been driven away."
Hey!
FWIW, Res and PE have not been "driven away." A few arguably intelligent and articulate people are now gone, possibly because of disagreements with how things have been done, but possibly because of a number of reasons. They didn't leave explanations, they just left.
You think, Wombat? Could it be BullE, too? I always found it interesting that any obnoxious persona that appeared in the Fray was suspected to be BullE, and now it seems Cazart often gets the honors...I guess because, much as he loves multiples, Rose is too transparent.
10722. Wombat - 3/24/2001 3:15:00 PM
Arky:
I wasn't around for BullE.
10723. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 3:15:23 PM
I like quite a few of the people here, JJ. In fact, you are one of the few (I could count them on one hand) I don't like because you're an arrogant, irrational, cliqueish, fat bully.
I don't much care how it's run, but when you see children trying really hard to accomplish something and hopelessly bungling it by overlooking the obvious, it's hard not to step in and offer a little advice.
I'm not a masochist. Pain is bad.
I delight in pissing you off, JJ. Only you.
I'm here because I'm an ex-Fraygrant who enjoys rational discussions (and infrequent meltdowns in the Inferno) with other ex-Fraygrants. Why are you here?
10724. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 3:18:48 PM
Wombat
Ferguson=Nostradamus=God=TheCatintheHat
Often imitated, never duplicated.
10725. Wombat - 3/24/2001 3:19:16 PM
Ferguson and Cazart harp on what a bunch of bootlickers and idiots are left on the dying Mote. Cazart would be doing it on TT, whenever it gets around to working again. XTC--for some reason that escapes me--sees himself as the salvation of the Mote, the only one capable of bringing it glory and scads of people who are as intelligent as he.
10726. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 8:04:17 PM
Really, now, Jon, you have no right to diss JJ that way. Mote exists because he (and others) put it together. You and I had little to do with its success--outside of providing some chuckles.
And, BTW, you forgot to mention one of your worst monikers here, the blasphermous "Son of God."
Sure, theBeiner is being irrational right now. And a bully. But maybe he has his reasons. Maybe the old lady is giving him a hard time. God knows I've had those blues.
In fact, to still the cyber waters, I'm going to pick up my old D-28 and share a song with you that I heard on the car radio this afternoon.
It brought back fond memories because I used to sing it all the time:
"THE SECRET OF LIFE is enjoying the passage
of time.
Any fool can do it.
There ain't nothing to it.
Nobody knows how we got to
this hill.
But since we're going down,
We might as well enjoy the ride...
(I've forgotten some of the lyrics. But it ends like this...)
Now the thing about time is that time
Isn't really real.
It's just a point of view.
How does it feel for you?
Einstein said he could never
understand it all.
Planets spinning through space
The smile upon your face
Welcome to the human race..."
It's one of my favorite James Taylor's songs.
10727. rubberducky - 3/24/2001 8:35:23 PM
Re: Message # 10589, ChristinO.
Who else has been proposed as host or has volunteered? I'll try and get it turned over as soon as possible. If it's really stressing you out I can change it over to a Moderator hosted thread in the interim.
i dont know of anyone expressing interest. it's not really stressing me, but i think the thread and perhaps theMote would benefit from a more active thread host.
10728. rubberducky - 3/24/2001 8:36:01 PM
PS
the 'fart in church' crack had me LOLing
10729. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 9:19:10 PM
Rosie
I don't know if you're misinformed or if you're just trying to stir the pot, but I was never Son of God and I believe that Son of God eventually came clean about his actual identity. If you have some time on your hands, go way back into International. I think that's where it happened.
You're right about me having nothing to do with the Mote's lack of success.
And I had every right to diss Biener for the very reason you state: He was being an irrational bully. That's reason enough.
The founders have my gratitude for building this place. But nowhere is it written that they should be accorded special status. They have assumed such special status in direct violation of the spirit that brought us all (most of us, rather) together in the first place at the Fray. And that has led directly to the predicament we find ourselves in now: Gradual, inevitable, stagnation and decline.
Nice song. Why don't you give Biener a call and sing it to him. I love my life. Thanks for your concern, though.
10730. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 11:06:02 PM
Jon - I like quite a few of the people here, JJ.
Really? You hide it well.
In fact, you are one of the few (I could count them on one hand) I don't like because you're an arrogant, irrational, cliqueish, fat bully.
Poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings?
I don't much care how it's run, but when you see children trying really hard to accomplish something and hopelessly bungling it by overlooking the obvious, it's hard not to step in and offer a little advice.
You don't care? Is that why you spend so much time and effort tearing people down? Well, you have given your "advice". We will consider it carefully before we discard it.
I delight in pissing you off, JJ. Only you.
Well, good luck. Maybe if you keep trying you might actually accomplish your goal. So far you have just been a minor source of amusement.
Why are you here?
I am here because most of the Moties are my friends and have been for a long time now. We know how to disagree and remain friends. We don't allow disagreements to turn into personal attacks. You seem to be unable to do that.
You also seem to have forgotten the number of times I stood up for you in your previous incarnations.
10731. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 11:18:24 PM
Jon - And that has led directly to the predicament we find ourselves in now: Gradual, inevitable, stagnation and decline.
The only predicament we find ourselves in is that we have lost some good moties because they got tired of trying to compete with loud, angry voices like yours. They dislike trying wade through post after post of childish and repetitive attacks and insults. One day you may actually succeed in drowning out all opposing voices with your anger. I don't plan on making it easy for you.
10732. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 11:25:07 PM
JJ
Poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings?
No, I pity you. You are a miserable, pathetic, fat, unhealthy, hateful person. Nothing you could say would hurt my feelings.
You don't care? Is that why you spend so much time and effort tearing people down? Well, you have given your "advice". We will consider it carefully before we discard it.
'I don't much care' is not the same thing as 'I don't care'. Perhaps if you and Fielding put your heads together, you can make the distinction. I spend very little time tearing people down. And trust me, fatso, in your case it's effortless. The amount of consideration you give to my insightful appraisal of the Mote's problems is of no concern to me.
Well, good luck. Maybe if you keep trying you might actually accomplish your goal. So far you have just been a minor source of amusement.
Given your continual hateful emotional outbursts, it's plain to see that I have accomplished my 'goal' in spades. I might find you amusing if you weren't so pathetic.
I am here because most of the Moties are my friends and have been for a long time now. We know how to disagree and remain friends. We don't allow disagreements to turn into personal attacks. You seem to be unable to do that.
You are hopelessly deluded if you think that your typical response in the recent obesity discussion consisted of much more than a hysterical personal attack. Ad hominem is your middle name. Not everyone needs to go online to find 'friends.' I'm here to be intellectually stimulated, not to play Mr. Rogers.
10733. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 11:25:25 PM
c'td.
You also seem to have forgotten the number of times I stood up for you in your previous incarnations
I'm not going to give you 'brownie points' for merely doing your job during the 'God' controversy, if that's what you are referring to. So you've made 1 wise decision in your life. Whoop-de-do for you.
10734. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 11:32:59 PM
The only predicament we find ourselves in is that we have lost some good moties because they got tired of trying to compete with loud, angry voices like yours. They dislike trying wade through post after post of childish and repetitive attacks and insults. One day you may actually succeed in drowning out all opposing voices with your anger. I don't plan on making it easy for you.
The Mote has declined most precipitously while I have been gone. It enjoyed a brief rebirth the last time I showed up. I don't know what the numbers are since my most recent appearance, but I suspect that they're up again.
When this place is slow, or stupid people deliberately and foolishly antagonize me, I can be childish. For the most part, I am thoughtful, articulate, and insightful. I am never repetitive (unless my opponent is being repetitive). I generally take one playful swipe and then go find something else to play with.
I am not angry. It's called projection. Look into it.
I can see that you won't make my plan to rejuvenate the Mote 'easy for me' to implement. That's your loss. Trust me, I won't lose any sleep over it.
10735. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 11:44:57 PM
Jon - You are a miserable, pathetic, fat, unhealthy, hateful person. Nothing you could say would hurt my feelings.
Okay, then it just sounds like your feeling are hurt.
I spend very little time tearing people down.
That explains why most of your posts are filled with childish insults.
Given your continual hateful emotional outbursts, it's plain to see that I have accomplished my 'goal' in spades.
Care to offer some examples? I seem to have missed them.
You are hopelessly deluded if you think that your typical response in the recent obesity discussion consisted of much more than a hysterical personal attack.
Go back to the discussion on obesity. It starts on #2576. Your first post in the discussion contained this addressed to me:
I'd rather be honest than an idiotic (even well-meaning) prevaricator (a kind term for liar) any day.
You may want to stop projecting your own shortcomings onto others.
Not everyone needs to go online to find 'friends.'
Not many people go online to find enemies, but that seems to be your forte.
I'm here to be intellectually stimulated, not to play Mr. Rogers.
Where I to guess, I would say you are here to get sexually stimulated by abusing people. But that would be just a guess.
10736. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 11:48:10 PM
Stop writing, Jon, I'm losing sleep over it.
10737. JudithAtHome - 3/24/2001 11:50:54 PM
I spend very little time tearing people down. And trust me, fatso, in your case it's effortless.
Riiight. You spend very little time tearing people down....in fact, that is the only way you build yourself up...
10738. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 11:54:53 PM
Jon - I'm not going to give you 'brownie points' for merely doing your job during the 'God' controversy, if that's what you are referring to.
No that wasn't what I was referring to. If you have forgotten, then forget I mentioned it.
The Mote has declined most precipitously while I have been gone.
Unfortunately, you are one of a few loud, angry voices.
It enjoyed a brief rebirth the last time I showed up. I don't know what the numbers are since my most recent appearance, but I suspect that they're up again.
Self-delusion can be harmful. You may want to be careful with it.
When this place is slow, or stupid people deliberately and foolishly antagonize me, I can be childish.
So it is always someone else's fault when you act childish. I see. Interesting.
For the most part, I am thoughtful, articulate, and insightful.
Really? I must have missed it. Can you post a few examples?
I can see that you won't make my plan to rejuvenate the Mote 'easy for me' to implement.
We have no need for you to "rejuvenate" the Mote. We like it the way it is. As I have said, if you don't like it, you are free to leave.
Trust me, I won't lose any sleep over it.
Speaking of which, isn't it your bedtime?
10739. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 12:01:45 AM
Okay, then it just sounds like your feeling are hurt.
At the risk of being repetitive, it's called projection, look into it.
That explains why most of your posts are filled with childish insults.
This is a lie. Substantiate please.
Care to offer some examples? I seem to have missed them.
Check the most recent post you made in the health thread, for starters. (to JG)
Go back to the discussion on obesity. It starts on #2576. Your first post in the discussion contained this addressed to me:
I'd rather be honest than an idiotic (even well-meaning) prevaricator (a kind term for liar) any day.
You may want to stop projecting your own shortcomings onto others.
Well, in this case, I can't tell if you're being deliberately dishonest or if you're just stupid. Arky's post 2583 began:
I'd rather be overweight than an idiotic asshole any day.
My post 2584 (the very next post) was a clear and obvious contrast to her post. It wasn't meant to insult anyone. It was meant to stimulate interest and discussion. It succeeded in doing so.
Not many people go online to find enemies, but that seems to be your forte.
Yawn. I have made enemies, friends, and 'more than friends' online. Just like IRL.
Where (sic) I to guess, I would say you are here to get sexually stimulated by abusing people. But that would be just a guess.
You guessed it, JJ. I get really turned on by abusing fat, diseased, old men. Now bend over, bitch.
10740. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 12:06:11 AM
re 10738
Any of that worth responding to? I don't think so. But if you'd like me to, just holler.
10741. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 12:08:27 AM
Go to bed, little man....and welcome to your 30s.
I notice you're spending Saturday night here.
10742. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 12:11:34 AM
Judith
Stop being catty. Nobody invited you. I have nothing against you. If you're that bent out of shape because I said that you can't spell, I take it back.
Your thee bessed speler eye now.
10743. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 12:20:31 AM
Jon:
I'm not bent out of shape at all...and of course no one invited me; if we had to wait to be invited, you'd be gathering frost somewhere in the frozen north.
I crashed this party to make a remark about you because you are a sad little boy looking for attention, any attention you can muster up...which is doubly sad because you are bright and intelligent. But you are bitter and that undercuts all the rest.
You can make fun of how people look, think, spell, and write but it doesn't reflect badly on those whom you attack; it reflects on you and the way you feel about yourself.
10744. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 12:30:43 AM
G'night....
10745. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 12:31:22 AM
Judith
I've got my hands full with JJ right now. Couldn't you pull a MsGreer some other time?
Spring has finally sprung in the frozen North (thank God.)
Your amateur psychoanalysis couldn't be further from the mark (except your redundant point about bright and intelligent), but thanks for sharing.
I wasn't making fun of you. I was pointing out a habit of yours (correcting obvious typos) that I find mildly annoying and that perhaps others do as well.
I pointed out that it was particularly unproductive of you to do so when there were so many legitimate spelling errors that eluded you.
Whereas, if you don't correct ANY typos, then you might hope that people assume that you CAN spell, you just aren't a particularly attentive typist.
But I won't mention it again (unless you do.)
Now give me a hug and then off to bed with you.
10746. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 1:10:26 AM
The 'Chess and Bridge' subthread should be archived (1st choice) or taken out of read-only mode (2nd choice).
It's an eyesore but if you want to keep it around, I have a few things I'd like to contribute.
10747. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 1:12:22 AM
Or better yet, if you're going to keep it around, let me host it for a week so that I can add some links to the butterscotch bar.
10748. JJBiener - 3/25/2001 1:18:09 AM
Jon - At the risk of being repetitive, it's called projection, look into it.
I understand projection. I am not the one writing strings of insults. Perhaps a little introspection on your part would be in order.
This is a lie. Substantiate please.
Just for starters 10723 & 10732 in this thread. 2584, 2586, 2595, 2605, 2617, 2622, 2639, 2678, 2697, 2716 in Heath.
Check the most recent post you made in the health thread, for starters. (to JG)
Calling Jade "shallow" and "petty" because she is obsessed with physical appearance is your idea of a hateful, emotional outburst? If that is true what does "You are a miserable, pathetic, fat, unhealthy, hateful person" qualify as? A psychotic breakdown?
My post 2584 (the very next post) was a clear and obvious contrast to her post. It wasn't meant to insult anyone.
Really? You couldn't tell from the context. You addressed the comment to me, not Arky. The last thing I posted was a comment to Christin about her appearance. Your post said,
Have you seen the same pictures I've seen?
I'd rather be honest than an idiotic (even well-meaning) prevaricator (a kind term for liar) any day.
How should that be interpreted if not as a direct insult?
It was meant to stimulate interest and discussion. It succeeded in doing so.
Is that how you plan to reinvigorate the Mote? By provoking bitter arguments? No, thanks. Take it elsewhere.
10749. JJBiener - 3/25/2001 1:21:33 AM
Judith - From #10745
Couldn't you pull a MsGreer some other time?
I am not sure if Jon meant is as one, but if I were you I would take that as a high compliment.
10750. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 1:22:39 AM
JJ
I've grown weary of this discussion. I think we've covered about everything. You get the last word ... Today, at least.
10751. RosettaStone - 3/25/2001 9:23:34 AM
Someone should quickly e-mail Ace of Spades to warn him that if he doesn't post in his vanity thread by tonight that it will be RIPed tomorrow.
According to mote-master Citizen Pelle, the reason why Dr. X's innovative thread was erased was because he hadn't posted in it for 48 hours.
Bad rules are the worst sort of tyranny.
10752. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:42:42 AM
And for goodness' sake, put the Policy thread on the front page, where it belongs. People invariably have their policy discussions in here instead. We've got a perfectly good thread designed for a specific purpose and nobody uses it because it doesn't get read. This ain't rocket science, folks.
10753. RosettaStone - 3/25/2001 5:23:36 PM
Jon: Ha!
The wolf from the door.
You want me to read thousands of posts in the International thread to find out who might have claimed to be "Son of God" when I know for a fact that it was you?
Aliud vinum, aliud ebrietas!
10754. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 5:44:22 PM
Rosie
I see you're just stirring the pot. You are free to be wrong, as you were when you were convinced that Cazart was me.
You might ask yourself why I would so vehemently deny being someone that nobody else remembers anyway, though.
10755. Cellar Door - 3/25/2001 5:45:15 PM
Hey, I remember Cazart.
10756. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 5:46:15 PM
Not Cazart, Cellar, 'Son of God'
10757. Cellar Door - 3/25/2001 5:50:03 PM
10758. RosettaStone - 3/25/2001 5:51:15 PM
Why don't you just tell us who claimed to be the spammer "Son of God", Jon, instead of asking me to read thousands of PE posts? (Not going to happen.)
And I though JadeGold was Cazart, not you.
One of the reasons Cazart was erased was because he wanted to do a cutting-edge, dot.com thread, making comparisons between TT and mote.
10759. Cellar Door - 3/25/2001 5:53:04 PM
Proof that Jade Gold is NOT Cazart.
10760. glendajean - 3/25/2001 6:03:45 PM
Cellar, are you wearing Armani tonight or Vera Wang for men?
10761. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2001 7:47:52 AM
They say I'm preachy. Very well, then I'll preach.
I see a new posting style spreading in the Mote. When engaged in discussions we use to style posts like this:
Moniker - #post
quote
The point I wish to make.
Sometimes we had only the moniker or only the post no. What I see know is:
quote
The point I wish to make.
This posting style comes from TT and I don't like it. Not because of its origin but because I prefer to know who is arguing with whom.
10762. Uzmakk - 3/26/2001 8:06:03 AM
Valid point it seems to me. I never link to previous messages any longer. The nature of my posts has changed also. In the early days it was a battle. I have become fat and lethargic.
Preach on, Mr. Pelle Nilsson.
10763. JJBiener - 3/26/2001 4:21:41 PM
Can we restrict Ace's ability to change the name of his thread? I would rather not have newbies seeing that staring at them first thing. They might think they stumbled into TT.
10764. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:23:58 PM
I suppose this is about the right time to refuse to compromise, in hopes that my thread will be RIPped, so I can avoid facing the fact that it's a colossal failure and I can, in the future, gripe about "The Man" coming down on me so hard and stifling my anarchic creativity.
10765. RosettaStone - 3/26/2001 4:25:29 PM
Where the the Swedish cop when we need him? After a 53-hour absence, Ace is back.
And our hero is so happy to see Eric Cartman back on board, that he's using pornographic headers in his vanity thread.
I wouldn't make a big deal about it except for what our mote masters did to Dr. X's fabulous thread.
10766. EricCartman - 3/26/2001 4:30:58 PM
Stone:
If you don't stop picking on my homeslice Ace-hole, I shall be forced to bring the full smackdown of the 'hood upon yo' ass.
Which basically means following you around the various threads and posting reams of Public Enemy and Geto Boys lyrics. Don't say you weren't warned.
10767. wabbit - 3/26/2001 4:36:10 PM
Rosie, perhaps you should go back to the DrX thread and do a recount. No posts from the host from 3/5-13. Hardly comparable to a slow weekend.
JJ, I'm afraid not, and while I see your point, I must admit I've been chuckling at the thread titles.
Ace, if you really want to RIP the thread, we can. How's this:
Ace,
You've really crossed the line this time. Besides, your thread sucks and is too slow. It will now be RIP'd and three days hence consigned to the archives.
10768. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:37:38 PM
Eh, I don't really want it RIPped.
10769. wabbit - 3/26/2001 4:39:17 PM
I didn't really think so. I'll recycle that post when you're ready.
10770. janjon - 3/26/2001 4:39:56 PM
Oh, there are times when one wonders whether it is worth the effort to go back and see what happened over a weekend. And, then you come across gems like this one which make it all worthwhile. From the...incomparable...Biener:
I would like to comment on the suggestion that I cohost Politics with Ohio. I don't believe I would be an acceptable host to many of he regular posters in that thread. I would enforce a level of discourse that would eliminate 80-90% of the posts by certain individuals. I think that would ultimately cause more problems than it will solve.
The real laugher in all that pompous stringing together of words is his (consistent, to be sure) inability to see that by his own self-proclaimed standards he would be eliminating most of the pointless bilge he himself scribbles.
There is no one in this chat room with more need to justify his own sense of self-esteem than Biener.
10771. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:40:33 PM
But when the time comes, I really do want to whine and scream about it, while silently thanking God that it's being RIPped.
10772. wabbit - 3/26/2001 4:43:41 PM
Ace, I will expect nothing less. I shall gird my loins in preparation.
10773. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:44:24 PM
I gotta say I agree with Pussy Jon.
I wouldn't mind the Ohio-JJ combo on a purely experimental basis. I think it could be very funny in a sad, train-wreck sort of way.
10774. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:45:28 PM
I think VonKreedon should be given his own GURPS Role-Playing Thread.
Any seconds?
10775. vonKreedon - 3/26/2001 4:47:43 PM
Ace - I had one and you took it away in favor of Cock Rings or some such.
But did I whine?
10776. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:48:19 PM
I would very much like a JJ-Ohio thread, where I could go to be scolded and chided and have my manners thoroughly policed.
10777. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 4:49:23 PM
"I had one and you took it away in favor of Cock Rings or some such. "
You didn't come back, like you'd promised, to tell us all about your great sagas in pre-Napoleonic France.
You were an absent Game-Master.
10778. CalGal - 3/26/2001 4:51:56 PM
Pelle,
Actually, I've been doing the italicized quote thing since the Mote started, and before that I put things in quotes. It probably is lazy of me, and I'll try not to.
I also see JJ's point about Ace's thread titles, and yet like Wabbit, I laugh at them too.
10779. EricCartman - 3/26/2001 4:57:55 PM
GURPS is the sound the DM makes when he's stuffed himself too full of Kool-Aid and Ruffles. vK's testimony had me laughing my ass off, especially the part about learning about role-playing while incarcerated.
I think there's enough material there to justify a thread, so I'll second Ace's suggestion, so long as he renames his thread after me again.
10780. AceofSpades - 3/26/2001 5:00:40 PM
I liked when VonKreedon told us that GURPS had "sold out."
10781. JJBiener - 3/26/2001 5:12:13 PM
janjon - The real laugher in all that pompous stringing together of words is his (consistent, to be sure) inability to see that by his own self-proclaimed standards he would be eliminating most of the pointless bilge he himself scribbles.
Is there some purpose for this post or are just scribbling pointless bilge.
There is no one in this chat room with more need to justify his own sense of self-esteem than Biener.
Justify to whom? I am not the one out posting blind sides to build up my own self-image.
10782. EricCartman - 3/26/2001 5:12:42 PM
No shit. Like one of those washboard players in a Kentucky jug band, getting all worked up at the notion of 'lectified gee-tars.
Though I have to admit, the main reason I quit playing D&D, aside from finally getting laid, was when TSR pussied out and got rid of evil alignments and classes, like the assassin. They validated all those nervous ninnie parents that just couldn't admit that their kids were nuts because they were shithead parents, and Tom Hanks scared the hell out of 'em in Mazes & Monsters.
10783. EricCartman - 3/26/2001 5:13:21 PM
Eh, that last one was to Ace's #10780.
10784. ChristinO - 3/26/2001 5:16:04 PM
When was this??? No more evil alignments? No more assassins? Whuthefuck? Hell, those were the only boys worth sneaking out of the house for. Give me an assassin over a goody-two-shoes-Oedipal-complex-Paladin any day.
10785. janjon - 3/26/2001 5:43:11 PM
The point, Biener?
The point is that I find that there are occasions when I just cannot help but react to your pompous inanities. Mostly, I just see them for what they are - the feeble, predictable manifestations of a rigid true believer. But, on occasion - and more frequently of late, especially since you seem to have the need more and more to defend or justify yourself by relying on the crutch that, because of time and place, YOU were one of the "founders" (whatever in hell that means, again other than a circumstance of time and place) - you cross a line that I find particularly irksome. Put simply, you cannot see that what you complain about most in others is behavior that mirrors your own. Put simply again, if you think that your particular brand of "discourse" is more elevated or less repetitive, etc. that that you complain of, you are just being foolish.
I used to think it was that you were just a hypocrite. I now begin to think that you just do not understand/perceive how you come across.
At any rate, I usually ignore your blather of that type but on occasion, funny as it might be, it also becomes very irritating.
Thus, I post.
10786. JJBiener - 3/26/2001 6:23:49 PM
janjon - I'll tell you what. The day you actually provide some evidence to support any of your grand pronouncements I may start to take you seriously. So far all I have seen you do is whine and complain and take pot shots. If that is what you want to engage in, then take it to the Inferno where it belongs. I will even go there and read it if it will make you happy. Nothing makes me happier than knowing that you don't like the way I post. If I had your approval I would start to worry. Until you show me a reason to do otherwise, I will take you every bit as seriously as I do Fergusen, XTC, and Rosie.
10787. RosettaStone - 3/26/2001 7:47:27 PM
L'hyprocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend a` la virtue.
10788. OhioSTOPAS - 3/26/2001 9:59:55 PM
JJ and I as co-hosts???
Sorry, I don't want the job, singly or with any co-host.
Although I know everyone looks back fondly on the fine job I did with The Chess Thread . . . Hey, where'd it go?
10789. OhioSTOPAS - 3/26/2001 10:01:19 PM
If we're going to have co-hosts, I second the suggestion someone made a long time ago:
Have Indiana Jones and Jonesatlaw run the thread. Then it would have real co-Jones.
10790. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/26/2001 10:07:55 PM
> I would like to comment on the suggestion that I cohost Politics with
Ohio.
Which would bring you up to three threads. Boot-licking pays off, eh?
> Since this is our forum, we can do
whatever we feel like with it.
Then why the hippocrasy of the rules of engagement, Beano? Window-dressing?
> Do you think that
is unfair? Tough. Go somewhere else.
But everytime I log in it says, "Welcome Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane!" Then again, the pitch lure also says you shall never regret it if you join. Apparently this Mote operates like a cathouse madame.
> You have no rights. You
have no voice in how this place is run. Get used to it. If you continue
you will only succeed in gettin yourself banned
Just as I supposed: Beano has the mentality of a brownshirt. Bested at rational discourse by the good doctor, he must fall back on "might makes right."
10791. CalGal - 3/26/2001 10:10:39 PM
Hey, where has Jonesatlaw been lately?
10792. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/26/2001 10:15:15 PM
> No posts from the host from 3/5-13.
Need I count the days when you have not posted in the Inferno?
I would also check just how often O'Conner posts in the Technical Suggestions thread. To the good doctor's eye, that is a thread that needs an active host.
Since someone has disabled my ability to set how many posts I can view, it is hard for me to check on these and other sundry details.
So once more, the "in" crowd has the advantage, but even in a kangroo court, a country lawyer with truth on his side can prevail.
10793. JJBiener - 3/26/2001 10:56:14 PM
X - Which would bring you up to three threads. Boot-licking pays off, eh?
You just don't get it. Do you allow people to come into your house and piss on the floor?
Then why the hippocrasy (sic) of the rules of engagement, Beano?
Those are the rules we choose operate by. We can operate under any rules we like. Those are the ones we have chosen.
But everytime I log in it says, "Welcome Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane!"
Is says welcome to everyone. Don't take it personally.
Then again, the pitch lure also says you shall never regret it if you join.
It says nothing about us regretting it.
Just as I supposed: Beano has the mentality of a brownshirt.
Would I be a brownshirt if I threw you out of my house for pissing on my floor? I don't think so. All I have seen you do since you arrived in the Mote is piss on everything in sight. Do you expect us to sit back and say nothing while you continue to abuse the priviledge of posting here?
Bested at rational discourse by the good doctor, he must fall back on "might makes right."
What I have seen from you is more like irrational discourse. You have gone from one pissing match to another. I have yet to see you contribute anything of substance. I don't see how you expect to gain anything with your actions.
So once more, the "in" crowd has the advantage
Yes, the people who run this site have the ultimate advantage. They can kick your ass off for violating the RoE.
but even in a kangroo court, a country lawyer with truth on his side can prevail.
The truth? Shouldn't that be capitalized: THE TRUTH! This is not a court, kangaroo or otherwise. What you have on your side is not the truth. I just hope whatever it is, it isn't contagious.
10794. arkymalarky - 3/26/2001 11:06:23 PM
"All I have seen you do since you arrived in the Mote is piss on everything in sight."
But like Rose (nod, wink), he's very funny. Their humor, coupled with a seemingly uncontrollable desire to gig those who take their bait, is strikingly similar.
10795. JJBiener - 3/26/2001 11:09:39 PM
Arky - You may be right. I am not sure. Rose would have had to dumb down in order to post as XTC. Not an impossible task for him, but somewhat unlikely.
10796. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 11:12:41 PM
Gotta be Cazart. Although, I thought Cazart could spell a little better than this guy.
Who's for another contest?
10797. arkymalarky - 3/26/2001 11:22:30 PM
Cazart's too much of a Nellie One-note. Rose made liberal use of Bartlett's for awhile there, and I think he must have gotten a thesaurus for his birthday. With words of three syllables or more, you have to make sure your finger doesn't jump on the page if you want to avoid spelling errors, and it's hard to type and scan words with your finger at the same time.
Remember, I say this as someone who likes Rose a lot, and I sort of have that familiar warm, fuzzy feeling about XTC, too, so my hunch is more from the heart than the head.
10798. Slackjaw - 3/26/2001 11:26:53 PM
XavierT is one JonFerguson
10799. CalGal - 3/26/2001 11:31:12 PM
Yeah, that'd be my guess, too.
Something that just occurred to me--is there any interest in a "New Yorker" thread? If there were, MGleason would have to be the host, obviously. A bunch of us subscribe to it; it is also now online in a limited form, and it might be something that attracted newbies.
I suppose the obvious question is why not have one for Harper's or Atlantic, and would there be overlap with other threads. As to the first, because they're not the New Yorker and the second--obviously at a certain point the discussions might take off into something that would move into Social Issues or Movies.
10800. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 11:32:56 PM
Well, he lost his thread just after I got back, so I haven't seen all that much of his style, but I'll be shocked if it's Rosie.
Anyhooo...
Dr. X, if you calm down just a little bit, you can look forward to the day when you possess a hint of my awesome power and influence at the Mote. I now have the power to send obsolete sub-threads like Chess and Bridge to the archives with the snap of my fingers. Hahahaha. Nothing can withstand me now. (g)
10801. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 11:36:44 PM
I'm interested in any thread that Maria would be interested in hosting.
10802. JJBiener - 3/26/2001 11:45:25 PM
Slack - That was my guess based on the last few days posting. Though it could be that there really are two people with the same writing style.
10803. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 11:52:25 PM
Let's play who is Dr. X! So far we have the following votes:
Dr. X is ...
Cazart
Jon Ferguson
Rosie
arky
Jon Ferguson
slack
cal
jj
10804. JudithAtHome - 3/26/2001 11:56:09 PM
Why not have the New Yorker thread combine with Harpers and The Atlantic? Magazines...
I subscribe to Harpers and if nothing else, their Index page could provide a good discussion (or multiple discussions, actually) every month...they list about 40 items each time.
10805. JudithAtHome - 3/26/2001 11:57:05 PM
I think Dr. X is either Pelle or Stamper.
10806. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 12:01:39 AM
I have an even better idea! Wait'll you hear this! Why not have a Southeastern Ontario/Upstate New York thread? I would have to be the host, obviously. (g)
I hate how slow it gets at night these days.
I picked Pelle as a joke, but if it really were him, that would be classic. Stamper? I think he was even more illiterate than this guy, no?
10807. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 12:09:02 AM
Actually, a good pick would be Uzmakk but he is too busy...
I was just joking about it being Stamper...the time stamp is all wrong for him.
Hope you find someone to talk to later, Jon...I'm bidding you a goodnight. (Some prize you got, huh? Congratulations again...)
10808. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 12:09:44 AM
...oh, I'm using my prize money for a spell checker program.
10809. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 12:20:43 AM
'Night, Judith
I just read a few months back in TT. XTC is not Cazart, I'm almost positive.
Maybe it is Rosie.
Since I have no idea, I've lost interest.
10810. arkymalarky - 3/27/2001 12:46:42 AM
I thought it was you from the beginning, Jon, until recently.
10811. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2001 2:59:55 AM
I kindly request whomever is subscribing me to various mailing lists to stop doing that.
10812. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 8:20:50 AM
How long will the stupid moniker "rubberducky" be listed as host of a thread that he doesn't even read anymore?
Nox exhibet molestiam, non tollit.
10813. rubberducky - 3/27/2001 9:38:29 AM
kindly don't assume you know what i read, twit
10814. Fielding - 3/27/2001 9:56:10 AM
If a New Yorker Thread is created, I would post to it.
10815. Fielding - 3/27/2001 9:56:54 AM
If a New Yorker Thread were created, I would post to it.
10816. mgleason - 3/27/2001 2:33:43 PM
Thank you, CG and Jon. You're very kind, but I don't always have the time to devote to hosting a thread alone. It would be fun to do in conjunction with someone else, though.
I think a magazines thread would be great. I love the New Yorker, of course, but as Judith points out, Harper's is very interesting, too, as is the Atlantic, which is online. Even Vanity Fair has its moments, when it remembers to get over itself.
Then there are the weeklies, all online: Newsweek, Time, US News, and portions of the Economist. It'd be cool, I think.
10817. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 2:36:12 PM
I thought DrX revealed himself/herself to be Blaise, which actually makes perfect sense to me.
10818. Cellar Door - 3/27/2001 2:36:54 PM
Blaise? Oh no!
10819. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 2:38:00 PM
Maria
It would be cool, particularly if there were links to the weekly articles. I'm just lazy enough to enjoy point and click directions to good reading.
10820. mgleason - 3/27/2001 2:48:15 PM
That's what I was thinking, the Ms. There's a lot out there, but sometimes one needs a little nudge.
10821. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2001 2:53:00 PM
MsIT
Where did s/he reveal that?
10822. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 2:59:18 PM
Policeman Pelle is interested, of course, because he thinks Cazart is Dr. X---and he hates Cazart's on-topic insults in TT's Mote Cafe.
If it's not Cazart, then his erasing of the Q&A thread is a terrible mistake. A terrible mistake.
You know who I miss? Whatever happened to the right-winger "Random" and (I've forgotten his name) the NYC advertising executive who used to post once a day in fray talking about "keeping the morons marching."
Fond memories.
10823. CalGal - 3/27/2001 3:00:51 PM
Wexxler, or something like that.
10824. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 3:04:39 PM
Right. Thanks CalGal. Cellar tried to keep contact with him after fray went under but CD probably scared the poor man off.
10825. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2001 3:16:16 PM
I don't think cazart is Coltrane. I'm thinking closer to home.
10826. Al D - 3/27/2001 3:16:28 PM
Rosie, that was wexxford., I do believe.
Judith, the very idea that Dr. X could be stamper is outragous. And who is Jon F. that he knows anything about stamper who passed on when the Fray died? Perhaps he should read Frost's the Death of the Hired Man and learn that there is more than one narrow way to define a man.
Because of the above dastardly insults, I shall not return to the Mote for at least six months; also, I will be on the mainland slaying salmon among other activities. I hear there will be millions of them polluting the Columbia River, and I, as a dedicated conservationist, must do my part.
10827. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 3:18:43 PM
Pelle
I don't know where the comment X made is located, but I thought he said that he was now blaise "about the whole matter", or something to that effect. I was immediately struck at the personality similarities between the two, and thought that was the most likely match I'd seen proposed to date.
10828. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 3:19:41 PM
AlD
I do hope you're joking about being absent for 6 months, if not, I hope you're journeys are bountiful.
10829. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2001 3:19:47 PM
Al D, my dear fellow, how nice to see you again. Nobody in their right senses believes that stamper is Coltrane. Stamper was clever.
10830. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 3:20:24 PM
shit
you're = your in the last sentence....
10831. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 3:22:16 PM
and I was immediately struck by the personality similarities....
10832. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2001 3:22:49 PM
And I don't think cazart is Coltrane. cazart, with all his faults, is also more clever. I'm looking for a stupid person closer at home.
10833. janjon - 3/27/2001 3:26:04 PM
do you have a mirror handy?
(just joking)
10834. ChristinO - 3/27/2001 3:54:51 PM
MsIt,
I think he meant to say "blasè".
10835. mgleason - 3/27/2001 3:57:15 PM
Oh, the Ms knows, Christin; she's just being Freudian.
10836. ChristinO - 3/27/2001 4:12:58 PM
oh duh. (smacks forhead)
10837. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 4:24:13 PM
Just don't touch someone else's foreskin, okay?
10838. seadate - 3/27/2001 4:28:45 PM
smacks forhead
hmmmm, is this misspelled or a run-on word?
1)smacks forehead
2)smacks for head
10839. janjon - 3/27/2001 4:30:19 PM
either would do Stone some good.
10840. seadate - 3/27/2001 4:32:16 PM
1)smacks pinthead
2)smacks pin head
10841. Slackjaw - 3/27/2001 4:33:44 PM
well, the "good doctor" schtick is a low-cost way to garble (if not completely disguise) one's writing style, without the funambulisms involved in inventing and maintaining an alter ego. Like the sasquatch character's schtick in the fray.
So I agree with pelle.
10842. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/27/2001 5:29:57 PM
I see despite my gracious willingness to stand down the overwhelming force at my disposal, the strutting jackbooted martinet Nilson continues to escalate his saber rattling by needless threats and insults to my person.
He wishes to spark an acute confrontation, doubtlessly as an excuse for a further clampdown and seizure of power. Beware the ides of March, unholy triumverate: Nilson is about to play Caesar to your Anthony and Ptolemy.
When Nilson talks, one expects totally illogical sophism and unreasonable sinisterality.
10843. seadate - 3/27/2001 5:33:12 PM
Not this one.
10844. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 5:40:35 PM
Pelle's best days are behind him. But compassion will cure more sins than condemnation, Dr. X.
10845. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 5:48:02 PM
Hey, Al D, aloha and good salmon fishing! (I know you know that Stamper knows I was just kidding, just as I was by mentioning Pelle.)
10846. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 5:50:35 PM
Too late, Judith. Al is gone for another six weeks and doesn't read old posts.
Take a nap. The night shows stars and women in a better light.
10847. jexster - 3/27/2001 5:54:40 PM
Paki i paki mirom Gospodu pomolimsja.
Paki i paki mirom Gospodu pomolimsja.
10848. janjon - 3/27/2001 5:55:17 PM
yes, and dim bulbs are more appealing at night time too. Take a nap and a hike, Stone.
10849. jexster - 3/27/2001 5:57:35 PM
: What is it, Doctor? What's going on?
Doctor Rumack: I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert.
10850. jexster - 3/27/2001 5:59:24 PM
Yo Rosie..
Did you see the Major Speech?
Gospodi, pomiluj.
10851. jexster - 3/27/2001 6:08:37 PM
To hell with Pelle...what's a fuckin Swede doin runnin an AmeriKan thread??
Hain't he got some gravlax to cure?
Or does he know a Moron when he sees one too? Is this another sign of US decline only 2 months into the Reign of The Great Imbecile?
Gospodi, pomiluj.
10852. jexster - 3/27/2001 6:08:57 PM
Did Pelle watch the Major Speech?
10853. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 6:10:58 PM
Make the pitch to be moderator of the Politics thread, Jexster.
Our three mote masters are just waiting to you to ask.
10854. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 6:14:49 PM
The night shows stars and women in a better light.
What you know about women could be put in a petri dish, along with your pencil....brain.
10855. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 6:17:06 PM
hahahaha!
Good one.
10856. janjon - 3/27/2001 6:18:18 PM
this from the joker who was just meowing about Judith's expressing her pleasure at an Arky post in Politics.
What a loser.
10857. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 6:21:53 PM
hahaha!
Good one, janice.
10858. janjon - 3/27/2001 6:23:44 PM
I must admit that talking at or with you is like trying to punch a hole in water, Stone.
Fetid water in your case, of course.
10859. seadate - 3/27/2001 6:26:53 PM
Fetid water? .... petri dish? ..... ROF!
10860. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 6:27:24 PM
Si vis amari, ama.
10861. arkymalarky - 3/27/2001 9:02:10 PM
I didn't know the For Dummies series included a Latin Phrases book. (wink)
10862. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 9:06:35 PM
I think Rosie was overwhelmed by the For Dummies version. He has to rely on the Complete Idiot's Guide.
10863. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 9:59:53 PM
dID ARKY JUST WINK AT MOI?
mAN HAS HIs will--bUT woman HAs heR WaY.
10864. Wombat - 3/28/2001 8:19:33 AM
All:
I propose renaming the War thread the "History" thread and broadening its scope accordingly. What are your thoughts? I would continue to host it.
10865. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 8:31:16 AM
Go for it.
10866. wabbit - 3/28/2001 8:39:44 AM
I agree with Indy, Wombat, that sounds like a fine idea.
10867. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 9:01:18 AM
How about taking the ridiculous named "rubberducky" moniker off the Politics thread, since he doesn't "host" it anymore.
And since the people who've requested to moderate it don't meet your standards, leave it blank.
10868. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 9:04:25 AM
Message # 10864 Long overdue, and it will also invigorate the war topics from the esoteric discussions of tactics, motives and paraphernalia they've become.
10869. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 9:11:20 AM
I'm against Wombat hosting it.
A History thread sounds good.
10870. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 9:44:55 AM
Oceans...it dseems to me that just being "against" someone hosting a thread is not enough. What are the specifics of your position.
10871. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 9:46:39 AM
Let's be consistent. "Why" are the mote masters against Dr. X being host of the Politics thread?
10872. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 10:07:48 AM
Prejudice, past history, previous behavior and good sense...
10873. Fielding - 3/28/2001 10:15:11 AM
Rosie:
Why are you becoming the champion apologist for the Mote's sleaze? You are turning into the site's very own James Carville.
10874. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 10:16:42 AM
I'm new here, PsychProf. I don't go out of my way to make trouble or flame people.
The other morning, over coffee, I skimmed the War Thread. I noticed virtually all posts concerning hostilities in the Middle East were met with derision by Wombat. I merely offered an opinion that I thought the conflict in the Middle East was germane to a War Thread.
That's it.
In return, I get this pedantic and snotty reply to the effect that I must provide historical precedents and reasons as to why this topic should be considered.
It's his thread. If he wishes to turn it into his personal and exclusive soapbox, so be it. There are better ways, however, to address what was only an opinion as to a topic of discussion.
10875. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 10:21:02 AM
Oceans...good response to my post.
10876. Wombat - 3/28/2001 10:26:18 AM
I suggested that Ocean provide some discussion relating to the military aspects of the conflict beyond "the Palestinians are scum of the earth" and "but the Israelis did it first..." It was greeted with sarcasm and obscenities.
I will continue to run a tight ship in regard to civil and germane discussion. If Ocean--or anyone else--has a problem with that, they are welcome to post elsewhere.
10877. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 10:29:33 AM
Wombat...it seems to me that we can afford some leeway for newbies to learn the ropes around here.
10878. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 10:30:53 AM
Did I say "the Palestinians were the scum of the Earth" or "the Israelis did it first"?
No. I didn't.
As I recall, I offered several remarks which tempered such remarks made by others.
There is a difference between running a tight ship and quashing opinions with which you may disagree. You don't seem to recognize this line.
10879. Wombat - 3/28/2001 10:35:50 AM
Oddly enough, Psych, I have yet to move or delete any of Ocean's posts. He/she jumped into a serial argument between Rosie and myself over the desireability of turning the thread into a pissing contest over whether the Palestinians or the Israelis are more evil. IMO, that stuff belonged in another post.
10880. Wombat - 3/28/2001 10:39:15 AM
Sorry, "thread."
Psych: You are familiar enough with Rosie's MO in these matters.
10881. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 10:46:01 AM
Wombat
I wholeheartedly support your idea. Maybe I'll start by spamming the thread with a complete set of my Swedish history (g).
Ocean
This is a storm in a teacup. At the time, I started on a post explaining that War is (was) the place for discussing past and future wars, but I got called away on other business. We discuss contemporary events in International. There we have had several interesting and rather heated debates about the Middle East conflict. No doubt we can accommodate another one. Welcome!
10882. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 11:02:15 AM
I disagree, PN.
My opinion, FWIW, is Wombat has neither the temperment nor the integrity to host this thread. If he felt my post was more approriate for another thread, there's the right way to say it.
It's his thread. I'll stay out of it.
10883. arkymalarky - 3/28/2001 11:06:20 AM
The situation was simply that Ocean's remarks really belonged in the International thread, from what I saw. There's a lot of overlap, but with a topic that could easily spin into a political or international issues discussion (and Wombat has dealt with this problem before in that thread), if you don't deflect it to elsewhere quickly the entire focus of the thread is lost in off-topic debates over international or political policies.
Shifting to history sounds great, btw.
10884. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 11:08:11 AM
Oceans:
It's his thread. I'll stay out of it.
You might want to reconsider that; no reason to avoid a discussion you might enjoy because of one clash with a personality...
10885. arkymalarky - 3/28/2001 11:09:07 AM
And Ocean, please don't take offense and avoid the thread. It was really no big deal, and Wombat's extremely knowledgeable in history.
10886. arkymalarky - 3/28/2001 11:09:38 AM
c/p, Judith.
10887. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 11:17:06 AM
It's a big deal to me. I only offered a small opinion and I got it rammed down my throat. If my post belonged to another thread, the right way would have been to suggest same.
As I said, I don't look for trouble. It's best I avoid the thread if Wombat continues in such a capacity.
Thanks for your input.
10888. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:18:49 AM
Guys:
Ocean jumped into an on-going dispute between Rosie and myself. None of his/her posts were moved or deleted. I do reserve the capability to move or delete posts that affect civil and relevant discourse. Most people can live with that. If not, there is always Politics, Acey's thread du jour, or the Inferno.
10889. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:23:29 AM
Ocean:
Had you spent a little longer time at the Mote, you would have seen yesterday's hoo-ha as part of an on-going thing. I will concede that I bit your head off for getting in the middle of it. Your posts that were not tinged with sarcasm or obscenity were fine; and I would welcome your participation. If not, well, I can live with that as well.
10890. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 11:24:40 AM
Wombat:
I remember what happened; I read it while it was going on. You have explained your actions twice to Oceans and he has chosen to let one incident color his attitude. If he wants to be that thin-skinned and deny himself a possibly enjoyable experience posting on that thread, then he can do so.
I look forward to the History thread with you as host...
10891. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 11:27:38 AM
I'm dropping the matter. I offered my opinion and that's all I can do.
10892. Revenant - 3/28/2001 11:30:19 AM
Hello.
I just want to say that the mote gatekeeper is helpful and polite. Very conscientious.
10893. Jon Ferguson - 3/28/2001 11:32:03 AM
Oceans
Your perception of Wombat is bang-on. Don't let the old-timers' tendency to play 'trash the Newbie' concern you.
10894. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 11:36:54 AM
Jon:
I hope you don't think I was trying to trash Oceans because I wasn't and neither was Arky...all of us have, at one time or another, had experiences we'd rather not re-live on the Mote. It happens.
Revenant:
Welcome to the Mote; were you by any chance interested in Big Brother last summer? Or do I have you confused with someone else?
10895. Revenant - 3/28/2001 11:38:27 AM
Judith. Thank you for the welcome, but that wasn't me.
10896. Jon Ferguson - 3/28/2001 11:40:50 AM
Judith
Whether or not you were 'trying' isn't particularly relevant.
I thought your 'if he wants to be that thin-skinned' comment was unnecessarily inflammatory and completely uncalled for.
10897. Fielding - 3/28/2001 11:44:32 AM
I don't agree with the oldtimers.
I think that we lose too many would be participants by being unnecessarily brusk with newbies. It wouldn't hurt us to be a little bit more careful with their feelings, at least at the beginning. I don't see how Wombat's "If not, well, I can live with that as well." attitude does the Mote any good.
And I say this in spite of my view that wombat is one of the very best posters in the whole damned community.
I hope Oceans 11 sticks around. He's a good poster.
10898. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 11:46:22 AM
Thanks, JF.
I'm a big boy so "trashing the newbie" is fine with me.
This place is kind of parochial, isn't it?
10899. Fielding - 3/28/2001 11:51:15 AM
Oceans:
What are you going to call yourself after your namesake is released on Christmas Day?
10900. Francis Urquhart - 3/28/2001 11:53:35 AM
I have brokered a peace between Wombat and Oceans. Wombat tenders his apology and promises to be less curt and formalistic in the future; Oceans hereby spurns the "Young Turks" and pledges his fealty to me.
10901. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 11:53:53 AM
The George Clooney movie? I hope it's better than the original, Fielding.
If it's a dud, I'll have to change my handle.
10902. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 11:56:58 AM
Jon:
Did you miss my other post where I urged him not to avoid the thread because of one difference of opinion?
Oceans:
This place is kind of parochial, isn't it?
What on-line forum isn't? If a group of people is together for a week, the first person to join that group in week 2 feels like a "newbie", right?
10903. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 11:59:58 AM
I have no problem with being a "newbie."
I have a problem with incivility.
I'm done with it, JaH.
10904. Wombat - 3/28/2001 12:00:16 PM
Call me prejudiced, but I like the Mote's parochiality. I have spent plenty of time at Table Talk and it is a sprawling mess. In the threads that I am interested in, Table Talk seems peopled by loons who make the craziest poster in the Mote look like the soul of good sense.
10905. Fielding - 3/28/2001 12:02:34 PM
Its directed by Soderberg, so it will be either good, great, or amazing.
Clooney stars, but it also has Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Andy Garcia and is supposedly filled with star cameos.
10906. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:03:57 PM
Good to have you here, Oceans.
10907. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 12:04:44 PM
Feilding:
I'll bet you now it's going to be...mediocre.
10908. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 12:05:00 PM
Thank you, seadate.
It's good to be here. What's with your handle?
10909. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:06:39 PM
Oceans, it's the name of the pleasure boat on which I reside.
10910. Fielding - 3/28/2001 12:06:42 PM
J@H:
Is the wager based on my grade or yours? I have given "A" grades to three out of Soderberg's last four films (the other one was Erin Brockevich).
10911. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 12:11:39 PM
Julia Roberts as Angie Dickenson? Hmmmm -- I don't see it. Will they be perfoming Vegas lounge acts in the evening?
I like having Ocean 11 here and hope he sticks around. For a small group like the Mote, we need to make more of an effort to welcome and include people. TT may be a sprawling mess to some, but if you stick to a few threads there, you see the same sort of thing you see here -- people who have histories with one another tend to dominate the discussion and newcomers may feel like they're a 5th wheel.
10912. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 12:12:30 PM
Fielding, I know you admire the man. I just think it will be mediocre based on the fact it wasn't that great in the first place.
10913. Shannon - 3/28/2001 12:13:47 PM
Yes, bubb's right. TT can be very cliquey. Really, most any group of people can.
I've seen other forums far worse than either the Mote or TT in that regard.
10914. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 12:14:44 PM
Really, seadate?
Power or sail?
10915. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:14:53 PM
Bubb, you're one who certainly made me feel welcome.
10916. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:15:50 PM
Oceans,
Power. I spend more time on sailboats though.
10917. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 12:17:03 PM
TT is much worse than the Mote when it comes to being parochial. I subscribe to some threads in their International folder but I almost never post except in response to PE, LohrM or Wolf, the Armenian whose dog I posted a picture of yesterday in the Cafe. There is a German too who is OK, Jürgen Huber. He has posted a couple of times in the Mote.
10918. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 12:17:12 PM
Sailboats.
The bane of my existence. What kind of plant?
10919. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 12:18:02 PM
Seadate
Good! The more the many-er, I always say. We've had quite a number of people log on recently who are making the joint more interesting. But I still miss my Daily Diva Dose.
10920. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:25:59 PM
Oceans,
Gas. Twin 454s. I've dressed up the valve trains for durability ... One engine is down, right now.
Onan 6.5KVA Genset.
Sailboats ... bane?
10921. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:33:20 PM
Why I like the Mote:
1) Some *sharp* minds here
2) *sharp* minds whose egos don't require them to step on their "lessers" (a-hole lessers excepted)
3) I enjoy the company of those smarter than I
4) I has been a pleasure to get to know a few regulars (especially one that I've met in person) as a result of this forum's existence.
5) When a thread gets rolling, it cracks me up.
10922. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:35:56 PM
6) In my case, it's a practice field for remedial spelling and grammar;)
10923. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 12:45:07 PM
Wombat and Oceans...this is all my fault. Sorry for my post which fueled a little fire.
The Big Geek
10924. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 12:50:12 PM
Big Geeks are cool!
10925. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:53:49 PM
... although prone to carry guilt complexes (g).
10926. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 12:55:11 PM
Beware of geeks baring guilts.
10927. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 12:55:27 PM
I'm glad that some are still so conscientious about the feelings of others.;-)
10928. seadate - 3/28/2001 12:56:08 PM
Jen, you're such a tease.
10929. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:28:12 PM
How is that being a tease?? I feel like Rodney Dangerfield...I can't get no respect!
10930. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 1:29:56 PM
You do tease, Jen. And it's wonderful. But you are married now--and must stop.
The price you pay to wear the ring.
10931. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:33:07 PM
But Rosetta, I don't understand. How is my saying that PP's conscience is good, constitute my being a flirt?? Furthermore, how is saying that the mental picture of Bill Clinton in a bathing suit, as disgusting as it is, is being flirtatious?
10932. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:33:48 PM
Maybe I should use these:
:-) instead of ;-)
10933. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 1:33:49 PM
Respect this... 
10934. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:35:42 PM
Hey, that's my ------/------ dog Max! Judith, I'm wearing a Duke's of Waikiki shirt, fun place!
10935. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 1:39:06 PM
It was your posts earlier in Ace's vanity thread that caught my attention, Jen.
Things you could do as a single attractive blonde are unacceptable now.
Obviously it's none of my business. And I'm not trying to act like that guy from fray who was telling you that you're not acting like a Christian.
But being married to another beautiful, award-winning woman, I'm just protecting your husband's rights.
10936. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 1:41:17 PM
I can check out Dukes in November; we're going for 2 weeks.
10937. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:49:33 PM
Rosetta,
Good advice and I appreciate it that you care. I will do better.
10938. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 1:55:36 PM
Jen:
If you wouldn't mind your husband reading your posts, don't worry about changing. A good question to Rosie might be, would he like his wife to read some of what he posts on-line?
But it is sweet to see how fatherly he feels toward you, I'll agree.
10939. rubberducky - 3/28/2001 1:56:41 PM
But being married to another beautiful, award-winning woman, I'm just protecting your husband's rights.
i don't think your wife's Most Likely To Marry A Plagiarizing Spam Obsessed Freak high school award counts, Rosetta Slide.
10940. Fielding - 3/28/2001 2:02:38 PM
Jen:
If you act like you care about Rosetta's advice, people will respect you less.
10941. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 2:02:46 PM
C'est en famille, ce n'est pas en publique, qu'on lave son linge sale.
10942. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 2:04:55 PM
An award winning woman -- I'm picturing Rosie's blue ribbon heiffer.
As usual, Rosie's full of shit. There's nothing in the world wrong with a little mild flirtation among friends. Not that Jen's interactions would qualify as flirtation at all.
10943. seadate - 3/28/2001 2:21:36 PM
GUYS! All I said is that Jen is a tease .... no value judgements (hehe), no dark implications, no accusations of atheism, agnosticism (is that a word?), solicitation, breast implants, fake hair color, or being born north of the Mason-Dixon.
Jen is a tease ..... fact ....
and I like it.
10944. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 2:23:22 PM
Nothing wrong with a tease.
10945. seadate - 3/28/2001 2:24:58 PM
Unless given in excess.
10946. wabbit - 3/28/2001 2:26:04 PM
Boatpeople and Fans of Jen, please move the discussion of the relative merits of teaserdom to Social Issues or the Cafe.
Thank you.
10947. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 2:26:36 PM
Smite me with excess.
10948. Oceans11 - 3/28/2001 2:26:42 PM
No such thing.
10949. seadate - 3/28/2001 2:26:45 PM
killjoy
10950. PsychProf - 3/28/2001 2:27:11 PM
How bout prof's?
10951. seadate - 3/28/2001 2:29:37 PM
See you there.
10952. Fielding - 3/28/2001 2:29:54 PM
You post 'em, and we'll follow.
10953. AceofSpades - 3/28/2001 4:33:04 PM
What outrages has the strutting, jackbooted macaque PelleNilson perpetrated today?
10954. AceofSpades - 3/28/2001 4:43:50 PM
And what of those sniveling hand-poppets Wabbit and Christin?
10955. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 5:11:53 PM
Is Ace telling us that he's the real Dr. X.
10956. ChristinO - 3/28/2001 5:11:56 PM
Ace, don't make me take off my shoe.
10957. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 5:48:58 PM
For the record:
This afternoon I purchased The Slate Diaries with an introduction by editor Michael Kinsley.
In it, he explains why he started the Diaries, patterning it after New Republic's "Washington Diarist."
"Still, the fact that they're published on the Web within hours or even minutes of the events they describe does affect these diaries in ways we failed to predict.
"One such way is the fast reader-feedback loop. A diary entry about what you did Tuesday gets posted Wednesday morning, and by lunchtime there are dozens or hundreds of responses in "The Fray" (Slate's reader discussion forum). These then become part of the Wednesday experience you describe for the world on Thursday. Either that or the ferocious reaction of some Fraygrants (as we call them)--not just to your writing, but to your life, as you have chosen to present it--is so dispiriting that you call your editor at Slate and say, "I can't go on."
"It's happened a lot more than once. But all Slate editors are certified trainees in Emergency Psychological Respiration and I'm pleased to say we haven't lost a Diary writer midweek yet."
10958. RosettaStone - 3/29/2001 7:24:32 PM
I had no idea that my one post about the old fray would kill this thread for over 26 hours. It is sad, isn't it, that the MIA Irv screwed us up so.
Instead of being in the web backwaters begging bankrupt TTers to join us, we could've been cyber contenders...!
10959. CalGal - 3/29/2001 7:31:09 PM
I have regularly seen the new Fray referred to as a cesspool.
Lord, you're an idiot. It makes me despair for the gene pool.
10960. RosettaStone - 3/29/2001 7:44:51 PM
The mistake made by Slate staffer Irv was not linking Slate's articles to the fray's threads--and encouraging (hell, forcing) their writers/editors to contribute to old fray. Only someone on the inside could do that. Maybe if he had worked in the home office, it would have helped.
Instead we got a CalCal forum.
10961. wabbit - 3/29/2001 10:16:37 PM
Rosetta,
As I am just now leaving work, I don't have time to kick your sorry ass properly, but I will say that perhaps you should not pontificate about things you know nothing about.
10962. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 10:21:11 PM
Why not, wabbit? You do it all the time. (g)
10963. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 11:43:24 PM
10964. RosettaStone - 3/29/2001 11:59:31 PM
wabbit: Clearly I don't know some of the facts. But I know a lot. And I've tried to ask Irv about it over the years. Many times in fact. He was reluctant to talk about it. Or, maybe he just didn't know because he was out of the loop.
Clearly he doesn't want to be blamed for what happened. And it may have just a question of geography. If the staffer responsible for fray had been located at MS's office in Washington, instead of a free lancer in southeast Asia, he/she might have been able to keep fray from being destroyed.
Or, at least the fray we knew.
I think it was very strange for Slate to change its fray formats so abruptly and then, as soon as the original 120 fraygrants left en mass, make the link connections between the e-magazine and promote the forums on its front page. Those sorts of things should have happened from the very early days of Slate.
Slate original mistake was charging for its e-magazine and when that failed and they reopened it for free, still charging new people to post on fray.
I think it's sad because Slate and fray will live on long after Salon and TT are gone and, according to Kinsley, have over 2 million readers a month.
Its BBS format is a mess and that too bad but they do have posters and readers.
This is not to take away anything that our mote masters have produced. It's just a tough thing for volunteers to keep up without becoming small-town dictators.
10965. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 12:04:59 AM
No use cryin' over spilt milk, Rosie.
10966. RosettaStone - 3/30/2001 12:09:33 AM
No woman, no cry. But it came back to me reading Michael Kinsley's book introduction.
I was surprised how proud of the new fray he is.
Irv used to tell us that he never even read the old fray and never had any contact with him.
Somehow I doubt that.
10967. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 12:35:55 AM
Rosetta
I think it was very strange for Slate to change its fray formats so abruptly and then, as soon as the original 120 fraygrants left en mass, make the link connections between the e-magazine and promote the forums on its front page. Those sorts of things should have happened from the very early days of Slate.
Actually at the very beginning for maybe 6 months or a year, Slate did have links from articles to the Fray (it was a small image at the bottom that said "enter the fray").
Not sure why they stopped, but at some point the Fray had to be an embarassment to them, one they weren't quite sure what to do with or how to pitch to the average reader seeking to make a comment here and there. Imagine wading in there and seeing all the drama that went on at various points.
Either I've become inured or that sort of thing is less common but its frequency seems to have dimished.
10968. CalGal - 3/30/2001 1:28:55 AM
Stone's an idiot.
The Fray cost a fortune. That's the single biggest reason they got rid of it.
They also wanted an easy, cheap way to collect the occasional articulate thought from a reader. The Fray--like all online forums--had formed into a community. Communities have, by definition, a higher barrier to entry.
Slate wanted tons of comments, tons of clicks and activity, even if most of it was garbage. It was fairly easy to look at all of it, pull out the occasional lucid thought, and praise it as emblematic of the fine discourse that Slate provided.
It was necessary to kill the community in order to do that--kill any community, not the Fray in particular. They didn't want intelligent discourse, because that had would discourage too many people.
The bbs is far cheaper than the original Fray software, it makes it much harder for a community of any sort to form, and it's easy to sift through tons of garbage to find the occasional lucid comment.
The real question isn't who is to blame for the death of the Fray. The real question is: where did Rosie copy that post from?
10969. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 1:56:25 AM
Clearly they didn't want what we were, but I'm not sure I buy it's because we were too intelligent a community.
Well reasoned ideas and complicated arguments will never stop anyone from firing off a simple-minded reply (check the Fray in response to Steve Landsburg's columns every month; haven't seen it in agens but I'm sure it hasn't changed). Drama queens throwing histrionic tantrums do.
10970. CalGal - 3/30/2001 2:08:44 AM
Clearly they didn't want what we were, but I'm not sure I buy it's because we were too intelligent a community.
I didn't say it was because we were too intelligent. The operative problem was that we were a community.
They wanted anyone to feel comfortable popping in, making a post--some small percentage of which would be intelligent. While I think you're right about the histrionics being offputting, I think that casual chat and familiarity is nearly as discouraging to the one-off poster. People who posted at the Fray, and here, are more likely those who want to check it out and stay a while--which limits the amount of people who'll post. Slate wanted something that didn't scare off the one-off poster, which means you don't want a community.
Has anyone noticed that Time and CNN experimented with posting their user forum comments at the bottom of articles? The content was horrible. It could often be foul-mouthed or borderline racist; not the sort of thing that they'd want on public display.
I wonder how long magazine online forums will last.
10971. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 3:11:18 AM
They didn't want intelligent discourse, because that had would discourage too many people.
How does this not mean we had intelligent discourse, which they did not want?
10972. CalGal - 3/30/2001 3:38:58 AM
Oh, my fault. Put quotes around "intelligent discourse".
I was mocking the usual rhetoric about online communities and why magazines say they support them.
I didn't track your response back to that statement for no good reason I can think of. Except that Bullitt is a very good movie, have you ever seen it?
10973. Slackjaw - 3/30/2001 3:45:22 AM
no, but my mom claims to have gotten a salsa recipe from a friend of Steve McQueen's.
Fame follows me everywhere.
10974. RosettaStone - 3/30/2001 8:15:40 AM
Thank you, Slackjaw, for explaining the early days of fray. Why Slate would stop linking its front page to fray should have been debated back then. Even now, look how some people want to ignore what happened & why.
Kinsley seems to be happy with his new fray. We get spoiled with this format because it's so interactive to what we write.
Insults were my memory of fray. My first experience was reading Ace fighting four ultra-liberal homosexuals about Clinton. And RP explaining to some feminists here that women don't make the best warriers.
I became active the last year of fray. Even then it was unofficially turning into the CalCal Forum. In fact, she had developed an alternative web page with links listing her favorite fraygrant bios. Everything was seen through her eyes.
I became interested in fray because I had been invited (Heck, I was paid $100 for 4 hours of evening discussion) to be part of a focus group to look at Slate and give opinions on its departments and its future.
That got me to reading fray carefully. I was impressed by the quality of the writing.
When I first came online to tell fraygrants what I had just experienced, I was called a liar and some even warned others that no one should believe what I was telling them. That was the first day's experience.
Indonesian Irv was very hands off. Much more than our current mote masters. In fact, I never knew actually what he did other than occasionally picking thread topics and contributing to certain threads.
And, like here, thread selection was very cliquish. But I don't think he would have allowed certain thread hosts to be grandfathered forever as moderators.
Or, officially be willing to lose newbies like Dr. X because one mote master didn't personally like him.
10975. vonKreedon - 3/30/2001 8:57:17 AM
I know personally that Irv tried and tried to get the management of Slate to pay due attention to the Fray; to re-instate it as a free service, to institute simple HTML, to leverage the good writing, to have Slate writers contribute. He was roundly ignored. I tried, from withing Microsoft, to get Slate management to pay attention to the same issues and was told to hold on for the big upgrade. Then the upgrade came and we were screwed.
10976. vw - 3/30/2001 8:58:15 AM
I don't know any of this forum history. All I know is what I experienced here. I posted a question in Dr. X's forum, which I thought, was in the same tongue and cheek tone that he was posting in. I waited 4 days and not only didn’t get an answer but had my question moved to another thread. The same day, he announced he would be making up his own questions.
No attempt was made to tell me why it was moved, or what the “rules” of the thread were, my posts were just gone. I didn’t take it personally. I just shrugged and thought to myself “waste of time” and moved on elsewhere. But there certainly was a lot of potential for a newbie like me (newer than Dr. X by the way) to be both confused and/or upset at the events.
While I don’t buy into the concept that forums are communities, they are groups of people with recognized forms of communication, both verbal and non-verbal. Completely ignoring posts is a very definite communication … it is shorthand for “Your comments are not worth my attention”. When a thread host considers 4 out of every 5 posts unworthy of attention you have to ask yourself if the thread is worth anything at all.
If Dr. X. wanted to put on a one-man show there is certainly more than enough places on the Web where you can go and get a free web site and post whatever thought is on your mind.
10977. Wombat - 3/30/2001 9:00:13 AM
I doubt Dr. X was a newbie.
10978. vonKreedon - 3/30/2001 9:05:01 AM
The good doctor had the definite feel of a multiple. My main question is whether or not he is supposed to be a joke. I thought so, but his failure to pull the punch line on StonedRose's attempt to make him a cause celebre makes me wonder if he's merely deranged.
10979. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:17:14 AM
Slate is dealing with the clutter of the current interface in two ways--designating Star contributors (with a little star in the outline control) and messages as "editor's pick."
You can set a filter to show only editor's picks.
They needed to do something to deal with the volume and the generally low level of commentary. It's interesting that this is not unlike what they do on their newsgroups (MS that is) where contributors are awarded MVP status for being especially helpful.
They also picked three star contributors to write the breakfast table feature. I don't read the fray, so I don't know whether there has been a community developing, but recognizing contributors certainly will lead to the sense that there are a stable collection of people who post interesting content.
Finally, I do think the interaction with the readers does affect the content. I'd written to few of the columnists to point out what I thought were errors or inconsistencies, and corrections were made, usually within a day. The current fray precludes useful stuff being available for the columnists without some kind of filtering capability.
Interesting that the book is not being published by MS. They must be losing a fortune over there.
10980. RosettaStone - 3/30/2001 11:22:40 AM
(so far, half way through it...)
"The Slate Diaries" isn't worth buying. But great cover.
10981. CalGal - 3/30/2001 11:26:42 AM
I said earlier: It was fairly easy to look at all of it, pull out the occasional lucid thought, and praise it as emblematic of the fine discourse that Slate provided.
And lo, it seems as if I was right. Interesting that they are going further and identifying the contributor with a star.
So they wanted to drop the barrier to entry and cull out the good stuff. Someone could be very bright and completely uninterested in joining a forum, just wanting to post a response and get immediate gratification. The old Fray would have served as a hindrance.
I wonder what will happen over the long term? Will people eventually feel that the asterisk denotes superiority and become reluctant to post--will it just create a different sort of barrier?
Back when they first started that Fray, I thought that you could enter a new name each time--the only identifier was the IP address. Did that change? How do they identify "star" contributors?
I've never been all that angry at Slate for pulling the plug on the old Fray. I was furious that they didn't warn us, but their rationale always made sense.
10982. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 11:28:24 AM
I agree with a lot of what's being posted, and I also agree with Slack's comment that the melodrama and very ugly fighting that had become much too common in the Fray's last year was very offputting. I thought about quitting over it more than once, not because I was offended, but because it seemed to permeate the whole site and its feel and the place just wasn't enjoyable for a while. Many people who sought intelligent conversation would have given up in disgust under those conditions.
In that regard, I think the Mote is doing very well. It is what it is, and I think it functions very smoothly for what the majority of its members want. It wouldn't do for an ezine promotion feature because, as Cal points out, that would take masses of comments from many more readers. Slate was interested in increased readership and a desire to make it easier for many more people to comment directly on their articles. I guess they accomplished that, so bully for them, but I won't be back. I'm sure they're all crying in their beer over that.
WRT Irv, I know he and a few others did what they could. The PTB's had decided the entire forum format wasn't what they wanted, whether it was because of the community or the fighting didn't really matter--it simply could not accomodate a large enough number of people. TT's gotten around that, but damn what a mess. For those who are used to it, I know it works well, but it's overwhelming for newbies. My problem with Slate in the whole deal has always been how they made their changes. I know that business is business, but it was shitty, nonetheless.
10983. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:33:46 AM
If my experience in newsgroups is correct, which matches what you see in Amazon, with people contributing lots of review content for free, that is then rated by the readers, then the long term effect should be to stabilize the handles, and, in so doing, create a subset of contributors not unlike the old Fray. You have to be willing to compete for the star, but those who don't will leave.
The Fray editor designates the interesting messages and the star contributors.
The show only good messages feature should discourage some of the worst contributions. As with e-opinions, if you don't have a good rating, people don't see the messages. My guess is that overall message volume will decline a little, and that quality will go up.
You also solve the flaming spamming problem by having an editor filter the content. You can avoid the endless anti-evolution rants by letting the editor pick your posts. IMO, it solves a couple of major problems with their UI.
10984. rubberducky - 3/30/2001 11:38:15 AM
i wouldn't like that pick-the-post mess for the simple fact that the politics of the editor will invariably determine what is 'good' and of 'quality'. hell, Irv did it all the damn time.
10985. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:38:42 AM
Here's an interesting note:
Subject: To the Citizens of Prudieville
From: Fray Editor
Date: Mar 5 2001 9:08 AM
I have had to delete a couple of posts and one whole thread which went over the line here. Please return to your normal standards of civilized discussion.
I am not inclined to allow very offensive insults, nor am I impressed with public revelation of fairly private information. And what’s more, I know that most Dear Prudie posters feel the same way. Even those who did it know better… so come on, calm down, and give us all a break.
It is true that I don’t normally spend much time in the Dear Prudie Fray, but that is because you are normally so well-behaved. I’m sorry if you think that does you out of checkmarks. If I try to give you some more, will you try to keep to what I know are your own high standards?
Thanks
Moira Redmond
Fray Editor
Slate
They also have an icon to designate a slate writer. Note the competition over checks. Note that the editor needs to attend to all the discussion areas lest she turn noses out of joint.
10986. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:41:05 AM
The filter setting is sticky. Interesting.
10987. CalGal - 3/30/2001 11:42:56 AM
Arky,
It's worth noting that, while TT got around it, they did so by creating a forum that has very little connection to their magazine, either.
Also, did you see that Salon is going to be charging $30/year for ad-free content? I can't see how that will make them much money.
Jay,
, then the long term effect should be to stabilize the handles, and, in so doing, create a subset of contributors not unlike the old Fray.
I think that this would turn out to work against Slate's best interests--although certainly if they had a subset of contributors that only commented on articles that would be a step up from the old Fray, making their original decision wise.
I think they would be best served in not making it too easy to filter out all but the best, because that will discourage Joe Average as much as it will Rosie Wackjob. One of the main rationales for changing was to increase participation and clicks, I believe.
10988. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:44:23 AM
rd
Oh yeah, handing out those checks would be an ugly job. And she is not anonymous.
But you do have the very real problem of low quality content driving out high. IMO, we have that here. The threads I monitor keep shrinking in number.
10989. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:47:44 AM
CG--
Yeah, but the pendulum is now swinging back. Since the editor assigns the star and the check, the contributors and messages can be kept on topic by the simple mechanism of not checking irrelevant posts.
rd, I don't think the political position of the editor matters because they'll look for clash, not homogeneity.
Will the starred contributors become insufferable? How do you take away a star? All interesting questions.
10990. rubberducky - 3/30/2001 11:52:44 AM
well, if they have the option to create new ids for every post, then they don't have the ability to have much pride - right? meaning, it seems impossible to build much of a reputation and seemingly the editor couldn't track who is getting what checks.
you couldn't really do the tracking by IPs i don't suppose what with people posting at home, work, libraries and such. not to mention the networks that don't assign a static IP address.
10991. rubberducky - 3/30/2001 11:53:20 AM
besides, i stopped competing for stars and checks when i left grade school.
10992. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:55:46 AM
No, that's right. You've got to have pride of posting, and always use the same handle to earn the star.
Note there are two effects here. First, if you want recognition, you've got to use the same id. Well that means you can't be flaming people all the time with that handle. Second, if you want recognition, you've got to participate.
So the people seeking recognition will stablize their handles and be nicer. Those are two very nice positive effects. The price you pay is that you have to publicly judge people worthy.
10993. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 11:56:43 AM
Very true, Cal, and I did notice that about the fees, besides the fact that the place will probably go belly-up anyway. What they managed to provide is a playground to hold lots of people, but since their policies for TT never required any connection to the magazine (like saying a thread can't be created that doesn't pertain to and link to a Salon article, for instance) there's no incentive for anyone to do anything in support of Salon but play in TT, which is no help to the mag. It seems to me that if they'd connected TT's capability to hold large numbers of posters, with good interactions between them, to their content they might have gotten some benefit from TT.
10994. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 11:57:22 AM
10991
Yeah, it will turn off people like you. But lurkers have an easier time of it this way. Does one offset the other?
10995. CalGal - 3/30/2001 12:05:05 PM
Jay,
Lurkers won't have an easier time of it if they are just Joe Average, though. They'll now know that there is a differentiator. The star or check is still a club of a different sort.
Interesting, that letter from the editor. No matter how hard they tried, they ended up with their version of Irv and Marybeth--which means that they have a "community" too. I think they would have been wiser to leave it random, and just cull out the good stuff and put it somewhere else. As it is, I bet their administrative costs have increased substantially.
I have thought for a while now that forums and magazines are fundamentally incompatible. Magazines will always pay a huge price to support a forum, while getting very little to serve their interests in return.
10996. CalGal - 3/30/2001 12:07:16 PM
Those are two very nice positive effects. The price you pay is that you have to publicly judge people worthy.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the two as positive effects. Stabilizing the handles and being nicer only mean that you're getting closer to a "community" or a club, and that will get back to the very thing Slate wanted to avoid, in order to keep participation extremely high.
10997. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 12:10:39 PM
Driving up lurking rates does keep participation high. They obviously felt like the low quality of the bulk of the messages was not attracting enough people.
They do also pick posts to put in a separate area on a weekly basis which links into the fray. Do they identify the star posters in that area? Let me go see....
10998. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 12:12:35 PM
They do not.
10999. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 12:15:28 PM
But they do talk about it:
We must revisit last week's "Best of the Fray," which included the line about "excoriate the Brits." Joseph Britt, star poster and Fray favorite, was nominally shocked. And David W. Rochlin (and after we gave him a star, too) mysteriously wants this column renamed "Worst of Fray." Zeitguy (who reads us so closely he can name a post after a passing reference) wants a link. Is there no end to Fray posters' complaints and demands? Wasn't the "Breakfast Table" mutiny enough?
You know, the place may start looking like there is an in-group, a special clique that talks past other participants, and makes them uncomfortable, and that decisions are made outside the forum in favor of this special ingroup.
You may be right, CG.
11000. CalGal - 3/30/2001 12:17:46 PM
Driving up lurking rates does keep participation high.
That's true. But I wonder if they made the change to stop a decline in lurking rates, or to increase them from a solid baseline. I would guess the former, but that's just my gut.
But I think their goal was to increase actual participation, not ensure that lurkers stay around.
The picking of posts in a separate area on a weekly basis is a good idea; I would think limiting to that would be enough.
11001. CalGal - 3/30/2001 12:22:06 PM
You know, the place may start looking like there is an in-group, a special clique that talks past other participants, and makes them uncomfortable, and that decisions are made outside the forum in favor of this special ingroup.
Exactly. That's inevitable. That's what always happens in forums--they become communities. It's why the charge of "cliquish" always amuses me.
I approved more of their original policy, given their stated goals. Keep costs low, no administrative costs, no regular enforced identification, and just pay someone to cull through the chaff and pull out the wheat, posting them in a separate area.
This would give you maximum participation by everyone, who wouldn't be discouraged by their lack of a star, figuring that there is a reasonably disinterested party going through all the posts and pulling out the best. There should be no more complaint over that than there is over someone being miffed because their letter to the editor wasn't published.
11002. rubberducky - 3/30/2001 12:33:44 PM
Does one offset the other?
interesting question, Jay. i would say, in my very colored opinion, that those who avidly compete for a check are not the sort of people i'd care to read in the first place and thus are giving me greater incentive to not read the Fray to begin with. i, of course, doubt i'm atypical.
11003. seadate - 3/30/2001 12:42:02 PM
Where's the prize in being "typical"?
11004. vw - 3/30/2001 12:47:07 PM
Where's the prize in being "typical"?
You get to sit at the crest of the bell curve?
11005. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 12:47:33 PM
You also have to keep up:
Subject: Alas, no checks in the email
From: Epicuria
Date: Mar 20 2001 10:41 AM
Such busy days we all have. We come to a Fray thread and find innumerable postings. Some will be worth a read, most will not, but we don't have the time to click on them all hoping to find some wheat among the chaff.
So we depend on someone to alert us to those messages that deserve to be perused as adjuncts to the main conversation. But the Fray editor also has very busy days and cannot keep up with her job to evaluate all the posts on all the Fray forums. It takes two or three days into a new feature until they begin to show up. Then a day or two will go by before the editor can get back to her check off function.
This lag time problem is terribly frustrating, especially when Slate, with all its resources, could retain one other person to serve as a checker.
Why can't this be done, Moira?
Epi
11006. seadate - 3/30/2001 12:51:08 PM
You get to sit at the crest of the bell curve?
I find humor in the term "normal distribution".
11007. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 12:51:53 PM
What's the point of jawboning about the Fray? Are we planning an invasion to retake our cyber-home? Are we considering the BBS format?
If not, let's worry about the Mote and its problems and leave the Fray where it belongs, in the past.
11008. JayAckroyd - 3/30/2001 12:56:25 PM
Not at all Jon. I'm interested in the user interfaces involved in these forums. I've still not see a UI superior to Compuserv in the green screen days. Ours here would collapse with too many participants. TT is a mess. Slate's running into the problems you see at places like the NYTimes--lots of garbage.
It's also interesting to see the same issues arise, regardless of UI. You can filter message by poster over there, and the fray editor is issuing, on about a weekly basis, in the one of the politics threats to delete messages and insistance that the personal attacks and revealing of private information stop.
I am more than ever convinced that the only way to keep these places civilized and interesting is transparency--users posting in their own names.
11009. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 12:56:31 PM
Stinky's incompetent hosting of the Religion thread has now reached a new level of stupidity.
He is deleting and moving my on-topic conversations with Jen and Bloodnfire so that he can engage in an off-topic conversation of his own that belongs in the Social Issues thread.
11010. Fielding - 3/30/2001 12:58:36 PM
Boo-Hoo.
11011. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:00:52 PM
Jay
Sorry, I thought everyone was engaging in sour grapes. If you think that we can productively apply what we learn from this discussion to the Mote, I'm all for it.
I'm with you on transparency, but that ain't got a snowball's chance... As I've said before, as one of the least popular ex-Fraygrants who inhabit this place, I have yet to experience a single negative consequence of 'going public.'
I think a good first step would be to create the user profiles that we've talked about. If a critical mass of posters expose their true identities, that will put some social pressure on those who don't to do the same.
11012. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:02:28 PM
Fielding
I'm sorry I bloodied you so badly in our last confrontation. I thought you'd have stopped bawling by now.
Chin up.
11013. CalGal - 3/30/2001 1:06:10 PM
Jay,
That letter is a hoot. They have in fact found all the same issues.
I disagree about transparency being the key. I don't think it would help with us, either.
Slate wants lots of participation by a huge user group. The problem is that the price of a lot of participation is a huge amount of crap, which requires increased costs in monitoring. If you are vigilant about monitoring, you also decrease participation dramatically--and that hurts your click count. If you promise to monitor and don't, you discourage the people who are driven away by crap. Also, the very act of monitoring increases administration, because then you get complaints about monitoring that have to be responded to.
I think it is fascinating that Slate is right back at what they wanted to avoid. They probably don't think of it that way--they probably have much more sense of ownership over this Fray than the previous one--but it's much the same. It appears as if they have substituted one high cost for another. The old Fray was expensive in terms of infrastructure, but cheap in admin. I imagine this has reversed.
11014. CalGal - 3/30/2001 1:07:08 PM
As I've said before, as one of the least popular ex-Fraygrants who inhabit this place, I have yet to experience a single negative consequence of 'going public.'
Pelle, who goes by his real name, is getting his email box spammed. That's the sort of crap that no one wants.
11015. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 1:08:56 PM
JF: I have deleted two posts of yours that had nothing to do with a conversation with B&F (liar), but were disruptive commentary directed at me personally. Your post to B&F remains as evidence of your dissembling.
To my knowledge, you are a persona non grata here--no announcement has ever been made that your banishment was rescinded, and you are posting under a new login, which indicates to me that you just circumvented the rules. So you should consider yourself indulged that any of your posts are allowed to remain at all. As it is, at least in any thread I host, you will be on best behavior or not post at all.
Moreover, I would not even bother responding to you here, if you could limit yourself to accurate statements.
11016. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:21:21 PM
Stinky
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I said 'deleting and moving' which is what you have been doing. I didn't limit your activity to deleting.
Given your questionable history with you-know-who, forgive me if I don't take your indignant remarks seriously.
I will post in your threads in the same manner I post in all threads. If you delete substantive posts, I will complain about it. If you make posts in Religion that violate your own rules, I will point it out.
As far as my status here, I have made no secret of who I am. If you want to start a campaign to have my completely baseless ban upheld, feel free. I think it's clear from their silence that the PTB realize that they acted somewhat rashly and we've all agreed not to bring that unfortunate piece of history up. Until you opened your big yap, that is.
If anybody should feel 'indulged' for being allowed to post here given his history, it's you, Cupcake.
11017. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:24:21 PM
Cal
Block sender works for me. Maybe spamming is more sophisticated than that nowadays, I dunno.
11018. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 1:26:45 PM
JF: You take yourself and your one-note act much more seriously than I do.
Knock yourself out, kid.
11019. Fielding - 3/30/2001 1:28:01 PM
Indy:
Why was Jon-boy banned?
11020. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 1:31:53 PM
Fielding: He was banned once before I got here for reasons which are unclear to me. Then he banned himself after losing a confrontation with Rosetta over the Spiritual Issues thread (which was what it was called then).
The last time he was banned IMO it was on general principles. The stated reason had to do with some remarks he made to Diva about her pregnancy.
11021. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:33:44 PM
For the record, here's the 'disruptive commentary' that Stinky won't let me post:
Re 12317 & 12321
Stinky
This is the Religion and Philosophy thread. Please take your off-topic conversation to the Social Issues thread.
Thanks.
11022. Fielding - 3/30/2001 1:34:32 PM
He lost a confrontation with Rosetta? I'm surprised he alows himself to be seen in public after that.
11023. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:35:11 PM
Beat me to it, Fielding.
11024. Fielding - 3/30/2001 1:37:34 PM
"Eternal youth" is an issue relating to Philosophy. It also has religious overtones. It is appropriate to the Religion and Philosphy thread.
11025. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:39:05 PM
I really don't want to go there and I'd like it noted that it's Stinky who is dragging up all this ancient history, but I insist that the record be clear:
I was banned (as God) the first time for a post containing the name of a prominent university. That was later commuted to a 2-week suspension. I reappeared as Nostradamus in the interim.
I was suspended for banning Rosie from SI.
I was banned the second time for insulting Diva's daughter's artistic ability in the Inferno. Diva is a very popular Motie and was very pregnant at the time. Was the reaction understandable? Yes. Was it justifiable? No. If someone wants to make the case otherwise, have a go.
11026. CalGal - 3/30/2001 1:41:35 PM
Christin or Pelle or Wabbit, could you move the conversation about Slate to the Slow thread?
11027. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:42:22 PM
There is nothing religious or philosophical about a chemical that slows aging.
Certainly not when there is a social issues thread available.
11028. mgleason - 3/30/2001 1:50:50 PM
Well, the 'substance supposed to change any metal into gold or silver and (according to some) to cure all diseases and prolong life indefinitely' is called the philosopher's stone.
11029. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:52:07 PM
I was banned the second time for insulting Diva's daughter's artistic ability in the Inferno. Diva is a very popular Motie and was very pregnant at the time. Was the reaction understandable? Yes. Was it justifiable? No. If someone wants to make the case otherwise, have a go.
It's not Diva's style to hurl personal insults, so I feel strongly that personal insults toward her daughter are out of line.
Some (such as Fielding and Ace) banter more rudely at times ... so be it ... in those instances, participants in these bouts make themselves fair game. There is still a "line" of civility that should be honored.
11030. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 1:56:29 PM
seadate
I think you missed the part where I said in the Inferno.
And not even repeatedly, 1 post.
But I've had my say. I consider the matter dropped until the next time Stinky does something stupid.
See you in 5 minutes.
11031. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:59:22 PM
Jon,
I don't know you, but find it absurd that you would consider Diva fair game; based on her *behaviour*, not her popularity (gee, maybe there's a link between the two).
11032. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 2:00:22 PM
Maria
I'd love to engage in hyperbole with you all afternoon, but it's Spring, and other temptations await.
Have a great day.
11033. seadate - 3/30/2001 2:01:18 PM
cross-post, sorry.
ok, dropped.
11034. Fielding - 3/30/2001 2:01:36 PM
seadate:
I never start a flame war. For example, as I'm sure you agree, I've never flamed you. OTOH, when flamed, I fight back and make comments that I wouldn't make to civilized people.
I also realize that with Ace, its just a game. The rat bastard!
11035. seadate - 3/30/2001 2:02:47 PM
Fielding, exactly.
11036. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 2:05:33 PM
I was banned (as God) the first time for a post containing the name of a prominent university.
This I cannot speak to, but have heard otherwise. Given your laxity with facts that I do have firsthand knowledge of, please excuse my skepticism of your story.
I was suspended for banning Rosie from SI.
What happened was wabbit gave both you and Stone a cooling-off period: this after she insisted the two of you cease and desist. I stand by my statement that you "banned" yourself after losing a confrontation to Stone and cite this post as evidence.
Nostradamus (You): "Congratulations to RosettaStone for having me removed, well done."
As for what happened with Diva, there was more to it than perhaps (in your defense) even you knew. But when you go around like a bull in a china shop, it's no wonder that you occasionally--and perhaps unintentionally--smash someone's valuable Ming vase. My assumption was and is, you had worn out your welcome and your remark about her unborn baby (not her daughter) was just the last straw.
11037. CalGal - 3/30/2001 2:24:22 PM
Wabbit, Pelle, or Christin:
I made a post in Health Policy that was reasonably rude, but very much on topic. It was deleted, not moved. There was no comment about it. I reposted it, requesting that MsG explain why it was deleted. The post has now been deleted three times without comment.
Assuming that it is MsG deleting these posts, I consider this pretty unacceptable. It is on topic and, in a thread where I was only recently called a Nazi and other things (by her, in fact), I think it's a bit odd for her to decide that the tone was wrong. However, if she deleted or moved it and told me to rewrite it, I would consider it barely within the grounds of tolerable host behavior--with my distaste being for the fact that she clearly is acting on her dislike for me, as opposed to any reasonable thread hosting standard. Still, that may be her prerogative.
But deleting it without comment and continuing to do so is pretty unacceptable, from my pov. Someone needs to tell her to grow up. This is also the fourth or fifth time she's reacted childishly based on her dislike for topics or opinions I've stated.
If she wants her own private little clique, she can start an email group.
Please note that I do not object to her moving posts based on some reasonable standard--or even one I consider unreasonable. But to complain because I say that her opinion is banal after she allows several people to cal me a Nazi is a bit out of whack. And that's ignoring the real problem, which is that she has not made any comment about the deletions and not moved them, as is the norm.
Now, if it isn't her, then it's one of the administrators and I hope you guys would have said something.
11038. rubberducky - 3/30/2001 2:24:27 PM
Re: Message # 11015, Indiana Jones.
To my knowledge, you are a persona non grata here--no announcement has ever been made that your banishment was rescinded, and you are posting under a new login, which indicates to me that you just circumvented the rules.
not to quibble, but as i've said before - ids and not people can be banned.
11039. JJBiener - 3/30/2001 2:47:09 PM
Cal - I can't speak for MsGreer, but from what I saw, your posts were deleted because they contained an unwarranted attack completely irrelevant to the point you were making. If you had done the same thing in one of my threads, I would have deleted them as well. MsGreer has endured many unwarranted attacks from you as have many of us throughout the Mote in recent weeks. You may not be able to see it, but your attitude lately has been lousy.
Most people would get the hint after the second or third time a post is deleted. Perhaps you should start looking at yourself as the cause of your problems instead of trying to find the cause in others. You may think her behavior is unacceptable. I think it is unacceptable for you to contine reposting the same material after it has been deleted repeatedly. Whether you like it or not, that is MsGreer's thread. As thread host she can run it as she likes. The rules in her thread are no different from the rules in mine. She has been somewhat lax in the past and allowed unacceptable posts to remain undeleted. She has apparently started to enforce her policy more strictly. If you can post there on topic without making personal attacks, I am sure your posts will remain undeleted. If you can't post without attacking, then take it to the Inferno.
11040. CalGal - 3/30/2001 3:43:46 PM
JJ,
There is no excuse for deleting posts without explanation. And as you know, it is the norm to move them to the Inferno.
Also, as I pointed out, MsG has allowed several people to call me all sorts of epithets and called me them herself. She has also tried on several occasions to demand that a particular health related discussoin be moved, purely because she didn't like the opinions expressed.
I really could care less if you think I'm rude, frankly. It wasn't that rude a post, and it certainly wasn't inexcusable by the standards of the Mote. I pointed out that her banal interpretation was completely off base and that people shouldn't take her blinkered interpretation seriously. But that's really neither here nor there. She has to act like a grownup, and acting like a grownup includes acknowledging that she deleted--or, preferably, moved--a post.
If it is necessary to change the rules to ensure that hosts must acknowledge that they have moved a post, then I suggest we do so. But frankly, I'd rather we keep hosts that are willing to acknowledge their actions.
As thread host she can run it as she likes.
No, actually, she can't. There are certain standards that all thread hosts have to meet. In my opinion, she is not meeting them. Deleting, rather than moving, a post is questionable. Refusing to own up to it is well past the line.
As a separate subject, the fact that she has both deleted ontopic posts that held far less objectionable comments than ones she makes regularly is also becoming problematic, as is her demands that people leave the thread because she doesnt' agree with their own topic posts.
11041. RosettaStone - 3/30/2001 4:00:49 PM
Everyone knows why Jon, the cad, has returned to mote from his Disney World trip(s). Especially now.
And the reasons why he was banned in the first place. He ought to consider himself lucky that any of the women here talk to him.
11042. JJBiener - 3/30/2001 4:25:59 PM
CalGal - I have been following the Health thread closely over the last few months, and I dispute your interpretation of events.
There is no excuse for deleting posts without explanation.
I was not aware that hosts had to post an explanation every time they moved or deleted a post. I generally try to post an explanation, but I didn't think it was required.
Also, as I pointed out, MsG has allowed several people to call me all sorts of epithets and called me them herself.
I don't recall MsGreer (or anyone else for that matter) using epithets against you. I have seen harsh criticism of some of your posts and think much of it was warranted. I don't recall attacks on you personally. I could be mistaken. If you have a specific example, I would be interested to see it.
She has also tried on several occasions to demand that a particular health related discussoin be moved, purely because she didn't like the opinions expressed.
I believe you are mistaken. The only times I have seen her object is when you have posted information that is factually incorrect or when you have asserted something as fact when it was merely your opinion.
I really could care less if you think I'm rude, frankly.
This is becoming painfully obvious.
She has to act like a grownup, and acting like a grownup includes acknowledging that she deleted--or, preferably, moved--a post.
I don't recall that she denied it. She just didn't comment.
Being a grownup also means posting an opinion without attacking someone you disagree with. You were perfectly capable of posting a response without the personal attack.
If you don't think MsGreer is doing an acceptable job as thread host, you are free to take your case to the moderators. I think you will find that far more people agree with MsGreer than will agree with you.
11043. RosettaStone - 3/30/2001 5:20:49 PM
Speaking of on-topic posts.
Any news on when you're going to get a new moderator for the Politics thread?
Rubber isn't being ducky anymore.
11044. seadate - 3/30/2001 5:24:00 PM
But Rosie's still Stoned ;)
11045. Fielding - 3/30/2001 5:25:09 PM
Nice.
11046. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 6:13:21 PM
The Politics thread doesn't need a host. It's doing very nicely on its own, thanks.
Rosie
Since you were one of the first to welcome me back, I really don't understand where this bitterness is coming from. Unless it's just a cry for attention. Check your mood swings at the door.
Cal
I support your position if you're arguing for a new host paradigm. However, I think that MsGreer's behavior, as childish and petty as it is, falls well within previously defined limits. JJ's sermonizing aside, hosts (with the exception of me) have traditionally been given a great deal of latitude in how they run their threads.
I think it's time for a change. I doubt you'd agree with that.
11047. CalGal - 3/30/2001 6:25:48 PM
Her behavior is childish and petty, but that can happen. My objection is first to her not acknowledging that she deleted posts. Under no circumstances is that acceptable, in my mind.
My second objection is more because of her personal bias, and this is actually just in addition to my prior post of some weeks ago. I accept the fact that hosts will sometimes randomly move posts because their tolerance has been exceeded, and that's just how it works. I don't object, and it has happened to me more than once. But in MsGreer's case, I think she is drifting very close to the line of personal bias. If she doesn't like my rudeness, she should say so.
In this particular case, I was rude and impatient with no provocation--but then, I wasn't that terribly rude, either. However, in other cases, she has not only tolerated and encouraged rudeness to me, she's participated in it. Fair enough, but then she can't object to far milder rudeness just because it's pointed at her.
I don't want to make this out to be some huge deal--she left the last post in, although that may be because she wasn't online. It's the pattern of her behavior I find troubling, not the fact that she deleted a post that hurt her feelings.
I'm not sure action is needed; I'm not really comfortable with creating a rule that says hosts must move posts rather than delete them, or that they must acknowledge all deletions in advance.
I certainly don't agree that a change is needed; I'm just documenting my aggravation.
Given that our rules are created because people like you make it necessary, I find your complaints about these rules to be very amusing.
11048. Cellar Door - 3/30/2001 6:26:29 PM
How about "Rosetta Stone's Child-Rearing Advice"?
Our own Rosetta Stone explains how to raise your children and keep them from going gay.
11049. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 6:34:50 PM
Given that our rules are created because people like you...
You like me??? You really really like me???
Oh wait, I misread that. Never mind. (g)
MsGreer is a retard who doesn't like you. (g)
Stinky doesn't like me.
Unlucky for us and for the threads that they control that they are to be deprived of our incredible insights.
11050. CalGal - 3/30/2001 7:26:13 PM
It has nothing to do with whether I like you or not. It has to do with the fact that your primary goal here is to cause trouble. That's not true of the majority of people here--including MsGreer, obviously.
The rules are broad so that we can manage both the occasional flareups between temperamental regulars (and I count myself as one of the more notably temperamental) and still ensure that pest control is possible.
11051. Cellar Door - 3/31/2001 10:33:33 AM
It's not your rudeness that I don't like.
11052. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 10:54:34 AM
Is it the hair, then? (g) Don't be so superficial, CD.
Cal, let's tell it like it is. The rules are broad so that the PTB can justify favoring 'temperamental regulars' over 'temperamental irregulars.'
The unfortunate consequence of that policy has been an incredibly high attrition rate, both among newbies, and among many non-insider, non-bootlicker, ex-Fraygrants, such as myself.
If by 'causing trouble' you mean that I'm interested in seeing the people in charge held accountable for the decline of the Mote, then yes, I'm here to cause trouble. The definition of insanity is doing something the same way over and over and expecting a different result.
This centralized power structure has been tried for a year and a half. It has failed. Let's empower the little guy and see what happens.
11053. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 11:01:45 AM
Jon, it depends on what your definition of "failed" is. It's worked very well for some of the people involved.
11054. Cellar Door - 3/31/2001 11:10:55 AM
Read back a few weeks, on. CG and I are at war.
11055. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 11:18:10 AM
JAH
By 'worked very well' you mean what, exactly?
What do I mean by 'failed'?
I mean a vastly reduced number and quality of posts.
I mean rules applied inconsistently and arbitrarily.
I mean hosts and triumvirate members who act like petty tyrants instead of setting an example as gracious stalwarts of our community.
I mean endless squabbles over irrelevant superficial change when deeper, institutional change is clearly required.
11056. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 11:19:38 AM
CD
You're going to get the 'you're less significant to me than a pimple on my ass' retort if you keep up the 'Me and Calgal are at war' rhetoric.
11057. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 11:21:10 AM
Jon:
By 'worked very well' you mean what, exactly?
I mean it appears to be exactly what some people wish it to be.
I'm not arguing with you.
11058. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 11:30:31 AM
Judith
Which people, exactly?
I don't think anybody went into this experiment one and a half years ago saying:
Let's create a new online home. It will be just like the Fray except it will be smaller, more inbred, with constant squabbling. It will deter Newbies from joining and eventually it will consist of 20 or so regulars. It will centralize power in the hands of a few and they will be allowed to drive away Newbies with their attitude and behavior. Hosts who are regulars will be allowed to rule with an iron fist and keep their threads indefinitely. Bootlicking Newbies will be allowed to stay on a permanent probationary basis... etc., etc.
But maybe that was your understanding.
11059. Cellar Door - 3/31/2001 11:35:15 AM
She's a racist. Period. End of story.
11060. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 11:40:36 AM
If by racist, you mean that she thinks that certain races are genetically predisposed to certain traits and characteristics, then yes, she's a racist.
So is anybody with any sense who has taken the time to look at the science rather than buying into the PC bullshit that passes for conventional wisdom.
Get over it. And if you can't get over it, at least take it to the right thread.
11061. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 11:48:32 AM
Jon:
But maybe that was your understanding.
No, that wasn't my understanding. I've invited people to come here and after lurking, they decide not to participate. More than a dozen people of diverse educational, political, and philisophical persuasion...no one wanted to stick around and post.
I had hoped more people would participate but I've seen new people attacked for having different opinions; heck, I've seen people who've been here forever attacked for posts that disagree with whoever is holding the floor at the time. (And by attacked, I mean nastily, not the run-of-the-mill "you're wrong, I'm right" rundown.) I've seen a lot of talk about getting the word out and not much action in doing so. I'm always surprised when someone new sticks around and I'm not surprised when someone who's been here a long time stops posting....
I contributed to the Mote when it was first formed and I have enjoyed most of my time here but it's not what I thought it was going to be, to tell the truth.
11062. Cellar Door - 3/31/2001 11:52:46 AM
"Get over" what? I'm 54 years old asshole!
11063. Slackjaw - 3/31/2001 11:58:26 AM
Ferguson, when you had the slightest whiff of the power of a petty tyrant as a thread host, you acted like an imbecile.
11064. JJBiener - 3/31/2001 1:35:25 PM
Jon - You really are a piece of work. You come here and start one fight after another and then complain because there is too much squabbling. You fill your posts with insults with the sole purpose of hurting people who post here then complain about the tone. You do your best to shout down anyone who disagrees with you then complain that newbies and long time Moties don't want to hang around. You abuse your freedom to post here then you complain about the very policies that allow you to do it. The best thing you can do for the Mote is to leave. Your campaign to destroy the Mote in the guise of trying to save it is a farce.
11065. CalGal - 3/31/2001 1:36:50 PM
Lord, Ferguson, don't restate other people's opinions. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Judith,
I've said before--why not do what you think should be done, rather than complain that no one else is doing anything?
11066. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 2:00:28 PM
CalGal:
I have done so....I'm in contact with the guy at the newspaper; in fact, I will be seeing him later this afternoon at a social function.
I've invited many people to come here and they have...only to leave. Some of that may be because of their personalities but some of it is because they've seen what's going on here a lot of the time, which is nasty personal attacks over petty things. I realize that goes on everywhere on line but it's rather regretable when you've told people what a great site this is...it's like inviting people to a dinner party and having the hosts end up throwing food and drink at someone about to take their place at the table.
11067. RosettaStone - 3/31/2001 2:42:20 PM
I'm the only person who gets people to taste the mote. And stay. And contribbbute.
11068. CalGal - 3/31/2001 4:08:39 PM
I'm in contact with the guy at the newspaper; in fact, I will be seeing him later this afternoon at a social function.
Great!
If you tell people about online life and don't warn them about the food throwers, I think you need to reconsider how to introduce people to it. I always explain the downside.
I have been scanning other forums linked to magazines and papers. It was a random search, but I really can't find all that many that are busy, once you get past the usual suspects. Granted, I'm checking on a Saturday.
So after CNN, Times, and Tabletalk--what other major free forums are around?
11069. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 4:11:09 PM
NPR has a nice one.
11070. vonKreedon - 3/31/2001 4:18:00 PM
J@H - All the people I've tried to participate in The Mote have had similar responses: too self-referential, too much pointless invective, too much bullshit postings without a point.
The level of abuse regularly makes me back out for periods of time, but, for reasons I don't fully fathom, I keep coming back.
11071. CalGal - 3/31/2001 4:28:58 PM
vK,
What forums are they more comfortable with?
Arky,
NPR seems nice, but it also seems extremely slow moving.
11072. vonKreedon - 3/31/2001 4:41:56 PM
Cal - That is a good point. Most of my attempted recruits don't participate in any forum other than a private listserve based forum mostly devoted to chit-chat. One of my friends has been involved with a regional forum in the N.E. and hasn't really checked out the Mote because he really only has enough time for one forum.
I haven't gone looking to see if there are any more civilized yet energetic forae on the web, but it occurs to me every so often. But shit, I've got so much time put in with you guys that I just keep coming back here.
11073. CalGal - 3/31/2001 5:00:44 PM
vK,
People who aren't used to forums will find most forums to be incredibly ruthless. I've been reading NPR since Arky mentioned it. Some of the threads have the same bickering as ours, most are moving very slowly. I would also say that the discussions are very...old hat? People would get smacked around here for the banality of some of the comments--very been there, done that. It's also very difficult to get around in.
Navigation is really an issue for every other site I've been at except Salon.
11074. CalGal - 3/31/2001 5:02:31 PM
more civilized yet energetic forae
Yes, that encapsulates what I was trying to say. The very civilized ones are also very slow--sometimes no more than a post a day. I was astonished at how little action there was at the LA Times and TNR.
11075. RosettaStone - 3/31/2001 7:25:43 PM
The thread that really moves at NPR is it's "Mote Cafe" type one. They call it "NPR Community."
11076. pogie - 3/31/2001 7:44:09 PM
There is Cafe Utne, but there is something about it that puts me off attempting to post, though i sometimes lurk at it. Its interface is more flexible in some ways, but i dunno, maybe it's the color scheme or something-- i just can't get into it based on reading the topics i find interesting. nothing there makes me want to jump in except stuff that is years old, heh.
11077. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 7:49:05 PM
Lord Ferguson, don't restate other people's opinions. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Lord Ferguson. That has a nice ring to it. (g) Thanks, Cal.
What exactly did you disagree with about what I said to CD?
11078. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 7:52:31 PM
Slack
Examples, please.
I banned Rosie for cause. When I took the job, I was told that I had the authority to do so.
Other than that, I was always a civil and gracious host. Unlike some people, I feel that hosts have a duty to act with a little class if this place is to reverse its recent downturn.
11079. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 7:59:08 PM
re 11064
JJ
I asked you if we could just ignore each other in the health thread because I didn't appreciate your tone and I hoped that the tone of the thread could be respected. You refused my request.
That doesn't sound like somebody who is bent on disruption to me.
Most of your other arguments are equally specious and I'd rather not waste my time and clutter up this thread responding to them, if that's okay with you. But if you insist, say so and I'll stoop to your level for a bit.
11080. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 8:31:21 PM
Slack
I should probably clarify. Hosts should be gracious and civil in the threads they host. If they want to let loose elsewhere, fine by me.
Triumvirate members should be on good behavior at all times. That's why Irv was such a good choice and why all 3 current members don't measure up.
But that's just Lord Ferguson's opinion. (g)
11081. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 8:44:01 PM
For example, Maria would be the perfect Mote Moderator.
Unfortunately, she has way too much class, common sense, and self-respect to take the job. (g)
11082. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 8:48:32 PM
We need some April Fool's Day suggestions.
Are we going to implement Ace's goofball 7-thread Mote just for shits and giggles? Or would that be too much work or too disruptive?
I have a suggestion. Just for April Fool's day. All regular Moties have to tell each other what they really think of each other. Without regard for feelings or civility. What a riot that would be. (g)
11083. CalGal - 3/31/2001 8:57:09 PM
So I'm sitting around waiting for my other pc hard drive to reformat and then install windows on it, and I thought I'd check something out. What thread does Ferguson post to the most often?
| Politics | 19 |
| Religion | 23 |
| The Mote Cafe | 13 |
| Health Issues | 55 |
| Suggestions | 92 |
One might suppose that he has an overwhelming interest in Health issues, until it is realized that in fact he spent some 30 posts explaining that fat people are disgusting.
So Ferguson has spent most of the past three weeks posting in the Suggestions thread. Complaining, offering pompous evaluations of what ails us, and of course, offering to resolve all problems if only he were given more power and authority. The fact that he's been banned once is waved away airily with several lies, the fact that he has done his best to drive people away is nothing, nothing! compared to what the evil souls who run this place have accomplished in their efforts to destroy it.
I wonder if this is a form of pathology? Maybe runts like Ferguson (and Caz, and the many puerile little pests at TT) used to expose themselves to little old ladies before they found the administrative threads in online forums as a safer form of masturbatory relief.
11084. Cellar Door - 3/31/2001 9:24:56 PM
"Puerile Pests of TT" sounds like a good thread topic.
But not as good as "Little Old Ladies Who Expose Themselves."
11085. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:27:19 PM
Cal, your figures are incomplete. Please continue your research and come back when you've accumulated more Data.
A breakdown by moniker would also be nice.(g)
And my dear, the only one lying through her teeth is you. Please desist or substantiate. Thanks.
11086. CalGal - 3/31/2001 9:37:20 PM
I don't have to. I'm only talking about Ferguson, after all. Any other monikers you have are besides the point.
I have not lied about you at all. No need to. Your posts prove my point just fine.
I suppose that it's only right that forums take their share of impotent little psychopaths. After all, we're making the world safer for little old ladies.
Still, you might want to tell your shringk you need a stronger medication. This one isn't proving nearly strong enough now that you're out of the hospital.
11087. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:48:57 PM
Cal
My other monikers are most certainly relevant. Please substantiate your perplexing view on this point.
You lied about the nature my posts in health policy.
You omitted at least 5 other threads that I've posted to from your research project. Try Current Events, Movies, Finances, Parenting & Survivor, for starters.
You failed to mention that you have twice as many posts in this thread as I do since I returned.
You lied when you state that I attempted to drive people away. I don't wish to be cruel, but it's no secret that you have driven more people away from the Mote than perhaps, the rest of us have combined.
Your posts are full of lies and childish insults.
Please desist or substantiate.
Thanks, Cal. (g)
11088. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 10:00:13 PM
Point of clarification:
By 'other' monikers, I mean 'previous' monikers.
Jon Ferguson is my only current moniker.
11089. CalGal - 3/31/2001 10:05:10 PM
You do realize that your (g)s are a bit...odd? Kind of like those psycho wackos who keep smiling as they're telling you that the government has installed a recording device in their fillings.
I think I've posted well over twice what you've posted. So what? I could care less how much you post--it's where you post, and the disproportionate nature of your interest.
You've been back for three weeks and spent the vast majority of that time on one thread--the Suggestions thread. You have not posted anywhere approaching that number in any other thread. As I said, except when you got your rocks off with the "fat" discussion, you have not posted all that much at all in any thread.
It's not an uncommon predilection, as I said--among your sort.
As for the rest, there's no need to explain anything. I certainly wouldn't bother going round and round with a loony little fuck like you. I just thought people might find it amusing that since you've been back you've spent most of your wanking time here in Suggestions.
Buh-bye.
11090. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 10:09:56 PM
Cal, it may seem odd to you, but I'm genuinely concerned about you. I hope that whatever's bothering you straightens itself out.
I would like to point out that even your own figures (in spite of the numerous omissions I just pointed out) indicate that I haven't spent most of my time (as measured by number of posts) in this thread.
Have a great evening. (g)
11091. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 11:15:01 PM
Cal, please stop spamming the Health thread.
If you want to unload your anger, unload it on me. (g) Don't take it out on MsGreer.
11092. DanDillon - 4/1/2001 10:16:24 AM
May I ask what's with the gif banner at the top of each thread? Do these serve a purpose? Are they an April 1st gag?
11093. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 10:19:47 AM
Dan, disobey the button at the extreme bottom left of each page and you will get the idea...April 1st, indeed.
11094. RosettaStone - 4/1/2001 10:31:04 AM
They serve a purpose if my name is used in one of them.
If not, they're spam and violate our IRS status as a non-profit.
11095. DanDillon - 4/1/2001 11:01:38 AM
Judith,
What button?
11096. vw - 4/1/2001 11:07:02 AM
Scroll down below the posting window Dan, you'll see the Do Not Click button.
11097. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 11:07:17 AM
Dan:
Well, it may be that the red "do not click" button below and to the left of the posting window only appears on the screens of those who have ticked people off lately or those of us, who, like me, are having more than the ordinary number of spelling mistakes. But I have a very real red button admonishing me not to click on it but of course, I did so and got a laugh over what ensued.
11098. PsychProf - 4/1/2001 11:23:33 AM
The banners are very creative and funny...so who gets the kudos?
11099. RosettaStone - 4/1/2001 11:26:11 AM
IJ, I think.
11100. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 11:32:53 AM
I think the banners are a tedious distraction, myself. To do that sort of thing properly, you have to gently poke fun at each 'honored Motie.' For instance, the Dillhole one is quite good.
The rest (that I've seen so far) are nothing more than flatulent ego-stroking.
I hope they're just for today. All they serve to do is reinforce the inbred quality of this place.
11101. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 11:35:16 AM
It'll take a lot more than getting rid of the banners to attack the inbreeding in here!
11102. PsychProf - 4/1/2001 11:37:16 AM
Well...it looks as if someone is just having a little fun.
11103. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 11:40:44 AM
I think they are funny...
No one forces you to read them, Jon.
11104. vw - 4/1/2001 11:41:49 AM
It's just an April Fools day banner ad for giggles. Somebody spent a little bit of their free time creating them to amuse folks. Lighten up, it really doesn't warrant 40 posts worth of analysis.
11105. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 11:44:17 AM
Judith
Why don't you play an April Fool's trick on me and astound me with your intelligence and insight? (g)
Most of them are tedious the first time you read them. The rest will become so in a hurry. I assume they are just for today, though, until I hear otherwise. In that case, who cares?
11106. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 11:44:18 AM
vw:
You're new here; much that doesn't warrant 40 posts worth of analysis receives it, nonetheless!
11107. CalGal - 4/1/2001 11:46:38 AM
So back to other online forums--I checked out a bunch of them yesterday, and once you get past the Times, CNN, and Tabletalk, there aren't too many that get much traffic.
I think our forum gets more traffic than TNR's forum, for example, and fairly comparable with the LA Times--although I'll have to check mid-week.
There's a promotion for you: The Mote--more traffic than TNR.
11108. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 11:46:55 AM
Jon:
I don't know if they become tedious after the first reading because I only read them once...you, obviously, are giving them more time.
I'll astound you just as soon as you become modest. Long wait for both of us.
11109. CalGal - 4/1/2001 11:49:01 AM
Judith,
Did you meet the newspaper guy yesterday?
11110. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 11:52:32 AM
Yes, I did and he told me to send him something later in the week...meanwhile, he promised to check us out.
11111. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 11:55:10 AM
Hey now!
11112. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 11:57:28 AM
Great post# Jon...
11113. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 12:00:17 PM
Hey, I finally got the CalGal one.
They left out and attempt to mate with between discover and your, though. (g)
11114. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 12:02:31 PM
Oooo! Oooo! I love the JG one! (g)
11115. Jadegold1 - 4/1/2001 6:06:53 PM
JadeGold is not amused.
JadeGold does not use that kind of language. Nor does JadeGold lend her name for promotional purposes for free.
11116. RosettaStone - 4/1/2001 6:52:01 PM
The lardass banner ad for JadeGold means that its the work of JJBrainer.
11117. AceofSpades - 4/1/2001 11:13:19 PM
I like the banner. Still haven't seen mine, though.
While I think this is very cute, I wonder if this is one of things that everyone says makes this place clannish and offputting to newcomers.
11118. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 11:16:22 PM
Ace
Yours says something like 'Wanna pull someone's finger? ... Try Ace of Spades'
11119. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 12:04:59 AM
btw, thanks to whoever worked on the banners. They were a nice surprise.
11120. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 12:21:28 AM
Although I don't think they belong in the Mote proper, maybe you could make them a permanent fixture in the archive, where they wouldn't be so ... prominent?
Or maybe that's not possible.
Just an idea.
11121. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:28:04 AM
You've caused nothing but trouble since you've come back, shown no interest in doing anything other than be a shit and complain about how awful things are here.
Now you think some pallid little thank you about banners has some meaning? When you called them a "tedious distraction" less than 20 posts ago and have spent much of the last three weeks doing nothing but denigrate the people who administrate this place?
Show your thanks. Get the fuck out of here.
I've not been as open as JJ and Indy have in my feelings about you, but I wholeheartedly agree with them. I don't see why we have to tolerate you being back, in the name of "fairness". We owe you nothing, and I don't see that we need a reason to ban you other than this simple one: You're a pest whose only goal is to hurt the Mote.
This is a volunteer site. You make it unpleasant. We don't need your goddamn clicks.
Wabbit, Pelle, Christin, I hope you'll give serious thought to banning his ass.
11122. Cellar Door - 4/2/2001 12:29:58 AM
Just when I was beginning to warm up to him!
11123. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 12:45:12 AM
Well gee, Cal, I'm sorry you feel that way. (g)
And the reason I was so negative about the banners is that no announcement was made that they were temporary. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the person who worked to bring them here for this 'special' day doesn't deserve some kudos. Even if it is Stinky (guessing).
Anyway, let me try to reason with you, even if it's a waste of time.
11124. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 12:46:19 AM
You've caused nothing but trouble since you've come back, shown no interest in doing anything other than be a shit and complain about how awful things are here.
Untrue, untrue and untrue. Even a cursory examination of the record would put the lie to your statement, Cal, as you well know.
Now you think some pallid little thank you about banners has some meaning? When you called them a "tedious distraction" less than 20 posts ago and have spent much of the last three weeks doing nothing but denigrate the people who administrate this place?
I explained my position on the banners above. I doubt you could find 5 posts (certain you couldn't find 10) in which I denigrate the PTB since I've returned. Out of the hundreds of posts I've made. Please justify the phrase 'done nothing but.'
I've not been as open as JJ and Indy have in my feelings about you, but I wholeheartedly agree with them. I don't see why we have to tolerate you being back, in the name of "fairness". We owe you nothing, and I don't see that we need a reason to ban you other than this simple one: You're a pest whose only goal is to hurt the Mote.
Oh, you've been plenty 'open', Cal (lately, at least.) You don't owe me anything more than I owe you. I'm an ex-Fraygrant. This is supposed to be the place where ex-Fraygrants congregate after the Fray died. That's why I'm here. And that's the only justification I need to be here, Ms. And as I said before, if I wanted to hurt the Mote, I would leave. We've seen how you've done without me.
11125. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 12:46:31 AM
This is a volunteer site. You make it unpleasant. We don't need your goddamn clicks.
I get under your skin. You don't get under mine. That drives you apeshit. Unlucky for you. You make this place unpleasant for plenty of other people, though. Whether or not this site is a volunteer site is irrelevant. If the 'volunteers' feel hard done by, let them step down and there will be other 'volunteers' who would love to have a go.
Wabbit, Pelle, Christin, I hope you'll give serious thought to banning his ass.
And I hope you weigh the record and rebuke CalGal for her childish tirade that does nothing but hurts the Mote.
11126. CalGal - 4/2/2001 1:05:13 AM
There you go with your delusions again. It doesn't work that way. If the volunteers feel hard done by and feel that their life would be easier without some manic medicated little shit whose single best sexual fantasy is rereading his posts in Suggestions, then they can decide to ban him on the grounds that he's not worth the aggravation. Said little shit can then jack off to the notion that thousands will join him in an exodus.
You don't get under my skin at all. You're too pathetic to do so. My tone change with you is deliberate, because I've realized that you're taking up too much time and energy. You haven't crossed any particular line of tolerance I have. You've always had that tendency to overestimate your importance. I remember back when you were CatintheHat and said earnestly to me that you realized we were in a feud, but that you hoped I could overcome my dislike, and I was like "Dude, who the fuck are you again?"
Nothing much has changed since then, either. I do at least know who you are, now, but you're still overestimating the impact of your juvenile, preening posts.
I have no doubt you're going to post another 90 lengthy posts justifying your existence--which will only serve to prove, again, that your only interest is in Suggestions.
But I think my request requires no further justification. Your presence here is an insult; it wastes time and energy for no upside. You've proven consistently you only want to cause harm.
So I call again for your banning.
11127. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 1:14:29 AM
CalGal
Okay, I guess you spend your time counting everybody's posts in every thread. You're right, I'm nothing to you. You don't even know I exist. That's also why you remember some trivial conversation we had 2 or 3 years ago.
I've said my piece, Cal. You're basically just rehashing the same, tired, irrational, emotional arguments that I just finished refuting.
I hope that the PTB make it clear that you don't run this place. Your petty, childish, profanity-laced tirade shows your true colors. Your tyranny has gone on long enough. A 2-week suspension would do both you and this place a world of good.
Night. (g)
11128. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 1:15:58 AM
Rather ...
Night.
==):-)
11129. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2001 8:11:25 AM
I had nothing to do with the banners, despite JF's and RS's guesses. Great minds think alike, no?
The Mote moderators ought to make some kind of statement about why JF is posting here. As is, it appears precedent is now that a banned Motier can just (barely even) change monikers and resume unabashedly the MO that resulted in banishment in the first place. If JF were a newbie, I would not be inclined toward banning him--yet--but as a constant irritant with a track record, he ought to be on double top-secret probation, rather than turned loose to be his delightful self.
(grin)
(yuk, yuk)
==):-)
11130. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 9:18:33 AM
In case ya missed it some creative Motehead made banners and put them up yesterday...one of them celebrated our Diva. 
11131. wabbit - 4/2/2001 9:23:00 AM
Oh, for crying out loud people, it was APRIL FOOLS DAY, did I really need to make an announcement? I made the banners, so if you want to whine at someone, whine at me.
11132. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 9:24:43 AM
Wabbit...they made my day. Very spunky of you.
11133. Fielding - 4/2/2001 9:42:15 AM
I missed them. Any way you could post them to an archive?
11134. alistairconnor - 4/2/2001 9:55:42 AM
OK, here they are, the whole april-foolish cast, in alphabetical order : 
I'm glad they worked on the day. Having done the programming, I completely forgot to check.
11135. Fielding - 4/2/2001 10:15:32 AM
Very clever.
11136. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2001 10:59:36 AM
I wasn't whining about the banners.(g) I was whining about JF.(g)
I thought the banners were okay.
(g)
11137. CalGal - 4/2/2001 11:01:33 AM
Lord, now Indy's going postal with the (g)s. It's time. Ban the motherfucker before we all start (g)ing like maniacs.
11138. DanDillon - 4/2/2001 11:31:35 AM
I lyke to spel things rite. So wat? Its wat I doo. And I'm good at it. So be karful or Ill cach you making a mesteak!
11139. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 11:36:30 AM
alistair put up all of them except mine. I'm hurt, deeply hurt.
What about making (g)ing a bannable offense?
To give a straight answer to Indy's question: Ferguson slipped in during the change of watch at the gatekeeper position.
11140. Fielding - 4/2/2001 11:38:25 AM
What about XTC? Do you know his/her real identity?
11141. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 11:45:04 AM
No.
11142. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 11:48:17 AM
alistair put up all of them except mine. I'm hurt, deeply hurt
Show some Swedish pride, Pelle...at least you had one!
11143. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:01:43 PM
I don't know that he slipped in. I think there was a conscious decision to give him another chance.
But hell, another chance has been given and he has abused it by taking every opportunity to run this place down.
His illusions about himself are rather spooky, frankly, and I wonder if this place is his only outlet to express them. I don't think we are obliged to let him have his little soapbox, particularly since he indulges his fantasy by attacking the forum itself.
11144. seadate - 4/2/2001 12:05:00 PM
What does it take to earn one's own "soap box"?
11145. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 12:08:25 PM
I think you have to bring your own.
And I hate to be put in the position of defending Jon but he isn't the only one with illusions about himself...this place is crawling with egotists and egoists.
11146. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:08:51 PM
Go set up your own forum.
11147. glendajean - 4/2/2001 12:12:51 PM
Ferguson has a long history of attempting to destroy the Mote. Every time he comes in, he becomes destructive.
I think he should be banned from the Mote.
11148. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:14:05 PM
Judith,
You seemed to have missed the word "spooky".
You also seem incapable of distinguishing between "people who are mean" and "people who only wish to hurt the forum".
I suggest you work a bit harder on that one and see if you can figure out the difference.
11149. glendajean - 4/2/2001 12:16:30 PM
Another by-product of Ferguson. Lots of time spent talking about him.
11150. Fielding - 4/2/2001 12:17:33 PM
Cal:
I think her point is that you hurt the Mote by being mean. But you haven't listened to everyone else, so I don't expect you to hear it from me.
I do agree with you about Jon.
11151. seadate - 4/2/2001 12:18:24 PM
Judith ... well put.
CalGal,
Set up my own forum? ... you want me (and those cruel, self-centered, pompous personalities like myself) out? really?
Ah, I see, according to your model, I'll set up my own forum, invite the general public to post so that they can be subjected to senseless abuse and possible banning when they say something that I don't like.
I like it here. I make no secret that I appreciate the efforts of any and all who keep this forum working. Please consider *none* of my future posts are directed your way.
11152. marjoribanks - 4/2/2001 12:21:08 PM
I say ban Ferguson.
But I also say suspend CalGal for her truly unhealthy attitude, ubiquity, and constant claims of being somehow empowered.
11153. glendajean - 4/2/2001 12:21:28 PM
Seadate -- her comments were originally directed at Ferguson, not you.
This place is like a bar. Some people get along. Some hang out in certain corners and ignore the others.
But when an individual comes in and purposely tries to keep the place in an uproar, he or she gets kicked out.
11154. marjoribanks - 4/2/2001 12:25:39 PM
Do not ever accept the claims of "we" from Calgal when it comes to either the decision-making (and small) coterie of this site or the mass of the old-timers.
11155. Fielding - 4/2/2001 12:26:10 PM
Banks:
I don't think CalGal should be suspended. On balance, she makes the Mote a much better place. She puts a lot of time and effort (even money)into this community. She just needs to grow up.
My suggestion is that we all kick in some money to buy her a night with George Clooney.
11156. seadate - 4/2/2001 12:27:03 PM
-- her comments were originally directed at Ferguson, not you
Glenda,
I understand that (thanks for your response, btw). Efforts should be made to hold everyone to the same standard.
I respect that I don't know the history wrt Jon, but, lately, there are those who make this place much less appealing than he.
11157. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 12:27:56 PM
CalGal:
I don't need lessons in comprehension from you and would thank you to stop jumping into your TableTalk mode everytime someone makes a statement you consider counter to what you belive to be true.
I happen to know the difference between people who are mean and people who are trying to harm the forum. I was pointing out that Jons ego isn't the only one around here showing it's ass. You have been jumping people like crazy for the past month or so and judging from the dwindling participation of some of them, it's not exactly building the place up.
As I've been told before here at the Mote, we often criticize that in others which we fail to recognize in ourselves.
11158. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 12:28:44 PM
It is very clear that Ferguson does not contribute anything to this forum. His writing is mediocre, he has no wit, he knows little about the subjects discussed.
It is also clear that every time he has appeared in the Mote (I wasn't around for the CatintheHat episode) it has ended in aggravation and upleasantness of a kind we don't want here. The Mote thrives on controversy but despises destructiveness.
The question now is whether we consider a pre-emptive ban justified.
11159. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:29:39 PM
Sea,
I wasn't talking about you at all. I was responding rhetorically to your question--if Ferguson wants to have a forum where he can direct the policy he can start his own. Why not here? Because he was banned twice, suspended once, and spends most of his time in here complaining about the forum.
I quite like you and enjoy reading your posts.
11160. seadate - 4/2/2001 12:34:13 PM
tanks
11161. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:36:23 PM
Judith,
I really could care less whether you think my attitude drives people away. I have never yet said that someone should be banned because they are unpleasant, rude, or petty. Nor because they are a pissy, moany passive aggressive, for that matter.
In fact, I don't usually call for people to be banned. To the best of my recollection, Ferguson is the only person I have ever thought should be banned, and both times it was for the same reason: because his only interest is in harming the forum.
11162. marjoribanks - 4/2/2001 12:41:25 PM
"It is very clear that Ferguson does not contribute anything to this forum. His writing is mediocre, he has no wit, he knows little about the subjects discussed. "
Let's make it clear. I like this person perhaps more than anyone else here, and want him out immediately.
But astonishingly ridiculous statements do not help anyone's cause.
Kindly cease the pathetic value judgements. They have no real place here, they are deeply flawed by definition, and you are repelling the thoughtful.
11163. marjoribanks - 4/2/2001 12:43:10 PM
'do not like'
11164. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 12:43:32 PM
I have never yet said that someone should be banned because they are unpleasant, rude, or petty. Nor because they are a pissy, moany passive aggressive, for that matter.
And thank you so very much for yout tolerance. Lucky no one who obliquely insults the regulars can be banned for their cleverness, either.
11165. seadate - 4/2/2001 12:45:02 PM
Buy ya a cup of coffee, LS?
11166. marjoribanks - 4/2/2001 12:46:31 PM
Calgal should certainly be suspended.
I'm not saying banned, because even she should be offered rehab.
But it is time. Let's do the right thing.
11167. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 12:56:23 PM
What nonsense.
JF's posts are among the best this place has to offer.
OTOH, PN serves no useful purpose other than as PE's whipping boy.
11168. seadate - 4/2/2001 12:59:04 PM
Jade,
The english language is easily misunderstood if you read from right to left.
11169. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 1:00:07 PM
Now do you see what Ferguson is doing to us?
CalGal and Judith quarrel.
Marj calls for the suspension of CalGal and is provoked into an ad hominem attack on me.
I just get so tired.
11170. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 1:02:33 PM
Don't worry, this happens every few months. Everything will work out just fine.
11171. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:03:31 PM
Pelle,
I was calling for some level of consistency. Speaking for myself, I have little problem with Jon's behaviour compared with that of some others.
11172. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:04:20 PM
I wish we could figure out how to create a "solitary confinement" type situation here in the Mote. Then, we could "sentence" the offender, such as CatintheHat/God/JonFerguson to one thread and one thread only. Anyone wishing to "visit" him in his thread could do so, but the offender could not leave the thread.
11173. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:05:28 PM
Good idea, Marsha.
11174. CalGal - 4/2/2001 1:06:12 PM
I don't think Ferguson is doing all of that. Judith has been complaining about me for a while; Fielding eggs her on. Marj just happened to be around today and lord knows he's never liked me.
So keep a sense of perspective, o temporary drama queen.
I just think it is wrong to allow someone who has been banned so many times to keep coming back to shit all over the forum.
11175. wabbit - 4/2/2001 1:06:30 PM
When people stay on topic and are actually involved in a discussion, just about everyone has something to contribute, even Ferguson. It is well known that I have defended him on several occasions and enjoy his presence, when he isn't in whining mode. However, post after post of "This place sucks, it isn't run right", etc. serve no purpose other than to try to run the place into the ground. I wouldn't invite someone into my home who behaved this way. So, perhaps the RoE need some revision, and this discussion can move into the Policy thread.
And can we all take a chill pill, please?
11176. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 1:07:13 PM
seadate
I too have no big problems with the present. It is the past that is troubling.
11177. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:07:55 PM
what wabbit said
11178. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:08:34 PM
xpost.
Point taken, Pelle.
11179. CalGal - 4/2/2001 1:09:47 PM
Speaking for myself, I have little problem with Jon's behaviour compared with that of some others.
Do you know of anyone else who consistently attacks the forum and denigrates the people who administer it? Has little interest in anything other than harming it?
Fact is, seadate, that banning people just because others find them unpleasant is unworkable. So this little comparison that you and Judith and a few others are doing is irrelevant.
11180. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:11:07 PM
CG
I sincerely hope that "temporary drama queen" comment was directed to Judith, and not to me. There is nothing temporary about my dramatic indulgences!
How 'bout my solitary confinement idea? Is it technically possible? In other words, the "offender", or should I say, the "convict" would only have one thread on his page when he came into the Mote.
11181. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 1:13:14 PM
Marshame, I think each host can ban a poster individually, but then the poster could change their moniker and usurp the ban.
11182. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 1:14:01 PM
For Pelle... 
11183. CalGal - 4/2/2001 1:14:48 PM
Marsha,
Neither. It was directed at Pelle, and I was joking! He was just so angst-ridden.
No, hosts can't ban people individually, so far as I know.
11184. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 1:16:34 PM
Masha, I'm sure your permanent status is admired and not threatened at all.
11185. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 1:17:39 PM
Can we not remove a poster from discussion?
11186. Wombat - 4/2/2001 1:20:10 PM
If we throw people out for being obnoxious assholes, the Mote would cease to exist.
Psych:
I too feel hurt and rejected...sniff.
11187. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 1:20:49 PM
Thanks PP! I feel much better now. Practically no angst at all.
11188. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2001 1:22:20 PM
Rick
The ability for hosts to ban a certain poster was discussed during the start-up phase but never implemented.
11189. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 1:22:27 PM
Wombat...I'll make a gif for you. Be right back...
11190. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 1:25:28 PM
OK, thanks Pelle.
11191. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 1:25:49 PM
11192. wabbit - 4/2/2001 1:27:37 PM
Wombat,
We have plenty of obnoxious assholes and they are largely well-tolerated. The question is whether we want to tolerate those who pointlessly piss on something that was and is the work of a lot of people. Constructive criticism of the forum is one thing, but when the criticism is personal and offers no suggestion for improvement, how useful is it for anything other than driving people away?
11193. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:28:09 PM
Can't a person be banned by his/her e-mail address? Since the Mote doesn't accept web-based e-mail addresses, such as hotmail, it would be pretty hard for the banned (or sentenced-to-solitary) poster to create a new ID if the e-mail address were the "fingerprint".
And then, like I said, we would create these alternate universes for the convicted posters, so that when they logged on, they could only access their own thread (which they would, of course, have to host.) So if they behaved themselves in their own thread, and sufficient "visiting" posters who had ventured in to pay them a call and attempt a conversation were pursuaded that they had been rehabilitated, then they could go on parole and get to go to maybe two or three threads, and then following their parole, they could get full access with probation.
I volunteer to be the warden. So as soon as you figure out how to do it technically, let me know, and I'll take over.
BTW, I never thought of Pelle as a queen.
11194. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:30:36 PM
Based on today's goings-on, I propose that Prof host a group therapy thread. This thread can only be posted to by those listed in the therapy group. Members of "group" will be in "solitary confinement" (explained by marsha earlier) for a period of 72 hours. Group therapy patients can be either 1)"voted" in (let's say, if petitioned by 8 Moties - then wabbit sends in her band of guys in white suits) or 2) self-admitted.
11195. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:30:45 PM
OH yeah, now I remember the 80's song...
"Scandanavian queen!"
11196. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 1:31:07 PM
I say we call the convict thread "Ellis Unit" or "Death Row".
11197. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:32:20 PM
Oh yeah!
And if they escape, you know what we do to them! (At least, what we do to them in Texas...)
11198. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:33:06 PM
Jen should be admitted as a patient to Prof's new thread 'cause she's a relentless tease.
11199. RickNelson - 4/2/2001 1:33:19 PM
Jen,
How about "Piss and Moan"?
11200. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:33:55 PM
Seadate
I think you may have something there! Kind of a cross between Survivor, BootCamp, and Big Brother, only it's all on the Mote! this is definitely going to get our ratings up!!
11201. JJBiener - 4/2/2001 1:36:40 PM
Welcome to cybereality television.
11202. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:38:02 PM
Yeah, and patients should be wired to their key pad so that Prof can administer shock therapy at his discretion.
11203. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 1:39:10 PM
Hey! Seems I missed a mini-meltdown!
And all over a non-entity. Pshaw, we should just ignore this guy, he's simply not worth the time or effort. On the other hand, he's engaged in some pretty squirrelly stuff in the past, for one stalking Jenerator as I recall, and it could behoove us to just eliminate him.
Whatever is decided, I really don't think any more energy ought to be wasted on him. The guy is very thick, a classic dense personality, but I think he really gets off on the attention. So I think we should strive to deny him the pleasure.
Wabbit!
I'm so sad to have missed the banners! But I see Alistair reposted, and just for me!
11204. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 1:39:25 PM
Seadate,
YOU are the tease. Something about foot worship that has yet to come to fruition.
Rick,
I like it, but it doesn't sound as harsh as "death row" does.
11205. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:40:35 PM
But Seadate, I think everyone else should get to post too, that way we can try to incite the ones we want everyone to vote to BAN, and we can feed leading questions to those we want voted to "I Survived Solitary Mote Bootcamp!"
11206. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:41:26 PM
Of course, we would have to make clarifying comments with every post, such as:
"Hello, my name is marshame, and I am NOT an inmate, I'm only visiting."
11207. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 1:42:23 PM
I think we should call it "Crucifixion Corner."
Or "Golgotha Gulch."
11208. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 1:42:28 PM
Btw, I agree Calgal has been on a rampage lately, but she's nailed this guy pretty well, I think. Let's not confuse issues, though, and allow the effort to do something positive about this guy get overshadowed and diverted.
My take is he loves creating negative energy, and the more confusing and chaotic he can make people the more he enjoys it. Is there anyone but me who wonders if this is really a 12 year old posting?
11209. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:43:19 PM
No, Jen, I'm a flirt. You take it to the extreme of teaserdom.
...we can try to incite the ones we want everyone to vote to BAN, and we can feed leading questions to those ...
Marsha, you're on a roll .... I like it.
11210. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 1:47:54 PM
Speaking of trying to cause problems! That seadate fellar is accusing me of something baaaaad.
Jade,
Now you're talkin'. How about "Judas Justice"?
11211. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:49:08 PM
Only while he's likkin' yer feet.
11212. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 1:52:02 PM
Hey gang. A lot of action since I scooped the 11111 post. Unfortunately, my 'back 10 messages' button is broken. What're we discussing? (g)
But seriously, any fair-minded person can plainly see that I've made enormous contributions to this forum in any number of threads in the last 3 weeks. I have also, occasionally and infrequently, stepped on a few toes by making suggestions about how I think this forum could be improved.
I strive to maintain a civil tone and I'd venture to say that I am successful far more often than most of my detractors. I also strive to be calm, honest and reasoned when I make accusations, rather than to exaggerate and distort the truth.
I'd appreciate it if wabbit, Cal, and Pelle would refrain from these 'over-the-top' pronouncements that bear no resemblance to reality and seem to be purely motivated by malice, resentment and anger.
I apologize to those I have made to look foolish. That seems to be most of those who are now calling for my head. I will endeavor to lose a few more arguments in the future. Now let's change the subject, shall we?
11213. Wombat - 4/2/2001 1:53:27 PM
Ignore him...create a macro that automatically moves his posts from his e-mail address to the Inferno...all the same to me.
Thanks, Psych!
11214. JJBiener - 4/2/2001 1:54:15 PM
With all the discussion and bickering in this thread, Jon must be nearly orgasmic by now. I think it is time to end the discussion and pass sentence. It is time for Jon to go. If anyone wants to follow Jon's lead, they follow him out the door.
11215. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:55:05 PM
I think we should call it "Crucifixion Corner."
Or "Golgotha Gulch."
Yes, JadeGold1, I like the Seasonal Touch. It could change regularly, such as Passover Pissers, Ramadan Ruminations, Yom Kippur Krap, etc. etc.
St. Valentine's Day Massacre
Un-Independence Day
Chain Gang Labor Day
Mother F****** Day
Oh the possibilities are endless!
11216. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 1:55:10 PM
How 'bout "Baptist Bighouse?"
"Pentecostal Penitentiary?"
11217. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 1:55:50 PM
I'm in here to deal with that outcast seadate. Sir, I challenge you to an arm-wrestle!
11218. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 1:56:03 PM
How about OZ?
11219. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 1:57:57 PM
Hotel Cazart.
11220. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 1:58:07 PM
Wombat
Cool idea. If Alistair developed something like that (or Wabbit, or Calgal), we could simply apply it to all really obnoxious posters without ever having to ban another one again.
As long as we live, we'll never ban anyone again!
11221. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 1:59:18 PM
Doesn't work, Judith.
It has to have that certain Xtian flair for tolerance.
11222. seadate - 4/2/2001 1:59:25 PM
Sir, I challenge you to an arm-wrestle!
Your arm or mine?
11223. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:59:30 PM
Hey guys, this current discussion is not about The Problem, but rather, how to deal with a problem. There may or may not be a current problem, so let's figure out how to deal with a problem if/when one arises.
11224. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 2:00:29 PM
For the record, Jon and I have called a truce. So, if you're upset with him for something since that time, it's a separate issue.
11225. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 2:02:03 PM
Irwin Corey lives.
11226. seadate - 4/2/2001 2:02:37 PM
"Prof's Playpen"
11227. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 2:05:08 PM
It has to have that certain Xtian flair for tolerance.
OZ has two religious units; three if you count the Aryans.
11228. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 2:05:12 PM
Wabbit posted an invitation to the Policies subthread earlier to revisit the Rules of Engagement. Your input would be quite welcomed there.
11229. wabbit - 4/2/2001 2:07:02 PM
Jon,
"Enormous contributions" is a bit of an overstatement. I've seen a lot of whining from you about how you don't like the way things are done here, but I've missed the suggestions, other than the usual "Get rid of the PTB, they have no class" etc. etc. Who really seems "to be purely motivated by malice, resentment and anger"?
Nobody disputes whether you are capable of contributing to the forum, the problem is that you seem incapable of refraining from trying to bully people who disagree with you. If you can win every argument, fine, who cares? But you are the one who needs to stay on topic and refrain from "over-the-top" pronouncements.
11230. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 2:08:38 PM
Thanks for clarifying that, Jen. I was hoping that Mom would be able to move on as well, but I see that's not the case. Maybe this will help.
Marsha, I apologize for any embarrassment or suffering I have caused you by statements I made approximately a year and a half ago. I acted like a cad by revealing information I had no business revealing. I am truly sorry. I hope you can forgive me.
11231. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 2:10:11 PM
Wabbit
I dispute the fact that this dude is capable of mentally staying the course of a detailed argument. I've not seen it yet, in any of his many reincarnations.
But, as I said, I'm fully able to ignore the gnat.
11232. marshame - 4/2/2001 2:14:02 PM
Judith
"OZ has two religious units; three if you count the Aryans.:
Okay, let's see:
1. Munchkins
2. Emerald City-ites
3. Flying Monkeys
Which ones are the Aryans?? And I didn't know Oz's groups were religious, I thought they were geographic, or in the case of the monkeys, species related.
Jon - I forgive you, no hard feelings. Just "go and sin no more."
11233. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 2:14:21 PM
JF:
You have my full support in this matter. The untalented and unprepared are always threatened on the field of debate.
11234. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 2:15:36 PM
Wabbit
This is the post of yours that seems to be so motivated:
When people stay on topic and are actually involved in a discussion, just about everyone has something to contribute, even Ferguson. It is well known that I have defended him on several occasions and enjoy his presence, when he isn't in whining mode. However, post after post of "This place sucks, it isn't run right", etc. serve no purpose other than to try to run the place into the ground. I wouldn't invite someone into my home who behaved this way.
This post is not an accurate reflection of reality.
But, I honestly would like to change the subject. If you insist that I dissect your post, though, say so.
11235. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 2:17:39 PM
JG
Thanks. (g)
You have my deepest respect. Your support means a lot.
11236. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 2:18:40 PM
Jade
You're on the down side of this one.....
Btw, I was really tickled to see you back in this forum. I've been around only sporatically the last year or so, and I must have missed when the event occurred. In any case, I hope another little pipsqueak doesn't plot to undermine your presence again.
11237. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 2:19:01 PM
Why limit the name of the thread to Christian tolerance? Heck, let's use anything Asian!
We can call it
"Bataan Death Thread", "Die or Diem" or "Vietcong Again".
11238. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 2:19:47 PM
11239. marshame - 4/2/2001 2:20:54 PM
In the interest of tolerance and inclusion, I think we should deride every religion and culture.
11240. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 2:21:08 PM
marsha:
I'm referring to OZ the prison series, not Alice and the Wizard of.....
11241. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 2:23:03 PM
psst! Alice went to Wonderland. Dorothy went to Oz.
11242. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 2:24:32 PM
Well, what do I know? My retention skills are suffering....Adebisi went to OZ!!
11243. wabbit - 4/2/2001 2:25:23 PM
Jon,
I really don't care if you dissect my post or not. You can choose to read whatever you want into anything you want, then complain about how misunderstood you are. I'll say it one more time: when you are participating in a discussion, nobody has any problems with you being here. It's the pointless complaining that so many people are tired of. You don't make suggestions, you complain. If it's so terrible here, start your own forum and run it any way you want. If you have an actual suggestion, make it.
I will say this. I'm tired of defending you. If you continue to denigrate the place, you will be gone.
11244. seadate - 4/2/2001 2:28:36 PM
And Judith may be in lala land. Remember she's medicating for her knee.
11245. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 2:29:34 PM
Thank you, MsIT. It's good to "see" you as well.
Very nice double-entendre.
But I am always correct. It's a gift.
JF is an asset.
11246. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 2:30:09 PM
As in Boilermaker.
11247. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 2:32:26 PM
Hahaha, Jade!
I'm ever the admirer, but I'm afraid you're not correct this time....
Take heart, it's only once in a blue moon that it happens.
11248. Wombat - 4/2/2001 2:32:40 PM
A Horse's Asset
11249. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 2:37:56 PM
Always means always.
Without exception or quibble.
I'd say JF is perhaps more talented than anyone here, save for PE.
11250. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 2:41:30 PM
Jade!
Nonononono. Much as I hate to disagree with you, your comparison does violence to the justifiable admiration do to PE's intellect.
I shudder at the comparison and take strong exception to it.
But this is the end of my time on this topic, any more and I'll be seriously wasting my time...as opposed to only slightly wasting my time....
11251. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 2:42:02 PM
Wabbit
Please stop with the distortions and exaggerations, already. If you want to have a rational discussion, I'd be glad to. If you want to just engage in an emotional rant, we have a thread for that.
I will continue to make suggestions in the future. I will continue to question inconsistent, unwise and/or arbitrary decisions made by thread hosts or the PTB in the future. And I will continue to defend myself when people make distorted and misleading statements about me in the future. I will also continue to spend the vast majority of my time here engaged in interesting, thoughtful and even occasionally playful discussions with a variety of individuals about a variety of topics in a variety of threads.
I will not, nor have I since I came back 3 weeks ago, engaged in 'post after post' of repetitive tripe. That is the style of many here, but it is not mine.
I will not, nor have I since I came back 3 weeks ago, whined or complained about how misunderstood I am. I speak clearly and eloquently, honestly and forthrightly. I was asking you politely to attempt to do the same.
I will not, nor have I since I came back 3 weeks ago, stated that 'it's so terrible here.'
I do not need or want you to 'defend' me. If you wish to ban me without cause for the third time, that is your privilege. And that will only serve to prove my point about you.
Now, let's drop this please.
11252. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 2:42:04 PM
due to...
11253. CalGal - 4/2/2001 2:43:33 PM
On a different topic--am I the only person who can't stand the constant spamming in the Politics thread?
Is there any way to do away with it that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater?
11254. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 2:48:36 PM
remove the extra 'd' from engaged, whined and stated in 11251
11255. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 2:54:54 PM
Wabbit,
Looking back over the last flurry in the Policy thread I notice that it was also about Jon Ferguson. I think we've spent more than enough time on him. He's had plenty of chances to get a grip on himself and yet he continues to revert to the same old disruptive, abusive behavior. I suspect this is because he is at heart a disruptive, abusive person. The third time has regretably not proved to be a charm for him.
I say return him to his own "reality" since he apparently has severe issues with ours. He can hardly complain about being ejected from a forum he so disparages.
11256. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 2:57:26 PM
Could the multiple posting as Ms. No please identify him/herself?
11257. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 2:57:49 PM
I am not in favor of banning Jon.
11258. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 2:59:01 PM
Ms No In ChristiNO
11259. CalGal - 4/2/2001 3:01:05 PM
Yeah, well, PP, you're never in favor of banning anyone. But if you were the one getting all the direct abuse for your volunteer work, I suspect you'd quit or get a lot less tolerant.
11260. Jadegold1 - 4/2/2001 3:03:56 PM
Just out of curiosity, what was (is) JF's great sin?
Criticism of policy or the look-and-feel of this place ought not be grounds for dismissal.
11261. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 3:07:47 PM
Not true... 
11262. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:07:58 PM
Jon,
I suppose it pleases you to think that I am being emotional in my posts to you. It's your ego affecting your reading comprehension. I've made no distortions and I'm not exaggerating anything. I would have no problems with suggestions, but you don't make any, you merely piss and moan.
"I will continue to question inconsistent, unwise and/or arbitrary decisions made by thread hosts or the PTB in the future. And I will continue to defend myself when people make distorted and misleading statements about me in the future. I will also continue to spend the vast majority of my time here engaged in interesting, thoughtful and even occasionally playful discussions with a variety of individuals about a variety of topics in a variety of threads."
And as I keep saying, nobody has any problems with that.
cont.
11263. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:08:44 PM
"If by 'causing trouble' you mean that I'm interested in seeing the people in charge held accountable for the decline of the Mote, then yes, I'm here to cause trouble. The definition of insanity is doing something the same way over and over and expecting a different result.
This centralized power structure has been tried for a year and a half. It has failed. Let's empower the little guy and see what happens."
"If you want to see what happens when you put stupid people in charge, look at the Mote."
You conveniently forget that this forum will rise or fall according to the quality of the posts, not whether you approve of my stewardship or whether you get booted out again. If everyone would "spend the vast majority of my time here engaged in interesting, thoughtful and even occasionally playful discussions with a variety of individuals about a variety of topics in a variety of threads", I daresay we wouldn't need to have RoE at all. But by your own definition of insanity, you should be gone again.
If you have any suggestions about how to implement your "empower the little guy" idea, please enlighten us in the Policy thread.
11264. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 3:15:18 PM
11265. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 3:16:22 PM
FWIW et al
I don't see a general decline of the Mote. We were a small (hearty) band to begin with, and to be quite honest, I'm actually somewhat surprised we've thrived as well as we have, given our obscure beginnings.
And what's this I read about Slate's Fray thriving? I'm hurt they didn't want us after all we did for them...sniff.
11266. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 3:19:41 PM
I should clarify about the decline...
I don't think we've grown much, which is a different issue than a decline.
11267. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:23:11 PM
PP, sure, why not? Hey, how about taking a turn at being moderator? Feel the power beneath your index finger!
11268. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:24:17 PM
Uh Oh
11269. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 3:26:03 PM
MsIt,
I'm just irritated that they have the gall to continue using the term "Fraygrants".
11270. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 3:27:05 PM
Ms.No
That does rub the wrong way, doesn't it?!
11271. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 3:28:32 PM
The fuckers.
11272. PsychProf - 4/2/2001 3:35:05 PM
We have a lot of lawyers here...let's sue the bastards. BTW....thanks to Floyd for that name.
11273. RosettaStone - 4/2/2001 3:45:37 PM
Enough already
...about Jon the cad.
Pay attention to me!
11274. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 3:50:29 PM
wabbit
re 11263
If those 3 posts are the worst examples of my 'post after post' of 'personal attacks,' 'shitting on the floor' and 'being disruptive' that you can find, I'm ready to listen to your apology. Your 'evidence' is laughable. Surely, even you must see that.
I am unpopular because, like Rosie, I speak the truth, challenge the status quo and champion the downtrodden here.
However, unlike Rosie, I am articulate, massively intelligent, persuasive, and succinct.
In Survivor terminology, that makes me a 'threat'.
11275. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 3:51:23 PM
Speak of the Devil. (g)
11276. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 3:57:01 PM
Holy shit,
Is this guy delusional or what????
I can't help it, the reality split is so damn amazing it merits a passing comment.
11277. JudithAtHome - 4/2/2001 3:58:38 PM
Textbook...
11278. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:58:39 PM
Jon, you still haven't grasped the point. Nevermind, I'm finished pissing into the wind.
11279. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:59:28 PM
Rosie, sometimes your timing is just exquisite!
11280. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 4:00:09 PM
MSIT
wabbit is a she.
But thanks for your support. (g)
11281. MsIvoryTower - 4/2/2001 4:01:15 PM
Like I said
Delusional.....
Wabbit,
Wise decision.
11282. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 4:49:13 PM
wabbit
I haven't 'grasped the point' because you have yet to make one. The only 'evidence' that you've produced to support your 'point' has served only to strengthen my argument. You have threatened me with banning. You have produced 3 innocuous posts to support the validity of your threat. Your position is ludicrous.
I apologize if my assumption that your irrational and misleading arguments are the result of excessive emotion rather than an intellectual deficiency on your part is incorrect.
Your repeated assertion that I do not make constructive suggestions is patently untrue. I would be happy to produce at least a half a dozen suggestions I have made here in the past 3 weeks, but I don't wish to be repetitive.
I wish you would stop 'pissing into the wind'. It's getting all over me.
11283. seadate - 4/2/2001 4:52:11 PM
Does that mean wabbit can piss into the wind and it just has a way of finding who she's wills.
11284. seadate - 4/2/2001 4:52:32 PM
.=?
11285. RosettaStone - 4/2/2001 6:09:22 PM
Jon the cad:
Understand the power here. You've annoyed CalCal. Her crew is now on your case.
11286. JJBiener - 4/2/2001 6:09:36 PM
Jon - I am unpopular because, like Rosie, I speak the truth, challenge the status quo and champion the downtrodden here.
Your delusions are getting scary. If you truly believe this, I suggest you seek professional help. You don't speak the truth, you don't challenge the status quo and you don't champion anyone but yourself and your own interests.
The discussion on obesity is a prime example. You entered the discussion by insulting those with whom you disagree. When scientific evidence was posted disputing your position you became even more abusive. That discussion is representative of your interactions here. This is a quite different from the image you claim to project.
11287. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 6:11:03 PM
Cal - Define what you mean by spamming in the Political thread, if you would. I am sick of people posting exerpts and links with no line of thinking of their own, if that is what you mean.
If I were King, which I do not wish to be, I would delete any post that was all someone else's thinking with an insult thrown in by way of personal commentary.
11288. JJBiener - 4/2/2001 6:12:03 PM
Rosie - Understand the power here. You've annoyed CalCal. Her crew is now on your case.
Sometimes I think you are as irrational as Jon.
11289. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 6:13:10 PM
Sometimes!?!
11290. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 6:14:34 PM
Or maybe you meant that his rationality sometimes rises to Jon's level?
11291. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 6:15:36 PM
PTB - Would you move my last post to the Inferno. Thanks.
11292. CalGal - 4/2/2001 6:16:12 PM
Define what you mean by spamming in the Political thread, if you would. I am sick of people posting exerpts and links with no line of thinking of their own, if that is what you mean.
That is exactly what I mean. An occasional link is no problem, but it's well beyond that.
11293. Stumbo - 4/2/2001 6:29:08 PM
Yes, it's way beyond that. See, for instance, the last 20 posts in Politics -- note the warning, and Jex's promise to ignore it.
Ms. No, Wabbit, Pelle:
Are you going to do anything about this?
11294. RosettaStone - 4/2/2001 6:32:34 PM
I see this as another example of a CalCal provoked crisis, JJ.
Here we have an attractive woman, with teenage child who spends her Saturday nights reading/counting the number of posts that JontheCad wrote--and then published the number per thread.
NOT NORMAL!!
This is after she gave him $200 for winning the Oscar Award contest.
I think this talk of banning is absurd. And it comes because CalCal was banned from TableTalk.
Ignore JontheCad. Move his posts to Inferno. Delete them. But stop talking about banning because CalCal is pissed off.
11295. Cellar Door - 4/2/2001 6:41:33 PM
She still hasn't gotten over being tossed out of TT.
Don;t you realize CalGal is She Who Must Be Obeyed?
11296. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 6:43:55 PM
Stumbo,
I hadn't read his response. I'll go and look. Thanks for the heads up.
11297. AceofSpades - 4/2/2001 7:35:16 PM
Hi.
I'm sorry I've been an absentee host for the past week and a half, but something has come up and I am currently overwhelmed.
I'd sort of like to keep my idiotic thread going, at least for a little while, so I'm wondering if someone might be interested in either taking the thread over temporarily or cohost permanently.
My only criterion for applicants is that you not be a fucking retard.
Thank you.
11298. AceofSpades - 4/2/2001 7:36:15 PM
Not Jon -- because he sort of wants to make it a porno thread -- and please not what's his face, Rosie, because he fails to meet my baseline criterion (see above).
11299. AceofSpades - 4/2/2001 7:36:48 PM
VonKreedon is a good choice. VK, want to really talk about GURPS for a while? Have at it.
11300. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 7:53:33 PM
Ace
If nobody else steps up, I'll host or co-host. But this stupid name-change bullshit (one of the reasons they used to justify my suspension, incidentally) has got to stop. It's the Man Thread. Kapiche?
And I won't post or link to any porn. Although I won't delete porn links if they contain a warning, given the precedent.
11301. RosettaStone - 4/2/2001 7:54:27 PM
Let's get this straight.
The moderator of a vanity thread named AssAce/The Poopstain Thread is mysteriously "overwhelmed"--and can't fulfill his mote responsibility, but still wants the vanity to stand.
This at the time when an innovative Q&A thread hosted by a doctor was erased because the host took 48 hours off.
Stranger and stranger we get.
11302. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 8:03:50 PM
Rosie
11294 is hilarious and captures the essence of this witch-hunt perfectly.
As far as the Oscar contest goes, it wasn't $200, as I indicated earlier (in one of my more playful moods), but it was still a very generous gesture on Cal's part.
11301 is exactly right as well.
11303. pogie - 4/2/2001 8:13:13 PM
Dunno if this is more of a technical thing or not, but does anyone know of fora using cafe utne's motet interface? It's got some handy stuff in it (despite the glorpy posting atmosphere.) The conversations thing is pretty useful, although i wonder if it can't be automated slightly to look for keywords for something like 'past conversations' (5 or so vintage ones, like if TT were to do something like 'thoughts from the attic' i suppose.), the automated searching to aid hosts in taking some interesting stuff out of the older portions of the discussions.
11304. JJBiener - 4/2/2001 9:37:44 PM
Rosie - I see this as another example of a CalCal provoked crisis, JJ.
Then you need glasses. This has nothing to do with CalGal.
Here we have an attractive woman, with teenage child who spends her Saturday nights reading/counting the number of posts that JontheCad wrote--and then published the number per thread.
NOT NORMAL!!
I don't think your glass house is the best place to be throwing stones.
I think this talk of banning is absurd. And it comes because CalCal was banned from TableTalk.
It is not absurd and there is a good chance it will happen. It comes from the fact that Jon has already been banned twice and his current actions make him a candidate for banning once again. CalGal's experience at TT has no influence on any decision about Jon.
But stop talking about banning because CalCal is pissed off.
If Cal was the only one pissed at Jon, there would be no discussion of banning. There are a great many people who are pissed at Jon and there is the belief that he wishes only to harm the Mote. That is why his banning for the third time is being discussed.
If you want to continue with your delusions, I can't stop you. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making similar posts now that the facts have been laid out for you.
Thank you.
11305. Cellar Door - 4/2/2001 10:00:51 PM
Oh kep Jon in. He's more entertaining than Ace with his non-stop Hooters show.
11306. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 10:12:19 PM
Could somebody direct me to what has prompted the latest banning discussion?
11307. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 10:40:18 PM
arky
JJ just summed it up nicely:
there is the belief that he wishes only to harm the Mote.
An unconfirmed, unsubstantiated belief that I wish to 'harm the Mote' has led us to where we are now. And rather than dismiss the charge as ridiculous, Christin and Pelle have lended their support and wabbit has threatened to ban me again, unless I make sure that 100% of my posts are substantive, and none of them critical of the status quo.
Then they express outrage that I question the way things are run around here. (g)
I think I'm lost in Wonderland.
11308. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/2/2001 10:48:13 PM
The good doctor is prepared to host the upstart and disgraceful disgrace that was hoisted upon this fair Mote by the reductionist forces of the strutting jackbooted martinet Nilson as a slap in the face of my worthy person upon one condition. That my name appear first as host.
Jay Leno indeed. More like Arsenio Hall.
Should my domicile be restored I am prepared to let bygones be bygones vis a vis the Nilson henchmen and cronys.
Nilson himself is another matter. Insomuchas I have declared a gracious peace between the two of us, mark my words, friends, that until the running dog lackey of authoritarianism subdues his power mad cravings he will run the risk of learning the lessons of Milosovic.
11309. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 11:17:49 PM
You've just got to be Uzzie.
I read back, because much as I trust Jon's every word (triple-G's until my cheeks hurt) I just had to read the whole thing to see for myself (ok, so I'm a glutton for punishment). The conclusion I've come to is that Wabbit does a great job. It's wonderful she has two stable people to help her, but she rules, afaic.
And Wabbit, the banners were really great. I wish you'd make us some permanent ones, maybe update them regularly--but I know that's a lot of work.
11310. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/2/2001 11:19:07 PM
My keen eye also discerns that Politics continues to stand bereft of a host whilst the dutious Rubberducky bears its burdens upon his unappreciated shoulders. Are this Mote's masters so unmindful of his request that my aged yet still brawny shoulders take a turn at the oar?
Provided the good doctor will be assisted by Ass Spade's on that abominable thread, I am reluctantly willing to endeavor the herculean effort of both Politics and the revived "Ask Dr. Coltrane."
I shall certainly rename the latter from "Shitstain."
11311. wonkers2 - 4/2/2001 11:20:59 PM
Cap'n Dirty sez "Yeah them banners's great. I'll take a couple fer the Tomater Sloop."
11312. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 11:26:45 PM
Uzzie or Rose. I'm torn.
Hey, Cap'n!
11313. wonkers2 - 4/2/2001 11:32:14 PM
Cap'n Dirty sez "Ahoy, Arky, launch date is May 1. Moonlight cruises start after school lets out. Half price fer school marms."
11314. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 11:42:35 PM
Well book me a spot then.
11315. wonkers2 - 4/3/2001 12:05:52 AM
Cap'n Dirty sez "You're on sweetie!"
11316. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 12:43:43 AM
Look Wabbit
This situation with regard to posts being deleted or moved willy nilly has got to be re-evaluated. I don't know how the current standard was chosen, but this idea that each host decide their own is giving me a damn headache.
If a host is going to move or delete posts that are the least bit edgy, then there ought to be a standard that all can agree on.
Jaysus, this egomania among some thread hosts is getting out of hand.
I am generally opposed to moving or deleting posts unless they cross some agreed upon line of offensiveness. But what's most annoying is the wild variation in who moves what and why. I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't got the time to pander to each hosts little particulars regarding what they will or won't allow to stand.
Can we please develop some uniform guidelines and standards that everyone can agree crosses the lines of good taste or behavior?
11317. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 1:07:16 AM
MsIT:
Will you join me in advocating banishment of posters whose contributions consist entirely of -- in vK's above formulation -- "all someone else's thinking with [if we're lucky!] an insult thrown in by way of personal commentary"?
11318. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 1:22:11 AM
I would've preferred not to engage in any either-Jex-goes-or-I-do grandstanding -- but, effectively, that's what it boils down to.
The Politics thread was, in many ways, the flagship thread of the Fray; and the same is still true, here.
So I doubt I'm alone in not feeling like participating here as much, since the thread I've historically been the most interested in has been rendered unreadable by one or two persistent spammers.
11319. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 2:06:12 AM
Rosetta
This at the time when an innovative Q&A thread hosted by a doctor was erased because the host took 48 hours off.
This was a lie the first time you said it and it still is.
Post by Coltrane:
381. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/5/01 7:32:18 PM
Next post by Coltrane:
439. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/13/01 5:37:53 PM
You are invited to apply your arithmetical powers to calculate the time interval between those two posts and check the appropriate alternative below:
1. Less than 48 hours
2. About 48 hours
3. More than 48 hours.
11320. jexster - 4/3/2001 2:10:07 AM
13755. Stumbo - 4/3/01 6:32:01 AM
Jex:
I've, um, sorta kinda mentioned you in the Suggestions thread. Feel free to respond, therein.
Bwaahahhahaahahahhaha!
11321. jexster - 4/3/2001 2:13:47 AM
I've lived my life so I can look any man in the eye and tell him to go to hell
George Woolf, ILWU - 80 year old organizer against Yerba Buena Redevelopment on his retirement from the ILWU in 1954
11322. wabbit - 4/3/2001 8:06:43 AM
MsIT,
It was decided when the Mote first started that thread hosts would be allowed to enforce whatever level of civility they wanted. There is going to be some wild variation between threads.
Obviously something needs to be done about the Politics thread. I think ChristinO suggested creating a subthread that would be used for pasting long articles that cannot otherwise be linked to (like those from the WSJ, for instance). The subthread post(s) could then be linked in the main thread. We are also still looking for a new host for that thread. Nobody seems willing to take it on.
11323. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 8:10:28 AM
HELLO?
11324. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 8:12:57 AM
Perhaps the Rant thread could be retired and Stumbo and Fielding would be willing to cohost Politics.
11325. joezan - 4/3/2001 8:32:50 AM
Many times, when cut-n-paste is disabled at a website, one may select the Print version, where one may always cut-n-paste from.
Just a suggestion....
11326. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:05:01 AM
Wabbit
My comment wasn't directed to the Politics thread, where I only occasionally browse. It was a general observation that there seems to be a great deal of arbitrary cutting and moving of posts by various hosts (none shall be named at this point).
And if this was decided at the beginning, there's no reason why it can't be revisited if people feel it isn't working well, or is more burdensome than helpful. I request such a reconsideration.
Perhaps I'm alone in this however.
Stumbo
I saw the complaints about Jex's endless re-posts; I think posters ought to be more judicious in their direct quotes from other sources for several reasons. First, as many have noted, it's really hard to find any posters commentary interspersed between a long line of quotes.
Second, directly copying material extensively is, in effect, skirting the edge of infringment of copyrighted material. When someone just reposts commentary from other sources without added verbage, and does it repeatedly, the fair use protections against copyright infringement become weaker and weaker. Certainly a case can be made that such reposting constitutes an actual reproduction and distribution for commercial gain.
Everyone should be careful about this. Links are much better than outright copying because with links at least you're being directed to the site with either the ownership of the copyright or the approval of the owner to distribute.
*And if you hadn't guessed, one of my classes this semester is copyright.....
hahahaha.
11327. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:10:38 AM
Actually, links can be infringing as well, depending on how it's being used. However, on a site like this, mainly for discussion purposes, linking to external sources is likely well within fair use if it's used in conjunction with independent commentary.
11328. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:11:00 AM
how they're being used...
11329. wabbit - 4/3/2001 9:11:46 AM
MsIT, I would have sworn I had Stumbo's name in that post in front of my comments about Politics. Sorry for the confusion.
The original guidelines were decided by consensus and can be changed the same way. You are absolutely right, there is no reason not to revisit them. What would you suggest be used for guidelines?
11330. joezan - 4/3/2001 9:21:03 AM
CORRECTION:
Apparently, my suggestion in Message # 11325 does not work at the NYT.
...although, I could swear it used to.
11331. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 9:23:33 AM
I think severely off-topic, like discussing sports in politics...personal attacks....release of personal info...and deliberate, repetitive spam, like "drop dead, you pinko commie asshole" sixty-seven times should be moved. But those are probably already in the rules.
Moving something just because you don't like the poster is another thing altogether. (But in fairness to Jex, he isn't the only one pasting stuff profusely.)
There's a fine line to be drawn on what one thinks is spam. I thought that "Poopstain" run we had weeks ago was spam....every post had that word in it and there were 2 or 3 people doing it...a few times might be funny but page after page of it was stupid.
11332. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:43:54 AM
Judith
I agree that repetitive spamming should be moved, however, deleting one off-topic post, or one slightly offensive post, or one sarcastic post leaves too much room for arbitrary and petty behavior by the host.
Wabbit
I think the default rule ought to be that all posts stand as they are unless they:
1. reveal personal information (and calling someone an idiot may be revealing personal information but not of the private kind);
2. use extremely offensive language (not just mildly offensive comments and observations like
ass, idiot, dickhead, toothless wonder, etc);
3. come out of the blue and are clearly meant to be a slam as opposed to part of a heated exchange.
Those would be my baseline standards with the idea that posts should only be moved rarely, and deleted hardly at all.
As I said before, I'm opposed to deleting and moving comments, generally, but see the need to exercise some authority in extreme situations. However, there are hardly any extreme situations here, and most deletions and moves are purely at the whims of the host, which makes them quite subject to their own personal tastes and arbitrary judgment.
Seriously, I think there's way to much censorship of comments, which tends to dampen any vigorous debate. I mean, people get passionate about topics, and people also learn about their own shortcomings by revisiting comments they wish they hadn't made. I see value in letting most commentary stand for a variety of reasons; they illustrate the importance of the issues to some, they illustrate the character of the posters, and they serve as learning devices.
11333. Fielding - 4/3/2001 9:44:31 AM
Ace:
I don't know if anybody responded to your sad, desperate plea for help. If nobody else comes forward, I'd be willing to co-host for a week or two until you get through your gay panic or whatever it is that is distracting you from your duties.
You can drop me a note at fielding99@hotmail.com if you are interested.
11334. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 9:45:08 AM
I think the guidelines as far as hosting should remain the same. Not too many (qualified) people want to host as it is (check the Politics situation). We shouldn't make hosting anymore thankless than it is--plus, a change as Ms IT suggests would result in the moderators having to weigh in even more than they do now.
The best way to sustain the Mote IMO is decentralization because volunteers can devote only so much time to its upkeep (meaning you can't expect a lot out of them) and people will only work hard at something if you give them power to go with responsibility. Rather than emasculate thread hosts, we should try to stay hands off with the assumption that if a host just runs totally amok, he/she will be removed. Moreover, thread participants are free to vote with their feet. Eventually a thread will die if the host turns off everyone.
Finally, to decentralize power in respect to hosts themselves, I also think it's a good idea to limit hosting to one major thread at a time ("major" meaning the perennials or a thread with a shelf life of longer than a month and posting rate averaging more than say a couple of posts per day).
11335. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:47:31 AM
Actually Indiana
The current situation requires far more monitoring than my suggestions; hosts are deleting posts willy nilly, without any real justification except their personal tastes, and that means a much higher level of reading and evaluating than one that assumes all posts should stand unless they clearly require action.
11336. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 9:50:52 AM
BTW, wabbit, I also want to commend you on the fine job you do when you're here and am glad to see you taking a more active role in the Mote again. Once in a while I disagree with you, but in your shoes I think my batting average would be much lower than yours.
11337. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:51:00 AM
I hosted a legal thread and I never moved or deleted any comment. I never found one that seemed completely valueless, and any off-topic discussions seemed related in one way or another to the main issues being discussed.
I was an infrequent host, and my standard was absolutely easier to live with than one where I was constantly monitoring the thread for any hint of off-color or off-topic comments. Frankly, that would have been offensive to me to exercise that sort of censorship.
11338. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 9:53:11 AM
Ms IT: I meant monitoring by the moderators (Pelle, Christin, wabbit).
Also, philosophically, I like the idea of moderators shaping the discussion according to their tastes, rather than all the threads being various flavors of vanilla.
11339. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 9:53:39 AM
Second "moderators" should be "hosts."
11340. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 9:56:53 AM
Also, philosophically, I like the idea of moderators shaping the discussion according to their tastes, rather than all the threads being various flavors of vanilla.
This can be done in a variety of ways without the rather extensive censorship that occurs here at times. I take it as a sign of a bad host who cannot abide a discussion that veers from his/her narrow vision of what a thread is or isn't about.
However, my tastes run to extensive free speech, so perhaps I'm the minority here. I find it quite interesting that so many people get up in arms about PCism everywhere but in their own glass house.
11341. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 9:58:44 AM
What Missie said.
11342. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 10:02:24 AM
I like the latitude that we have assigned to the thread hosts; I'd rather not impose an additional set of hard rules on the threads.
11343. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 10:04:09 AM
I take it as a sign of a bad host who cannot abide a discussion that veers from his/her narrow vision of what a thread is or isn't about.
Ms IT: I agree. But I also think that within a thread the host's role doesn't have to fit mine or your definition--the host should be allowed to personalize the thread for the most part. That's how we have a community, rather than just a discussion board.
That's also at the heart of why the Cafe wasn't sufficient for the kind of talk thread Ace wanted.
11344. mgleason - 4/3/2001 10:04:31 AM
I agree with the Ms; the censorship of posts can be distracting, and many times it's unnecessary. It's distasteful to witness a host exercising peevishness rather than reason.
11345. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 10:04:49 AM
I agree with MsIT that standards for moving posts have become lax. I wish that hosts would bear in mind that less is more, and that moving posts that are critical of the host is automatically suspect.
I wonder if the standards for banning are becoming more vague as well.
11346. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 10:06:24 AM
I see value in letting most commentary stand for a variety of reasons; they illustrate the importance of the issues to some, they illustrate the character of the posters, and they serve as learning devices.
I agree with that! I think you're right about moving or deleting as little as possible but in the huge spamming posts that cover the entire screen, I'd say do it.
11347. msgreer - 4/3/2001 10:11:04 AM
wabbit
Excuse the post, folks. I am looking for wabbit.Rick and JJ have said they would co-host Health. Judith also will be adding to Health. I think it maybe time to give them the billing as hosts. What do you think?
11348. msgreer - 4/3/2001 10:11:46 AM
wabbit
You need to ask Judith if she wants to be named as host. Thanks.
11349. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 10:16:54 AM
The classic example of what happens with a hands off host is what is occurring in Politics. I understand what ducky has tried to do: avoid charges of censorship and be as evenhanded as possible, yet as a result, it's not really his thread but jexster's (and occasionally bbb's or concerned's). Bad discussion is driving out good.
My opinion is, though, that ducky can host as he sees fit. He took it when no one else would and even now when he wants out of it, we're having a hard time finding a replacement host. Why on earth would anyone want to host Politics if at the same time we bring them in, we tell them they have to preside over it as is and won't have the power to fix anything?
And when people say they question why a post was deleted or moved, they are just substituting their own judgment for that of the host. Should we presume that judgment is better? In which case, why not ask for a turn at hosting themselves?
11350. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 10:18:04 AM
I vote for Fielding to take care of the Man Thread. Not only is he a man, but he knows the 411 with regards to Ace and Francis (my guess is that they're in the middle of a lovers quarrel, and so Ace is distracted!)
11351. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 10:24:29 AM
That's not possible, Jen. FU is currently lounging about my country estate with me. Later today, we're going grouse hunting.
He's packed us a nice picnic lunch, too. Folded napkins and everything.
11352. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 10:24:32 AM
I wholeheartedly endorse MSIT's 11332.
Very surprising that somebody with such an enlightened attitude with respect to censorship of posts would have such a narrow-minded attitude with respect to unjustified banning of posters (who does she think makes these posts?) but that's a side issue.
I think that Stinky's statement in his defense that he's preventing 'all the threads being various flavors of vanilla' with his arbitrary and capricious deletion/moving policy is patently absurd.
11353. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 10:27:26 AM
I had thought about offering to host politics, but am: 1) not sure about the amount of time it might take; 2) Don't know if my philosophy WRT hosting would go over well; and 3) am becoming sick-to-death of politics or at least the way in which the topic is typically discussed -- i.e. no-holds barred, stick with today's talking points, never acknowlege a point.
Looking at Jexter's, Rosie's, and Concerned's posts I think that I would move or delete very few if any of them. How do you say objectively that cutting and pasting by Jexter is not permitted if you don't take that stance with everyone?
11354. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 10:27:56 AM
Jexster is one of the finest posters in the Mote. Politics is wonderful as it is. Perhaps a separate 'Discuss Politics' thread is needed where links of any kind would be verboten.
11355. wabbit - 4/3/2001 10:31:59 AM
msgreer, I'll make the changes asap.
MsIT et al,
Deleting posts should be reserved for posts that reveal private information. Moving posts gets a bit more dicey, but thus far we have largely left it up to the thread hosts. Certainly moving one short off-topic post isn't really necessary, but what about a long one? While I agree that censoring posts is something to avoid, if someone wants their thread to be free of personal attacks, should we tell them too bad? Some threads, like Politics and Religion, lean hard toward posts like "listen up, you ignorant fucking shithead" and require hosts who are willing to tolerate the personal insults in the course of heated discussion. But would a post like that be appropriate in Poetry, for example (ok, extreme example, I know)? How hard and fast do we want the rules to be? Who gets to be the inconsistent asshole with the task of enforcing what ultimately comes down to a difference of opinion? Should a thread host have to put up with what they perceive as poor behavior, or should people have to learn to express a difference of opinion without making it a personal slam? Should hosts not be allowed to move posts at all?
11356. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 10:34:49 AM
Jexster is one of the finest?
You've GOT to be kidding.
As a person, I'm sure he's great, but he's about as close-minded and judgmental as they come in the Mote. And here I thought you championed against such character defects?
11357. mgleason - 4/3/2001 10:35:04 AM
The idea of a sub-thread for articles is a good one (bearing in mind copyright protections, of course). Short of running the River Alpheus through Politics, it's the best chance for improvement.
11358. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 10:36:29 AM
Indy,
I forgot about that picnic, you're right. Wasn't it Francis who was posting at length in the recipe thread about chicken salad and chocolate milk? Maybe it was about his new Betty Crocker cookbook. Can't remember.
11359. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:37:12 AM
I agree with Indy completely. The whole point of the host/moderator construct was to give hosts the ability to set the tone for their thread.
Overall, there isn't all that much bitching. Fielding and Ace bitched once or twice because I said I would move if an off-topic conversation didn't stop, but I haven't moved all that many at all. I have resisted MsG's extremely arbitrary moves, and even then that was more a point of principle than it was any pique on my part.
And of course, Ferguson has spent a good percentage of his posts in this thread bitching about Indy.
So overall, that's hardly an onslaught of complaint to make changes to a policy that has worked quite well.
11360. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 10:38:57 AM
Within patient and consistent reason, policies here should encourage diversity of person and post.
11361. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:39:26 AM
Looking at Jexter's, Rosie's, and Concerned's posts I think that I would move or delete very few if any of them.
If this is the position of any Politics host, then we may as well declare the thread dead.
I suggest we start a new thread, then, for people who actually want to talk about politics.
11362. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 10:41:13 AM
I don't have an issue with the notion of moving an egregious post -- say obvious spam posted to every thread or posts revealing personal information. And I can certainly see value to recognizing that different threads can have different standards at least as regards the expected level of civility. But I think that it's a bit suspicious when incivility towards the host is more subject to censure than incivility to other posters.
11363. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 10:41:23 AM
Jen
I disagree with Jexster about lots of things. But he links lots of very good articles and he expresses the Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/Gephardt/Daschle spin very forcefully and articulately (even if he borrows heavily (if not exclusively) from online publications.
Even if no fair-minded, rational, balanced dialogue ensues, someone browsing the thread can get a good idea of where the 2 opposing camps stand and make up their own minds which camp they are in (or if they're somewhere in the middle.)
That's not so bad.
11364. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 10:42:48 AM
For sure...whenever Jon returns the Mote is energized to discuss itself.
11365. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 10:44:09 AM
Jex even thinks that Martin Luther King is a heretic by default. Talk about ignorant.
I do think it's interesting that a new alliance here now is Jadegold-Jexster-Jonathan.:-)
11366. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 10:44:47 AM
Wabbit,
Hosts have the right to move or delete posts.
Perhaps a quide for host behavior is in order? Not hard and fast rules, but some common sense expectations.
11367. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:45:02 AM
But I think that it's a bit suspicious when incivility towards the host is more subject to censure than incivility to other posters.
I agree with that, but apart from MsG's recent deletion, I can't think of anyone that has applied to. But even if it were true, it's no reason to do away with thread hosting.
11368. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 10:46:45 AM
If this is the position of any Politics host, then we may as well declare the thread dead.
Why? I suspect that what's happening now in Politics is mostly a matter of fatigue with the subject, or fatigue with each other since over time each poster's views are fairly predictable.
11369. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:46:49 AM
For sure...whenever Jon returns the Mote is energized to discuss itself.
Oh, PP, that is such bullshit. We discuss ourselves regularly--and probably too often--as it is. Ferguson does nothing but run the place down, something that you don't mind because it's not directed at you. Fine, resist getting rid of him. But don't make shit up in support.
11370. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 10:48:34 AM
apart from MsG's recent deletion, I can't think of anyone that has applied to.
Dr. Coltrane's thread, recent examples in Religion as well. Ace did it as a joke in his titty thread.
11371. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:49:52 AM
Why?
Because the thread is a toilet. It turns into a shithole for days at a time.
11372. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 10:50:52 AM
I wasn't upset that Indy moved some of my posts from Religion to the Inferno. He was keeping order in the place and I respect him for filtering out some of the stuff I said (and others too) that was more personal in nature than on topic.
11373. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 10:51:02 AM
Jexster is great, and I take credit for getting him to come back to Fray Revisited. It's just the cutting 'n' pasting (instead of linking) of his long legal articles that gets me mad and his crude language when he's losing the argument (often).
I think bubba would be a good host of Mote's Politics thread. And since she works in the government, she has plenty of time to do mote duty during working hours.
Concerned would take over in the evenings.
Fielding, being a former public radio programmer, doesn't have the intelligence to take over Politics.
I think wabbit should give up her position to PP. If often happens a bad pun goes farther than a better one. And she as much asked him to do it. I think her active sex life is interfering with her mote responsibilities.
11374. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 10:51:56 AM
I agree with Cal that all this self-discussion is not necessarily a good thing--especially when it's mostly the same thing over and over again. Moreover, if you notice, JF's role is never that of consensus-builder.
It's good to challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom, but the odds are long that to be contradictory is always to be correct.
11375. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:52:19 AM
Dr. Coltrane's thread, recent examples in Religion as well.
Examples in Religion are due to Ferguson, who is going in there to create trouble purely to have something to bitch about here. If you look at the posts moved, were they off-topic?
Coltrane's thread was removed for a variety of reasons, so it seems that the host-moderator model worked. Where's the problem?
11376. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 10:52:54 AM
I think wabbit should give up her position to PP. If often happens a bad pun goes farther than a better one. And she as much asked him to do it. I think her active sex life is interfering with her mote responsibilities.
May I remind you that you are a married man Rosetta?? This kind of sexual innuendo with wabbit is not appropriate now.
11377. Fielding - 4/3/2001 10:53:34 AM
Fielding and Ace bitched once or twice because I said I would move if an off-topic conversation didn't stop, but I haven't moved all that many at all.
That's the CalGal-land version. The reality is that you threatened to move posts that were on topic but that disagreed with you. Ace and I (and others) rightly called you on it.
11378. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 10:55:07 AM
Wabbit is a far better Mote Moderator than I could hope to be. Pelle and CO also...let's realize how good we have when we have it.
11379. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 10:55:56 AM
I wasn't going to mention this Jenerator. But you seem to be posting here more since your marriage.
Not a good sign.
11380. Fielding - 4/3/2001 10:56:13 AM
"May I remind you that you are a married man Rosetta?? This kind of sexual innuendo with wabbit is not appropriate now."
Nice one. I bet you've been sitting on this one for weeks, waiting for the opportunity.
11381. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 10:56:57 AM
Coltrane's thread was removed for a variety of reasons, so it seems that the host-moderator model worked. Where's the problem?
I wasn't talking about the thread being removed, but about Coltrane moving and deleting posts wholesale.
11382. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 10:57:06 AM
Maria,
I'm working on Haiku and Limerick subthreads, one suggestion is to put them out into the main thread listing for starters. This may give them the attention they deserve.
On the other hand, perhaps even the short life they will have in the main thread listing will detract to much from the Poetry thread. What I mean is, I have the idea that subthreads within Poetry, will keep the focus upon the Poetry thread. Perhaps bringing new posters, perhaps not.
11383. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:58:03 AM
The reality is that you threatened to move posts that were on topic but that disagreed with you.
That's utter nonsense. I have never moved a post merely because people disagreed with me--or even threatened to move a post. I am completely arbitrary on when an off-topic discussion will be cutoff. Something that is, as host, my prerogative.
And since I didn't move them or delete them, the posts are there to refute you.
11384. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:59:06 AM
I wasn't talking about the thread being removed, but about Coltrane moving and deleting posts wholesale.
Yes, I know you were. That's what I said. He was removed for a variety of reasons--one of them was that he was an arbitrary host.
So if a bad host was removed, how is it you think that isn't an example of the host-moderator concept working?
11385. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 11:00:24 AM
CalCal: If you have the time (and we know you do), can you find out how many posts I made in October, Nov. and December?
It's tax time and I need the breakdown.
11386. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 11:01:28 AM
Rosetta,
I post from work, which has slowed down after Spring Break. Don't change the subject, either. We need to keep each accountable for our flirtatious infractions.
Fielding,
Yes!
11387. mgleason - 4/3/2001 11:01:57 AM
Rick,
I don't think that calling attention to the new sub-threads would detract from Poetry itself. It might even encourage a few brave souls to pop in.
11388. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 11:04:13 AM
So if a bad host was removed, how is it you think that isn't an example of the host-moderator concept working?
I don't think I said that the concept wasn't working. I do think that there's been more moving posts around lately, but maybe that's just my perception.
11389. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 11:04:53 AM
Maria,
Should I think seperate threads would be ideal. In my opinion the two styles clash.
11390. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 11:05:25 AM
Omit "should".
11391. mgleason - 4/3/2001 11:08:14 AM
Rick,
Yes; two different sub-threads are the way to go.
11392. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 11:08:34 AM
My opinion on sub-threads within Poetry is that announcement links could be placed on the home pages left butterscotch bar. But, I've no problem relenting to home page threads.
Maria, you want to host both or just one? I would like to co-host or host the Haiku thread.
11393. CalGal - 4/3/2001 11:08:36 AM
Bubba,
Sorry, it was the Ms who was suggesting to move away from host/moderator, not you.
Overall, I think the reason there has been a sustained amount of bitching is because of Ferguson, and since Ferguson is doing what he can to cause trouble, it's not surprising that some of his posts would be moved.
11394. mgleason - 4/3/2001 11:12:40 AM
You're the host of all the sub-threads within Poetry, born and unborn, Rick.
Announcing them on the News bar is a fine idea.
11395. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 11:23:27 AM
Maria,
In the main thread page you can host these two.
Do you like the current headers and links in the Poetry thread. What else is needed with respect to the links?
I think your participation is a vital to boosting the Poetry thread's intellectual discussions. Your breadth and depth of knowledge far surpass my own. My commitment is wholehearted, but weaknesses can skew a well balanced thread.
Co-host Poetry Maria.
11396. mgleason - 4/3/2001 11:26:55 AM
Let's repair to Poetry, Rick. This is too genteel a conversation for this place. ;-)
11397. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 11:28:27 AM
(Actually, I thought it was good to see something constructive occurring for a change.)
11398. mgleason - 4/3/2001 11:49:07 AM
I just didn't want to freak out the regulars.
11399. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 11:50:49 AM
Indiana,
Good, I'll look for some Limericks from you.
Everyone can write Haiku. A sharp pencil, a notebook and a long walk around your favorite park will produce fabulous results. Haiku form is important, learn what you are willing to, there are links in Poetry for this purpose.
11400. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:52:19 AM
Jaysus
Is there ever going to be any change here? I suggest that host/moderators use the default rule that posts should stand unless they clearly cross some line that can be justified by standards the whole community can agree on. I don't know about anyone else, but the censorship that goes on here is getting a bit thick and highly arbitrary.
And Calgal, can you just for a moment, put your ego aside to recognize that the damn rules mplemented over a year ago can stand some updating and fine tuning? I'm beginning to question whether this really is your personal playground or whether we can all have a say in what happens.
11401. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:52:49 AM
that's implemented
11402. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:55:49 AM
Frankly, I get tired of all this denial.
Someone says things can stand some rethinking, and all Calgal can do is come in and deny there's any problem, deny that she's a part of it, deny that she's obstructionist, deny that the person making the comment has any basis for it, and argue the fucking issue to death.
11403. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 11:55:56 AM
MSIT
You go, Girl! (g)
11404. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:56:58 AM
Go f**k off ferguson
you're as much of the problem as anything else.
11405. Fielding - 4/3/2001 11:57:45 AM
Ms. IT:
You left out the part where she denies saying what she just said.
11406. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:00:18 PM
Wabbit,
Wadda ya say, give me two new threads, or slow down this poetic race horse?
The idea is to move the two new threads to Poetry as sub-threads when the have run their course. I'm inclined to keep them for quite some time within the confines of the Poetry thread. I will be using the Haiku thread for the exploration of my own work. I hope Haiku catches on and the discussion of its history and its form materialize.
11407. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 12:01:04 PM
Ms. IT:
unless they clearly cross some line that can be justified by standards the whole community can agree on.
(Emphasis mine.) That makes your suggestion IMO undoable. Nor do I think we would want what would result if everyone has to agree to a LCD approach.
If hosting adopts an "objective" standard, we ought to do away with hosts entirely as superfluous. For that matter, why need moderators either? I doubt you could get such unanimous consensus on hardly anything they do.
11408. Fielding - 4/3/2001 12:02:05 PM
A thread for Haiku
Not too hard to understand
I say "Go for it!"
11409. mgleason - 4/3/2001 12:03:12 PM
Rick,
Don't you think that two new threads would be too much? I think they're perfect as sub-threads.
11410. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:07:14 PM
I think Haiku could work as a new thread, Limericks is suspect.
Ok all of you vote, now.
Haiku as a new thread = 1
Haiku as a Poetry sub-thread = 2
Limerick as a new thread = 3
Limerick as a Poetry sub-thread = 4
11411. JJBiener - 4/3/2001 12:08:51 PM
Is there anyone who is interested in hosting the Travel thread? Since I have now started co-hosting Health along with Arts & Music, I would like to give someone else an opportunity to host. I believe we have several strong candidates. Any volunteers?
11412. CalGal - 4/3/2001 12:08:55 PM
I'm beginning to question whether this really is your personal playground or whether we can all have a say in what happens.
Why? Just because I disagree with you? Am I supposed to agree with you just to reassure you that it's not my personal playground?
I suggest that host/moderators use the default rule that posts should stand unless they clearly cross some line that can be justified by standards the whole community can agree on.
I disagree with this. I think that hosts can be removed if they delete arbitrarily or without reason--and recent events have established that this does happen.
Other than that, I think the value provided by a host who can assert authority is outweighed by the occasional spat about a deleted post. I don't think "censorship" is practiced all that much--but then, I don't think this place is a free speech forum at all. I've seen what happens to places that pride themselves on supporting free speech, and it's not pretty.
Hosts own their thread. Why should GJ have to support the same thread tone that Ducky does? If you don't allow them to manage the tone and flow of their thread, what's the point of having a host?
11413. mgleason - 4/3/2001 12:09:18 PM
My vote is for two sub-threads of Poetry, so count me as 2 and 4.
11414. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:11:22 PM
If you want to vote in the Poetry thread please feel free to do so.
11415. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 12:11:38 PM
Ditto with Maria, 2 and 4.
11416. Fielding - 4/3/2001 12:13:03 PM
Are there going to be limitations on the limericks offered?
11417. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:15:21 PM
Extreme sexual content isn't gonna fly, but use of sex in a limerick is expected and will not be censured.
11418. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 12:15:51 PM
Votes: 2, 4
11419. Fielding - 4/3/2001 12:17:52 PM
Rick:
That doesn't really help me.
How about the line
"He said with a grin
as he wiped off his chin"
?
11420. CalGal - 4/3/2001 12:20:38 PM
Someone says things can stand some rethinking, and all Calgal can do is come in and deny there's any problem, deny that she's a part of it, deny that she's obstructionist, deny that the person making the comment has any basis for it, and argue the fucking issue to death.
Of the problems we have at the moment, I don't think that arbitrary censorship by hosts is anywhere among the top of the list. As a systemic problem, it has never been mentioned until you brought it up. I disagree that it's a systemic problem.
I always think there is room for improvement. I will never sign on to making fundamental changes in structure unless I really think the changes are necessary. I think the system is generally sound and I've never seen the system stopping us from making the changes needed to improve the Mote.
I can't really be obstructionist, you know. If wabbit and others come in and agree with you about thread hosts, I would have no authority to stop it. So it sounds nice to say I'm obstructionist and make this about me, but in the end, that's just making more of my disagreement than it actually is.
11421. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:23:44 PM
I've no sexual orientation phobia, and I wont be a good taste judge. I say let 'er rip. Complaints will be taken seriously, but I'm not going to censur unless the work is extreme.
Examples of extreme:
Racism
Hate
Explicit beastiality
Explicit abuse
11422. wabbit - 4/3/2001 12:25:19 PM
All,
I'm working on the hosting guidelines and will get them posted as soon as possible, but real life beckons. Sorry for the delay, I'm running as fast as I can.
11423. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 12:27:45 PM
real life beckons...
See, I told you.
11424. Fielding - 4/3/2001 12:36:11 PM
Rick:
I can work with that. I'll save the beastiality for Ace's thread. :)
11425. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:44:28 PM
The sub-threads have been created in Poetry.
I'll be looking for all of you in Poetry. It's Spring and Haiku will be a natural result. Then, what better release than some Limericks.
11426. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:49:19 PM
Kids, it's bestiality. I know, I know, that's not how it sounds. Go figure.
11427. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 12:52:19 PM
Maria has my proxy until further notice. (g)
11428. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:53:20 PM
Go figure, a Poetry host, whose claim to faime, is poor spelling.
11429. RickNelson - 4/3/2001 12:54:34 PM
ciao for now.
11430. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 12:54:39 PM
Why? Just because I disagree with you? Am I supposed to agree with you just to reassure you that it's not my personal playground?
Absolutely not, we always disagree, nothing new here. What's at issue is your constant denials that anything could possibly be wrong with either your position, or that any criticism of the current policy could stand revision. I also note that while several people felt your arbitrary actions toward their posts were unjustified, the only response from you is denial that your actions could possibly be questioned.
It's this way about the current discussion. For some reason you're ego is invested in every blessed thing to do with running this site, and every suggestion for change or rethinking is met with resistance and denial on your part.
You deny your actions toward's Fielding and Ace were in the least arbitrary;
You deny that you contribute to a culture and tone that drives potential newbies away;
You deny that the current arbitrary system for deleting and moving posts is problematic for anyone, perhaps many, and has an effect on both the willingness to participate and the interest to do so;
You deny that your actions are ever questionable period.
I'm tired of watching this drama every fucking time someone suggests a change, or a modification.
I think that hosts can be removed if they delete arbitrarily or without reason--and recent events have established that this does happen.
Only if people have the energy to take the issue up. Many of us, myself included, just get frustrated and disgusted but neither have the time or the will to engage in the sort of dance evidenced here.
11431. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 12:55:22 PM
My most recent gripe is with Autodaffy, whose arbitrariness in the education thread is painfully obvious. Not only did he move one of my very mild posts questioning his intellect, he also moved a very funny and pointed response to a post by "the one who shall remain unnamed". I think it was by Wonkers, but it was both timely and appropriate. I don't know how many others he's moved, I rarely go to the education thread now.
Your own rant about MsGreer stands as a contradiction to this heated defense of a system you seem to like when implemented by you, but not when it's implemented against you.
I think the value provided by a host who can assert authority is outweighed by the occasional spat about a deleted post.
No it isn't if it ends up discouraging discourse and the fun of debate at this site. And who the hell said that the only way a host can exercise authority is by arbitrarily deleting and moving posts at will? Authority can be exercised by warnings, by asking people to tone it down, by a number of other techniques than just by arbitrary actions. In fact, arbitrary behavior only undermines authority, it rarely supports it.
Hosts own their thread. Why should GJ have to support the same thread tone that Ducky does? If you don't allow them to manage the tone and flow of their thread, what's the point of having a host?
So now we decide that "ownership" determines what anyone can do in a thread? Since when did this site become parcelled out into private property? Did we all not contribute money to keep this site going? Don't Jay and Alistair support this site with their time and resources? Does that make them kingpins of the property division?
11432. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 12:55:34 PM
The notion that people have to "own" their threads to be willing to host them is absurd. The incentive is to have a thread that if focused on one's interests, not to rule as an autocrat. Making comparisons to private enterprise is an error in this case, since the resources aren't owned by these individuals but rather donated for their use. This site is more analogous to a commons property than a private property.
Perhaps thats the problem, some actually believe this is a private playground to actualize their personal whims.
11433. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 12:59:02 PM
I will never sign on to making fundamental changes in structure unless I really think the changes are necessary.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn
Do you really think we need your signature and stamp of approval on every friggin change that goes on around here?
Indiana
I disagree with your past comment. My suggestion is neither setting a difficult standard or one that can't be developed with a small amount of input. Certainly it would take less energy than the current discussion is consuming, or, for that matter, any fucking conversation about change here.
11434. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 1:04:35 PM
MsIdiot: That CalCal "will never sign on" cultist comment wasn't made to us, but as a warning to our mote masters.
11435. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:05:57 PM
And Indiana
Supposedly the current rules were standards the whole community agreed on, emphasis mine.....
Community agreement doesn't mean unanimous consent, but rather a set of standards that most agree on and can live with. They don't have to be what every single person wants, they're a compromise.
11436. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 1:07:34 PM
I liked Wonkers' response to my post (although I stumbled across it in the Inferno sheerly by accident), it was, as MSIT says, funny, pointed, timely and appropriate.
I agree with everything else MSIT just said. Law school is doing her a world of good, it seems. I particularly like this, which is really what all this brouhaha is about:
This site is more analogous to a commons property than a private property.
That's really the heart of the issue, imo. Is this a private club or a public forum, tightly and capriciously controlled by a few, or open to all with opinions to share?
11437. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:07:37 PM
Jaysus
The dunce speaks again.
I swear, my case is hurt more by these fools than anything else I say.
11438. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:08:13 PM
toys.
11439. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 1:08:14 PM
Toys.
11440. Autodaffy - 4/3/2001 1:12:39 PM
Msit:
"My most recent gripe is with Autodaffy, whose
arbitrariness in the education thread is painfully
obvious. Not only did he move one of my very mild
posts questioning his intellect, he also moved a very funny and pointed response to a post by "the one who shall remain unnamed". I think it was by Wonkers,
but it was both timely and appropriate. I don't know
how many others he's moved, I rarely go to the
education thread now."
---
I moved a post in which you called me "idiot" (without urging you apologized for the post the next day) and left in place another earlier one in which you claimed that I was "incompetent" to lead the thread. Wonkers asked how long JF's "dick" was.
These are the only moves. There have been no deletions in Education.
11441. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:16:29 PM
You are incompetent, no question.
What's worse is that your own attempts to initiate discussions are inflamatory, lacking any real thought, lacking any substantiation, and act as rhetoric for the hacks of the right.
Then you get upset when someone dares to question the point of your comments, or even asks for support for them. No, you're the worse example of an arbitrary, petty and incompetent host I've seen in a while.
11442. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:18:26 PM
And yes, I apologized for my temper, before I realized you'd moved the comment.
Had I known you'd done so, I wouldn't have apolozied myself, since the petty display was worse than my bad manners.
11443. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 1:22:34 PM
My most recent gripe is with Autodaffy, whose arbitrariness in the education thread is painfully obvious.
Ms. IT: I'd surmised as much. IMO Autodaffy hadn't shown much of a posting record that indicated host-worthiness, and I personally was surprised to see a thread with his name on it. I've a question and a suggestion: When a host was being chosen for the Education thread, did you express any interest in hosting it yourself?
My suggestion is that you and others who are dissatisfied either vote with your feet and take your discussion to another topic or as a group lobby here for Autodaffy's removal. If the majority of posters there think that the host is incompetent and can present evidence of same, then by all means go for it.
My suggestion is neither setting a difficult standard or one that can't be developed with a small amount of input.
My understanding was that you wanted a standard we could agree on as a community. Apparently as a community we aren't able to agree on whether people like JF should post here. Nor can we even agree on whether jexster and bbb should be able to spam Politics. If a unanimous standard were possible, it would be unnecessary as no one would post anything needing deleting. (I now see that you didn't mean unanimous, but surely you don't think discussion standards should be controlled by simple majorities?)
By tolerating diverse hosting styles, we make it more likely Motiers can find a thread that suits their own personal standards.
11444. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 1:23:47 PM
FWIW, I also agree with you that having JF or Stone in your corner is a surefire way to lose.
11445. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:24:11 PM
I also note that Autodaffy feels free to critisize and insult other posters but can't take the heat when turned on himself.
I note his petty comments to Calgal about her movie reviews without any effort to back up his own position or his own commentaries (I think this is a trend, myself).
Et al
While I am currently at odds with Calgal, I wish to note that I often enjoy her contributions here. I know many will want to make much of this spat, I urge everyone to control their overactive imaginations.
11446. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 1:26:33 PM
I don't this we should try to standardise host behavior. The Mote is about the interaction of diverse personalities and opinions. But I can think of a coupleof possible improvements.
New hosts should clarify their ambitions with the thread. If they don't like personal abuse or sexual references or off-topic posts they should say so at the start, and repeat it as necessary. It is unseemly that posters have to discover the hosts likes and dislikes though his or her deletion/move policy.
As a rule a first-time violation should not result in the post being moved/deleted but in a reasonably polite explanation as to why it is objectionable.
To move or delete a post without comment violates common decency.
11447. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:27:12 PM
Indiana
You posit a problem that is fundamental to any organization, people are wont to disagree and to find different things valuable in a common experience. However, if the legal profession can manage to set some basic standards for itself, I think we can do it too.
11448. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:29:14 PM
Pelle
My understanding is that the system would work that way, warnings, comments to change behavior, etc. and that deletions and moves would only occur if the behavior continued. This has not been my observation, however. Hosts decide to move or delete and then inform (sometimes) that it's been done.
Arbitrary and petty is the only conclusion I draw from such actions.
11449. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 1:29:35 PM
finally, the truth
Host-worthiness?
11450. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 1:29:45 PM
MSIT, MSIT, MSIT
You started so well and then you let this become a petty and vindictive 'bash Autodaffy' conversation.
Stay on message, my dear.
11451. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:31:43 PM
It is both a personal gripe and a general commentary. Had the jerk only moved my post I'd have kept quiet, but when he then arbitrarily moved Wonkers, it became an issue.
11452. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:34:17 PM
Besides which, it's only the tip of the iceberg, I've been watching this occur now for quite a while.
And I do hope ya'll don't lose sight of my main point due to this diversion, Autodaffy is only the most current example I could think of to use. And since Calgal was already internalizing this as a personal attack on her, I wanted to bring up the source of my lastest dissatisfaction with the current policy.
11453. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 1:36:00 PM
Besides, I agree that Autodaffy is an ignorant autocrat with his "hosting" the Education thread. He spits out a Rush Limbaughism as if it were the latest received wisdom and then gets all indignant when shown where he is full of shit. Yet he refuses to put up any kind of argument for the drivel he spouts. For the invective he hurls around, being called an idiot is pretty small potatos.
11454. Autodaffy - 4/3/2001 1:36:57 PM
Ms. It:
Actually, you attacked the very first of my posts in that thread as incorrect and misleading, and I did not respond to you. Others, however, challenged--successfully--some of your comments.
After my second post a day or two later, on the role of teachers unions, you returned with a call for data to support my assertions and began calling me incompetent, an idiot, etc. What seemed to set the last epithet off was my pointing out that an authority you quoted as to the position of teachers' unions on some issue, Albert Shanker, had been dead for years.
You can call me all those names, but the record clearly shows they result from disagreements on the issues. Your characterizations and tone here today are worth careful consideration before the Mote's policy is changed to suit you.
11455. Oceans11 - 4/3/2001 1:38:35 PM
At the risk of continuing my jihad with Wombat, I've personally experienced very different cultures in different threads.
As a newbie, it's disconcerting to try and join a discussion where the host has internalized a particular viewpoint and has the power to zap your posts based upon some undefined policy.
11456. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:41:24 PM
Auto daffy
The record shows the opposite.
But I refuse to let this divert the main issues here.
11457. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 1:41:52 PM
Let's put it to a vote. Who's in favor of MSIT's suggestion? No more deletions or moving of posts that don't violate the RoE (except multiple posts, which may be deleted without explanation.)
There's absolutely no reason that we couldn't try it for a week and see how it works.
It seems pretty clear that a significant number of people are having problems with various hosts, and in most (if not all) cases, justifiably so.
11458. CalGal - 4/3/2001 1:43:19 PM
You deny your actions toward's Fielding and Ace were in the least arbitrary;
Quite the contrary. I specifically said that they were, here:
I am completely arbitrary on when an off-topic discussion will be cutoff. Something that is, as host, my prerogative.
I denied that I had threatened to move people because they disagreed with me--which is, on its face, nonsense.
So why on earth are you saying that I denied being arbitrary when I did the opposite?
11459. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 1:43:40 PM
To end my ranting on the subject I don't think we need a "Rules and Regulations for Hosts" but rather a "Some Suggestions for Successful Hosting". I hope that's what wabbit is working on.
11460. CalGal - 4/3/2001 1:43:46 PM
Ferguson--this is not a democracy.
11461. CalGal - 4/3/2001 1:46:11 PM
And since Calgal was already internalizing this as a personal attack on her, I wanted to bring up the source of my lastest dissatisfaction with the current policy.
Lord, this is silly. I am not internalizing anything. You've been quite specific about some things, and I've responded. Other than that, I disagree with you. I'm not sure how clearly I'm supposed to put it. I don't take your comments personally, I don't take them as an attack on the established order. I take them as ideas. Bad ideas. That I happen to disagree with.
Indy's posts about Autodaffy are exactly correct. If you think a thread host is being arbitrary, then complain about the host. Don't want to be bothered? Then for chrissakes, don't declare that the system doesn't work. If you don't use the system, then how can you declare that it doesn't work?
11462. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:49:29 PM
Calgal
Just because you deny your actions were based on the fact that someone disagreed with you doesn't make it any less arbitrary or petty. What matters is how posters see such actions: if they think it was because they disagreed with you, than your denials don't resolve their basic dissatisfaction with your behavior.
11463. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 1:53:43 PM
Calgal
I have used the system at various points. Frankly I wasn't around much for a long while to see just how hosting had devolved into these little fiefdoms, but since I've spent more time here over the last several months, I've seen this problem repeatedly.
My own personal experience with the daffy one only brought my simmering dissatisfaction to the fore, nothing more or less.
You still haven't given any good explanation as to how threads suddenly became "owned" around here. Or why the concept of absolute freedom for the hosts to do as they wish should take precedence over the interests and desires of the body of posters.
11464. CalGal - 4/3/2001 1:56:29 PM
While I am currently at odds with Calgal, I wish to note that I often enjoy her contributions here. I know many will want to make much of this spat, I urge everyone to control their overactive imaginations.
I wish to state, again, that I am not upset by your disagreement. I am exasperated by your more specific comments, but that's as far as it goes. I do wish you wouldn't get so global, but that's not a sin unique to you. (that's a joke)
If I understand you correctly, you think the ability of a thread host to arbitrarily remove posts is a bad idea. You think this because there have been more complaints lately in general, and specifically because you feel that Autodaffy has been very censorious.
My response is that the ability to delete is good, that thread hosts actions should be complained about, and the case made for them being censorious or personal, rather than just a host management decision. I also think that complaints about post movings that are believed to be arbitrary should be made in this thread, to establish a basis for behavior patterns.
I don't know what I think of Autodaffy as a host; I like the subject topic and I wish it got more airplay. I disagree with most of his opinions, and I didn't think your posts should have been moved--but I didn't think they were a petty display of power, either. For whatever reason, I believe he felt they were out of line.
I think that the moderators have been giving most people an opportunity to host, lately--largely to avoid charges of being inbred. It's been a good move, overall--but eventually it will mean that someone with standards that are very different from the norm will end up as host.
11465. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 1:56:51 PM
MSIT
Threads didn't suddenly become 'owned'. That consensus was developed way back when the Mote was formed.
It was a poor decision, however, and certainly can and should be revisited.
11466. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:01:38 PM
Et al
I reiterate my initial point. I think the default rule for hosts should be that posts should stand unless they are clearly out of line.
I suggest the following standards for determining "clearly out of line";
1. pure malicious spam
2. out of place and out of the flow of the conversation, and very offensive back-biting (you are a jackbooted Nazi who kills babies for lunch- although this too could be funny in the right context)
3. revealing of private personal information
4. threats to take a disagreement into real life
5. off-topic or spamming for several posts (I'd say at least 6 or more, but this line is arbitrary and can be determined by what people think should be tolerated).
This isn't to say that hosts can't set a tone, or set other guidelines, but there ought to be warnings, requests to get back in line, etc. before action is taken.
These are simple ground rules that I posit. No big controversies about either the default rule or the warnings, IMO, but perhaps some over what crosses the line.
11467. wonkers2 - 4/3/2001 2:09:34 PM
Autodaffy, please explain what was inappropriate about inquiring about the length of JF's massive member, immediately after he had bragged about his SAT score. Are references to certain body parts prohibited? Or is slang prohibited? Or were you afraid JF would be embarrassed by the question, given the actual dimensions of the item in question. Or were you embarrassed by the topic? I'm inclined to agree with the commentators, including JF, who find you a mite arbitrary and autocratic.
11468. CalGal - 4/3/2001 2:09:39 PM
Just because you deny your actions were based on the fact that someone disagreed with you doesn't make it any less arbitrary or petty.
I do deny that my actions were based on the fact that someone disagreed with me. My actions were based on the fact that it was off-topic and my tolerance for it was gone--based on the subject matter.
Is that arbitrary? Yes. Petty? Depends on how you feel about the conversation cut off. Is it bad? No, not if it isn't happening all the time. If it did happen all the time, I would be more concerned about it.
Thread hosts can, within reason, be arbitrary. Sometimes off topic chatter is fun, other times it's not. How to make the call? Up to the thread host. Must the thread host have follow rules for that? No, I don't think so.
Now, if the thread host allowed lots of off-topic chatter as a matter of course and then only cut it off when certain people engaged in it, that might be a matter of concern that should be complained about.
I think we do a pretty good job of explaining to people that thread hosts have a fair amount of latitude. It's up to everyone to make up their mind as to whether or not the host does a good job or not, and post in the thread accordingly.
11469. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:11:44 PM
Calgal
My response is that the ability to delete is good, that thread hosts actions should be complained about, and the case made for them being censorious or personal, rather than just a host management decision.
Look, I don't dispute that the ability to delete or move shouldn't be one of the hosts bag of tricks, my only point is that we should have a standard for hosts to follow:
a default rule that encourages disagreement and debate, not one that arbitrarily censors and becomes a petty tool for the host to exercise without accountability to a community standard.
...but I didn't think they were a petty display of power, either. For whatever reason, I believe he felt they were out of line.
And this is precisely my point. When we don't even know what some general standard is then the host is free to insert their own, which will, by definition, be arbitrary and most likely petty in implementation as others see it.
I object to this notion that hosts should be able to be arbitrary in their actions, they can be as deliberate as they like, but it should be within some agreed upon standards the community wants to live with.
11470. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:16:06 PM
Calgal
For someone who spent a tremendous amount of energy railing against the seemingly arbitrary actions of the Slate moderators, and the ever ubiquitous 'inner circle' at the old Fray, I find your defense of the current system both amusing and self-serving.
11471. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 2:18:08 PM
Ah, the old inner cicle. Whatever happened to the inner circle.
11472. CalGal - 4/3/2001 2:18:50 PM
You still haven't given any good explanation as to how threads suddenly became "owned" around here.
I think that's been the case from the beginning. Obviously, thread hosts also want to "sell" their thread to the community, or it won't get activity. So they have control to craft their "product".
Or why the concept of absolute freedom for the hosts to do as they wish should take precedence over the interests and desires of the body of posters.
It doesn't. For one thing, hosts don't have "absolute freedom". For another, the authority that they do have is bound by the moderators.
Earlier, you said that I was resolutely opposed to any change. That's really untrue. I do think that the basic structure of the Mote is very solid, and I am resistant to changes that mess with that structure. But I do think we need changes, and I enjoy talking about how to effect them.
11473. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 2:21:17 PM
If you didn't keep missing the meetings, PP, you would be up to speed on the workings of the inner circle. Besides, it's your turn to bring the refreshments.
11474. CalGal - 4/3/2001 2:26:27 PM
Ms,
For someone who spent a tremendous amount of energy railing against the seemingly arbitrary actions of the Slate moderators, and the ever ubiquitous 'inner circle' at the old Fray
Actually I stated for the record that I had been wrong to complain about Irv's system for resolving issues long before the Mote. I realized that I was wrong; that whether one had a system or operated by judgment call based on how one felt about the situation at hand, there would always be a degree of arbitrariness about forums. And that, contrary to my love of rules and structure, this was a good thing. I learned that systems could have flexibility built into the model.
I came to this realization through a series of conversations with Irv and watching how he made decisions, as well as through my early experiences at Tabletalk.
So you are quite correct to note this change. However, it was a change of opinion that occurred nearly a year before the Mote came into being, and this change had a great deal to do with what policies I supported in the formation of the Mote.
(that is separate from my Irv/FV issue, where my opinion hasn't changed.)
11475. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:29:40 PM
I think that's been the case from the beginning. Obviously, thread hosts also want to "sell" their thread to the community, or it won't get activity. So they have control to craft their "product".
If so, I missed it, and didn't get to comment. I think this is a very bad idea if there are no ground rules as to how to manage the thread.
And again, I assert that hosts shouldn't sell anything. People flock to discussions because they're interesting, intelligent, and informative, not because of marketing or personalities of the hosts. It never crossed my mind when I agreed to host a thread that I was "in control of a product". I agreed to host because it seemed like a shared responsibility, and it was a topic I could get behind to maintain the required effort. I always assumed people agreed to host because they were interested in the topic, and thought they had something to contribute to it.
I seem to have been so out of the loop on the why's and wherefore's on the conceptualization of this site and it's "culture" that I feel I'm in a different galaxy these days.
11476. CalGal - 4/3/2001 2:30:31 PM
This isn't to say that hosts can't set a tone, or set other guidelines, but there ought to be warnings, requests to get back in line, etc. before action is taken.
This, I agree with. I've been thinking the same thing myself. That excludes privacy violations and threats, obviously.
I would also like to see moves, rather than deletions, as a general rule--but I hate enforcing that as an absolute.
11477. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:31:58 PM
Actually I stated for the record that I had been wrong to complain about Irv's system for resolving issues long before the Mote
Well I must have missed this one too. And I don't recall a truce until the plug was pulled, but then, I don't keep records as to when things happen.
11478. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/3/2001 2:34:12 PM
The good doctor is dumbfounded as to why this discussion is occuring when it is clear to see that the true tragedy of this Mote is the dictatorial powers assumed by one strutting jackbooted martinet, Nilson.
All the rest is knitting our brows over cold coffee whilst an iceberg smashes our prow, dear friends.
11479. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:36:47 PM
I swear to God that sounds just like Blaise. Same obsessive focus, same one note rails.
I'm betting that the Dr is Blaise.
11480. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 2:37:47 PM
I've heard that it's Jonathan.
11481. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 2:39:08 PM
Cazart(Blaise is busy and has a rich life guys)..I object to your constant misspelling of Nillson...
11482. Autodaffy - 4/3/2001 2:39:51 PM
Wonkers,
You go back though the posts in that thread and find another instance of someone questioning the size of someone's sex organs. It is my intention that Education not devolve into the septic tank that other threads are.
I find it just a little funny that following a discussion of why people don't stay after visiting the Mote, we have people urging that we allow this sort of intemperate language in the threads. I've had posts moved and I respect the reasons they were moved.
Language like this wouldn't be acceptable at work or among friends. People don't remain part of a "real" community that they treat this way. Would Ms. It survive whereever she is if she went arount calling people "idiot" to their faces? Why should it be acceptable here? Does it promote discussion?
As to new rules: You can write three hundred paragraphs and you will not remove the need for the host or someone to make judgement calls. You will gum up the works and invite hair-splitting arguments. Unfair hosts should simply be removed.
11483. glendajean - 4/3/2001 2:40:42 PM
I swear to God that sounds just like Blaise. Same obsessive focus, same one note rails.
Ha. Was there a Michael Kinsley fantasy that I missed?
11484. CalGal - 4/3/2001 2:41:22 PM
Ms,
On 11475--you're probably right that it's not necessary to see the thread hosting that way. I apologize for overstating it. Although I think that analogy was used in the early days.
But the point remains--people who host the thread have a right to set the standards that they choose. Regardless of how they frame it in their own mind: as their domain, their empire, their cooperative that they are just shepherding, whatever.
If they abuse it, the thread will be removed.
It's kind of ironic. The moderators were getting grief a few months ago for being slow to create threads. Now they're creating them quickly; I suppose it's inevitable that there would be complaints about hosting as a result.
11485. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:41:23 PM
Remove Autodaffy!
A call! A call for Action!
REMOVE AUTODAFFY!!!!!
11486. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:43:50 PM
Glenda
That was funny.
No Michael Kinsley around here so I guess it has to be someone else.
Peeps
I'll take your word for it that Blaise is otherwise occupied...rich life????
11487. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/3/2001 2:44:00 PM
Which thread needs a cure from the good doctor first.
Ass Spade's. My good friend Rubberducky's. Or shall I relieve Autodaffy?
Snap to friends. I haven't got all day.
11488. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 2:46:04 PM
Actually, if you can restrain your ego and self-promotion, you couldn't be worse than Autodaffy, that's for sure.
11489. CalGal - 4/3/2001 2:46:36 PM
Well I must have missed this one too. And I don't recall a truce until the plug was pulled, but then, I don't keep records as to when things happen.
Oh, Irv and I buried the hatchet--from my perspective, anyway--in October of 98. And that was when we also started discussing policy decisions generally, and when I really started watching how he made decisions.
I'm not sure I disagree with Auto moving a post about penis size, even if I might not have done it.
11490. Fielding - 4/3/2001 2:47:03 PM
Movies and Television.
11491. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/3/2001 2:48:21 PM
How does one go about becoming a martinet like Nilson?
Perhaps the good doctor has been aiming to low.
11492. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 2:51:23 PM
Yea...speaking of hosts I am tired of the personality and posts of PP...immodestly earnest, sycophantic, self-serving, moralistic, pedantic, cryptic w/o redeeming value, links w/o context... images juxtaposed w/o meaning, topic changing bull shit...and those fucking dots used to cover emerging illiteracy... 
11493. Francis Urquhart - 4/3/2001 2:53:31 PM
I'm pleased to not that the consolidation effort has shown impressive results. As a result of thread consolidation, we have gone from 28 to 29 threads.
I would like a thread entitled "Bundt Cakes."
Thanks in advance.
11494. wonkers2 - 4/3/2001 2:54:17 PM
Autodaffy: "Language like this wouldn't be acceptable at work or among friends."
Your workplace and friends are quite different from mine, starting with the fact that most of them have at least a vestigial sense of humor. And, as I posted somewhere, the intent of my remark that you found offensive was purely educational (for JFs benefit) and therefore completely consistent with the purpose of the thread.
11495. wonkers2 - 4/3/2001 2:55:22 PM
Autodaffy: "Language like this wouldn't be acceptable at work or among friends."
Your workplace and friends are quite different from mine, starting with the fact that most of them have at least a vestigial sense of humor. And, as I posted somewhere, the intent of my query that you found offensive was purely educational (for JFs benefit) and therefore completely consistent with the purpose of the thread.
11496. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 2:56:00 PM
New plan:
Francis takes over Ace's thread.
Ace takes over Religion.
PP takes over Politics.
CalGal takes over Sports.
Fielding takes over Movies.
I'll take over the Quiz thread.
Chuck all the rest, except the Cafe, and deactivate it until Diva returns.
11497. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 2:58:34 PM
Agreed PP, but you're still the best we have, although your bandy coverage was disappointing.
11498. CalGal - 4/3/2001 3:00:14 PM
Hell, no, if we're going to be arbitrary, I'll take politics, Ace can have Sports, and PP can have religion. I don't want Sports.
But I don't understand this need to purge threads.
11499. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 3:02:29 PM
Ace has to get Religion.
11500. wabbit - 4/3/2001 3:04:58 PM
Ok, folks, what I've come up with is in the Policy thread. Have at it.
Message # 1336 in thread 39
I'm off to work and will check in late tonight.
11501. Francis Urquhart - 4/3/2001 3:05:22 PM
Today's Cuts
Å Barrel of Rants!
Language
Notices and Queries
Parenting
Survivor 2 (subsume it in Movies/TV)
Technical Issues
The Happy Talk Funtime Thread
The Quiz Thread
The Slow Thread
Try the Mote
Merge
Finances and Careers with Health Policy for "Money, Job, and Health"
Merge Literature, Theirs and Ours and Arts and Music and Poetry for "Literature, Poetry, Arts and Music"
11502. Fielding - 4/3/2001 3:05:46 PM
CalGal to politics is a fine idea.
11503. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 3:07:03 PM
Somehow I thought Indy was kiddin.
11504. Francis Urquhart - 4/3/2001 3:07:18 PM
Cal
The discussion on the merits of consolidation has been had. I simply offer the proposal and refer those who would consider it to prior discussions.
11505. Francis Urquhart - 4/3/2001 3:08:44 PM
Nobody can go to Politics without dealing with the jexster issue. Who wants to do that? He's there, he owns the thread, he's mentally unstable, so more power to him, and so much for Politics. I think Politics should either be given to jexster or it needs no host.
11506. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 3:09:33 PM
God help us if Ace ever gets Religion, he's near insufferable now, but Ace as a born again? Yrch!
11507. CalGal - 4/3/2001 3:10:02 PM
Sigh. Are we going through this again?
oh, well. I think Travel, Rants, N&Q, and Ace's thread can go--assuming Ace wants it to, based on his recent posts.
I suggested that the Quiz thread can go and quizzes can go in various threads, but some people objected to that.
I like Try the Mote and alistair is still the person to make the call on the Tech thread.
I don't like the suggested merges. They've already merged.
11508. CalGal - 4/3/2001 3:12:31 PM
Francis,
??? on 11504.
On Politics and Jexter/bbb/Concerned, I think it needs to stop. Otherwise, give them their own thread to strew shit around.
11509. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 3:12:33 PM
Let's pull the plug on the entire Mote.
FU's nihilism has a certain infectious quality about it.
11510. Francis Urquhart - 4/3/2001 3:15:23 PM
Vee must trim zee fat and vee must become more eeeeficient.
11511. vonKreedon - 4/3/2001 3:17:08 PM
Kill everything but the Cafe and the Inferno, sort of a Heaven/Hell thing.
11512. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 3:17:24 PM
What would you propose to do WRT Jexster? How would you institute a rule against quoting articles repeatedly and at length without also picking off several other Moters who do this from time to time?
11513. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 3:17:36 PM
When are you going to host again, FU? You better do it soon. They're starting to take all the glamor away.
I suggest Parenting.
11514. wonkers2 - 4/3/2001 3:20:10 PM
Yeah, many of the articles are informative. A steady diet of Moters' off-the-cuff opinions and personal prejudices isn't the answer, either.
11515. CalGal - 4/3/2001 3:20:16 PM
How would you institute a rule against quoting articles repeatedly and at length without also picking off several other Moters who do this from time to time?
I would do it arbitrarily, of course.
11516. bubbaette - 4/3/2001 3:26:01 PM
I think that anything that is posted to several threads at roughly the same time that is not in relation to the conversation going on in the threads should be a target for moving or deletion. But if you have an otherwise idle thread and someone who wants to copy and link at length, what's the harm?
11517. Francis Urquhart - 4/3/2001 3:26:26 PM
Bubber
I suggested that jexster host Politics.
Indy
I will never host again. The draw to come back is always there, but you have to have the internal fortitude to know "That was my time. Now, the times belongs to others." I lost that vision when I tried the start-up Man Thread. I played Sugar Ray Leonard.
How are the Autodaffys and Fieldings going to learn if the old titans don't step aside?
11518. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2001 3:28:42 PM
I hear ya man.
Even Michael Jordan should stay retired.
11519. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 3:29:29 PM
haha...the Mote is something...nobodies postin anywhere but here where we're talking about postin elsewhere when we're not postin here. Unless we're talking abput the policy of postin and the thread hosts governing such and thereof.
11520. CalGal - 4/3/2001 3:31:46 PM
But if you have an otherwise idle thread and someone who wants to copy and link at length, what's the harm?
It drowns out the previous conversation. It makes the thread look ugly, unattractive, and causes people to stop posting in it.
11521. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 3:37:05 PM
BTW:
Spam control -- at least, the kind needed in Politics -- cannot currently be done at the thread-host level. All the host can do is delete/move posts; a determined spammer cannot be deterred by that, since cutting and pasting isn't very labor-intensive. And, of course, the host can't be here 24/7.
The only effective method is banning, or at least a credible threat of same.
11522. CalGal - 4/3/2001 3:40:55 PM
I disagree; I don't think banning is needed.
11523. mgleason - 4/3/2001 3:41:04 PM
Adding an articles sub-thread for those pieces that absolutelypositively cannot be linked would be a great help. Then there's no excuse to spam.
11524. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 3:43:15 PM
(It would be nice if people could be banned from specific threads, rather than from the whole site. The thread host should probably still be made to require the moderators' approval before imposing a ban.)
11525. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 3:45:55 PM
Jex doesn't need an excuse, MG. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him (and to bbb) that there are other, better ways of doing it. Hasn't made a difference.
11526. mgleason - 4/3/2001 3:54:10 PM
But perhaps the lust to see their (cut-and-pasted) deathless prose onscreen will be assuaged by posting to the other thread, then linking, Stumbo. At least it takes one of their arguments away.
11527. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 3:58:17 PM
Linking is gettin out of hand.
11528. mgleason - 4/3/2001 4:02:09 PM
?
11529. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 4:03:39 PM
MG:
But they can do that now. Post whatever crap you want on a GeoCities page, and link to it -- simple, no? Well, not for our Jex.
11530. mgleason - 4/3/2001 4:09:04 PM
Stumbo,
But they can say they don't want to set up a GeoCities page, or don't know how to do it, etc. This way, the rule is clear.
We should try it, at least.
11531. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:17:24 PM
Vk has graciously agreed to cohost my silly thread for a week or so.
If a Moderator is present and not too busy, please make this retard the cohost.
11532. CalGal - 4/3/2001 4:19:15 PM
I think a Spam thread is a good idea. Jex and others can post there to their hearts content, and we should all go in periodically and jeer at them to make them feel at home.
11533. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:24:33 PM
We can just establish rules to prevent spamming.
Like:
You cannot quote more than three sentences from an article, *UNLESS* there is a dispute between posters about some issue that the article in question sheds light on.
The rest of the article must be either linked or digested/summarized in the poster's own language. The poster may include brief selected quotations, but again, no more than three entire sentences can be copied and pasted.
This can also be said to be a form of copyright-lawsuit protection. Three sentences and quoted phrases constitutes fair use; lengthier copying does not.
Repeated violations are a cause for suspension. Persistant repeated violations can be a cause for banning.
And, of course: Thou shalt not re-post material you, or others, have already posted, *unless* such material is under active dispute by fellow posters.
11534. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:26:48 PM
Obviously, everyone would be affected by this rule, including me (Hey, I paste very lengthy passages all the time) and FU.
But I will abide by any such rule, once enacted.
The rule will obviously cause a few problems, but, if fairly and evenly enforced against *everybody*, no one can complain, and the spammage will be greatly reduced.
11535. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:29:40 PM
The threat of suspension/banning must be present. Thread hosts cannot, and should not be expected to, devote all their hours to cleaning up spam. The general penalty for spam will be a three or five day suspension.
We can also create a rule against one-sentence bait-posts. But perhaps this goes too far.
11536. CalGal - 4/3/2001 4:35:01 PM
Well, I think it's simpler than that. I don't think we should be prevented from linking in columns or quoting columns, on occasion. The thread isn't a propaganda site or a bulletin board, and it ought not to be treated as such.
11537. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:42:15 PM
"I don't think we should be prevented from linking in columns or quoting columns, on occasion."
You can still quote them in part (three sentences). You can actually digest the ENTIRETY of the column if you think it's good enough, but that will take a bit of effort, for you will have to SELECTIVELY quote & digest rather than merely cutting and pasting.
It can still be done. It's just not as easy. This will guarantee that only columns that a poster is REALLY in love with will be quoted/digested at length.
Personally, I'm sick of reading Molly Ivins and Paul Krugman columns. They are propagandists, pure and simple. The Right has propagandists, too, of course; but we tend not to quote them. We tend to quote LIBERAL columnists who criticize the party line.
I think that's an important distinction. It's just not particularly INTERESTING that Molly Ivins doesn't like Bush's tax plan. OF COURSE SHE DOESN'T!!! Why bother even saying so?
It is much more interesting that, say, William Kristol doesn't like the plan.
Similarly, it's not interesting to see Ann Coulter call Clinton a scumbag. It IS interesting to see Richard Cohen call Clinton a scumbag.
11538. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:42:24 PM
"The thread isn't a propaganda site or a bulletin board, and it ought not to be treated as such."
One man's "propaganda" is another man's "Truth." If we are to have rules, we must have objective and evenly-enforced rules. You cannot just suspend Jexster because he chooses to cut and paste Molly Ivins all the live-long day.
An objective rule against columns/articles being quoted at length will greatly reduce the spam.
The exception remains, however: When a point is actually DISPUTED/CONTENDED by posters -- i.e., when there's an actual debate about the point, an actual lively discussion -- the rule is relaxed.
But "teaser" posts -- posts intended to inform fellow posters or get them interested in a discussion -- must be limited to three quoted sentences.
If a teaser post spawns an actual discussion, the rule on teaser posts goes away.
11539. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 4:46:25 PM
The fact that nothing gets enforced "fairly and evenly" against everyone is related to the issue I've been trying to discuss all day, in fact, one could argue it emerges from the problem of a lack of standards for moving, deleting or handling posts the host finds offensive.
Personally, I think having a uniform set of rules for hosts as well as the site will go a long way to promoting compliance with the rules and standards in place. The arbitrary element here causes as much disaffection with the site as any rudeness and rough and tumble play.
11540. mgleason - 4/3/2001 4:46:53 PM
CG,
I cut-and-pasted a Salon survey into Notices in which you might be interested.
11541. PsychProf - 4/3/2001 4:47:24 PM
SONM
11542. CalGal - 4/3/2001 4:48:06 PM
You cannot just suspend Jexster because he chooses to cut and paste Molly Ivins all the live-long day.
I don't wish to suspend anyone at all; I think that's a bad idea. I just think the posts should be moved or deleted. And yes, I think doing no original comments and just cutting and pasting from articles is well worth moving--or, although I don't support it, suspending.
I don't have much problem with prohibiting longer quotes of articles, either. But if someone has a point to make, or is introducing a new idea or discussion, I don't think that should be banned just because some people get juiced by dumping nineteen pounds of shit in a thread.
It doesn't really make sense to me to force everyone to change their behavior just because two or three people are making a thread terrible.
So this bit about "three quoted sentences" is bullshit. That's not needed in order to move spam.
11543. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:49:58 PM
I don't like the "I know spam when I see it" standard.
If Jexster's posts are objectionable, what, precisely, makes them so?
I suggest that it is a combination of serveral things:
1) Failure to trim/digest lengthy articles. Rather, they are simply posted in their entirety, or near-entirety.
2) They are acontextual. It's one thing when Stumbo, Rask, and I are actively arguing about economics and we quote at length. There's an actual discussion going on, which is what this place is all about. Some people may not like the discussion, but it is a genuine debate.
Many of Jexster's posts neither arise from actual debate/interaction nor do they inspire any. They are "acontextual" -- without context. They are simply monologues, and lunatic ones at that.
Now, how do we limit that? Well, we can limit "teaser" posts to three sentences/the rest digested into the poster's own language. If a teaser post inspires an actual exchange, further posts are not strictly bound by the rules against lengthy quotations.
But if the teaser remains a teaser -- that is, it does not inspire comment -- the rules apply in full force.
If you want to show that you are responding to something said a few days ago, you must quote the post you are disputing. This both provides a context to the dispute and helps readers follow the debate.
If you can find no quote that you are disputing, then you post is a "teaser." Again, it must be kept brief.
11544. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:52:54 PM
"I don't wish to suspend anyone at all; I think that's a bad idea. "
Why not? We're talking about 3 or 5 day suspensions. Hardly a death penalty.
Once again, upon whom should the onus fall? Upon the thread host, or upon the poster himself? I feel the poster himself should be burdened with the primary responsibility of avoiding spam. The thread host is not a spam-nanny.
If someone violates, they are warned. If they violate again (within a week), they are suspended for three days. Later violations are punished by lengthier suspensions.
Net result? The Thread Host need not patrol for spam; posters will very quickly simply stop spamming. No one will get suspended, because almost everyone will comport themselves with the rule.
11545. mgleason - 4/3/2001 4:55:34 PM
Good work, Christin.
11546. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 4:56:28 PM
MsIt,
Have you read Wabbit's Hosting guidelines yet? If you're already posting in the Policies thread on this please just ignore this post, but if you haven't seen it yet it may address many of the concerns you have.
11547. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 4:57:36 PM
Rubberducky is not inclined to patrol for spam. Neither would I be.
Your suggestion that the thread host simply move spam is a non-suggestion. It is simply not going to happen. It is a bit like suggesting we solve the energy crisis by simply converting to Magic Energy.
There is far too much spam. Further, the decision to deem something "spam" is hopelessly subjective, which surely restrains RD from doing more of it. How can RD remove Jexster's "spam" when he allows similar (though slightly more contextual and interesting) "spam" by other posters?
No, this is no solution at all. If there are objective rules established, everyone will know what they must do to comport themselves with the rules.
11548. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 4:59:26 PM
I've created a subthread for Politics titled "Articles" and posted some general guidelines for it. Politics is still Rubberducky's thread and if he has beef about the change I've made I will give him a lot of leeway since he's host until we find someone else.
As for making more rigid rules about who can post what, I'm really not for it. I prefer less rules to more. We're not so big a forum that can't all still talk to each other and take individual circumstances into consideration. What happens if we make to many rules is that we end up having to enforce them even when they're absurd or run the risk of 92 Chicken-Littles running around screaming "That's not fair!!!!"
11549. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:00:29 PM
If Jexster's posts are objectionable, what, precisely, makes them so?
I disagree with your answers to this question. The single biggest problem with Jex is volume. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. He's like a fucking lunatic on a street corner.
If he stops doing that, then I really don't much care if he occasionally posts a rant or two, regardless of length. Neither would anyone else, I suspect. It's the sheer volume that makes it unbearable. He posts nothing of original content, nothing in response to anyone else.
If all he does is post 50 links with three quoted lines in a row, the Jex problem isn't solved and we've needlessly bound everyone else to a restriction that was only created for him in the first place.
11550. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 5:03:00 PM
The single biggest problem with Jex is volume. --CalGal
You may deduce why this bears repeating for yourself.
11551. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 5:03:22 PM
"Articles" actually appears in main thread list, too.
11552. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:03:34 PM
Further, the decision to deem something "spam" is hopelessly subjective, which surely restrains RD from doing more of it. How can RD remove Jexster's "spam" when he allows similar (though slightly more contextual and interesting) "spam" by other posters?
Pretty easily, actually. If Jex posts some gazillion posts in a row, they can be moved to the Articles thread. Although I'm not sure this "Articles" thread will work, if we all have to go there to post any article.
As I said, it is unworkable to me that we all have to change our behavior just because Jex and a few others destroy the thread. They'll just figure a way around it anda everyone else--who wasn't causing problems to start with--now risks breaking rules that were only created for one person.
11553. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:05:46 PM
"If all he does is post 50 links with three quoted lines in a row"
They cannot be from the same article. The rule is not "three sentences per post" but "three sentences per ARTICLE." It doesn't matter if you spread your cut and paste job over five posts. Once you've quoted three lines from the same article, you are spamming.
"The single biggest problem with Jex is volume. "
No, it's not. I post a lot too. The problem is not volume. The problem is crap in quantity.
You cannot limit someone's quantity. You can, however, limit his crap.
"What happens if we make to many rules is that we end up having to enforce them even when they're absurd or run the risk of 92 Chicken-Littles running around screaming "That's not fair!!!!"
Silly. You are suggesting we just "deal with things" on a subjective, shifting-standards basis. If anything is bound to trigger a "That's not fair!" response, it is subjective, capricious, standardless decisionmaking.
Objective rules may be silly. They may be onerous. But they are bright-line rules and no one can claim "selective enforcement" if they are evenly enforced.
11554. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 5:07:30 PM
(I would've preferred using the Inferno for this purpose, if anything, rather than a new thread or sub-thread. Not only would it have saved any extra efforts; but the idea of posters, in effect, pre-emptively moving their own posts to the Inferno has some comic appeal. To me, at least.)
11555. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:08:49 PM
Furthermore, I suggest that these rules simply do not even APPLY to most people, most of the time. The "Active Dispute" exception takes care of most of this.
Can you remember to only quote three lines/digest & summarize the rest when you are posting a new article or trying to inspire a new debate? I think you can, and I think it would be incredibly easy for you to simply comply with the rule.
11556. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:10:26 PM
I post a lot too. The problem is not volume. The problem is crap in quantity.
No, I mean the volume of no original content, just link after link after quote after quote after big font "eat my runny shit" after another.
I have no problem with selective enforcement if it means "Everyone can occasionally provide a link of an article that interests them" but "If someone posts spam after spam after spam they get their posts moved".
11557. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:12:29 PM
Say what you like about Concerned, but when he posts, he posts in response to fellow posters. All of his posts reference previous statements, and are genuine debate. (Although, since he posts chiefly at night, they are not *real-time* correspondence, but rather epistolatory. But there is no problem with that; we do not seek to penalize posters who are not on American time, or who only post late during the American period of night.)
Personally, I'd prefer it Concerned actually quoted language from the post he is responding to, rather than just referencing "Re: 3415." But that's a stylistic issue.
I've told him that quoting the disputed languange would make his posts much more reader-friendly and inviting, but he doesn't seem to agree.
11558. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 5:13:38 PM
Stumbo,
Once again, thanks for the heads up. Didn't mean to list it in the main page.
11559. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 5:15:22 PM
Ms. No,
I just read and commented, FWIW.
11560. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 5:15:56 PM
And my call to eliminate Host Autodaffy still stands, and was serious.
11561. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:16:15 PM
Ace,
I tend to agree about concerned--if he were around with everyone else it wouldn't look so odd. Fair enough.
However, I think it is wrong to try and construct a rule that affects everyone when the real problem is one person (or a few people) who behaves abnormally.
11562. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:17:01 PM
The Article thing is a bit soft. First, if we are to link from a "real thread" to an article, why not just link to the article itself, rather than linking to a cut and paste job in the Aricle thread?
Nutty.
Second, why can't we discuss articles posted in the Article thread IN the Article thread? That's easily remedied, of course.
I dunno. It just seems pretty superfluous. The Inferno seems to be the place for such nonsense.
I have no real objection to the Article thread per se, except it seems to be an attempt to soft-peddle the real problme by creating a half-assed "solution."
11563. mgleason - 4/3/2001 5:17:02 PM
So, links to outside sources are still OK, but cut-and-paste jobs go into Articles and then are linked to in the body of one's post in Politics (or wherever)?
11564. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:20:57 PM
Then again, the history of politics of all sorts (including minor social-group politics) is nothing but the history of soft-peddling of problems and the enactment of half-assed "solutions" which solve nothing.
So, what the hell.
11565. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 5:22:43 PM
Ace: this is intended to address the can't-link-to-Nexis-articles excuse.
11566. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:24:39 PM
"Ace: this is intended to address the can't-link-to-Nexis-articles excuse"
Hm?
I don't really get it.
FU cuts and pastes Nexis articles all the time. The distinction there is that FU does so in response to a fellow poster, in the context of actual debate.
11567. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2001 5:25:10 PM
So you think that by creating an articles sub-thread you will force jexster to post there? He will just laugh at you. And who will take on the thankless task of moving his posts there?
11568. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 5:27:03 PM
Maria,
Yes, exactly.
Ace,
The point of the Articles thread is that there are often articles which cannot be linked to so they have to be cut and pasted into the thread to be referred to.
Rather than derail the entire thread for 20 continuous cut and paste jobs of an entire article those posts can be put into Articles and then linked to the main thread for those who wish to actually read the article.
Articles that CAN be linked to elsewhere on the web should be.
Discussing the articles in the Articles thread itself would defeat the purpose of moving cut and pasted diatribes.
11569. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:30:13 PM
Okay, I could see that working. But that wasn't the original problem anyway, and that won't fix the Jex problem.
11570. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 5:33:07 PM
Pelle,
The point is that there is now no excuse to spam the thread with cut and paste jobs. Posts can be moved if they're egregious and if a poster requires moving too often then he can be suspended for spamming.
On another note it means that nobody has to wade through endless cuts and pastes of any sort in the Politics thread (where they most often occur).
11571. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:33:13 PM
Message # 11459 PelleNilsson
To end my ranting on the subject I don't think we need a "Rules and Regulations for Hosts" but rather a "Some Suggestions for Successful Hosting". I hope that's what wabbit is working on.
Well-said. Rules and regs would be too tough.
11572. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:34:40 PM
Message # 11474 CalGal
(that is separate from my Irv/FV issue, where my opinion hasn't changed.)
Except, of course, when you are the one with secret powers.
11573. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:37:33 PM
Dusty,
????
I have no secret powers.
11574. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:37:50 PM
Message # 11524 Stumbo
(It would be nice if people could be banned from specific threads, rather than from the whole site. The thread host should probably still be made to require the moderators' approval before imposing a ban.)
??
I thought this option was available. Wasn't one of the Jon issues over his banning of Stone from a single thread. Or vice-versa.
11575. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:38:33 PM
Time Magazine board comes to an end
Also just read that Fortune pulled its forum.
We were talking about this earlier in the week--magazine forums may slowly be going buh-bye.
11576. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:38:53 PM
"So you think that by creating an articles sub-thread you will force jexster to post there? He will just laugh at you. And who will take on the thankless task of moving his posts there?"
Precisely. Apparently we now have a regime of voluntary compliance. The polluters will simply continue polluting.
And RD is left without an objective standard which he would feel comfortable enforcing. Further, to enforce any standard at all would require a great deal of work on RD's part, work he has indicated (sensibly) he has no desire to undertake.
11577. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 5:39:52 PM
Another break with tradition.
Without any discussion, Ace says that VonKreep will host his vanity thread while Mr. Spades does his mysterious thing the next couple of weeks.
I say axe the sucker--and let the high card get in line to start another thread in the third quarter of 2001.
There are plenty of others who have lobbied for interesting threads and who are waiting in line.
Initially, Ace's thread was only going to be a short-term comic one. I was hoping to see more on X-Men, James Bond, etc. But the wine of power changed all that. Personally, I have been very disappointed with the writing, philosphy and and top-heavy visuals--and seeing a young lady I respect embarrass herself.
No names, of course.
11578. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 5:39:58 PM
Dusty,
A poster is either enabled or disabled applicable to the entire site. We don't currently have any way of banning specific to thread except for the tedious and silly constant deletion or removal of a member's every post.
11579. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:41:33 PM
So long as Rosetta keeps calling for an end to my thread, I know damn well that it will never be RIPped, no matter how bad or how sparsely visited it becomes.
Thank you, Rosie.
11580. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:42:36 PM
Message # 11517 Francis Urquhart
I suggested that jexster host Politics.
Message # 11493 Francis Urquhart
I would like a thread entitled "Bundt Cakes."
Maybe we should do both. Let jexter host politics. Create a new thread called "bundt cakes". Tell everyone (except Jexter) to discuss politics in "bundt cakes". Sure, he'll catch on, but it might take a couple months before he notices. Even longer if somone volunteers to post in Politics once in a while.
11581. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 5:43:59 PM
Ace,
I'm against a concrete do or die standard because in a forum this small it's absurd to ban or suspend someone for going over the three sentence rule a single time for a germane quotation just so that we don't have cries of "No Fair" by the peanut gallery when we suspend or ban a poster who abuses our hospitality.
11582. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:44:25 PM
Ms. No
I believe you. Can you remind me what happened in the incident I referenced? My internal system will be out of whack until I understand.
11583. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:46:14 PM
A potential fix to the Politics problem was just implemented. Let's see if it works before noodling new solutions.
11584. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:46:44 PM
just so that we don't have cries of "No Fair" by the peanut gallery when we suspend or ban a poster who abuses our hospitality.
Exactly, which is why I see no need for a rule in this case. If the host comes in and sees 25 posts of spam, they get moved. If, instead, they are commentary or responses, they dont'.
11585. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:47:28 PM
A potential fix to the Politics problem was just implemented.
No, it wasn't. That was a different issue and has nothing to do with the Politics problem.
11586. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 5:48:37 PM
"I say axe the sucker--and let the high card get in line to start another thread in the third quarter of 2001."
Sure. Dr. Smith's thread. Again and again, all we hear about is Dr. Smith's thread.
"There are plenty of others who have lobbied for interesting threads and who are waiting in line."
Namely, poor abused Dr. Smith. And of course Rosie.
Rosie is the Al Gore of the Mote. No matter how little traffic his threads get, no matter how few people support his suggestions, he just keeps demanding recount after recount.
He just wants to keep counting his and Dr. Smith's votes over and over again, hoping that this time they will number more than *two*.
"Initially, Ace's thread was only going to be a short-term comic one."
Comic, yes. Short-term, not necessarily. Depends on how well it fares.
We just passed the 1000 post mark, which isn't terribly shabby, considering the fact that 1) I've been incredibly busy and 2) most threads here have garnered far, far less than 1000 posts in the same time period. There does not seem to be much traffic at ALL here lately.
"I was hoping to see more on X-Men, James Bond, etc."
You are free to post what you like about X-Men and James Bond. If you say something interesting, I will be more than happy to respond.
I imagine this is a rather remote possibility, however.
"But the wine of power changed all that."
Yes, I've gone power-mad. The sweet nectar of absolute power has changed me.
This used to be about *love*. Now it's just about the Benjamins.
"Personally, I have been very disappointed with the writing, philosphy and and top-heavy visuals--and seeing a young lady I respect embarrass herself."
Poor Jen. Every loser has a hard-on for her and becomes terribly disappointed when she talks to other men.
11587. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 5:52:23 PM
Dusty,
I may have the details wrong on this but I believe it occurred when Nos/Jon was hosting religion. He deleted or moved a bunch of Rosie's posts effectively banning him from the thread. As to the legitimacy of either side I don't recall.
11588. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:57:56 PM
Message # 11585 CalGal
No, it wasn't. That was a different issue and has nothing to do with the Politics problem.
???
Ace proposed a three sentence rule to deal with Jexter's penchant for spamming with Lexis text. The articles subthread was created to hold his spam. I'm not holding my breath that Jex will comply (and I wouldn't bet against Ace's prediction), but if he does, it sounds like a fix to the issue Ace discussed. Why don't you think that the articles subthread is related to the jexter spam?
11589. Dusty - 4/3/2001 5:59:36 PM
Ms. No
Thanks for the answer. Maybe people referring to it dropped the "effective" adjective and just talked about the banning. I may have read it literally.
11590. CalGal - 4/3/2001 5:59:49 PM
The articles subthread was created to hold his spam.
No, it wasn't. Not from what Christin and Maria said, anyway. It was created for when Francis and others look up an article in Nexis. Not a problem, really, for all we gripe at Francis when he does it. Still, it's fine for that particular problem. It won't solve the linking issue and frankly, I didn't see the need for the thread. I don't think it will solve the problem, and I don't think the situation it was created for is that much of a problem.
11591. Dusty - 4/3/2001 6:01:18 PM
AceofSpades
Rosie is the Al Gore of the Mote.
Surely this is abuse beyond all reasonable standards of decency.
11592. mgleason - 4/3/2001 6:03:55 PM
The way I read Christin, anything that can't be linked from the source goes in Articles, and is then linked from there.
11593. Dusty - 4/3/2001 6:07:03 PM
CalGal
Surely you cannot be serious.
TPTB created a special thread to hold excerpts from Lexis when quoted by Francis, but not when quoted by Jexter?
You cannot mean that.
I think you are confused. There may well be more than one problem in Politics, but the one I was referring to, and the one Ace was discussing, related to the posting of excerpts from Lexis. The articles subthread is intended to hold those excerpts, even for Jexter.
11594. Dusty - 4/3/2001 6:07:35 PM
mgleason
Yes.
Glad someone understands.
11595. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 6:08:05 PM
Does this mean if it can be linked to, the 3 to 5 line rule giving a taste of what the linked article is about is to be in force?
11596. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:08:38 PM
"Surely this is abuse beyond all reasonable standards of decency."
Abuse to Rosie or abuse to Al Gore?
11597. Dusty - 4/3/2001 6:09:12 PM
mgleason
Although I'll modify that to say I assume it refers to lengthy selections. It doesn't make sense to copy a sentence or two into articles.
11598. Dusty - 4/3/2001 6:09:39 PM
Ace
Good point.
11599. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:10:30 PM
". It was created for when Francis and others look up an article in Nexis"
Wait-- so Francis' useful and contextual Nexis articles (which frequently settle a petty factual dispute with 100% confidence) must be posted in the "Articles" thread, while Jexster continues to spam the thread with his 100dth reiteration of Democrats.org's Florida Vote "Counts"?
11600. mgleason - 4/3/2001 6:11:34 PM
Dusty,
Right.
11601. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:19:08 PM
Judith,
I think that's a good idea. What's the point of the link if you've already posted the article?
11602. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:21:42 PM
Ace,
You didn't really think I'd create a Siberia for a single poster did you? Endless posts of cut and paste are tedious no matter who does it. The fact that Jexter is the most frequent perpetrator doesn't mean it isn't annoying when others do it.
11603. CalGal - 4/3/2001 6:22:24 PM
TPTB created a special thread to hold excerpts from Lexis when quoted by Francis, but not when quoted by Jexter?
Given that Lexis articles aren't the problem with Jex, who cares? It's not Lexis articles that cause the problem.
Wait-- so Francis' useful and contextual Nexis articles (which frequently settle a petty factual dispute with 100% confidence) must be posted in the "Articles" thread, while Jexster continues to spam the thread with his 100dth reiteration of Democrats.org's Florida Vote "Counts"?
Exactly. That's what I think is silly. For all the bitching I do about FU not linking, it's mainly in fun. It's not the problem. So we now have a solution for something that isn't a problem, and haven't solved the problem.
11604. iiibbb - 4/3/2001 6:23:16 PM
Kinda like gun control... only the responsible people would post in "articles"... while I suspect Jecter will continue to make Politics completely inhospitable.
S/He accounts for 2/3rds of the posts in there on just about any time I go and look... and that's less often because it's such a pain to wade through it all.
11605. CalGal - 4/3/2001 6:24:09 PM
If you have to create an Articles thread, it can't only be for Nexis stuff. It would have to be that we put all articles in there, whether they are linkable or not. Then we put a link in the post, period. To make it only for non-linkable articles is silly.
And frankly, that sucks. It's a huge amount of work for everyone else, for a problem that is only caused by a very few people.
11606. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:25:10 PM
"So we now have a solution for something that isn't a problem, and haven't solved the problem."
Agreed in response.
This can all be resolved by my three-mathematical-set/four-procedural-steps Inventoried Wants Decision Tree.
11607. mgleason - 4/3/2001 6:27:57 PM
Christin floated the idea yesterday, when Jexter was posting an entire article to which he could not link. It makes sense; if you must cut-and-paste, do it in Articles, and link from there. If not, link from the source.
It's hardly any additional work at all.
11608. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 6:28:51 PM
MsNO:
I think that's a good idea. What's the point of the link if you've already posted the article?
I usually post a short paragraph or 2 sorta like an appetizer, to whet the appetite for the full course. But a few well-chosen lines will work just as well.
11609. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:29:05 PM
The problem is not the posting of articles per se.
The problem is monologues. Monologues unrelated to any previous debate and unlikely to provoke any future debate.
11610. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 6:29:28 PM
The real solution, as I've said all along, is banning. First for a week, then for good if need be.
11611. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:30:47 PM
That is the correct penalty, Stumbo. But what precisely is the *crime*?
Spamming must be defined in order to, in good conscience, suspend or ban anyone for doing so.
11612. iiibbb - 4/3/2001 6:32:56 PM
If it walks like a Jex...Talks like a Jex.... Spams like a Jex
then it's a Jex
11613. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:33:01 PM
Pelle,
A belated thank-you for making Gurps-boy my cohost.
Thank you.
11614. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:33:37 PM
Ace & CalGal,
You're obviously not talking about various and vague "posters". You're specifically talking about the manner in which Jexter posts and making a rule which would force him to post in a manner to your liking or face banishment.
We don't need yet another rule. His posts are pretty much spam. If folks want to ban him then there's plenty of reason to do so. However, I don't support creating more rules or obscure threads so that we can say we didn't ban someone just because he's really, really annoying.
11615. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:34:24 PM
"If it walks like a Jex...Talks like a Jex.... Spams like a Jex
then it's a Jex"
Dream on. This simply is not going to happen. No one here is going to suspend or ban somebody for violating some vaguely-conceived rule requiring a poster to be "interesting."
Jexster and Rosie are not interesting posters. That is a problem. But we can hardly ban people for this.
11616. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 6:35:17 PM
I've asked bbb before not to post articles about Bobby Knight and 7 ft basketball players being signed in Politics and Ducks has warned him about it, too, but he still does it, regardless. So Jex isn't the only problem in that area. I've looked in and seen nothing but post after post from bbb containing nothing but links, pastes, and an occassional "attaboy" from Rosie.
11617. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:36:11 PM
Actually, let me clarify:
Not only COULD we ban people for this, we probably SHOULD ban people for being monotonous, boring, tedious, repetitive, and, in a word, retarded.
But it will still NEVER HAPPEN.
11618. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:36:39 PM
Maria, my angel! You have the right of it.
11619. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:37:22 PM
Yes, BBB posts EVERYTHING in politics, even if it is clearly a subject for another thread.
Last week he posted something about television ratings in Politics, for example.
BBB is apparently unaware that there are other threads in the Mote.
11620. iiibbb - 4/3/2001 6:38:01 PM
I was being facitious Ace...
I agree with you. There has to be a standard... otherwise it's the Florida election again; where people will want to chage the rules to suit their outcome.
11621. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:40:57 PM
Well, then, what we need is to supply Ducky with a cohost who is more willing to rule with an iron fist.
I would volunteer, but I really can't dedicate the time at the moment, and, in addition, people might object. Further, I am actually so sick of Jexster that my responses would not be reasonable. I would either suspend him outright, immediately, or I would go the opposite way, giving him way too much leeway because I know that I have a great deal of animus towards him and his spam.
11622. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:41:27 PM
overcorrecting, in other words.
11623. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:42:13 PM
Stumbo has suggested that either he or Jexster must go.
Well, how about Stumbo cohosting?
11624. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 6:44:01 PM
Judith,
If posts are off topic, spam, abuse whatever then the thread host has the power to move or delete them. If folks don't like the way a thread is being hosted then they should bring it to the attention of the Moderators.
Rubberducky has explicitly stated that he doesn't have the kind of time to devote to Politics that apparently everyone wants him to give. He's asked for volunteers and none stepped forward. We've attempted to draft folks all of whom have refused.
I've got a couple of emails out to prospective hosts but if they don't bite it's back to the drawing board.
Everyone has a complaint but no-one really wants to be part of the solution. If we don't find a host who can meet everyone's needs then the thread should probably just be shut down.
11625. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:47:46 PM
Actually, since Politics needs a lot of work, why not have four, five, or even six cohosts?
That way, there'd almost always be someone around to patrol for spam.
With so many cohosts, the burden would not fall too heavily onto one host's shoulders.
In such a "Gang of Many" scheme, I'd cohost, if allowed to.
Fielding, me, stumbo, ducky, FU, Indy, Cal, MsIT etc... some large collection of people.
Because the politics thread is so popular (or used to be), it does not need a POSITIVE host, like PP is a positive host of the Sports bar or Greystoke is a positive host of Current events. These people supply content and keep things moving forward.
But politics doesn't need that, and never has needed that. What it needs is not a host who adds to the thread, but hosts who SUBTRACT from the thread.
It doesn't need a "host," it merely requires minders.
It doesn't need Jerry Springer; it just needs his six Security guards.
11626. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:48:30 PM
I will take over Politics, if allowed to, and if I have at least one or two other cohosts.
11627. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:51:31 PM
My time is restricted this week and part of the next, but after that I should be more availabe, assuming work doesn't intrude.
11628. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/3/2001 6:53:23 PM
> I've got a couple of emails out to prospective hosts but if they don't
bite it's back to the drawing board.
Your mail to the good doctor must have been mislayed.
I am astounded to see the lengths that the puppets of Nilson will go to single me out for punishment. Now they have passed special laws against good and noble Jexster merely for befrriending me.
I imagine that wise Rubberducky's "resignation" is part of the neverending plot against my person as well. No doubt Nilson has pressured my good friend for his resignation ever since he sided with me during Nilson's gestapo-like machinations.
11629. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:54:15 PM
Dr. Smith,
Have you read "A Confederacy of Dunces," perchance?
11630. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/3/2001 6:54:55 PM
I do not waste my precious time with novels.
11631. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:57:46 PM
I am one of the few ones here who think you are pretty funny when you do this act.
I just figured out why.
You're doing Ignacious T. Reilly from "A Confederacy of Dunces."
I will join you:
Ms. No,
You run this place as if the major domo of a House of Diseased Strumpets. I insist you end this virulent strupetry and instill yourself with a bit more theology and geometry.
Fortuna's mighty wheel is turning, and when it comes to a stop it will be I, Ignacious T. Reilly, who sits atop Fortune's Glory and you who shall go the way of the dodo.
Heed my words, Madame Strumpet.
11632. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 6:58:58 PM
"I do not waste my precious time with novels."
You spend all your time composing essays in your Big Chief lined notebooks, ay?
11633. mgleason - 4/3/2001 6:59:45 PM
Christin,
I can help with Politics during the day. I think a few volunteers to take turns, as Ace suggests, would really help.
11634. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 7:01:25 PM
Ace:
As you yourself stated earlier, it should not be the host's duty to patrol for spam, even if this duty is split between several people.
Notice it once, delete and warn. Repeat offense within a month or so, ban.
(I'd rather not host anything, BTW; but I wouldn't even dream of hosting Politics without banning power. Even though it would probably only need to be used once or twice.)
11635. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 7:02:10 PM
Xavier,
Admit that I have twigged you out. Admit that the name "Xavier T. Coltrane" is somehow derived from "Ignatious T. Reilly."
Admit it. You have been found out.
11636. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 7:06:40 PM
Judith:
Yes, bbb is the "or twice."
11637. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 7:08:04 PM
If posts are off topic, spam, abuse whatever then the thread host has the power to move or delete them. If folks don't like the way a thread is being hosted then they should bring it to the attention of the Moderators.
Maybe the third time's the charm....
I object to Autodaffy moderating the Education thread. I suggest a new host, perhaps Arky, or maybe PD can be enticed back to co-host with her. I'd volunteer to co-host with someone, but I'm not looking to take the job, just to protest the leadership of the daffy one.
11638. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 7:12:00 PM
I'd agree to a multiple hosting gig with some others here. I could arrange a schedule for a weekend day, or some evening times, but like others, my time is limited.
And I couldn't joint host politics and education, so pick one and I'll do my duty.
I agree with Chrisin's mild rebuke that there is much criticism without adequate stepping up to the plate, and so I will do whatever is required.
11639. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 7:12:21 PM
Christin's rebuke, that is.
11640. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 7:12:34 PM
Mote's cell circle gets smaller and smaller as the same 12 people work out the logistics of controlling the 26 threads.
11641. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 7:14:59 PM
No wonder, then, that they won't let you into the group, RS. You'd bring bad luck.
11642. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 7:22:47 PM
MsIt,
Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. Your comments regarding Autodaffy are duly noted, but I haven't had a chance to check out the thread. I'll look into it as soon as I can.
11643. Ms. No - 4/3/2001 7:28:16 PM
Ace, Maria, MsIt,
Thanks for the offers to co-host. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of more than three hosts for the Politics thread. I think multiple hosts are a good idea, but I also think that it could be problematic. It's certainly worth considering.
For now I'm heading home. See you tomorrow!
11644. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 7:30:02 PM
Stumbo: You made me laugh after I realized that 13 comes after 12. And, in some cultures, 13 is considered an unlucky number.
11645. dusty - 4/3/2001 7:33:11 PM
CalGal
Given that Lexis articles aren't the problem with Jex, who cares?
You are entitled to your own opinion about what problems jex may have, but some of us were discussing his extensive quotes from Lexis/nexis. For reasons I cannot fathom, you insist that Ace and I don't know what we are discussing.
And since you asked, I care.
11646. dusty - 4/3/2001 7:37:22 PM
AceofSpades
This can all be resolved by my three-mathematical-set/four-procedural-steps Inventoried Wants Decision Tree.
Frankly, if I had to bet, I'd bet that the experimental fix won't work. But those who know anything about software debugging, know that you make one change at a time, when trying to figure things out. The "articles" thread wouldn't have been my first choice, but it is already implemented. So why not see if it works? If it fails, we can try plan B. It's not like we are on a schedule.
11647. dusty - 4/3/2001 7:40:00 PM
Stumbo
I blame myself. I haven't been posting in Politics, and Jexter is going berserk. The correlation is perfect, and everyone knows that perfect correlation implies causation. So I'll see if I can whip him into shape. He likes me so much, I'm sure I can get him back in shape.
11648. dusty - 4/3/2001 8:45:39 PM
Someone was asking about other online communities. The Salon survey lists:
StarTribune.com
Utne Café
New York Times
The Well
FreeRepublic.com
Plastic.com
CNN
AOL
Yahoo
I hadn't heard of Plastic.com
11649. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 8:56:11 PM
The Mote has been supplanted by something called Plastic.com on the community/Forum radar screen.
I wonder why.
11650. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 9:07:36 PM
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that nearly all those other forums are sub-parts of a multimillion dollar (in some cases, multibillion dollar) media company.
Maybe.
Call me crazy, but that might be part of it.
11651. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 9:51:08 PM
Note the absence of at least one forum belonging to a multi-billion-dollar company...
11652. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 9:52:23 PM
Ace, you ignorant slut, you're only half right.
The TT managers hate the mote because of our former connection to Slate, and the problems they have had with CalCal and others.
I was surprised they mentioned Free Republic. com. But I have been saying for years that TT is the reverse mirror image of FR.
Notice they didn't put up NPR, C-SPAN, Fox or Washington Post. All four have vibrant forums without many of the problems.
11653. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 9:55:22 PM
we have
11654. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:06:03 PM
You're specifically talking about the manner in which Jexter posts and making a rule which would force him to post in a manner to your liking or face banishment.
Actually, I'm not talking about that rule. Quite the opposite, it's the one thing I disagree with Ace about. I don't want a rule, when the problem is just a few spammers.
I have also said that it's more than just Jex, he's just the most noteworthy offender.
I think the Gang approach to hosting Politics is an excellent idea, and I'm happily up for being one of the gang--or not, because lord knows if enough people object to me doing it I'll just as happily bow out.
If I am in the gang, it would be my intent to warn on monologues and spamming and idiotic blurbs like bbb does and then move them to the Inferno, or to Articles, or wherever.
I would want any newcomer to enter the thread and see the tail end, hopefully, of the last interesting discussion--or isolated posts made by people who wanted to link in articles they thought were interesting and wanted to share.
11655. iiibbb - 4/3/2001 10:45:37 PM
getting more and more like irc
who's got ops
11656. iiibbb - 4/3/2001 10:47:08 PM
but whatever... it's y'alls party... I'm only a moderate regular.
11657. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 10:51:52 PM
CG: what's the point of a warning if there's no threat?
11658. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:54:23 PM
Then the posts get moved. I guess I'm not for banning anyone who has no malice, and for the life of me I don't see Jex and concerned--both longtime posters--as having malice or desire to harm the place. They just have a posting style that pollutes. So I'd rather continually move their stuff than ban them. That's my value system; I'm not demanding you share it.
iiibbb,
What does that mean?
11659. angel-five - 4/3/2001 10:58:19 PM
Internet relay chat. Having ops on a channel means you have the authority to boot people and whatnot. It's this twisted little power thing geeks develop and is kind of amusing if you have the patience to log into IRC.
11660. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:00:32 PM
" I guess I'm not for banning anyone who has no malice, and for the life of me I don't see Jex and concerned--both longtime posters--as having malice or desire to harm the place. They just have a posting style that pollutes."
Concerned doesn't. Concerned just posts late at night.
11661. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:01:21 PM
Let's stop dragging concerned through the mud in the interests of "fairness."
We're talking abou Jexster. Full stop. End sentence.
That's who we're talking about. Not about Concerned and not even about bbb.
11662. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:03:40 PM
I'm going to end this evening where I started: I really think we should re-examine our position on deletions, moves and the notion that threads are personal fiefdoms.
I don't agree that threads are the hosts private domain. I think they belong to the community of posters.
One of many things I hated about TableTalk was the excessive compartmentalization among discussions and threads. There were so many folders, with so many threads, that they appeared to be little more than public advertisements for their creators.
I'd like us to re-consider this trend toward mimicing TT in its proliferation of threads and compartmentalized little clubs.
I'd also like us to consider a general policy toward erring on the side of more freedom of speech than on the side of controlled/directed/manipulated speech.
Again, I think the default rule, regardless of whether the moderators are willing to state it in the Rules of Engagement or not, should be to let posts stand unless they clearly cross the line.
I've already stated what I see as guidelines for determining when posts cross the line, and certainly there will be differences in thread hosts interpretation of what "crossing the line" means. However, that doesn't mean hosts shouldn't be accountable for their censorship of posts.
11663. iiibbb - 4/3/2001 11:12:39 PM
in IRC you'd go into rooms and their would be the people with the power (the gang) and everyone else... and it nearly always degenerated into a two class system... even if it wasn't.
11664. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:17:01 PM
poopstain
11665. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:18:31 PM
...............poopstain
11666. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 11:19:04 PM
Ace:
I don't see how you can remove bbb from the offender list...he spams, period.
11667. joezan - 4/3/2001 11:20:28 PM
Amen to Message # 11661.
In fact - truth be told - concerned never spams. He does not post the same thing over-and-over; He may occasionally post a link or a column without comment, but no more so than most of us; If he is posting at a time when people are around to respond, he responds on-topic; If people would look past some of his hyperbolic language, they would see that he frequently displays a lot of knowledge and insight into the issues (which, truth be told, is also true of jexster).
But jexster uses no discretion as to time or place; he will spam, unmercifully and completely off-topic, in the middle of a raging argument or a (relatively) civil debate.
Still, I would not like to see him banned. I think this place would be pretty dead without jexster to kick around, and I enjoy poking fun at him.
11668. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:21:16 PM
bbb is on the list. But nobody would be having this conversation if it were just bbb, who is a fairly minor and fairly controlable problem.
Jexster is a disease.
And I'm the cure.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
poopstain
11669. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:22:42 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOpoopstain
11670. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 11:23:09 PM
bbb provides a worthwhile service to mote readers by highlighting lots of political stories for us to taste. He's wonderful.
You just don't like him because he's Chinese and doesn't worship you Judith.
11671. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 11:23:59 PM
CG:
If you insist on making a distinction based on whether someone's motives are meeeeean or not, let me adjust the terminology: I don't want Jexster banned; I just want him quarantined. Give him 15 threads of his own, just keep him away from Politics.
11672. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:24:48 PM
bbb would be a good poster if he 1) posted sports and television stories in the appropriate thread, rather than politics and 2) didn't spam with lengthy quotes of articles.
************poopstain
11673. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 11:25:35 PM
For 52, you surely haven't matured much, have you, old man?
11674. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 11:25:40 PM
(partial cross-post with #11668)
11675. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 11:28:25 PM
Ace:
You guys are relatively transparent...the only "real offender" just happens to be a liberal; the other 2 are merely having fun in their own peculiar conservative way and they should just be rapped on the knuckles.
11676. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 11:30:57 PM
No, Judith, we're picking on him because he's gay.
11677. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:33:32 PM
Oh, fucking please. Why don't you grow up Judith. This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with pollution.
I have said twice that bbb is a problem, and he needs to mend his ways. He is not, however, a Jexster-level problem. He is merley someone you squeal about on occasion.
No one is saying the Politics thread is unreadable because of bbb's meager contributions.
And the attempt to pull poor concerned into this is laughable. Concerned posts late at night, true. Thus, he cannot actually take part in most conversations *as they happen.* But all of his posts are responses to actual debate.
This is in stark contrast to Jexster, who can post thirty insipid, repetitive posts in a row on the Florida vote count despite the fact that no one's spoken of it in three months.
Grow the hell up. You're old; it's time to get wise.
11678. joezan - 4/3/2001 11:33:55 PM
Judith:
C'mon now.
To a certain degree, it does depend on whose ox is being gored.
But in sheer number of repeat, or off-topic, or broken-link, or month-old posts, jexster's got 'em all beat, even if you combined 'em and multiplied by 3.
Jexster's beatin' the horse after the worms done et it.
11679. AceofSpades - 4/3/2001 11:33:58 PM
hahahahah... Stumbo had a much better, and much punchier, comeback.
11680. JudithAtHome - 4/3/2001 11:36:25 PM
Well, acey, I may be old but I don't need to get wise...you're enough of that for both of us.
And since you're so wise, try not to take things so seriously. You're easy to rile, sonny boy.
11681. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 11:38:51 PM
JoeZ:
"Still, I would not like to see him banned. I think this place would be pretty dead without jexster to kick around, and I enjoy poking fun at him."
Were there some other realistic way to prevent him from drowning out the entire thread, I'd support it. But I don't think this spam-patrol thing is gonna work. The patrollers will get tired of it long before Jex does, and things will get back to the way they are now.
Perhaps if we limited him to, say, 3 posts per 24 hours? It might also have the positive side-effect of inducing him to make those 3 posts less content-free.
11682. joezan - 4/3/2001 11:42:15 PM
Stumbo:
Oh - don't get me wrong.
I agree something needs to be done. I cringe sometimes opening up the politics thread, and just back out.
...and I'm used to it.
11683. concerned - 4/3/2001 11:44:13 PM
Re. 11658 -
CalGal -
You'd best not be critical of other Motiers about the style of their posting. Perhaps it's the logical drubbings I've handed out to you in the past which have jaundiced your attitude towards me. But that's no excuse for threatening me.
11684. Jon Ferguson - 4/3/2001 11:59:08 PM
Yeah, Calgal
Threatening concerned by saying (in 11658) that he has no 'malice or desire to harm the place' and that you're not in favor of banning him is way over the line.
Hey concerned, don't bogart the bong, Dude. Yes, she accused you of having 'a posting style that pollutes.' Yes, she is guilty of same. No, that is not a threat.
Sometimes I wonder if she pays these people to start ridiculous arguments with her so that she can actually win the odd one legitimately.
11685. concerned - 4/4/2001 12:04:03 AM
Gee, Jon. Isn't it strange that you missed So I'd rather continually move their stuff than ban them.
That's a threat, pal. And that's what I was responding to.
11686. concerned - 4/4/2001 12:06:02 AM
CalGal has never been in a position to move anything of mine, btw. And she'd be abusing any privilege she'd have to do so if she ever did, judging by the relative quality of her posts vs. mine.
11687. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:10:32 AM
And I think it's silly that whenever Jexster is discussed some knee-jerk tribalists on the left have to immediately invent rightist equivalents of Jexster.
Concerned is a good poster. Once again, the only reason he seems to be speaking in monologues is that he is off our normal posting cycle, so he responds to stuff at the end of the day. But each of his posts is a response to something said earlier.
To say this is "spamming" is to say that non-American posters (or American posters on a late schedule) are to be penalized for this accident of geography.
I would have much less a problem with Jexster if he did the same.
But he doesn't.
90% of Jexster's posts are, as Sheryl Crowe sings, apropos of nothing.
We come here for *dialogue.* Jexster apparently does not. He comes here to post his random, disjointed thoughts in great ejaculatory spurts and then leaves us to wipe up his come.
Since Jexster isn't looking for actual dialogue, I see no great harm in giving him his own special little thread where he can jack off at will.
The rest of us, meanwhile, will be discussing politics in the Politics thread. For a change.
11688. concerned - 4/4/2001 12:23:39 AM
Re. 11687 -
You are correct. I typically am only able to post late in the evening or at night, therefore I often cannot avail myself of the opportunity to engage in extended dialogues with other participants.
11689. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:29:47 AM
Actually, I've already acknowledged that Concerned isn't in the same class as Jexter, and I apologize for typing his name again. It's mainly because when I check into Politics late at night it's always the two of them together, and in my mind it's always "there's Jex and Concerned again". But it's not the same thing at all, and I have some sort of brain block about it. Sorry, Concerned.
But bbb is as bad as Jex.
11690. pogie - 4/4/2001 12:30:43 AM
bbb, angel: irc's kinda like a small scale variation on web-based fora. You got your big general public channels, with a 2-tier system (often 3-tier, but i digress); then you have your secret channels, usually small groups of local people who get together on irc bbs-style and where everyone has ops and nobody worries about tiers; and then you have your topic-oriented channels, midsize about some specific topic (a bit like mailing lists, but with a couple dozen or so peeps instead of a couple hundred) and those places have some elements of the secret channels and the big general channels. Irc is like the redheaded stepkid of CMC. ;D I suppose I should be happy it's under the radar in some ways, but a surprising number of people think it's awkward and complicated to participate in or just crawling with kiddie porn dealers or summat. I do wish there were more progress being made in nontext forms of online discussion. Oddly, I sometimes think the extreme realtime aspect of irc captures a little of that nontext flow. /digression.
11691. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:31:29 AM
"But bbb is as bad as Jex."
No he's not.
Now, bbb does the same sort of things that Jexster does. But he does not do it nearly as frequently, nor nearly in such incredible volume.
Further, bbb does not maintain, as Jex apparently does, a "netbook" of collected articles and "jokes" which he continuously reposts and probably WILL continuously repost until the world dies.
11692. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:32:23 AM
I'd like us to re-consider this trend toward mimicing TT in its proliferation of threads and compartmentalized little clubs.
I don't see this happening at all. In fact, I argued against Ace getting a new chat thread, because I felt it would create segments.
However, that doesn't mean hosts shouldn't be accountable for their censorship of posts.
I think they should be accountable. But it's also possible that the moderators don't agree with you as to what censorship is.
11693. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 12:35:06 AM
bbb and jex are two totally different posters.
I find jext checks in at cerain times of the day (late afternoon her in Sunny Cal.) and no one bothers to engage him in conversation.
Not that there's any opponent who's up to it.
Thomas d rants a tad less now that Clinton is out of office. I know he misses him.
And dreams about him.
11694. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:36:21 AM
Now, bbb does the same sort of things that Jexster does. But he does not do it nearly as frequently, nor nearly in such incredible volume.
I think he does, actually. The difference is that Jex does it at night, when no one is around. So you come in and see nothing but spam. bbb does it throughout the day, so it is often (but not always) interspersed with talk from other posters.
Jex used to not be so irritating too, for the same reason.
But if all we're talking about is degree; I'll agree that Jex has more volume. Not by much.
11695. concerned - 4/4/2001 12:37:46 AM
Ooops. Hi, there CalGal. You can ignore my more negative asseverations about you in the last few posts. - heh -
11696. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 12:37:48 AM
It's not spam at all. Jex provides exceedingly useful links.
11697. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 12:46:08 AM
Pogie:
"irc's kinda like a small scale variation on web-based fora."
Um, are you aware of the fact that IRC predates the Web by a few years?
BTW, don't confuse bbb with iiibbb.
11698. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:46:25 AM
Concerned--in any event, talking about you or not, I wasn't "threatening". My point is that the spam (which you do not cause, and I apologize for saying so twice), should not be cause for banning or suspension. I think only that the spammed posts should be removed.
I was saying that, if I was one of the "gang" hosting politics, that would be my approach. To not threaten, but just get rid of the endless, repetitive, links, quotes, one after the other after the other after the other and so on.
The reason I said that is because creating a group to host the thread would do nothing to solve the problem if everyone didn't basically agree on what needed doing. Not because it was a threat. I don't even care if I'm not one of the hosts--in fact, given how some people view me it's probably best that I'm not. I think the only reason it's practical to include me is because I'm around a lot.
11699. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:52:05 AM
by the way--
Is Rosie actually Dr. XavierTColtrane?
Remember, Rosie is good at one thing, and one thing only-- and that's assuming another persona. He's good at it.
And Rosie sure is pissed off about Doc Xavier losing his thread.
11700. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 12:58:24 AM
CG:
Do you really think that, as a member of the spam-removal crew, you'll be as enthusiastic and as diligent about it a week from now? A month from now? A year?
I don't think you will. No human would be.
Jexster, on the other hand, will just keep going, and going, and going.
11701. CalGal - 4/4/2001 1:03:53 AM
Do you really think that, as a member of the spam-removal crew, you'll be as enthusiastic and as diligent about it a week from now? A month from now? A year?
Oh, sure I would. I'm very persistent. Haven't you heard?
However, the idea would be that Jex and bbb would start cutting it out.
If they didn't, and it continually required culling, then I agree that would mean my solution didn't work.
It certainly would help if someone was around moving teh posts as they happened, rather than later when they aren't around, for maximum effect.
11702. pogie - 4/4/2001 1:13:22 AM
Stumbo, i meant in terms of size. Irc channels are generally a dozen or so up to maybe 100 people, which is much smaller-scale than a smallish forum like the mote and minuscule compared to the forums attached to magazines. I even remember unix talk. 0;p Sorry about conflating iiibbb and bbb.
11703. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 1:24:57 AM
CG:
Why would Jex start cutting it out, merely because his posts get moved? I don't think he ever checks them after he posts them -- hell, he doesn't even check them before. (#13745 is my favorite recent example of that.)
11704. CalGal - 4/4/2001 1:29:11 AM
Why would Jex start cutting it out, merely because his posts get moved?
If he didn't, then it wouldn't work and we go to some other approach. I feel it would work, but if he's that oblivious, then it wouldn't.
In that case, we could ask Alistair to set up a programmatic solution. If thread = Politics and moniker = Jex, set thread = Inferno.
11705. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 1:30:33 AM
Pogie:
Screw "talk." I remember "tell."
11706. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 1:38:37 AM
CG:
Well, OK, y'all can give the spam-crew approach a try. If it works in the way you think it will, I'll be happy.
If it doesn't -- yes, a programmatic per-thread-ban solution is what I've been clamoring for, all along.
Should some time limit be set?
11707. Slackjaw - 4/4/2001 2:44:19 AM
Has there been an agreed upon principle by which a banned poster can return under a different moniker and continue to post? If not why are we tolerating it? Is it because the impact of the offense resulting in "banning" wore off? Should it then have been a suspension in the first place?
If we really mean ban, let's ban. If we mean suspend, let's do that.
11708. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:34:45 AM
Get a grip. No one is going to allowing the banning of Jexster. There would be a civil war in this place with six people on each side.
And I know what side I would join. Against the fascists and negative energy creatures who all have their own threads but want to exile those who don't.
11709. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:35:33 AM
allowing=allow
11710. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 8:06:28 AM
If the candy-ass comments, the petty shit, were confined to this thread and Politics I could live with it, but this spreads to every goddamned thread! It's become a labour just to wade through and maintain the continuity of the simplest subjects.
Get rid of those whose only obvious intent is self-serving their supposed right to bitch and harass thread hosts and those posters they've elected to dislike.
Christ! This is becoming worse than a grade school classroom without the teacher present.
11711. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 8:11:24 AM
Delete 11710
11712. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 8:14:22 AM
If you guys bothered to read jexter's spam you might learn something! If you don't read it, how hard is it to scroll past? At worst it may be turning a few people away from the thread.
11713. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 8:18:56 AM
Overzealous hosts and continual personal insults are bigger turn-offs than anything Jex has posted. At least he sticks to the issues without a lot of name calling.
11714. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 8:31:36 AM
Absolutely, wonkers.
Here we have the perfect example of the spoiled, in-crowd moderators (of the threads who get little traffic), collected together in wabbit's thread rubbing each other trying to ban a poster.
And EC Ace, who tells us the day before, that he's leaving mote for awhile to get his juices flowing, and still demanding that his own vanity thread live, trying to stop Jexster from posting.
BTW, I don't see rubber complaining about Jexster. Heck, I don't see duck at all.
This all started when Nilson erased Dr. X's innovative Q&A thread. Now Jexster is the next victim. And soon, others?
What a terrible decision.
11715. Wombat - 4/4/2001 8:36:42 AM
The only thing innovative about XTC's Q & A was that it didn't answer many questions.
11716. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 8:44:53 AM
Wonkers - I hardly go into Politics anymore largely because it is such a chore to find any actual discussion amidst the insults, spam and hachneyed rehashes. Jex isn't the only issue for me, but for sheer eyeball space taken up he surpasses everyone.
Regarding the educational value of his links, I have lots of sources for information and I don't need or want the Mote to be another. I come to the Mote for arguments and amusing banter, too much of the time what I find is spam and abuse.
11717. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 8:46:30 AM
He answered a lot of their serious questions, wombat. And did his best to keep his thread on topic.
The good doctor's mistake was moving some of those cautic critical posts from the special people to Inferno.
Many of those who had posts moved were mote VIPS, the moderators of threads themselves who were insulted to have their posts moved to mote's gargage can.
Since the Ranting thread is so lame, they complained directly to evil European, and Pelle went out of his way to delete the thread.
All in a day's work, he though, not realizing that the serfs would complain.
11718. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 9:11:53 AM
Ditto to von Kreedon's comment.
11719. Wombat - 4/4/2001 9:23:04 AM
Ideally, links should be used to back up one's assertions, and pasted blocks of text should used sparingly. Whether this is "spam" or not is questionable, since it is usually on topic.
Rather than banning posters for the sins of the Politics thread, Motiers should vote with their feet.
Note also that the Bush Administration* has a long way to go before reaching the heights of excess brought about by that of Clinton and his enemies in terms of stimulating the Politics thread. Dullness breeds repetition.
11720. iiibbb - 4/4/2001 9:56:07 AM
Dr. X's thread was off the cuff and funny. If it was deleted, that's too bad.
Jexter's posts are anything but helpful (and I do read some of them)... and scrolling past when his constantly take up 1/2 to 2/3rds of a thread "just scrolling past" doesn't work anymroe.
and I'm anything but an insider here.
11721. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 11:30:06 AM
Oh sure you are.
11722. rubberducky - 4/4/2001 11:46:55 AM
i hereby resign as host - please remove my moniker and all subsequent responsibilities.
i wish Dusty, FU, Ms No, Rask or someone would stand up and take it.
i apologize that i let the thread deteriorate. maybe fairness just isn't something 'politics' needs.
11723. rubberducky - 4/4/2001 11:48:53 AM
addendum:
i resign hosting duties until i can temporarily ban posters from a thread i am hosting.
11724. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 11:50:06 AM
Ducks - The politics thread needs a house parent with a saintly amount of patience and time. I'm not at all sure such a person exists in the Mote. I hope you aren't feeling incompetent, your hosting was fine.
11725. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 11:55:18 AM
Yes, you are the host, you should monitor the thread and so you should have the power to ban a poster from the thread you are hosting if you think it right and meet. If a host is found incompetent then he should be sacked, but to ask anyone to host a thread open to casual beserkers is too, too much.
11726. JudithAtHome - 4/4/2001 12:00:57 PM
I think Ducks did a great job...it's a thankless task but here's one from me: thanks!
11727. mgleason - 4/4/2001 12:05:39 PM
Chin up, RD; you did good.
11728. vw - 4/4/2001 12:07:11 PM
IMO, the best host for a thread like Politics is someone that doesn’t give a rat's ass about the topic.
It’s not like the Politics thread needs to be prodded along to keep interest up … our Current and Past Administrations have done an admirable job in providing posting fodder. So a lack of interest in posting on the part of the host would not be a detriment to thread interest in general.
A disinterested host would arguable have the unbiased ability to just check the thread for egregious violations of RoE (i.e., posts that consist of nothing more than “Shut up poopstain” etc.) without being influences by political opinion.
Just a thought.
11729. vw - 4/4/2001 12:08:16 PM
influences = influenced
11730. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 12:24:58 PM
Goodbye, ducky. You served an important purpose, proving mote didn't need a moderator for the Politics thread.
Take his goofy name off it, mote masters, and do what you did in the Mote Cafe by putting up a generic mote moniker like "All Sorts of People."
11731. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:28:26 PM
Ducky,
I hope you don't think this has been a complaint about you. I think you are stuck between the rock and a hard place, and you did a great job.
I agree with vw that a disinterested host would be best, but the problem is that it would also require a fair amount of work to move the posts, which is why I thought of group hosting.
However, the exchange between Stumbo and me last night still holds: if Jex and others don't stop, what to do?
At worst it may be turning a few people away from the thread.
I think it's turning a lot of people from the thread, Wonkers. This is not to suggest that the thread might be a hotbed of activity were it not for Jex, but why is it that it just can't remain dormant when no one has any meaningful conversation? Why must it be polluted with post after post of "eat my runny shit and here is the latest tedium on the Florida recount?"
11732. concerned - 4/4/2001 12:38:40 PM
I think RD was (or is) one of the better thread hosts, not to put too fine a point on it.
11733. jayackroyd - 4/4/2001 12:41:54 PM
vw's right.
I'll host politics on that basis, as a non-participant, perhaps posting an occasional topic for discussion.
11734. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 12:43:53 PM
Brave man Jay, brave man. Congratulations and good luck.
11735. jayackroyd - 4/4/2001 12:50:25 PM
No bravery involved. If I do it, I'm gonna have to work something out with jexster, obviously. But one of us working something out with jexster is better than endless debate of what should be done to him (her?).
There will be much pissing and moaning by rude people that other people are being rude to them, but I'm used to that by now, so they should be too.
It's a little sad for me, because I am interested in politics, but never found the politics thread a place for an informative discussion. So it's easy for me to host without participating.
11736. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:51:13 PM
Good luck and POOPSTAIN to you, sir.
11737. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 12:53:05 PM
Jay - Well, heres hoping that under your administration Politics becomes a place you would post.
11738. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 1:05:29 PM
Jay: Please add Best conservative political link on the web to the butterscotch bar in Politics.
Thank you and good luck with jexster. Maybe you should get TrialShark and CalCal to take him to lunch in San Francisco.
11739. concerned - 4/4/2001 1:06:54 PM
Speaking of Trialguppy, how is he nowadays?
11740. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 1:10:36 PM
He freaked out after Gore lost (the first time in November) and has never been the same since.
Occassionally he lurks, but is still too upset to post.
11741. concerned - 4/4/2001 1:11:42 PM
Poor guy. Hope he recovers before 2004.
11742. concerned - 4/4/2001 1:14:00 PM
Re. 11693 -
Just saw this. That's right. There'll never be another WH Rapist, cllrdr.
11743. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 1:15:02 PM
Another problem was his frequent lunches with CalCal in SF. His wife found out and punished him from "motting."
11744. vw - 4/4/2001 1:19:25 PM
Now see, I would zap post #11743 for being out of line, unnecessarily personal and just stupidly tasteless.
11745. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 1:22:57 PM
Not to mention in violation of the RoE regarding private information, if there was a snowball's chance that it was true.
11746. Dusty - 4/4/2001 1:25:51 PM
rubberducky
If I were host of the Politics thread, and I read some of the scathing comments about the problems in Politics, I might be tempted to take it personally.
I don't think you should. I think dealing with the yahoos in Politics is a thankless task, and I don't think you should bear any of the fault for the existing problems.
We have an institutional problem, and we are struggling with a solution. But the problem isn't lax hosts.
11747. CalGal - 4/4/2001 1:33:34 PM
It is astonishing, the lies Stone posts. 11743 is gruesome, but 11740 is not only incorrect, it demonstrates that Stone has a worm's concept of time--everything that didn't happen today happened in the election. In fact, TS has been gone much longer than since November.
11748. EricCartman - 4/4/2001 3:37:08 PM
I'm amazed Stone has found time from contributing to Milosevic' Defense Fund, to spread rumor and innuendo.
Of course, Stone gets apoplectic if anyone threatens to extort lunch money from his kid, no?
(Not that I would do such a thing. If I want his lunch money, I'll just steal his purse and run like the wind.)
11749. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2001 3:48:48 PM
Cartman: Howdy. You need to go knock vonK's and Ace's heads around in the spam thread.
They're taking turns running the thread into the ground, so you might as well have a go at it, too.
11750. EricCartman - 4/4/2001 3:56:56 PM
Indy:
Howdy yourself.
Yeah, I was just looking through the wreckage. Thirty posts at a time, paging backwards.
Makes about as much sense. vK is doing a passable Jexster, though. Not that that's a good thing.
But I dig the pictures of your girlfriend.
11751. JudithAtHome - 4/4/2001 3:58:12 PM
Cal:
I hope you read this when you get back here later...you know the "guy" from the paper? I tried to call him at the paper today and was told he no longer works there...hasn't since Friday, his last day. So the feebe knew that when I talked with him on Saturday. I don't think he'll be giving us a mention in his "column"....oh well, at least we didn't invite him to join our party for dinner.
11752. EricCartman - 4/4/2001 4:03:52 PM
Judith:
Are you talking about Larry King again?
11753. JudithAtHome - 4/4/2001 4:12:46 PM
Oh yeah, I wish....
11754. EricCartman - 4/4/2001 4:28:09 PM
Take it from me....he keeps trying to slip out of his suspenders before the salad course is finished. Very unsettling.
Plus all the off-color Ruth Buzzi jokes. He's a worse dinner guest even than Harry Caray.
11755. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 4:30:44 PM
These are off-topic remarks, Cartmann. And I know more than you think.
11756. EricCartman - 4/4/2001 4:32:41 PM
Well, you don't know how to spell my name. Don't worry, I know more than you think also.
Who died and made you Pope of this thread, boyo?
11757. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 4:42:16 PM
Funny you should use the noun "pope," Eric. That's what wabbit calls herself.
BTW, did the kid pop out yet? I've seen many child births, and they are always amazing.
11758. EricCartman - 4/4/2001 4:51:02 PM
The big day is tomorrow, Stone. I've seen births on film, and have been underwhelmed thus far. Too much goo.
Obviously, this will be much different, so I'm looking forward to it, and have the digital camera packed already.
11759. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 5:03:22 PM
MsIT,
I looked over the Education thread and I have to say that I don't see Autodaffy's actions as the egregious abuse of power that you do. He could have been more diplomatic and I've said so over in Policies, but I think it's only fair to point out that you were calling for Autodaffy to step down as host before he ever moved or delted a single post.
I believe that the proposed changes to the hosting suggestions will ease this type of situation in future
11760. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 5:16:58 PM
It's an unbelievable experience, Eric. Seeing your baby for the first time, and praying for her/him to start crying. But it will be the last time you're happy to hear crying.
The kid's eyes curiously focus in on you and immediately starts looking for mama's breasts. Mother never looks so happy.
11761. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 5:26:03 PM
"Finally, someone who can appreciate them!"
11762. CalGal - 4/4/2001 5:28:25 PM
Ha!
11763. glendajean - 4/4/2001 6:23:21 PM
Given the admission that certain vanity threads go on a little long, perhaps they should rotate, like the Slate Diaries. Give the vain host 5 week days to make his or her point and then move on. In the absence of a volunteer host, rip until further notice.
11764. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 6:33:41 PM
Absolutely, glendajean.
Once up. I wonder if we'll ever get rid of Ace's Vanity.
He claims he's leaving for a week (but doesn't depart)--and then "wills" his thread to VonKreep.
Pelle nods in agreement but buries the fact that almost $1,000 of mote money has gone to a dot.com archive service to perserve old threads.
When I ask what he's talking about, he goes into his hostile mode.
11765. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 6:45:18 PM
Ducks,
I quit the politics thread as I could see there was no way to really attend to it, and evidently FU felt the same way about the same time, because he didn't let me know he was planning to resign and I didn't let him know I was. I feel kind of bad that you took it on after we bailed. FWIW, I think Cal's idea of several thread hosts is the only workable one unless something works relatively soon. I don't go in it any more. I'll skim the last few posts most days, but that's about it. You did a better job and were much more involved than FU and I were, and I know everyone appreciates you for it. It's by far the most demanding of all the threads for someone to host, imo.
I actually think that Cal would make a good host of Politics (with help from at least one other person) because she's more consistently here and throughout more of the day than most Moties and she knows most of the posters.
11766. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 6:48:56 PM
And Rose, quit agitating.
11767. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 6:59:52 PM
arky
Quit kissing ass. You're making a PP of yourself.
The Politics thread is still great as it is. The articles sub-thread is an idiotic idea. Again, if you want a second thread, call it 'Discuss Politics' and ban all linking or copy/pasting of any articles.
I posted in politics 400 posts ago (this morning.) Does it bother me that I can't be bothered to read all 400 posts since then to see if anybody responded? Hell no.
The Politics thread mirrors how politics in America really works. Both sides are talking past each other and neither side is really interested in doing anything but scoring points. So what the hell is wrong with that? Is anybody naive enough to believe that if only we could have a 'constructive' dialogue that any minds would be changed? Of course not. Both armies have dug in. It's like the first world war trenches. And I, for one, am happy to go with the flow.
Stop picking on Jex already.
11768. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 7:01:59 PM
Who is Ms. No anyway? Why keep changing your names all the time? That one does seem appropriate, however. And by what authority are all the Delphic pronouncements made by her and others? The place reminds me more and more of "Animal Farm." where we're all equal but some are more equal than others. [I do appreciate the effort put into the enterprise by some, but I find the condescension off-putting.]
11769. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 7:04:23 PM
Ms. No is Christin.
I share your belief that she should pick one moniker and stick with it. Especially since I was forbidden from having a multiple (Nostradamus and God .)
Different rules for different folks, as usual, it seems.
11770. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 7:07:49 PM
Right, the whole discussion is pretty sophomoric, in my opinion.
11771. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:09:28 PM
Strange woman, Dr. No. I can't think of a better name that "Christ...."
And, Jon, cool it with criticism of Arky. She's off limits.
11772. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 7:12:47 PM
Rosie
arky is one of my faves around here. Her propensity to kiss PTB ass is the only flaw I've detected so far.
Relax.
11773. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:19:24 PM
Sure Arky kisses some ass here, Jon. But she's select.
After all, she's a Democrat, wants to be considered part of mote's ruling class, and is married to a "Bob."
'Tis impossible to love and be wise.
11774. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 7:21:15 PM
RosettaStone,
Your facts are incorrect. Had you bothered to actually read the posts that attempted to respond to your wild accusations you would likely understand this. If you want more information then go back to the beginning of theMote and read the threads where the COMMUNITY decided how much money they would send and what should be done with it and who they trusted to look after it.
You keep saying you weren't here and you sent no money so basically what you've done is move into the neighborhood and start poking into the bank accounts of other people. You're just stirring shit for no good reason. Cut it out.
11775. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 7:32:46 PM
Wonkers2,
I asked Diva a few weeks ago in open forum to create the new ID as it was a pretty common nickname for me. Since I've started posting with it I have not posted under my old name nor do I have any intention of going back to it. Sorry if you were confused but I've made no attempt to hide my identity or pretend to be anyone else.
As for where my authority comes from I'm one of two additional Moderators chosen to assist Wabbit. The Moderator positon has existed since the beginning of theMote and back into Fray days. IrvingSnodgrass was the old moderator and Wabbit was installed when we made the move here. Her position has been public knowledge since the beginning and it was announced in open forum when PelleNilsson and I were chosen to assist her.
Do you really not know these things or are you just asking "Who made you boss?"
11776. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:33:15 PM
All that was done when mote was a closed shop and you had to have a CalCal private password to get in.
I was invited.
If you can, link me where it was discussed. Or explain it again.
Being insanely wealthy, I'll certainly contribute to the mote financially, especially if it means you're grandfathered a thread selection. It does explain why the same people have been in charge of the evergreen threads for the last 18 months.
This is America. I understand how money works.
But a thousand bucks to pay for archive services? Was this the old fray and movie review archives that CalCal and Irv put together?
Just asking.
11777. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:36:15 PM
oops...I wasn't invited
11778. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 7:37:04 PM
Jon,
I'm not posting under multiple names. I changed my name as have many others here. You're in no position to criticize having changed your own moniker at least four times--- twice to return to a forum you'd been kicked out of for bad behavior.
11779. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 7:40:09 PM
I sometimes feel threaten by you, Dr. No. How about a friendly moniker?
11780. wonkers2 - 4/4/2001 7:40:19 PM
Ms. No, Thanks for the response. My irritation was more with others than with you and with the pettiness of the discussion.
11781. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 7:42:29 PM
Jon,
"Quit kissing ass. You're making a PP of yourself."
You want me to start my reformation by kicking yours? ;->
Really, though, I couldn't give two shits about the PTBs, or for that matter any individual in here that I can think of, regarding what I post. I'm thinking strictly of my own experience hosting Politics.
But the Politics thread per se doesn't bother me. Now that Clinton's out and Bush is in, it's no big loss for my part, but for some of the people who enjoy it it's become difficult to debate and I can see their point.
OTOH, as a thread to host, it's a pain in the ass. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. There. I said it. And it's not just because of Jex, it's because if you're someone like me who only comes in in the afternoons and on weekends and just doesn't feel like wading through a bunch of mess, which is what I'd feel like I had to do to be any sort of host the way things are in there, it's like going from one job to another.
And fwiw, Rose is playing y'all like harps.
11782. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 7:48:28 PM
RosettaStone,
There was a total ever of about $1000.00. There is now money left over so we didn't pay $1000.00 for anything. A portion of that $1000.00 went to pay for server space to hold FRAY archives that were going to be deleted by Slate. They were archives that the community wanted to save and we needed server space somewhere to hold them since Slate wouldn't do it for us. We paid a fee to purchase server space until JayAckroyd donated space on his server for which we pay nothing.
Is that clear? The volunteers who started theMote sent in money to help sustain their online community. They know how much they sent, they know who was keeping the account and they know what the money was intended for and how it was spent. None of that money really has anything to do with you but as a member of the current community it's certainly not any big secret you can't know about.
The thing that is irritating is that once again you have jumped to conclusions, disregarded plain explanations and tried to stir shit just for the sake of doing so. It wasn't your money to be concerned about nor was it a decision that had anything to do with you. The only reason that it's even remotely your business is that because of the generosity of others you now have a place to come and post.
11783. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 7:53:43 PM
Yes, Arky, I'm sure, but with all the furor lately I'd rather play the straight-man than be accused of not being forthcoming and having to wade through that raft of shit again.
On second thought, I'm going to mix a Martini and chase Rosie around with my bullwhip to work off some stress.
11784. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 7:57:15 PM
Oooh, cool.
11785. JudithAtHome - 4/4/2001 7:58:59 PM
MsNO:
I agree with Arky; Rosie is just pulling everyones strings. He's actually a 47 year old bachelor who lives in DC and he dates frisky little colts like Kelli Anne Fitzpatrick and Ann Coulter; he drives a dark grey Lexus and wears Armani. He's merely toying with us during his down time at his corner office overlooking the Mall...he's in excellent physical condition and has piercing blue eyes and slight streaks of grey in his dark dark hair at his temples. He has a deep though penetrating voice which sounds as good as he actually looks....
However, for some reason, he's insecure about his manhood and so acts out in really petty ways. A shame, really; it's almost the whole package....
11786. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 8:01:02 PM
I got the whole package once, but it was pretty beat up by the U.S. Postal system.
Now I only take FedEx and I sick my dog on the guys in the stupid little hats.
11787. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 8:04:56 PM
"I agree with Arky; Rosie is just pulling everyones strings. He's actually a 47 year old bachelor who lives in DC and he dates frisky little colts like Kelli Anne Fitzpatrick and Ann Coulter; he drives a dark grey Lexus and wears Armani."
In other words GAY!!!!!!
11788. Ms. No - 4/4/2001 8:07:46 PM
Gee, I thought it was my pager and all the while it's been my gaydar going off. Sheesh.
11789. mgleason - 4/4/2001 8:09:47 PM
Either that, or it's the sound effect from pulling his finger.
11790. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 8:16:36 PM
Ms. No
Re the Education Thread.
So be it. My comments regarding the host's incompetence were well grounded, but then incompetence hasn't really been a criteria for getting a hosting gig so I'm not surprised it's not a criteria for losing one.
11791. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 8:16:39 PM
Who cares. I just want to know if he's 1) DrX, 2)really rich.
11792. JudithAtHome - 4/4/2001 8:22:30 PM
He's not Dr. X...but Dr. X might be his wife.
11793. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 8:32:54 PM
I might add (after posting that and moving to other threads) that I was referring to Rose being gay when I said "who cares," not Msit's opinions.
11794. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 8:34:22 PM
Who, btw, I am very glad to see posting with regularity again (and I am referring to Msit, not Rose. Rose never sleeps).
11795. mgleason - 4/4/2001 8:38:25 PM
You seem very spirited lately, Arky.
11796. RosettaStone - 4/4/2001 8:47:10 PM
Let's talk turkey, wabbit.
How much is it going to cost my family's foundation to be named evergreen host of the Inferno. Heck, I would think that you would want me to post in that thread exclusively.
To negotiate with my people, e-mail us at: RAM3@georgetown.org.
Of course, as a non-profit, www.themote.com has an IRS identification number, yes?
11797. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 8:54:30 PM
"You seem very spirited lately, Arky."
Hahaha. Really? Bob's told me that, too, and I told him it was his imagination.
11798. concerned - 4/4/2001 11:09:00 PM
Re. 11769 -
You should have stuck with 'God', IMO. It better suits your opinion of yourself:)
11799. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 11:30:33 PM
Ms. No
If you've changed your handle (your previous one was far nicer, fwiw) perhaps you could tell me who this ChristinO person is who is listed as a host of this thread.
Thanks.
P.S. Every time I get banned without cause I have to come back with a different moniker. It's not like it's a conscious choice on my part to switch monikers.
concerned
In the case of my God moniker, Stinky deactivated it without authorization. I complained, but as usual, to no avail. No accountability around here.
11800. concerned - 4/4/2001 11:32:27 PM
Re. 11769 -
You should have stuck with 'God', IMO. It better suits your opinion of yourself:)
11801. concerned - 4/4/2001 11:35:59 PM
Oops. Sorry about the repost. My Mote interface screwed up and, in frustration, I clicked refresh multiple times.
11802. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 11:58:27 PM
As part of the original bankroll for this site, I'd like to express my total confidence in JJ and the rest of the moderators that the money is being well safeguarded for future needs.
Last I heard Jay and Alistair sent a team of ex-military commandos to patrol the Swiss bank where the money is being kept in a deep and very thick vault (with a triple locking mechanism).
In addition, I heard Wabbit contacted the Bunny Underground to station Polish Rabbits (the attack experts) at key points along the building's perimeter, just to ensure that no stray dogs carrying lettuce slipped through the commando patrol.
Then I heard that Irving sent some of his ubiquitous servants over to JJ's house just to make sure nothing stressed him out to the point of needing to take a vacation, at least not without signing over his power of attorney to Jay.
I also thought it was, by now, common knowledge that an attempt to steal the funds by those crazy mid-western treasure hunters was soundly nipped in the bud by the bunny squad, who managed to alert the commandos, who in turn used a large magnet to round up the thieves by the metal detector machines permanently attached to their arms.
All in all, I must say that I feel pretty confident that the money is in good hands (and paws).
11803. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 12:03:23 AM
Ah well, Message # 11802 actually refers to a conversation in The Inferno in case anyone is confused or bewildered.
Personally, I think it fits right in here, too.
11804. concerned - 4/5/2001 12:06:14 AM
whatever.....
11805. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 12:25:37 AM
And I thought Rosie was inane.
11806. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 6:35:45 AM
As usual, my precious, you're right, Arky.
MsIdiot has returned to the Shire with a vengeance, full of partisan spite and attempted humor. Sad, really.
Now, she claims to be one of the original investors in mote--which explains how easily she gets to host threads and threaten the extinction of other moderators she disagrees with.
mumbling to himself like gotham : (If only CalCal had given me the secret password to get into mote's prototype, I would have my ring and sitting pretty in my Inferno, practically invisible, not bothering anyone here. Brando accent: "I could've been a contender!")
She's back. Soon we're going to be hearing stories about her daughter. Again. It's like a nightmare that won't go away. Back when I was a newbie in fray, MsID was one of my first negative memories when she demanded to know what would I contribute to her discussion.
I also remember the former Texas State college grad assistant telling us in 1998 (before I had ever heard of the big W) that "her dumb governor would never become president."
Now she wants to be an attorney. I suppose, like bubba, she wants to work for the government.
11807. Indiana Jones - 4/5/2001 8:39:02 AM
Re. 11799:
Fergie has his usual assortment of lies and half-truths.
As I recall, I did not deactivate his God moniker. I deactivated his "God." moniker (or some slight variation) because someone else (I assume wabbit) had deactivated "God" a long time before--before I even started posting here. Now your average village idiot would assume that if he cannot post with "God" as a multiple, then he cannot post as "God." either, but not our Jon-boy.
Moreover, I explained this to Fergie at the time, so his misrepresentation here is willful.
Additionally, as to "without authorization," at the time I did so, I was Gatekeeper for the Mote, one of the functions of which is to keep out multiples. Ergo, I certainly acted within my authority. In point of fact, were I Gatekeeper now, he would not be (openly) posting here as I would consider his new login such a multiple, and he is banned under his old login.
11808. Dusty - 4/5/2001 8:40:08 AM
Slackjaw
In Message # 11707 you asked:
Has there been an agreed upon principle by which a banned poster can return under a different moniker and continue to post?
Good question, and I didn't see an answer. IIRC, Jade wasn't banned, but was suspended subject to an apology, never delivered. I've seen vague rumblings about banning for current offences, but I disagree. I don't even mind a decision that we let bygones be bygones, but I think we should be more formal about it; I think I proposed once that we should never ban anyone, just give suspensions of increasing length. If I didn't propose that, it is a damn good idea, and I propose it now.
Similarly with Jon. If we banned him, did we unban him, or are we just in cognitive dissonance mode?
It occurs to me that this is really a Policy discussion, so I should check there and see if it is being discussed.
11809. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 8:59:30 AM
Stinky
You are the one who is lying and/or misinformed. I don't have to lie about what goes on here, the truth is scary enough. Why don't you check your facts?
Before you arrived, we had a debate over whether 'God' is an appropriate moniker or not and it was deemed to be appropriate. I was banned the first time without cause while using my God moniker, but that was changed to a 2 week suspension.
You disabled my moniker while I was using it. At no time did you approach me and say 'Mr. Ferguson, you have 2 monikers. Mote policy is 1 moniker per person. Which one would you like to use?' Instead, you disabled the one that I had chosen to use.
Stop with the lies, already, Stinky. It makes your contentions about other interesting past 'issues' all the more questionable.
11810. Indiana Jones - 4/5/2001 9:09:06 AM
Fergie: Please select a statement in my previous post that you contend is a lie. If you can prove by going back through previous posts that it is a lie, I will take a one-month hiatus from the Mote.
If OTOH, I can prove by going back through previous posts that it is not a lie, you will take a one-month hiatus from the Mote.
Agreed?
11811. Indiana Jones - 4/5/2001 9:13:37 AM
Factual statement, BTW Fergie. Nothing that's subjective opinion allowing wiggle room.
11812. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 9:40:10 AM
Well, I would have said outvoted, but it's been clearly stated that this place is not a democracy and voting doesn't matter. So, I chose a closely related term, but I admit it is merely adequate, at best.
11813. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 9:41:07 AM
How did that happen? The above post should have been in the sub-thread.....
11814. rubberducky - 4/5/2001 9:54:26 AM
thanks to those who posted wrt my hosting abilities. it basically boils down to (1) not having enough time to wade thru multiple posts and stay logged in to keep tabs on the thread and (2) an inability to make host pronouncements stick. a deleted or moved post from bbb or Jex merely stops them for a day or so and then it starts again and if that's the kind of thread the participants want, i chose to not host it.
i think the thread host should be able to 'ban' a poster from his/her thread on a temporary basis, but that could be opening a can of worms we don't want to open. i just decided i wanted to host and not baby-sit. i hope AC can implement a thread banning feature so that i might consider hosting again, but i'm not holding my breath (no, this is not a shot at AC).
11815. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 10:55:42 AM
...so that i might consider hosting again
Horrors! No, thank you. Don't call us, we'll call you.
11816. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2001 11:09:45 AM
So, you have a mouse in your pocket?
11817. labwabbit - 4/5/2001 3:24:43 PM
not in his pocket.
11819. seadate - 4/5/2001 3:26:18 PM
mouth
11820. jexster - 4/5/2001 5:17:06 PM
iiibbb -
Doctor X was indeed entertaining and you are wise to pass up my posts because I have no intention of entertaining anyone on the Politics Thread where I indulge my need to torture small animals
11821. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 5:19:49 PM
Jex: No one is going to ban you. I assure you that the people won't put up with it.
11822. jexster - 4/5/2001 5:37:08 PM
WRT Cal Gal's comments....
You say tomAtow, I say tomAHtow...
I don't post spam. I post articles from the most first-rate sources which I think are timely, important, and which I believe will inform and stimulate the discussion...
You may think them annoying but its abundantly clear from this "conversation" that my posts are not ignored; that they piss off exactly those Motiers I wish to afflict, and thus accomplish their purpose.
As for interrupting the "conversations", they interrupt my posts!
11823. jexster - 4/5/2001 5:54:32 PM
Rose...
Thanks for the support!
But to anyone who thinks I give a rat's ass whether I give a rat's ass about being banned from this or any other discussion site...
Exactly which part of Message # 11321 do you not understand.
Hell were it not for Stumbo's invitation to respond I would not have bothered to pay any attention at all to this passive aggressive chicken shit...
Passive aggressives make me puke.
11824. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 6:55:38 PM
Stinky
Your lie in 11807 is very simple:
Re. 11799:
Fergie has his usual assortment of lies and half-truths.
Why don't you prove that 11799 contains lies (plural) and half-truths (plural).
You might also prove (give a few examples, to support your 'usual' claim) that I lie on a regular basis.
Thanks and good-luck.
11825. CalGal - 4/5/2001 7:00:45 PM
As for interrupting the "conversations", they interrupt my posts!
But the conversations are the point of this forum. Your continual spamming is not.
11826. labwabbit - 4/5/2001 7:27:17 PM
And #1 in the top ten reasons for the Mote decline (real or perceived) is:
11827. JJBiener - 4/5/2001 10:21:11 PM
MsIT - Thanks for the link in the Inferno. I had missed your post earlier. Well done. I guess some people just don't understand that people can get along and trust each other even if they disagree on politics. How sad for them.
11828. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 10:27:43 PM
It isn't trust. It's judgement. Spending up to a $1,000 volunteer dollars to save 3-year-old fray archives that no one reads seems a bit much.
But it does explain why some people are permanent thread moderators.
11829. JJBiener - 4/5/2001 10:29:05 PM
Rosie - To reiterate: is there a reason you are beating to death a subject that absolutely nothing to do with you in two threads?
11830. arkymalarky - 4/5/2001 10:38:30 PM
I hear harps again.
11831. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 10:48:02 PM
...nothing to do with you...
Why do you say that? I assume in the future you'll be asking for money for the mote and, hopefully, I'll contribute.
11832. JJBiener - 4/5/2001 10:51:17 PM
Rosie - When you contribute something to the Mote, then how the money is spent will be your business. Right now and for the forseeable future, the Mote does not need any further funding. That means that this subject is none of your business.
11833. jexster - 4/5/2001 10:59:30 PM
Cal -
Manifestly the Mote is not nor has it ever been the "point" of any thread on the Mote. Nor is the Mote particularly well suited as a technical matter to conversation as I suggest conversations are far better handled by chat rooms or message response based forums
However, if it makes you feel better, consider each post I make as either responding to a point recently raised by others or as inviting comment or total silence.
As for your reference to "continual spamming", I don't know what you are talking about because you don't know what you are talking about.
I have never spammed (unsolicited usually commercial E-mail sent to a large number of addresses -Webster's) the Mote not once. Each of my posts is responsive and topical
11834. CalGal - 4/5/2001 11:06:58 PM
Manifestly the Mote is not nor has it ever been the "point" of any thread on the Mote.
Actually, I thought that same thing just two seconds after I posted it. (g) But it was your word, not mind.
Using the dictionary definition of "spam", you are right. Using the colloquial definition, you spam the thread regularly. I don't think your posts are either responsive or topical.
I'm not going to argue this much more with you; Jay is the thread host and he can do what he likes. I just wish you wouldn't make post after post of a link to an article, wild rants, and the same subjects over and over and over.
In any event, the posts you've made on this subject, today, are more informative and cogent than anything I've read in your posts in Politics.
11835. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 11:07:49 PM
Wrong answer, JJ. That's no way to ask for money.
11836. RosettaStone - 4/5/2001 11:11:37 PM
In Ace's Vanity thread, he's all hopped up on spamming too. BTW, how long does his thread stay alive. Did he contribute money to mote in the early days too?
Actually, JJ. This all came to a head with me when your deleted Dr. X thread in such an unprofessional manner.
Instead of apologizing to the volunteer, you insulted him.
11837. JJBiener - 4/5/2001 11:16:30 PM
Rose - Please pick a thread for this argument and stick with it. I am getting tired trying to follow this conversation from thread to thread. I believe that in this thread I told you we don't need any money. However in the Inferno I believe I told you that for a bribe, uh, I mean a contribution of $350 I would make sure you get a thread. If you are interested, you might want to FedEx me a check. The price is expected to rise sharply next week.
11838. arkymalarky - 4/5/2001 11:18:18 PM
Nonono. I'm tired of thread-hopping too. I have it all arranged already. No need to trouble yourself, JJ.
11839. JJBiener - 4/5/2001 11:20:41 PM
Rose - Pelle deleted X's thread. I had no opinion on the subject since I never read the thread. I do have faith in Pelle's judgement, so I do not support attacks on him from you, X or anyone else. X's behavior following the deletion of his thread showed to me that he is probably not qualified to host a serious thread.
11840. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 11:22:13 PM
I've had 2 'normal' posts deleted and/or moved from the Jackass/Acehole/Poopstain thread.
I'm complaining.
Please enforce the new hosting guidelines.
Thank-you.
11841. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:25:28 PM
A previous notice stated that the proper venue for discussing previous deletions was THE INFERNO. Your posts were about deletions, and were thus not in compliance with the request.
For that reason, they were removed to the Inferno, along with all other off-topic chatter. Thank you bye bye now have a nice day.
11842. JJBiener - 4/5/2001 11:27:35 PM
Jon - I've had 2 'normal' posts deleted and/or moved from the Jackass/Acehole/Poopstain thread.
I am trying to place some kind of meaning to the word 'normal' in this context. I am failing. Can you help me out?
11843. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:28:56 PM
Ferguson
There are no new rules in force. The rules remain the same as they were before.
11844. iiibbb - 4/5/2001 11:29:59 PM
Message # 11820
With all due respect Jexter... I find it very annoying that your posts in Politics often were at a rate that they constituted 1/2 to 2/3'rds of the traffic. When you do make comments, they are written in a way that is abrasive and difficult to engage. My personal feeling is that you overplay every stand you take, and you seem ever willing to escalate the tone of an argument in an uncivil direction. It is a veritable scorched earth policy in debate, that doesn't help debate or enhance understanding at all.
Amusingly, you argue in a way that is reminiscent of my family if we look at ourselves in sort of a self-depredating way; the loudest person is the most right.
I can appreciate your passion. I may even find myself agreeing with you to small degrees. Unfortunately, when you are posting a million things that are just rehashes of someone else's stuff, and the volume of traffic you take up doing this... you frankly Politics an inhospitable place to spend time.
11845. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:30:18 PM
Jon,
Let me make this clear:
OVER MY FUCKING DEAD BODY WILL STONE BE ALLOWED TO POLLUTE MY THREAD WITH HIS TYPICAL BITCHING AND SHIT STIRRING.
Since he only wants to talk about ONE THING -- forever-- and that ONE THING is how unfair everyone is to him, that is the ONE TOPIC WHICH CANNOT BE DISCUSSED IN MY THREAD.
Because I believe in fair enforcement, NO ONE ELSE MAY DISCUSS IT EITHER.
Get it?
Got it.
Good.
All further discussions about host decisions should be had by email or in the Inferno. Thank you for your cooperation Bye bye then have a nice day.
11846. Stumbo - 4/5/2001 11:35:22 PM
Let me try to get this through your skull once more, Jex:
Believe it or not, you're not the only one here who has access to Web sites other than this one, or to other resources.
We can all read Slate if we want to. We can all read the Washington Post if we want to. We can all read the frigging Nation if we want to. Hell, we can all subscribe to Lexis/Nexis if we want to, for that matter.
The reason we come to this particular site is for original content, not cut-and-pastings from other sites.
Got it?
11847. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:37:12 PM
Stumbo:
But where would you find Jacob Weisberg's knee-jerk leftist columns if Jexster didn't cut and paste the entirety of every single fucking one of them?
Hm?
Hm?
Hm?
11848. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:38:01 PM
Ban Jexster. Ban Rosie.
Put bbb and Jon Ferguson on double-secret probation.
Let's stop fucking around and get down to it.
11849. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 11:38:15 PM
Ace
I had the same attitude when I hosted SI.
wabbit decided that I was out of whack and deserved to lose both my threads and get suspended because of it. Got hysterical and said something about not being here 24/7 (whatever that means.) I don't recall you taking my side at the time.
I don't disagree with your attitude (since mine was the same), but I'd just like to point out that this is another classic example of hypocrisy and favoritism at work. Either a host can ban a certain individual (or delete all his posts) or he can't.
And the Inferno is no place for policy discussions. The relevant posts should be moved to Policy, if at all. Although, imo, any discussion about the alleged misconduct of a thread host should take place in the thread where the alleged misconduct occurred.
11850. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:39:58 PM
"Although, imo, any discussion about the alleged misconduct of a thread host should take place in the thread where the alleged misconduct occurred."
Try it and you will be deleted and then banned.
This is a bullshit exception, because it allows the likes of Rosey to contrive a "complaint" and then spam a thread endlessly seeking satisfaction.
Fuck that.
11851. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:43:09 PM
Short, sweet and to the point, Ace.
Besides, this inability to delete for idiocy seems inconsistent with the rest of a hosts power to decide when a post is off-topic or offensive.
Isn't idiocy offensive?
11852. jexster - 4/5/2001 11:43:17 PM
But if you cannot be accurate Cal, at least be honest about what is really going on here. There are some who simply do not like don't like what I say, how I say what it or that I say it.
Most are gutless, frustrated, contemptible, self-absorbed, obsessive, pathetic neurotics with too much time on their hands and nothing between their legs.
That's all the Great Spam Scam is really about for its certainly not about "New Threads and Feature Suggestions", "spam", off topic posts, or violations of any Mote rules or etiquette.
Do I care that I have caused the pathetic to do what comes naturally, to be what they truly are?
You bet for that is precisely what I mean to do.
As for the spam sca
11853. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:44:16 PM
Or for that matter,
isn't it offensive when someone disagrees with the hosts perspective? Or philosophy? Or opinions?
11854. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:44:28 PM
Do I have a second?
-- Ban Jexster,
-- Ban Rosie,
-- put Jon and bbb on double-secret probation.
Can I get an uh-huh?
Can I get an uh-HUH?!!?
Can I hear ya shout it out, as if the LOOOOORD hisself is movin ya?
Can I get an uh-HUH?!!
(UH-HUH!!!)
Can I get an uhhhhhhhhhhhh-Huh!?!?!
(uuuhhhhhhhhhhh-Huh!!!)
Can I get an Amen, Preach it?
(Amen Preach it!)
KICK THEM OUT. I AM SICK OF THESE IDIOTIC DISCUSSIONS.
11855. jexster - 4/5/2001 11:44:36 PM
Go ahead Ace.
Do what comes naturally.
11856. jexster - 4/5/2001 11:44:57 PM
Be all you can be.
11857. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:45:37 PM
BAN THE MOTE TWO
"It's time for them to go."-- Dick Cheney, August 13th, 2000
11858. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:46:03 PM
Or for that matter
if someone is purposely disruptive, malicious, or harassing?
Or needlessly interjecting inanities into *important* and *very learned* discussions?
I think so.
11859. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:46:42 PM
Ace
I already firsted Stone's banning, yours is actually the second.
11860. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 11:46:52 PM
Ace
That's exactly what Rosie did to me. The one word posts. Endless spam.
I should have done what you've done and waited until he was through and delete all the posts at once.
I was stupid and went to wabbit, thinking that she would stop him from disrupting my thread and violating the RoE. In the interim, I made the thread 'read-only' so that Rosie couldn't spam anymore.
wabbit spits in my face. Refuses to do anything about the spam. Suspends me. Then a while later bans me without cause because of a single relatively benign insult in the Inferno.
And on top of it all has the gall to say that she 'defends me.'
Anyway, ancient history (albeit very relevant.) Carry on.
11861. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:47:36 PM
Stumbo,
A while ago you said "it's jexster or it's me."
I will join you. let us gather a group of fairly likeable posters and let us make an ultimatum:
BAN THE TWO MORONS, OR LOSE SIX POSTERS
We are sick of bending over backwards for spammers and idiots in the interests of "fairness."
11862. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:48:30 PM
Our new motto
It's time for them to go!
It's time for us to go!!
It's time for US and THEM to GO!
11863. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:49:33 PM
You're in?
11864. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:50:32 PM
but of course....
11865. Jon Ferguson - 4/5/2001 11:51:10 PM
Ace
Now you're just going nuts.
No, neither Rosie nor Jexster should be banned.
Ace should be suspended for a week for organizing a lynch mob. He seems stressed out. The break will do him some good.
11866. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:51:50 PM
"It's time for them to go." -- Dick Cheney
11867. CalGal - 4/5/2001 11:53:38 PM
There are some who simply do not like don't like what I say, how I say what it or that I say it.
No. You are not the noble voice of truth, shining light upon its enemies who squirm and cower in its presence.
You turn the thread into a toilet, Jex. People aren't complaining because you post things they disagree with or dislike, they are complaining because you don't seem capable of posting an original thought. You spam the thread with link after link, quote after quote, all of it old news--and not with the intent of starting a conversation, either.
Abandon these delusions about the quality and irritation factor of your posts, please. It's bad enough that we'll probably still have to deal with them, but at least understand that you're not Lenny Bruce, but the wacko nutjob homeless loony on the street, screaming obscenities.
11868. angel-five - 4/5/2001 11:55:29 PM
Don't know anything about Jexter doing something to get banned and am at least mildly suspicious that Ace is more concerned that Jexter be banned than Rosie. But then again perhaps I'm seeing Machiavellian manipulation in Everything these days.
Ban stone. Deep in your heart you know you'll be happier.
11869. MsIvoryTower - 4/5/2001 11:55:49 PM
I'm placing bets:
Stone will have gotten Ace and vK suspended or even banned by the end of the week.
Mark my words.
11870. Stumbo - 4/5/2001 11:57:48 PM
Ace:
Well, I didn't state it as an ultimatum, but rather as a prediction: if the Politics thread remains unreadable, then I (and others) will be less likely to bother coming back to this site, etc.
But, WTF --let's show some loyalty to this place, by putting something on the line in a bid to improve it.
Ultimatum, baby.
11871. AceofSpades - 4/5/2001 11:57:54 PM
Jexster is the onlyMORON I know who LINKSmore articles than he actually READS." -- Ace of Spades
"It's time for them to go." -- Dick Cheney
11872. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 12:00:04 AM
Yes, I think it's time for the Bush administration to go.
11873. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:00:23 AM
More debate we couldn't do without:
14549. jexster - 4/6/01 4:57:26 AM
Road Map to the Florida Recount
Stumbo:
Up yours!
11874. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 12:01:15 AM
Rosie is harmless. Ace is being ridiculous.
If anybody has a reason to dislike Rosie, I do. The guy made it his mission to make my life miserable here. Although he needed wabbit to make it happen, he succeeded.
And yet, I know that he's a good guy. He had good (albeit falsely-premised) intentions when he fucked me over, I've got no hard feelings.
He understands principle and fairness like very few around here do.
You ban him, the Mote dies.
11875. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 12:03:35 AM
"when he fucked me over, I've got no hard feelings."
The Curse of Premature Ejaculation!
11876. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:04:11 AM
The Death of the Mote
By Hymlick Herald
Cast of characters:
the evil Doctor X
the beleagured brilliant mind
the misunderstood knight
the coldhearted ivory tower
the mysterious Russian
the oblivious politico
and a host of minor characters....
11877. iiibbb - 4/6/2001 12:05:16 AM
It was the mysterious russian... in the kitchen.... with the lead pipe
11878. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:06:05 AM
More wit and wisdom from Jexster:
14508. jexster - 4/5/01 9:48:45 PM
Dusty...
Do you believe me or not?
Either shit or poopstain your BVD's
Classic. Fucking classic.
14510. jexster - 4/5/01 9:54:55 PM
And for the record - I would NEVER tell Jerry Ford to eat poop...
Ford was quite a nice fella...In fact I spent a wonderful evening with him and his lovely wife Betty Boozer at the DC Mardi Gras Ball '76!
But Ace well he's color toilet paper of a different color!
Chow-down Ace of Waste!
Wow. What would we do without him? And snappy comebacks like this, too:
14514. jexster - 4/5/01 9:57:09 PM
Yes indeed Francine you are the intellectual equivalent of an enema
Let's face it: Some people are stupid. Some people are not interesting and never will be. Some people are retards.
Retards get their own little tables at Thanksgiving. It's time to give Rosie and Jexster their own little table.
11879. angel-five - 4/6/2001 12:06:12 AM
If Rosie is indeed the lifeblood of the Mote, Jon, then it's time to stop the lifesupport.
However, Rosie is not the lifeblood of the Mote. Rosie is a virus in it, say the common cold, it comes and goes and consumes a lot of time and causes a lot of ache and annoyance and doesn't do much of anything beneficial save give the rest of us something to point at when we feel the need to say 'There but for the grace of god'.
11880. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 12:07:39 AM
As for Jexster, his only 'crime' seems to be that he posts tons of great articles.
If you don't want to read good political articles, create a thread called 'Discuss Politics' and ban any links or copying of articles in it.
Why is this hard?
11881. angel-five - 4/6/2001 12:08:55 AM
Ace:
Am I correct here? Are you suggesting that we ban people because they make insulting and pointless 'humorous' posts, having little or nothing to do with the topic at hand and being made purely as an attempt to ridicule? Yes or no will suffice.
11882. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:10:50 AM
A5:
Yes.
You want more than Yes?
Yes, if they're INCOMPETENT at it.
You are a sniggling little bitch whose opinion doesn't matter much to me. But if you want MY opinion, and who doesn't?, then my opinion is this:
Some children are born ugly and stupid and boring and smelly and they will never fit in with the other children and it is time for the other children to stop pretending that they ever could possibly fit in.
11883. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:13:45 AM
In short, pretty much everyone here hates the guts of Jexster "Poopstain" and Rosie "My children are named Pascal, Huberta, Roy, and Little Britches" Stone and they do nothing but make this thread unenjoyable for everyone else.
And it is time for us to recognize that fact and act on it.
It is time for them to go.
11884. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 12:13:47 AM
angel
If the Mote was growing, if the moderators were friendly and helpful, if the hosts were tolerant and courteous, if the average intellect of posters was high, I'd say: Ban anybody who comes in here and causes a disruption.
Unfortunately, the Mote is shrinking, the moderators are rude, dishonest and anything but helpful (I can only speak from personal experience. I understand that if you're in the clique, they are quite chummy.) many hosts are banning posts willy nilly and being quite rude about it, and rational, insightful discourse is almost nonexistent. Given those circumstances, with most of the Mote in severe denial, why pick on one of the only posters (that would be Rosie) with the courage (although, unfortunately, not the intellect) to tell it like it is?
11885. angel-five - 4/6/2001 12:15:05 AM
This is apparently National Irony Day.
11886. angel-five - 4/6/2001 12:16:41 AM
Not you, Jon. Ace. Although Rosie's 'telling it like it is' is better described as 'telling it like it is in Rosie-land'.
11887. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 12:16:57 AM
Ace
Your thread sucks. It's the worst crap I've ever waded through. For you to ask for Jexster to be banned because he made a couple of lazy posts in Politics is fucking pathetic. The diarrhea that escapes your mouth at times is astonishing.
11888. iiibbb - 4/6/2001 12:17:40 AM
Jexter's "great" posts kill conversation...he takes up nearly 1/2 to 2/3rds of the posts when he's on a roll
Why don't we give Jexter his own thread and anyone who wants to go read ..they can. Why should we give up politics to him.
11889. iiibbb - 4/6/2001 12:18:38 AM
a couple of lazy posts...?
I'd say that's an understatement.
11890. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:20:30 AM
I will gladly give Jexster my thread (and I think I speak for vK on this).
Jexster and Rosie can take over the Ace & vK thread.
One little catch:
They can't post anyfuckingwhere else.
Jon, Angel-- you can fucking join them there.
11891. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 12:21:29 AM
Leave jex alone.
It's not his fault that this administration is so boring.
11892. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:26:17 AM
"Your thread sucks."
Eh. VonK and I seem to like it.
"It's the worst crap I've ever waded through."
Well, it's no "shit your underwear or poopstain your BVD's," but we get by.
Geeze, I seem to remember a certain little liberal fuck gushing over a little D&D skit I wrote.
What were you thinking, son-- that I'd be cranking out pre-written original comedy every fuckig day?
I wish I could, Jon. But I can't. And if I could, I'd be getting paid for it, not fucking around for free.
"The diarrhea that escapes your mouth at times is astonishing."
Indeed. It happens. Many of my posts are terrible. However, I also have a fair number of good posts.
Jexster and Rosie do not have any.
11893. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 12:33:59 AM
It's not a matter of 'giving' the Politics thread to Jexster. It's a matter of doing the right thing.
A few people have a problem because somebody is posting too much in a thread (let's face it, if Jexster posted 1/4 as much, with exactly the same content, we wouldn't be here.) If that were a valid reason to ban somebody, Cal would have been banned long ago. So it's not a valid reason.
Let's rule out banning Jexster.
Next issue: How do we work it so that people who wish to discuss politics without being bombarded by Jex' articles can do so?
Instead of trying to exile Jexster to some invisible 'articles' thread (Ms. No's idiotic, short-sighted approach), we say 'Okay, Jexster, you can keep the ball. We're going to play over here. Then you create a thread called 'Discuss Politics' and you ban any linking or posting of articles (in whole or in part.)
That way, you haven't insulted a valuable participant of the community (Jexster) who has done nothing wrong. And you've created a space where people can discuss politics free of non-stop article bombardment.
It's called class, common courtesy, human decency. Try it for a change.
11894. angel-five - 4/6/2001 12:36:32 AM
Oh, on the contrary, Jexter at least has made some good contributions to the forum.
I really can't think of any criteria you could establish for banning him that wouldn't also easily apply to you and find you wanting, to be honest, unless you make linking and quoting a crime in the Mote.
11895. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:44:39 AM
Azrael 5:
Riiiiiiiiiight.
11896. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:46:38 AM
I totally disagree with banning Jex, and have said so. But I think some 80% of his Politics posts should be either deleted or dumped to the Inferno, consistently.
11897. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:49:50 AM
Cal,
TWO people did that today with the lesser output of Stone and it was a round-the-clock, minute-by-minute ordeal.
You're talking silly. I could not possibly move all of Rosetta's posts, even with vK's help. And most days I will not even have the time to attempt it.
Furthermore, it was not terribly fun. Oh, it was fun for half an hour. And then it was a tedious chore. It was the equivalent of "work," except I wasn't getting paid for it.
Again, not a solution.
11898. Stumbo - 4/6/2001 12:50:16 AM
"Let's rule out banning Jexster."
Let's not.
"class, common courtesy," and the like are precisely the qualities that prevent most of us, right and left, from spamming the Politics thread with extended quotations from various sites offering commentary we happen to agree with.
But Jex is in a league of his own.
11899. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:51:52 AM
If someone has a 4:1 ration between useless, disruptive spam and marginally adequate posts, they should be banned. We shouldn't exert heroic efforts to save the 20% of their prodigious output which, if posted by anyone else, would be considered merely lackluster, trite, and boring rather than outright objectionable.
11900. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:55:17 AM
Ace,
I know. Stumbo and I went through this earlier. I don't know what to do if the labor rate is that high for a long period of time.
I don't know what happened in Stone's case; I'm assuming he won't be deleted if he posts "on-topic". At the same time I'm not sure if deleting someone just because he's fucking lame is the answer--if that's what the original offense was.
11901. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 12:55:28 AM
And that's what we're talking about here.
Jexster's 20% of "good posts" aren't good at all. They're merely not bannable. They are boring quotes and links to Slate articles (PS, does anyone here NOT know what Slate is? PUH-FUCKING-LEASE! Half of us browse it every fucking day!).
So it's not like Jexster is making a number of objectionable posts for every GREAT post. No, that might apply more to myself. (Ahem.)
Jexster's "20%" is boring shit that anyone else could post, but we don't, because it's boring and we assume everyone else knows where to find it.
So, for every 80 spam-posts of Jexster's, we get 20 lame posts. Lame but not deletable.
Wow. What a fucking tradeoff. Cost benefit analysis, anyone?
11902. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 1:04:01 AM
"I don't know what to do if the labor rate is that high for a long period of time. "
Yes you do know: You ban the fucker.
Just like you want to ban Rosie.
Jexster is worse than Rosie. By inches, but worse. Perhaps you have sympathy for Jexster because he is a shut-in invalid. Whatever. If you would ban Rosie (and your failure to defend THAT proposed banning is glaringly consipicuous) then you should, logically, support the ban of Jexster as well.
The two have one thing in common: They are disruptive, utterly useless, and they make this place (which is supposed to be FUN; we're all wasting working hours to be here) a fucking CHORE.
11903. jonesatlaw - 4/6/2001 1:14:46 AM
While my politics make Jexster far more tolerable than Rosie to me, I don't see why we should ban either. I have urged Jex to keep to linking instead of filing the space with extended quotes, and nagged Francis about the same. I would note with satisfaction that Francis has actually learned how to link and appreciate it greatly. I also note that I get a laugh both out of jex's poopstain remarks and the inevitible rebuttal from Ace and Francis over them.
Seriously, being away from here for awhile only heightens my concern that we are supposed to be like a fantasy dinner party with sparkling converstaion from all over the spectrum, but too often resemble the Donner party instead, deciding which of our small band we'll eat next.
11904. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 1:18:10 AM
". I also note that I get a laugh both out of jex's poopstain remarks and the inevitible rebuttal from Ace and Francis over them."
I actually find these somewhat amusing, a bit like crude drawings of cocks on a shithouse wall.
The problem is there is a tremendous volume of absolutely useless shit. A HUGE volume. Cute as "poopstain" may be, it can't make up for that.
11905. CalGal - 4/6/2001 1:20:11 AM
Ace,
Actually, I don't think banning Rosie is a good idea, either, and I have never called for banning him. It's only recently that it's even arisen as a possible issue, from my perspective, mainly because he has been going around bitching about money, causing a fuss in your thread, and so on. I certainly wouldn't miss him, and if he were banned on the grounds that the moderators were just tired of his shit, I wouldn't protest. That's grounds enough for me, even if I wouldn't go out of my way to ask for it.
But the difference between Stone and Jex is pretty clear. Jex posts coherently in other threads, offers information and thoughts, and has no interest in causing trouble. He's just a pollutant in one thread, under what appears to be the delusion that he is the clarion voice of Truth.
Stone is a deliberate trouble maker. He posts lies, deliberate untruths, does his best to ensure that any one new who shows up gets a distorted notion of what the place is about.
I would have an incredibly hard time supporting the banning of someone who comes to the forum primarily to engage in discourse--assuming they weren't threatening or violating privacy. Frankly, it's a weakness of my approach because what do you do when someone refuses to cooperate with what seems a reasonable request, but is also clearly doing the same thing that you or I is doing, if in a way that is driving people nuts.
The difference between a mugger and a ranting homeless loon, I suppose. I'm just not ready to support homeless ordinances.
11906. mgleason - 4/6/2001 1:24:17 AM
Jones, the party in question is beginning to resemble the family event in Home for the Holidays crossed with Sartre's No Exit.
11907. CalGal - 4/6/2001 1:24:32 AM
I should also make it clear that I am speaking of my philosophical approach. I sincerely doubt that the moderators will take any of this discussion seriously and say, "Gosh, we need to do some bannings!"
I do think Ferguson should be banned. Other than that, I think all of this is hypothetical. I hope Jex changes and stops making post after post after post after post. I don't have any hope for Stone, but he's been a little shitwad for years and we're all still here.
Jex, on the other hand, has definitely changed and gotten worse (it seems to me) in recent months.
11908. angel-five - 4/6/2001 1:37:53 AM
Dunno why Ferguson should be banned either, but then again I'm rarely here and don't read most threads.
At the same time I'm not sure if deleting someone just because he's fucking lame is the answer--if that's what the original offense was.
Dunno about deleting someone just because they're fucking lame, either. There are a few lamers around, no one bitches about them except to occasionally ridicule them. The thing is, we're talking about quantifiable offenses near as I can tell.
11909. mgleason - 4/6/2001 1:43:24 AM
I have philosophical objections to banning posters, but what do you do when it seems clear that someone is intent on harming the forum?
I suppose I find it hard to believe that a person would continue to frequent a site like this unless he or she enjoyed the company of at least a few of the posters, but when you ask that person to stop being disruptive and all you get for your trouble is a resounding 'Fuck you!', I have to believe that the intent is to cause trouble.
11910. vonKreedon - 4/6/2001 5:44:27 AM
I am not in favor of banning outside of egregious violations of the RoE. I am very much in favor of ostracism, that people simply refuse to interact with poopstains like Stoner. To that end I cannot in good conscience host a thread that has Stoner as a participant.
11911. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:30:08 AM
Fergie: Chickenshit.
BTW, to prove that the statement you selected is a lie, you would have to prove the veracity of all of your own statements.
That you cannot select a factual statement of mine and demonstrate its falseness means you should shut the fuck up. But you won't.
As for your specific lies and half-truths in 11799, two lies: you said you were previously banned without cause--a lie; you said I acted without authorization in disabling your multiple login--a lie.
Two half-truths: 1) You said you have to come back under a new moniker. Obviously, this is not the entire case as no one forces you to come back at all. 2) You said I disabled your God moniker, when in fact your God moniker had already been disabled and I disabled a variation of another.
Chickenshit moron.
11912. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:31:11 AM
variation of another s.b just variation
11913. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:32:01 AM
And "chickenshit moron" should be "dissembling chickenshit moron."
11914. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:33:43 AM
(g)
11915. iiibbb - 4/6/2001 9:00:44 AM
Message # 11893
I am nothing but curtious to the other people on here. You do not find me calling for other peoples bans or even calling them names (except when they're substantially riled me... Cal, Wizard of W., and Cellar may be the only three people I can recollect ever losing my cool with, and that may be only one isolated event.
I've not said to ban jexter... instead I made a polite statement Message # 11844 in an attempt explain to him why his posts make me not want to be in that thread. So if you don't want him to be alienated...why do you propose that I be?
I don't know why he can't link to the stuff he posts. He claims that some of it can't be linked because it's in some other format or whatever... my suggestion would be for him to get a free homepage where he can put those items in a convenient online format, and link from here to there.
He would even derive some benefit from this because he could keep hit statistics of each and every article he posts. Then he could use that information to tailor his selections to what people are actually reading.
But your suggestion is that I (a less valuable member of this community because I don't post gobs of stuff) be alienated instead.
ok... whatever.
11916. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 9:26:24 AM
Stinky
Yawn. Do you always throw a childish tantrum when somebody outsmarts you? Take your pathetic name-calling to the Inferno, Chump.
11917. RosettaStone - 4/6/2001 9:28:21 AM
Jexster is a classic. An original. The soul of the Democratic Party. Ban him and that thread is destroyed.
I am unimportant. A mote. But Jex is crucial.
I regret that wabbit has to go through those posts, especially Spade's self-serving rant. In fact, don't we have a thread where Spade and A5 and rant away on.
Maybe some of these posts should be moved there.
My original posts in Ace's Vanity thread were on topic. Clearly they were deleted because he didn't want to me post in their thread since I had criticized it here.
I don't understand how his thread title can change daily, even hourly--and what was on topic two hours ago is now considered spam.
On another topic. Here are some good ideas for raising money for mote.
BTW, that's where the $1,000 volunteer money should have gone. To get someone to write a grant proposal, not archive old fray posts for the five people who wanted to see what they wrote four years ago.
Reorganize the mote into a completely web-based, non-profit organization, dedicated to promoting causes of free press and independent, quality journalism...
11918. RosettaStone - 4/6/2001 9:32:48 AM
...can rant away
11919. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 9:32:56 AM
Fergie: I most certainly throw a pathetic tantrum when someone outsmarts me. I crawl under my bed and read the mattress label until I feel better.
But that someone will never be a sophomore like you, Jon-boy.
Don't you have a date with Maleeta to attend to?
(g)
11920. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 9:43:24 AM
iiibbb
And how many people have felt alienated from this place (and have, in fact, left) because of Cal for exactly the same reason (excessive volume of posts, albeit in Cal's case, a much higher concentration of abusive posts as well)?
What would her reaction be if a few people made 'polite statements' to explain to her that the massive volume and abusive nature of many of her posts make them feel 'alienated'?
If Jex should be banned for this reason, then so should Cal. You want to enforce a rule, why wouldn't you start with the worst offender?
Now, if Jex is also a shut-in invalid (alleged above) then I find the calls for his banning particularly despicable.
You have 2 proposed solutions to this problem. One solution (mine) shows some class and should satisfy everyone (except for those who are after blood). The other solution shows intolerance, disrespect, favoritism and a complete lack of principle.
I wonder which one will be implemented.
11921. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 9:44:34 AM
Stinky
Ouch. That stung. Please continue in Inferno.
Thanks.
11922. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 9:48:25 AM
You first, giggle-puss.
11923. wonkers2 - 4/6/2001 9:49:19 AM
Re #11871 "Jexter is the only MORON I know who links more articles than he reads." Ace of Spades
But what about the cretins who never read any articles but load the Mote with their ignorant bloviations?
11924. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 9:51:32 AM
Bloviations. A good word. Thank you.
11925. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 9:53:21 AM
because of Cal for exactly the same reason (excessive volume of posts, albeit in Cal's case, a much higher concentration of abusive posts as well)?
Studies have shown (g) that you have a high volume of posts here, silly boy. Your abuse content is quite high as well.
If Jex should be banned for this reason, then so should Cal.
You should too. Oh, wait...you already are.
Now, if Jex is also a shut-in invalid (alleged above) then I find the calls for his banning particularly despicable.
Are you a shut-in invalid? Why this particular sense of outrage?
You have 2 proposed solutions to this problem. One solution (mine)...
...will most certainly be ignored. In fact, that you state a position means it will in all likelihood be frowned upon and not implemented.
The other solution shows intolerance, disrespect, favoritism and a complete lack of principle.
Please. No lectures from a scofflaw like you about principle.
11926. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:01:59 AM
Discussion of banning under the present regime is probably futile. We don't have the structure or resolve to do it. Remember, there was at least some support for thread consolidation. And then miles and miles of yammering. Since that point, we've gone from 28 threads to 62. Additionally, while Rosie could get banned - he is supremely unpopular - he would return in a different guise soon enough. jexster will never get banned. He is a legacy. He's been here long enough and no one will do it mainly because his Iron Man histrionics and his annoying repetition is shrouded by the ultimate cloaking device - most people feel sorry for him (a conservative note here - that's what happens when you are too generous with pity; people suck it up and "poopstain" becomes their modus operandi).
Working on thread host rules is similarly misguided. These are just a way for people to fine tune language that can have no practical effect.
The issue is really one of command and control and judgment, not policy or fairness. It is my judgment that jexster be suspended until April 20th for his intransigence and that Rosie be banned because anyone with a cerebrum can see that he is a goof bent on being all-annoying, all-the-time. This action shows mercy and judgment. Jexster is given kid glove treatment; Rosie is given capital punishment (until inevitable reincarnation).
And the interests of about 25 regular to semi-regular posters (and we are really about 25 regular to semi-regular posters who shuffle into an American Legion Hall, every day for some, every other day for others, every week or so for a different group).
But here is what will happen: an interminable discussion of why such action is unwise. So, poopstain, poopstain, poopstain.
What I do see, however, is some grassroots support for ORDER. That's what I stand for.
Unfortunately, democracy fouls The Mote.
Suspend Jexster for 2 weeks; ban Rosie.
11927. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 10:04:29 AM
I think Rosie should be given a pink belly and a twirly.
11928. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:06:57 AM
Well, yes. That too.
11929. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 10:12:23 AM
Stinky
Studies have shown (g) that you have a high volume of posts here, silly boy. Your abuse content is quite high as well.
It just looks like I have a high volume of posts (because it's so dead in here, lately.) I don't post that much.
If making someone look like a fool by shredding and deriding their reasoning is 'abuse', then yes, my abuse content is high. If you mean vulgar and/or profane insults, then my abuse content is exceedingly low (albeit, greater than zero).
Are you a shut-in invalid? Why this particular sense of outrage?
I feel compassion for people whose quality of life pales in comparison to my own. That's why I put up with as much of your shit as I do. (g)
...will most certainly be ignored. In fact, that you state a position means it will in all likelihood be frowned upon and not implemented.
Agreed. Thank-you for helping to prove my point.
Please. No lectures from a scofflaw like you about principle.
The fact (that you just conceded) that those who enforce the 'law' around here are biased against certain posters makes it perfectly appropriate for me to lecture about principle.
I derive my right to be here from my status as an ex-Fraygrant and from my propensity to make a strong contribution to various discussions in many threads in this forum. Not from the whims of some despotic (as you just perfectly illustrated) clique.
11930. rubberducky - 4/6/2001 10:13:31 AM
ditto 11926
11931. CalGal - 4/6/2001 10:14:48 AM
I'd hate to think the Mote is a democracy. In a perfect world, I'd like Jex to renounce the error of his ways. But I fear this makes me a Jeffersonian or something, and that can't be borne.
What is the impact of too many threads, Francis?
11932. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:17:24 AM
Cal
See the previous discussion many posts ago. It was hashed out well enough by Ace when the proposal was brought forward.
11933. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:18:05 AM
I don't think we can ban Stone. It's like trying to ban dust bunnies--ask TableTalk.
I amend FU's proposal to two-week suspension for Stone. I can't speak to the jexster case because I'm unaware of whether he has violated the provisions of the new Ackroyd regime in Politics or not.
Enforce the ban on Ferguson. This is the clearest example of the breakdown of law. Blaming his presence here on the botched transition between Diva and glendajean is silly. What? Is he a vampire and once you've let him in your house there's no turning back?
11934. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:18:35 AM
Ace is for ORDER.
Duck is for ORDER.
MsIt is for ORDER.
FU is for ORDER.
Ask yourselves, you remaining 21 contributors. Are you. . . for ORDER?
11935. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:19:21 AM
Indy
ORDER presupposes NO AMENDMENTS.
11936. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 10:19:54 AM
No.
11937. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:22:41 AM
Who eez thees Herr Doctor Prof?
Bring him to me.
11938. CalGal - 4/6/2001 10:23:59 AM
Francis,
Ace himself roundly rejected the reasons later. I argued against them myself. I think thread consolidation is fine, but I don't understand the continual push to none.
11939. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 10:24:15 AM
Looking back on my German ancestry, I'd have to say that order isn't everything.
11940. rubberducky - 4/6/2001 10:24:52 AM
I don't think we can ban Stone.
nonsense
we can ban anyone we please
11941. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:25:49 AM
My message of today is ORDER in the form of a two-week suspension of jexster and a permanent ban of Rosie.
Not thread consolidation, which was a resounding success (28 to 62) in the last legislative session.
11942. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:26:17 AM
bubber
ORDER ees zee only thing.
11943. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:26:33 AM
If making someone look like a fool by shredding and deriding their reasoning is 'abuse', then yes, my abuse content is high. If you mean vulgar and/or profane insults, then my abuse content is exceedingly low (albeit, greater than zero).
Whether I call you a shit-eating fool or just plain old fool, my post is abusive. You show a marked propensity to insult those with whom you debate. Your first sentence indicates your general approach to discourse. Mind you, I am not saying that alone qualifies you for banning--it just puts you in the same category you place others.
I feel compassion for people whose quality of life pales in comparison to my own.
That makes you one compassionate individual. (g)
The fact (that you just conceded) that those who enforce the 'law' around here are biased against certain posters makes it perfectly appropriate for me to lecture about principle.
Not when the person claiming bias has no right to express an opinion. Denying convicted felons the franchise is reasonable as you yourself admitted when discussing thread consolidation.
I derive my right to be here from my status as an ex-Fraygrant
Toodles for you. Not in the ROE.
and from my propensity to make a strong contribution
Assumes facts not in evidence.
11944. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:28:41 AM
Indy
You are muddling my message with your public fueding with Ferguson. Yes, yes, I know he shot your brother in Laredo. You two are acting like a couple of estranged florists. Endorse ORDER and knock it off.
11945. Tintin - 4/6/2001 10:29:10 AM
I disagree about the banning of anyone. But the AceofSpades, who called Rosetta Stone a "cocksucker," should be punished.
That turned me off to him. Plus he moved my answer to his question to another thread without my permission. Then he told me to complain to someone else about getting it fixed. What gives?
11946. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:29:38 AM
ducky and FU: Okay. Ban Stone. I'm not going to carry his water, and he made a massive ass of himself (how unusual) in the Neverending Thread.
But he's part of the furniture here--like Wayne Newton in Vegas.
11947. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:29:52 AM
Ace is for ORDER.
Duck is for ORDER.
MsIt is for ORDER.
FU is for ORDER.
That's almost 20% of The Mote for ORDER.
Two-week suspension for Jexster/ban Rosie.
11948. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 10:29:57 AM
Tintin
You need a good wegie.
11949. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:30:58 AM
FU: What's the point of calling for ORDER if Ferguson just traipses in after having two or three stakes put through his heart because someone forgot to put garlic around the window?
11950. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 10:31:54 AM
There have been far more posts about Jex and his posts than actual posts from Jex...
11951. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:32:17 AM
Ace is for ORDER.
Duck is for ORDER.
MsIt is for ORDER.
FU is for ORDER.
Indiana is for ORDER.
That's 20% of The Mote for ORDER.
That's 5 responsible citizens that can see the pit of hell and the mush of "compromise" and "fairness" and "due process" and who will act to save us all from weakness and sloth and putrid, pudding policy.
Two-week suspension for Jexster/ban Rosie.
11952. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:33:14 AM
Show of hands who think Rintintin will become a permanent poster should Stone be banned?
11953. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:33:15 AM
Indiana
Ferguson was punished. He did some time in the Gulag. I respect that. It is in the interest of ORDER.
11954. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 10:33:40 AM
I have to admit that when FU is riding a wave, he's hysterically funny.
11955. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 10:33:52 AM
seeing as how Rosie's got his next id rolling already, I don't know that you'd accomplish much by banning her.
11956. mgleason - 4/6/2001 10:34:04 AM
If everyone is banned, Francis' opportunities to make statements like You two are acting like a couple of estranged florists will be severely limited.
11957. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 10:35:27 AM
Can I get banned?
11958. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:35:54 AM
FU: I actually agree. But...
1) The moderators should have agreed to reverse his ban rather than claiming they were distracted while Renfield poured some blood on Dracula's coffin.
2) He should be on double secret probation, rather than propping his boots on the table and demanding a lap dance from everybody.
11959. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 10:36:02 AM
Show of hands who think Rintintin will become a permanent poster should Stone be banned?
He was just recently bragging about getting another phone line, too...
11960. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 10:36:24 AM
I'm gonna teach my Parrot to say bad stuff bout all you guys.
11961. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 10:37:28 AM
PP:
Good...maybe he will lay off my town, then.
11962. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:38:06 AM
mgleason
Those predisposed to the windy and whimsical have had their time. We have endured the "There but for the grace of God go I" pap before.
You ask me if I have a God complex?
I am God.
And God remains for ORDER.
11963. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 10:38:10 AM
Now, remember folks, if you really want Jex and Rosie banned, you have to follow Mote precedent. First you need a statement from wabbit that they will not be banned.
Something clear and unambiguous like this ought to do the trick:
6619. wabbit - 9/27/00 5:44:55 PM
To those asking me to ban Nost [Jexster] and Rosie, please stop. If you find them disagreeable, ignore them, but they are not violating the ROE and will not be banned.
Then wabbit will follow the earlier precedent and ban them tomorrow without warning or cause, preferably with an insult or two thrown in for good measure. (g)
11964. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 10:38:31 AM
Judith..hahahahaha 
11965. vw - 4/6/2001 10:41:08 AM
I would like to added to the FOR ANARCHY list please.
11966. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 10:41:19 AM
Good bye Parrot... 
11967. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:41:58 AM
Indy
Do I have to slap you?
This is a place of honor. I'm talking about ORDER and you're making references to statutes and regulations and fairness and policy.
Now, there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. Let the softies do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy! We're going to hold on to him by the nose, and we're gonna kick 'em in the ass!
11968. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 10:42:00 AM
What was that picture, PP?
11969. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 10:43:02 AM
FU
Since when is Puerto Rico a gulag? (g)
11970. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 10:43:03 AM
Judith...My ex-Parrot...
11971. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:43:59 AM
Ace is for ORDER.
Duck is for ORDER.
MsIt is for ORDER.
FU is for ORDER.
Indiana is for ORDER.
None of us got invited to an Oscar Party.
Annie Liebowitz didn't feature any of us for a shoot.
But who is laughing now.
Two-week suspension for Jexster/ban Rosie.
11972. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 10:44:05 AM
VW...must be NYS influence.
11973. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 10:44:42 AM
Instead of banning someone, how bout we just vote them off the island and extinguish their torch. The tribe has spoken.
11974. mgleason - 4/6/2001 10:46:01 AM
Francis,
You make a compelling argument, but I am a fundamentally anarchical creature, in thrall to the forces of chaos.
11975. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 10:52:10 AM
mgleason
A little ORDER from my whip hand could fix that.
11976. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 10:55:17 AM
This is starting to overlap with the jackbooted buggery thread.
11977. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 11:00:53 AM
Well I didn't get invited to the Oscar party either.
But had I been quicker on my feet I could have gone bcause Monica Lewinsky invited Howard Bragman to come with her to the "Vanity Fair" party at Mortons, but Hoard wanted to stay home and cuddle with his new boyfriend.
11978. mgleason - 4/6/2001 11:03:01 AM
Your black magicians will never overcome the white wizards; I refer you to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
11979. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 11:06:51 AM
Shoot. The universe may tend toward anarchy, but jackboots crunch sandal toes every time.
11980. Fielding - 4/6/2001 11:08:55 AM
I know that Francesca is not serious about banning Rosie and Jex.
If you want to fix Politics, and the Mote in General, give the Politics thread to CalGal. She would get rid of the spam and move all the stupid personal shit to the Inferno. Within the month, politics would be a reasonal place to have a political discussion.
As a bonus, CalGal would have a virtual punching bag to work out what ails her, making her less inclined to go postal every time she perceives a slight. Thus, both the Politics thread and the Mote in general would improve.
11981. mgleason - 4/6/2001 11:09:38 AM
Sure; until the number of sandal-wearers reaches a critical mass, that is.
11982. Francis Urquhart - 4/6/2001 11:10:30 AM
Ace is for ORDER.
Duck is for ORDER.
MsIt is for ORDER.
FU is for ORDER.
Indiana is for ORDER.
Fielding is for Anger Management Training.
11983. Dusty - 4/6/2001 11:15:45 AM
When I first saw Ace's call for the banning of whomever, I started to respond, then decided to let it go. I thought he was blowing off steam. Well-deserved, God knows how well-deserved, but I thought it would pass.
But no, we have a wave growing, a mob action. Let's get a grip
Stone banning? No. For several reasons. Not the least of which is that it is unworkable. Is everyone unaware that TT has four, full time paid employees whose job is deleting Stone pseauds? Ace thought a few minutes of post removal was work; consider the effort to eliminate hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) of id's.
Jexter banning? No. There's a brand-new sheriff in Politics, who is attempting to contract Jex to talk about how things should happen. At a minimum, give him a chance.
Jon Ferguson banning? Slightly more complicated. He's done nothing since returning to justify a ban. However, he was banned before. We need to decide whether we meant that ban, or whether it should be treated as a suspension.
11984. Fielding - 4/6/2001 11:17:02 AM
FU:
No. Anger management is only a collateral benefit. CalGal will impose order on Politics. She will impose it in a way that you could only dream of.
11985. Fielding - 4/6/2001 11:22:18 AM
Dusty:
I agree with you about Jex and Stone. I don't think anyone is serious about it, but if it gets serious, I will stand with you against the mob.
I think we should give Jon a final warning. He has been banned once (or was it twice), and since returning, has done nothing but make this place less enjoyable. If the original ban was not meant to be permanent, he should be given one last chance. If he continues to act like he wants to see the Mote destroyed, lets ban him.
11986. Dusty - 4/6/2001 11:24:07 AM
In general, I say we excise the term "ban" from our discussion. I propose that we never ban anyone. Most instances of discipline should go through a two-step process:
11987. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 11:25:49 AM
Is everyone unaware that TT has four, full time paid employees whose job is deleting Stone pseauds? Ace thought a few minutes of post removal was work; consider the effort to eliminate hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) of id's.
This is truely pathetic, Dusty. That one man (one very stupid and malicious man) can cause such chaos and effort is horrifying.
However, do you propose that such behavior be rewarded? Are we to be held hostage to such acts?
11988. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 11:26:09 AM
Dusty (11983): In a word, yes.
I don't think non-TTers know what Stone does over there. When I was Gatekeeper, he came up with at least least half a dozen multiples that I caught--no telling how many he got through. As ducky says, we should be able to ban whomever we want, but with Stone you literally are just banning an ID. Let me put it this way: the nuisance he has made of himself so far doesn't justify the expenditure of resources it would take to keep him out.
Plus, he thrives on attention. I think his behavior in Ace's thread yesterday demonstrates the feedback loop that is Rosetta Stone for those not already familiar with it.
And I agree with the rest of your post, too. I'd like to see whether the coaching move in Politics improves the team's performance before kicking any players off.
11989. rubberducky - 4/6/2001 11:47:03 AM
i'm tired of debating keeping the absolute worst this forum has to offer.
in the past, i took PP's position and was pretty much against bannings. but Rosetta Slide and Jex are too much. Jex, at least, is manageable in other threads. thus, a suspension is in order to give him the proper nun induced ruler-across-the-knuckles-wrap he needs. Slide is loathsome and undeserving of any sort of pity and/or leeway.
ban him
bam him now.
theMote will be a better place for it and every single person reading this knows this whether it's admitted or not.
11990. Dusty - 4/6/2001 11:50:24 AM
MsIvoryTower
I'm obviously exaggerating a bit; the four employees would insist that they do other work than just eliminate Stone ids, but I don't think that "hundreds" is an exaggeration.
However, do you propose that such behavior be rewarded?
11991. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/6/2001 11:57:01 AM
Topple the petty tyrant Nilson, and the good doctor promises to bring a just and stable golden age to this Mote.
Once I am judge and jury, I shall be prepared to take all necessary and proper actions to ensure the people of goodwill prosper and miscrents are punished. Starting with the thugs of the strutting jackbooted martinet himself as well as his person.
11992. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 11:57:29 AM
Don't ban Rosie -- geld him.
11993. seadate - 4/6/2001 12:04:04 PM
I knew better than to come in here.
11994. iiibbb - 4/6/2001 12:11:28 PM
Message # 11920
Cal may or may not alienate new people. I've had my tussles with her, and my memory of them is she may call me an idiot, but then she followed with something I could argue with her about. Cal has also conceded points to me in the past...
I was new to the mote in Oct 1999... people were challenging at times. I stood my ground. One would think if you were coming into a debate site you'd be willing to stick up for yourself.
Again... the majority of what Jex does is neither discussion or debate. When he's not posting all that other posts and rehashes of other people's thoughts, he's launching insults, and concedes nothing...
I don't feel bad singling him out, because this is an issue I have with him. I won't seek him banned, but I don't find myself compelled to stick up for him considering he's ignored requests such as mine.
11995. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 12:13:37 PM
Another down side to banning Rosetta, though the prospect makes me giddy, is the tendency of everyone around here, myself included, to be wary of new IDs and jump to conclusions about new IDs being Rosie. I've seen it happen before and have proabably contributed to it myself...someone new comes in and we immediately start trying to figure out who it "really" is...this is understandlably off-putting to new posters. Especially after they find out what Rosie is....wouldn't you be offended at being suspected of being RosettaStone?
11996. labwabbit - 4/6/2001 12:14:02 PM
#1 reason for Mote discord and decline (real or perceived...
11997. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:15:55 PM
Dusty
I am quite sympathetic to the notion that one should be aware of all costs involved in a decision. Generally, I think most, including myself, are willing and fully capable of ignoring Stone. I draw the line, however, if Stone gets anyone else either suspended or banned because his shit stirring finally gets a negative reaction (I'm speaking of Ace and vK's actions yesterday in enforcing a no Stone zone in their thread).
If anyone gets reprimanded for such reaction, I believe we should kill the root cause of the problem not the symptoms of it.
I'm really only serious about banning Stone if his complaining behavior gets anyone else in trouble. That someone can deliberately create a stir, then run to hide behind loosie goosie rules to protect himself from reprocussions is offensive to me beyond words.
11998. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 12:16:44 PM
And now that Rosie has another phone line, he can be four times as irritating, although I never dreamed that was possible...
11999. bubbaette - 4/6/2001 12:17:16 PM
Geld him -- it works for horses, so why not for horses asses?
12000. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 12:17:19 PM
?????
12001. labwabbit - 4/6/2001 12:17:48 PM
Could be words to me beyond offensive...
12002. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:18:00 PM
Some people really seem to have an almost sexual attachment to cryptic utterances.
I think you can ban IP addresses, eventually.
12003. labwabbit - 4/6/2001 12:20:51 PM
#1
12004. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:21:04 PM
That would be good, although drastic.
I don't understand how Stone is able to create so many ID's if this site doesn't accept web based ID's. I mean, how many email addresses can you have with an ISP without putting out some serious money?
12005. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:25:27 PM
Well, he's with AOL, yes? I believe you can create a number of IDs with the same account.
12006. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 12:25:59 PM
I think he always used AOL and probably had a thousand Try AOL Free discs saved up....I noticed a lot of his lame-o attempts and they were always AOL based.
12007. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 12:26:36 PM
x-post....slow typist here.
12008. ycmeehan - 4/6/2001 12:26:51 PM
After lurking for several months, I guess I was lucky to have Hashke, cmboyce, Cal, Irv, Dan Dillon, Ronski, Pelle, and several others to welcome me as soon as I dared to post in the Fray language thread.
12009. seadate - 4/6/2001 12:27:16 PM
Sit on a T1 and have license for a bunch of IP addresses.
12010. seadate - 4/6/2001 12:27:52 PM
12009 answers MsITs 12004
12011. Dusty - 4/6/2001 12:39:07 PM
JudithAtHome Message # 11995
Excellent point.
MsIT
If Stone's action lead to the banning of someone else, I would rethink my position.
IOW, I agree.
12012. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:40:01 PM
Ah, that answers the "how" question.
I loathe AOL so I didn't know you could create multiple emails with the same ID address without paying for it. And I've never worked in a computer environment where I experimented with creating multiple email addresses. What's a T1 btw?
12013. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:52:40 PM
It's a data connection; 1.5 mps.
12014. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:53:24 PM
Whoops. 1.5M bps.
12015. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 12:57:02 PM
12016. wonkers2 - 4/6/2001 1:33:17 PM
I can't imagine why we would even consider banning anyone. Isn't there something more interesting or productive to talk about?
12017. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 1:34:29 PM
Evidently not....I can't believe how many posts have been generated by this.
12018. seadate - 4/6/2001 1:38:44 PM
Wonkers, I tend to agree with you. If repetitive, verbose, pointless (in some views) posts are grounds for banning, it'd just be a couple of *us* left.
12019. rubberducky - 4/6/2001 1:55:37 PM
Isn't there something more interesting or productive to talk about?
it boils down to how much idiocy is too much idiocy.
12020. labwabbit - 4/6/2001 1:56:41 PM
capacity is high...
12021. rubberducky - 4/6/2001 2:15:25 PM
yeah, but high doesn't equal infinity.
12022. PsychProf - 4/6/2001 2:17:47 PM
Outcome may be a multiplicative function of Capacity X Tolerance...
12023. wonkers2 - 4/6/2001 2:20:08 PM
This thread reminds me of the Ricki Lake Show.
12024. rubberducky - 4/6/2001 2:20:46 PM
divided by the quotient derived from the moderators patience, of course
12025. pogie - 4/6/2001 2:27:44 PM
Rosetta basically makes copious use of free isp emails and emails associated with a site but not web-based (like his rabbit hole email.) Would it be perhaps simpler to disallow posting but permit him to login (hairsplitting, but maybe it would work better)?
12026. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 6:04:09 PM
If we're not going to ban Jexster, I don't support banning Rosie.
Both have violated. Either both goes or neither goes. Either there is a penalty or there is not.
That's my line, at least.
12027. AceofSpades - 4/6/2001 6:06:04 PM
Either both GO, not goes.
12028. RosettaStone - 4/6/2001 6:24:25 PM
Take it to the rant thread, spade.
No one cares anymore here.
12029. angel-five - 4/6/2001 7:13:57 PM
You can ban IP addresses. It's pretty easy. Those people with banned IP addresses don't get to connect.
It's ridiculous to be held hostage to one idiot with a keyboard. Fortunately it's also completely unnecessary.
12030. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 8:20:50 PM
"What to Wear To Andrew Sullivan's Funeral."
Now THERE'S a topic!
12031. arkymalarky - 4/6/2001 8:33:59 PM
I think it was Cal who said something way upthread about banning on the basis of 1) being threatening or 2) violating privacy.
I agree with this. I don't think anyone who makes other Moters feel literally threatened or insecure about being here should be allowed to post here. I don't go as far as PP and Jay and some others in thinking banning is never appropriate. Banning BullE in the Fray was right. I agreed with Cazart's banning, fwiw, and Jon's first one, anyway. The details of the other are blurry and I didn't pay a lot of attention, if I recall.
I really don't understand why people let Rose yank their chains the way they do. I understand Ace's actions in his thread, even if Rose has a point about his initial post (don't know, wasn't there). Rose was disrupting and deserved to be deleted/moved by the host. Most of what happens with Rose, though, is that he makes a silly assertion, obviously (to me, anyway) sarcastically joking/gigging, and when he sees the reaction he just continues to gig and people continue to squeal.
It's just a fact, the man can be funny because he takes absolutely no one seriously, especially himself, and I never take anything he says seriously. Nothing. But I've encountered his type irl plenty. They live to annoy. It does get old, but if people wouldn't feed into it I could ignore him when he gets annoying very easily. When they do, it just escalates as he yanks, then no one can ignore it.
I've seen glimpses of more there in some of Rose's posts, and I wish he would be serious more often. He should cut the silly stuff and try to contribute more of substance, but I don't know that that's likely. Y'all make it too much fun for him to stay in the role of Class Clown. The most rewarding part of their role is sitting back and watching the havoc they've wreaked, and Rose is frequently rewarded around here.
Personally, I've always thought Wabbit handled Rose beautifully.
12032. Autodaffy - 4/6/2001 9:52:48 PM
Anyone who causes as many posts as Rosetta should be on the Mote payroll.
Rosetta, loved your comment about the lares and penates rubbing against each other in the policies thread. The image is hilarious. I have chuckled over it for days.
12033. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 10:48:49 PM
All of this banning talk is making me hungry. Suspend Cal and Ace a week each for organizing their respective lynch mobs (and 'hurting the Mote') and let's get on to more productive endeavors.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dusty's proposed policy amendment (11986) and I think it should be incorporated in the PTB guidelines (of which, I assume, there are none.)
Move for unanimous consent.
MSIT re 11997
What exactly is a reprocussion? Is that when you're trying to conceive a child with your husband and he's banging your head against the headboard?
12034. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 10:50:29 PM
yes, that's it.....
good fun, that....
12035. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 10:55:55 PM
Auto re 12032
Anyone who causes as many posts as Rosetta should be on the Mote payroll.
And how much should someone who generates 5 times as many posts as Rosie be paid?
12036. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 10:57:26 PM
MSIT
What? You were offended by that? Give me a break. It was clever and mildly (perhaps moreso, but I will preserve my famous modesty) amusing.
12037. RosettaStone - 4/6/2001 11:18:03 PM
MsIDiot is one of those modern women who doesn't need a husband, Jon.
Unfortunately I find myself to be a counterproductive member of mote's secretative society and I'm going to take two weeks off.
Part of it will be religious. Easter week is next week and then spring vacation in the village of Williamsburg, Va, with family.
I probably will lurk but will try not to post. Tintin will join me.
I am sorry to give wabbit so much stupid reading to do.
Happy Easter everyone.
12038. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 11:25:53 PM
Rosie
Oh, I didn't realize it was the word 'husband' that offended her. It never occurred to me that somebody as brilliant, witty, eloquent, charming and endearing as her would be single. (g)
12039. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 1:02:10 AM
I would like to host the Man Thread, a sub-thread of the jack-booted buggery thread.
Thank-you.
I would also like to host the Porn Thread, a sub-thread of the Man Thread.
Thank-you again.
12040. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 1:07:22 AM
I suggest that the Oscar Contest results be moved back to the top of the 'Topics of Interest' list.
We all know how hard Cal worked on that contest and it's only appropriate that we show our gratitude by honoring her for a little longer. (g)
12041. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 9:06:35 AM
Ferguson
I wasn't offended. Why would that offend me?
I was amused that someone who has so many errors in his own posts would be so willing to take pot shots at other's errors.
But then, I'm sure you've rationalized your own lack of perfection in language and spelling as something other the lack of skills you're quick to attribute to others.
It's always amusing to see people in glass houses criticize others.
12042. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 10:28:57 AM
MSIT
re 12041
I think you mean 'something other than...' (g)
Sometimes I type too quickly (I type just as I would speak, or I edit one part of what I've written without fully considering its grammatical effect on the rest of my post) and my English gets a little mangled. Exceedingly rarely. As for my spelling, although not metaphysically perfect, it's first rate.
It's always amusing to see people in cardboard boxes accuse people in brick houses of living in glass houses whilst mocking them for not living in titanium bunkers. (g)
12043. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 10:54:41 AM
Sometimes I type too quickly (I type just as I would speak, or I edit one part of what I've written without fully considering its grammatical effect on the rest of my post) and my English gets a little mangled. Exceedingly rarely. As for my spelling, although not metaphysically perfect, it's first rate.
Hahaha, yes, just as I thought.
And I'm not the one who constantly criticizes others for their language and spelling. In fact, I defy you to find one example of my doing so, whereas yours are ubiquitous, a feat in just three weeks of posting.
It's always amusing to see people in cardboard boxes accuse people in brick houses of living in glass houses whilst mocking them for not living in titanium bunkers.
Oh yes, surely I do live in a cardboard box, however you, just as surely, live in a squatters hut.
12044. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 11:46:36 AM
MSIT
Okay, this has become tedious. Let's drop it.
May I ask what law school you are attending?
12045. CalGal - 4/7/2001 11:50:40 AM
Oh, yes. Do tell him, so he can spam your university with letters demanding that you be expelled.
12046. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 11:57:23 AM
Oh, Cal honey, I'm so happy you're here.
I'm doing a little research project to determine the magnitude of my positive impact on the number of posts here.
I'm having AC run the numbers, but in the interests of science I need to subtract my own posts, to get a true indication of my effect on others' posting habits (as opposed to my own posting frequency).
Could you be a dear and get me a breakdown of my posts in each thread since March 15?
Thanks so much. (g)
12047. CalGal - 4/7/2001 12:07:24 PM
You're not "having" Alistair do anything, and since we don't receive revenue for clicks, who gives a damn if you've driven up the hit rate?
But one thing's for sure--you're still posting here two to three times more than anywhere else. That's because you still haven't talked to your doctor about increasing your meds.
I renew the call for your banning. I've already said why. I also suggest we add a new rule that says banned people who return can be summarily discontinued if the moderators feel it warranted.
12048. Jon Ferguson - 4/7/2001 12:18:51 PM
Cal
And I renew the call for lunch.
Oh, btw, first thing Monday morning will be fine.
Thanks, Sugar. (g)
12049. PelleNilsson - 4/7/2001 1:50:00 PM
Scientific American, April issue, page 86:
As defined by clinical psychologists, narcissism is a mental illness characterized by inflated or grandiose views of self, the quest for excessive admiration, an unreasonable or exaggerated sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, an expolitative attitude towards others, a proneness to envy or wish to be envied, frequent fantasies of greatness, and arrogance.
12050. Francis Urquhart - 4/7/2001 3:15:04 PM
Pelle
What don't you stop finding smarmy links, grow a pair, and toss the psoriasis that is Ferguson.
Oh wait. Apparently, he needs to sodomize you AND burn your house down, you dithering, handwringing, 17 political party belonging rice cake of a man.
Christin - push the button. No announcement, no justification necessary.
Wabbit - Am I wooing you yet? I have been surprised by your resolve thus far.
12051. AceofSpades - 4/7/2001 3:23:29 PM
This place is like the Weimar Republic. The leadership leadership has to grow a pair or else a strongman will emerge from the rabble.
I am that strongman.
12052. AceofSpades - 4/7/2001 3:26:35 PM
I'll take power as chancellor and appoint some aged half-wit President.
Someone like ScottLoar, maybe. He can show up at the rallies wearing his medals, wave to the throngs, and then I'll ship him back out to the hinterlands.
12053. Francis Urquhart - 4/7/2001 3:27:27 PM
More like pre-blitz Britain.
Hitler smashes through Poland, and Prime Minister Pelle stands before the House of Commons and criticizes the Nazis for tacky gray uniforms.
12054. AceofSpades - 4/7/2001 3:29:16 PM
Pelle, Christin, and Wabbit:
See no Bannings, Hear of no Bannings, Speak of no Bannings.
12055. AceofSpades - 4/7/2001 3:30:51 PM
Mario Cuomo claimed "you can't add by subtraction."
Like most liberals, he was completely wrong. Of course you can add by subtraction --subtracting away a negative quantity adds positively to the sum.
We must add by subtraction.
12056. Francis Urquhart - 4/7/2001 3:34:06 PM
Ferguson has tanks and Poland in his pocket.
Pelle has a reputation in Belgium as being quite good at anagrams.
12057. Francis Urquhart - 4/7/2001 3:38:17 PM
"It is simply premature at this juncture to ban Ferguson, for even though he has made me eat peanuts out of my own stool, such an action is ambivalent and we must not incorrectly gauge his intentions and thereby inflict an injustice not only upon Mr. Ferguson, but upon the community of nations."
Pelle Nillson.
12058. PelleNilsson - 4/7/2001 3:49:36 PM
The impatience of youth. We are still in the business of giving out rope.
12059. Francis Urquhart - 4/7/2001 3:52:26 PM
Custer's last words.
"I almost got these redskins where I want 'em."
12060. Francis Urquhart - 4/7/2001 3:56:14 PM
But I do respect the admission that Ferguson will be banned, even if the banning will occur only after he has garnered "rope" in the form of smacking you and others in the face with his tubesteak.
Pelle is conference: "We need only wait until he does something truly egregious, such as smacking me in my own face with his tubesteak. Then, he will have gone too far and angel-five will be less hard on me after the ouster."
12061. mgleason - 4/7/2001 4:02:58 PM
FU,
Surely a man of your stature has better things to do than mediate a dispute between his Whitehall minions.
12062. CalGal - 4/8/2001 3:46:57 PM
I was reading the New Yorker and thinking that it'd be nice if we had that Periodicals thread--and then I realized that we still had an awful lot of threads.
So I'll pre-empt Francis' weekly demands by suggesting the following for the axe:
Barrelful of Rants
Travelling for Business or Pleasure
Notices and Queries
I think there are still some combinations that could happen, too.
12063. Cellar Door - 4/8/2001 4:26:22 PM
How about "If Women Could Be Made Slaves, How Much Would CalGal Go For On the Open Market?"
Now THERE'S a topic for you!
12064. wonkers2 - 4/8/2001 7:06:18 PM
CalGal wouldn't make a good slave. Not docile enough. You'd have to pay somebody to take her.
12065. JudithAtHome - 4/8/2001 7:16:51 PM
Yeah, Cellar...I'm more the slave type.
12066. Jon Ferguson - 4/8/2001 8:23:38 PM
re 12062
9918. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/01 5:22:15 PM
...
Here are the threads that I think should be considered for the chopping block (at least for starters):
N&Q, Rants, Money, E&C, Travel, War
Of those 6, the first 5 have hosts who already host other threads.
Kill/archive/demote to subthread the first 5 and let's go from there.
Your desire to take the initiative and run with my ideas is outstanding, Cal. Still, don't forget about that project I assigned to you.
Money & E&C have since been combined and the new thread seems to be working okay. That leaves the 3 other threads I suggested be eliminated. I'm glad you've followed my lead on this one.
Now if you'd only support my other ideas, we'd be getting somewhere.
12067. Jon Ferguson - 4/8/2001 8:28:48 PM
I'd also add the Articles sub-thread of Politics.
It's been up for 5 days without a single article posted to it. Bad idea. Get rid of it.
Move for unanimous consent.
12068. CalGal - 4/8/2001 8:31:24 PM
Since Ferguson uses his real name, are Mote members precluded from calling his doctors? I can't think that would be a threat of any sort, would it? I feel sure they'd appreciate the feedback. No doubt they've figured he's been cured of his weenie wagging, unaware of his new fetish. It would actually be a public service, to say nothing of ultimately beneficial to Ferguson--assuming he's curable.
I do hope you'll decide to ban him soon. He becomes ever more tedious and his constant attacks on this site and the moderators have no upside.
12069. Cellar Door - 4/8/2001 8:42:42 PM
Enough of your insolence, Mandingo wench!
12070. Jon Ferguson - 4/8/2001 8:55:01 PM
Thank-you, Cellar. I might not have chosen your words, but your sentiments are shared by me.
Cal's insults certainly don't bother me, in fact they amuse me. But they aren't good for the Mote. Imagine if a Newbie or that newspaperman that Judith contacted read that crap.
Please stop 'hurting the Mote,' Cal. Take it to the Inferno if you need a vent for your famous temper.
12071. Fielding - 4/8/2001 9:07:49 PM
I'll be out of pocket for the next week. I respectfully request that the moderators keep an eye on my threads, and that they NOT be RIPed in my absence.
Thanx.
12072. LimeGirl - 4/8/2001 9:10:02 PM
I'm not sure why two completely different threads with the same host should be eliminated, if they're serving two separate purposes. But then, I don't grasp this thread-host-envy thing that some seem to have going on.
12073. Jon Ferguson - 4/8/2001 9:24:41 PM
LimeGirl
I copied my earlier post to illustrate another point, not to reiterate the point you just raised.
However, I'll respond to your question.
The assignment of thread hosting duties has become an extremely politicized event in the Mote. If you are a member of the 'favored class' you might even be permitted to host more than one thread.
Meanwhile, people like Rosie, and XTC are either not permitted to host, or have their threads arbitrarily taken away from them.
In my opinion, a good step in the right direction would be a policy allowing a maximum of one thread per person, unless nobody else wants the job. That rule would help discourage this rampant favoritism in thread allocation that I just described.
I agree, however, that it would be silly to eliminate a popular valuable thread for that reason. Others should have the opportunity to host, however.
In the 3 (now 4) threads that I've suggested be eliminated, there's either no valid reason for their existence in the first place (the Articles thread), the thread is unpopular and seldom the location of interesting conversation (the Travel thread) or the thread is too similar to other threads (N&Q=the Cafe, Rants=the Inferno=Jackbooted Buggery.)
It is felt by many that there are too many threads. We discussed this a great deal 3 weeks ago (around the time of the previous post I dug up.) Perhaps you should revisit that discussion if you are interested in this issue.
12074. Dusty - 4/9/2001 9:04:33 AM
Jon Ferguson
It is far too early to eliminate the "articles" subthread. It was put up for a reason, as you know. The principle offender hasn't offended since it was put up, so, arguably, it has been a success, despite not a single post.
I missed the discussion leading to this anathema for a profusion of threads, but whether the rationale was based upon having too many choices in the thread list, or dilution of posting, neither applies in this instance.
As I said earlier, let's give it a chance. If it doesn't solve the problem, we can consider other remedies.
Of course, if you are simply interested in being difficult, go ahead and continue to argue why elimination of the subthread would help save the world.
12075. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 9:08:09 AM
The articles subthread is my call, and I'll deal with it.
12076. JudithAtHome - 4/9/2001 9:27:27 AM
Jon, who is rarely incorrect in his spelling:
I'd also add the Articles sub-thread of Politics
I do believe, given your statement following this remark, that you meant "ax" rather than "add".
12077. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 9:28:53 AM
He meant "add to his list of things to be axed." I understood.
12078. JudithAtHome - 4/9/2001 9:33:27 AM
Oh darn...now he'll attack my cognative skills! I guess I was just to anxious to find him making an error; he's so ruthless in finding mine!
12079. Jenerator - 4/9/2001 9:44:10 AM
I wouldn't worry about it Judith.
12080. JudithAtHome - 4/9/2001 9:55:10 AM
I'm not...it gives him focus in his life.
12081. seadate - 4/9/2001 10:15:45 AM
So who's getting banned today?
12082. vw - 4/9/2001 10:24:04 AM
But they aren't good for the Mote. Imagine if a Newbie or that newspaperman that Judith contacted read that crap.
You’ve got to be kidding.
The only kind of newbie that might be put off by what goes on here is the “never been on a forum ever” newbie who has no clue that this kind of meta bickering is SOP on every online forum on the ‘Net.
I’ve never seen an online forum that didn’t include this kind baloney. Yes, it’s boring. Yes, it’s pointless. Yes, it’s never-ending. But hell, you’re one of the morons posting it Jon, so who exactly is to blame for this supposed chilling newbie atmosphere?
12083. JudithAtHome - 4/9/2001 10:38:09 AM
And if the newspaper guy I contatced were to come here, he'd only be doing so as a potential poster because he no longer works at the paper and was presenting himself to me under false pretenses, anyhow, so....
12084. CalGal - 4/9/2001 10:38:26 AM
Well, me, of course. Good lord, fahrfegnugen, haven't you been reading up?
Dusty, Lime:
There have been a number of comments that there are too many threads--some want a lot less (12). I don't agree, but at the same time I think a few could be pruned and, since I was thinking of a new thread that might be fun, it reminded me.
12085. msivorytower - 4/9/2001 11:03:15 AM
I really think thread consolidation should be given a more serious second look (or 5th look, where ever we are on this thing).
12086. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2001 11:05:54 AM
So who's getting banned today?
Ferguson is. I logged in today to see another bunch of his whining, dull posts. He doesn't like this forum, he doesn't like the way it's run, he doesn't like the people who post here who are all contemptible and beneath him.
The fellow is a boor, an unforgivable sin.
So Jon Ferguson will not be posting here any more.
(Of course this fits into some deranged scheme he has concocted and hinted at. I couldn't care less.)
12087. msivorytower - 4/9/2001 11:08:17 AM
Wow
And just think, we might have two whole Stone free weeks ahead, so we won't be having to hear any whining about the whining that got the whiner banned.
Bliss.
12088. Jon Ferguson - 4/9/2001 11:08:51 AM
It's 'cognitive', Judith. (g)
12089. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 11:09:56 AM
Bad move, Nilsson.
If boorishness is an unforgiveable sin, I'd be concerned for your own soul. Fact is, I could easily name quite a few posters for whom boorishness is their prevailing personality trait.
12090. seadate - 4/9/2001 11:16:07 AM
I like Notices and Queries.
12091. CalGal - 4/9/2001 11:17:18 AM
Hallelujah.
Seadate,
It's just that we don't really use it much anymore.
12092. seadate - 4/9/2001 11:18:44 AM
N&Qs inactivity makes notices and queries more, um, noticeable.
12093. seadate - 4/9/2001 11:43:54 AM
The intention of my last post is simplicity, not stupidity, btw.
12094. CalGal - 4/9/2001 11:46:27 AM
Ms,
When I said, "I don't agree", I meant that I didn't want the threads cut down to 12. I agree that cutbacks and possibly consolidation is desirable.
I think Social Issues could cover a lot of other threads--Health Policy, for example. The thread has two sorts of conversation--general talk about personal health and social policy about health issues. So if you did away with the thread, general talk about personal health would go to the Cafe (where it goes on now anyway) and the rest could go to social issues.
12095. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:10:05 PM
I am requesting that JadeTard be suspended for persistent violation of the ROE's rules against spamming, even in the face of multiple polite warnings.
If she is not suspended, I would like to know why the rules apply to some but not others.
12096. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:13:37 PM
Please move this post to the Inferno.
Thanks, JG
12097. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:16:11 PM
I am not moving JadeTard's spam *here*. If she is not to be suspended (which I assume will be the case; isn't it always?), I think that everyone here might as well enjoy her spam.
If I should be forced to put up with it, so should all of you.
Thank you for understanding.
12098. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 2:17:15 PM
Ace,
Is this in a thread that you are hosting?
12099. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:17:44 PM
Yes.
12100. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 2:19:02 PM
Would you like to give me a hint of where to start reading?
12101. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:23:29 PM
You can start at Jen's 1737, a response to Jade's "Onward Xtian soldiers" post.
Jade's post was deleted rather than moved. So were the posts which followed this, for there is no record of them. But four posts have been moved to the Inferno for flavor.
I explained to Jade in 1738 that our thread is not the place for actual nastiness, and actual nastiness should be had in the Inferno. After five separate warnings (all which remain in my thread), she simply continued to spam.
12102. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:25:58 PM
"So were the posts which followed this, for there is no record of them. "
SO there is no record of them.
They were all similar to the posts moved to the Inferno. An "Onward Xtian soldiers," a "Just do what Jesus would do," a "Jesus is so close to me He validates my parking," and a couple of "Spaz" posts for good measure.
The "Spaz" posts don't particularly bother me, but they seem to bother Pelle.
12103. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:26:34 PM
Why were they deleted, Spaz?
Perhaps they were not as you purport?
12104. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:28:19 PM
Riiiiiiight, JadeGold.
Do me a favor: Swear to MsNo that the posts were not as I "purport."
12105. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:29:48 PM
Incidentally, Spaz, one can easily go through your thread and find examples of "nastiness."
I don't use profanity or threaten people as can be easily found in your thread.
You're just fishing.
12106. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:31:04 PM
Yes, Spaz, you are lying.
Happy?
12107. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:32:59 PM
"Incidentally, Spaz, one can easily go through your thread and find examples of "nastiness." "
No, you can't do so "easily," Retard.
You *can* find me scolding Rosetta in an very ugly and not-fun manner. But this was in response to his spamming, and was an attempt to shame him into shaping up.
That exception aside, I don't needle anyone who I don't think "gets it" that I am only needling them playfully.
The Inferno is for abuse. VonK's and my thread is for playground razzing. I explained this to you politely and you began spamming.
You are gone.
12108. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:34:44 PM
"Yes, Spaz, you are lying.
Happy?"
Yes I am. Now MsNo can check the record preserved at the Inferno and can ask Seadate and Jen (and anyone else who may have lurked) if I mischaracterized your posts.
Let us make your suspension turn on one simple question: Are you lying, or am I?
If MsNo & Co determine that I am lying, let me be suspended for two weeks.
If they determine that you are lying, let them suspend you for two weeks.
Sound reasonable, Sweetheart?
12109. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:36:12 PM
I'm right here, Spaz.
And I post where I like. If you choose to move or delete them, so be it.
12110. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:38:13 PM
It should be easy enough to reproduce the deleted posts, Spaz.
Let's go by the real thing, not opinion.
Sound reasonable, Spazheart?
12111. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:38:28 PM
Heh. What a tough guy.
You pretend you're not horrified at the thought of living your useless life without a Mote to spam in, but your actions speak much louder than words.
Chickenshit. Why don't you keep spamming my thread if you're so blithely unafraid?
12112. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:40:21 PM
I'm not the one deleting posts, Spaz.
I never "spammed" your thread.
12113. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 2:42:21 PM
Jade,
Do you have a great desire to actively participate in the Thread of Ever Changing Name?
From what I can see---admittedly not a whole heck of a lot since there are so many deletions---you either failed to grasp the concept of the thread or simply refused to abide by it. Since you're often belligerent but rarely oblivious I can only assume that it's the later.
Deliberately violating the tone or pupose of a thread isn't kosher. Please refrain from doing so.
12114. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 2:44:49 PM
Ace,
Could you please restrain your delete button a bit? Deletions should only be used for the most egregious violations of policy. While moving posts is a pain in the ass, it's far easier to pin-point a problem and verify it if there are posts to back up the claims.
12115. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:45:35 PM
Please clarify, Ms. No.
How can you base a judgement based on deleted posts? Given the Spaz's animosity toward me, might it not be as likely he is violating the RoE by arbitrarily deleting posts?
12116. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:46:12 PM
Here's my deal, JadeTard:
I will back down. You're probably not going to get suspended anyway, so it's no skin off my nose.
Further, you're not banned.
However, now that the rules have been explained to you, I expect you to abide by them.
If you do not, we will go through this process once again. But THIS time, I will have saved every one of your posts. And THIS time, you cannot cry ignorance. And THIS time, you will already have one strike against you.
If you want to get into nasty spats, get into them in The Inferno. Our thread is not going to become your typical cocksucker convention, JadeTard.
You can jibe people who like you and who know you are KIDDING. You cannot post nasty insults against those who dislike you.
Get it?
Got it?
Good.
I hope the Management takes careful note that this is fair warning.
If you are unable or unwilling to comport yourself with these rules, you will be banned from the thread.
If you persist in posting in the thread after that, I will again seek to have you banned from the entire site.
12117. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:47:15 PM
The answer is quite simple; likely the reason Spaz was able to propose it. Let's look at the deleted posts and see who was at fault.
12118. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:50:02 PM
The reason for your capitulation is you are wrong, Spaz.
Wrong.
Threaten all you wish. They are but empty air.
12119. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 2:51:29 PM
fair warning
Is that like Double Secret Probation?
12120. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 2:54:25 PM
"The reason for your capitulation is you are wrong, Spaz."
The reason for my capitulation is that I was WRONG to escalate this as fast as I did. You say I bear you animus: Indeed, I do. A great deal of animus. Therefore, I should have had VonK deal with you. I wanted to do this, but he wasn't around at the time, and my annoyance got the better of me.
But you violated. Then you violated after a warning. Then you violated after ANOTHER warning. Then you begain spamming.
Were you someone else who wasn't a cocksucking little cunt, I might have given you more slack before I turned this into a contest of egos.
But I fucked up, and therefore I can't get what I want-- namely, for you to be banned.
But either you will:
-- stop posing in my thread
or
-- VIOLATE and spam in my thread, in which case you will be banned
or
-- post in my thread while abiding by the rules & tone of the thread.
The last is an extraodinarily remote possibility. But whichever way it works out, it's fine by me.
12121. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 2:57:41 PM
Jade,
How can you base a judgement based on deleted posts?
I'm drawing my conclusions based on the moved posts I read in the Inferno. From what I can see they're "spammy", but because there are deleted posts which I cannot see I would not feel comfortable about enforcing the spam rule at this point. I haven't suspended you only warned you to abide by the rules of the thread as explained by the host.
Given the Spaz's animosity toward me, might it not be as likely he is violating the RoE by arbitrarily deleting posts?
Ace's animosity toward you is no greater than yours toward him. If I'm to seriously consider the question of whether he deleted your posts just because he doesn't like you I must also consider the question of whether you posted as you did simply to derail his thread. Since either of those scenarios would require me to make assumptions about intent I prefer not to venture into that territory.
12122. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 2:57:51 PM
Ace,
You're not in the position to make deals with anyone about who will or won't be suspended. If you care to make a deal with another poster about voluntarily withdrawing that's your business, but whether or not a poster will be suspended isn't up to coin tosses.
12123. Dusty - 4/9/2001 3:00:12 PM
Are Jade, Rosetta, and Jon the same person?
12124. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:01:19 PM
Ace,
Sorry, my last post was a little behind the times. I appreciate your acknowledgement of hasty escalation and your proposal for continued negotiations. The guidelines set in 12116 seem fair to me.
12125. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:02:21 PM
JadeTard:
By the way, I suggest you read the rules of the thread at posts 1-12.
Pay particular attention to the Fourth Rule:
"The fourth rule of Ace's World is: The RoE is still in effect. No privacy violations, no spamming. The rule against "needlessly abusive" posts is relaxed, but keep it funny. Boring, nasty spats with no greater audience than you and the dope you're fighting with will be moved or deleted. "
12126. Dusty - 4/9/2001 3:02:41 PM
Ms. No
BTW, nice job on a tough call.
12127. vonKreedon - 4/9/2001 3:03:28 PM
Ace and I are of one mind on this issue...well maybe not exactly ONE mind, more like a mind and a half...or maybe the way one mind plus one mind makes one mind, if you know what I mean. At any rate, it appears to me that there IS a mechanism, albeit a very labor intensive one, available to hosts to deny access to specific Motals. Now, the question is, should this be done? If we cannot do this, then I will have to consider if I am willing to continue hosting. That's neither a threat nor a big deal, just something for which I need to get clarity.
12128. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:08:56 PM
Dusty,
Not as far as anyone knows.
12129. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:10:27 PM
hahaha, 12128 was to 12123
12130. vonKreedon - 4/9/2001 3:12:50 PM
Ace and I have sort of a Vulcan Mind Meld on this issue. I'm Spock and he's the mobile rock life form.
12131. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 3:13:20 PM
Spaz:
I suggest you hold you breath.
12132. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:13:38 PM
vonK,
I support the hosts' authority to maintain threads by moving off-topic, abusive or spam posts. I don't know if Alistair intends to make it possible to eject a specific poster from a particular thread. Until that has been decided you'll just have to suffer through the long and tedious way.
Better yet we'll all be able to coast along in something resembling harmonious chaos and no more post removals or deletions will be needed.
12133. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:14:26 PM
Good call MsNo, but not a tough one.
I fucked up. To go from deletions to a banning request in ten minutes is ludicrous. I am sorry I did it, and I'm sorry I cried to to the Principal so quickly.
I should be warned myself about arbitrary and heavy-handed thread hosting. But consider me self-warned.
All that said, I continue to insist that what JadeTard did violates the spirit of the thread, that it was warned that it was violating the thread-rules repeatedly, and that, after these warnings, JadeTard did what Rosie and all spammers do:
It spammed.
JadeTard is like a criminal interrogated by a cop who doesn't read it its Miranda rights. It should get off, but only because the policeman erred, not because it is actually innocent.
Next time, I will be much better cop on the beat, and I hope the case will not be tossed out on a technicality.
12134. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:15:20 PM
Jadegold1,
If you don't feel that you can abide by the thread parameters that Ace and vonK have laid out then I suggest that you not participate in their thread.
12135. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 3:18:28 PM
Ms. No:
I suggest you learn to enforce the RoE uniformly. Otherwise, I suggest you step down from moderating this site.
12136. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:19:39 PM
Ace,
I agree but I'll consider you doubly warned since I posted about that matter in 12114.
12137. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:20:54 PM
Jade,
Does that mean you'd like me to suspend you for violating the thread parameters?
12138. vonKreedon - 4/9/2001 3:21:00 PM
MsNo - Please check the moderator mailbox.
12139. Jadegold1 - 4/9/2001 3:22:12 PM
Ms. No:
Do as you wish.
12140. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2001 3:23:08 PM
The RoE say that thread hosts set their local rules.
12141. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:32:29 PM
The rules apparently allow for "Authorizing Debaters."
I wonder: What if thread-hosts authorized EVERYBODY to debate, except for two or three problem children?
This is, in effect, a single-thread ban. It's not an ideal solution -- it's labor intensive and newbies would have to request being authorized -- but it seems workable. Unless, of course, there is a limit to the number of Moters who can be authorized.
12142. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:33:43 PM
vonK,
I would except that only Wabbit checks that box, I believe. If you have email that needs to be addressed immediately please send it to me at:
bridgeburner99@yahoo.com
12143. vonKreedon - 4/9/2001 3:38:10 PM
Thanks Cos. What do you think about Ace's suggestion in #12141?
12144. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:38:48 PM
It seems to me that the Authorize Debaters function could be turned into a single-thread ban function.
It simply has to include the option of authorizing ALL, EXCEPT Name1, Name2, etc.
12145. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:40:54 PM
Hee, hee... it's so cool I'm itching to try it on an experimental basis.
"The Gentleman's Club -- by Invitation Only."
12146. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2001 3:41:31 PM
vonK
I don't think that option is implemented. In other words, a poster cannot be banned from an individual thread.
God, am I tired of all this talk about banning.
12147. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:42:27 PM
"I don't think that option is implemented. In other words, a poster cannot be banned from an individual thread. "
Sure a poster COULD be banned, in that the machinery for it exists.
12148. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:43:20 PM
"God, am I tired of all this talk about banning."
Just think... if the people who should be banned WERE banned, you'd never have to hear about it again.
Except from Angel 5. And no one pays any attention to him anyway.
12149. Ms. No - 4/9/2001 3:43:32 PM
vonK,
I think it penalizes folks who haven't done anything wrong just to curb the antics of a tiny minority so I'm not a big fan of it.
I don't know what if any limitations are place on
the number of debaters authorized.
As I said before I hope that we can move on without the immediate need for any of these actions, but the issue of specific thread banning has been brought up and I'm sure Alistair will have something to say about it as to the feasibility.
12150. vonKreedon - 4/9/2001 3:43:57 PM
Pelle - You're saying that the Authorize Debaters tool has the front end, but no actual implementation in the database, or something like that? Bummer.
12151. PsychProf - 4/9/2001 3:44:34 PM
All this is killing the Mote.
12152. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 3:46:31 PM
Oh, please, PsychProf. take away the banning-banter and there's hardly any posts here at all, lately.
I don't see how this is "killing the Mote." All these discussions take place HERE, and it's very easy to avoid this thread if you don't like the banning-banter.
12153. seadate - 4/9/2001 3:46:34 PM
What PP said.
12173. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2001 4:07:55 PM
Posts moved as per vonK's request.
12174. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2001 4:09:55 PM
Ace
Withe all due respect: If you don't want crap, don't post crap.
Best regards
12175. AceofSpades - 4/9/2001 4:16:21 PM
I hope you can take a little joke, Pelle.
12176. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2001 4:18:43 PM
Sure thing, mate.
12179. sakonige - 4/9/2001 7:40:04 PM
I agree with PsychProf. It appears that the delight in excluding participants and deleting posts is a primary purpose of this forum.
12180. sakonige - 4/9/2001 7:41:04 PM
At least for the spiders whose names hang at the tops of the threads.
12182. sakonige - 4/9/2001 7:54:37 PM
The ambience is stifling.
I've abandoned years-long acquaintences with some of this group more than once as a result of having conversations broken up and yanked out of context or other inhospitable interference from thread micro-managers I barely know.
12183. sakonige - 4/9/2001 7:58:58 PM
I think it makes a lot more sense to let conversations occasionally get out of control than to over-control them all the time, when there are so few participants to begin with, and those few participants are here at all primarily because they know and care about eachother.
12189. Mr Id - 4/9/2001 9:43:20 PM
Now I'm thoroughly confused.
12190. JayAckroyd - 4/9/2001 9:48:58 PM
Well, it's confusing. Don't worry about it.
12191. Dusty - 4/10/2001 5:11:15 AM
Glad to hear it is confusing. I'd hate to think I was expected to follow.
12192. vw - 4/10/2001 9:22:41 AM
Forget confusing. What it is is tedious. The Pissing Prima Donna Poster act is as old as the the first BBS.
12193. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 1:17:34 PM
Deleted posts belonged to an unauthorized poster with the exception of two deleted at the author's request.
12194. rubberducky - 4/10/2001 1:24:54 PM
so what'w with the name change dollbabe?
12195. rubberducky - 4/10/2001 1:25:13 PM
what's = what'w
12196. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 1:33:35 PM
Just felt like a change and since I've had to be more ornery lately than usual it seemed to fit. C'mon, you like it when I crack the whip, admit it ;->
12197. rubberducky - 4/10/2001 1:41:29 PM
that's no secret!
12198. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 1:44:13 PM
Got time to hang with me in the Cafe for a few?
12199. rubberducky - 4/10/2001 1:44:40 PM
see you there
12200. Autodaffy - 4/10/2001 2:29:03 PM
Ms. No,
Got in using a different browser. Explanation in technical. Thanks.
12201. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 2:30:05 PM
Saw your post. Glad you're back up and running.
12202. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2001 3:15:04 PM
yc said in the Cafe:
I am curious: Since Jon Ferguson was banned, how did he come back so soon as Lord Ferguson and will he be still here under that name?
We can disable monikers not RL persons. The Mote registration process is automated. You enter your desired moniker and your e-mail address and you get your password by return mail. Thus, there is no vetting of registrations in the real sense of the word.
12203. ycmeehan - 4/10/2001 3:22:24 PM
So he could conceivably continue to post now and be allowed to do so as long as he doesn't try to do what he did to be banned by you, right? (Tortuous English, but you know what I mean.)
12204. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2001 3:25:17 PM
Delphic answer: In my judgement Ferguson is constitutionally unable not to do what he did do.
12205. ycmeehan - 4/10/2001 3:29:21 PM
You may have a point there but I hope that he proves us wrong.
12206. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 4:29:25 PM
Sorry, I posted in the Cafe but I'll reiterate here that we'll disable any of his IDs that we notice and probably go back to the manual gatekeeping of the early days for screening puposes.
12207. Every Grain of Sand - 4/10/2001 4:46:47 PM
That should keep CalGal happy.
12208. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 5:06:19 PM
puRposes, that is, I have no idea what puposes are unless it's some kind of ebryonic-butterfly-art-form.
12209. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2001 5:07:24 PM
This EGS character is probably Rosetta.
12210. Indiana Jones - 4/10/2001 5:07:52 PM
Almost certainly.
12211. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 5:09:12 PM
Yeah, he probably thinks he's an embryonic pearl.
12212. glendajean - 4/10/2001 5:13:33 PM
Funny. The Gatekeeper was under the impression that we were doing manual gatekeeping.
12213. mgleason - 4/10/2001 5:21:44 PM
Gatekeeper is boring; I say take on some Masonic trappings and call GJ Tyler.
12214. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 5:22:12 PM
Hiya GJ!
You are manually gatekeeping. I was only referring to one part of it which is automated. I'll email ya' to clarify----I wouldn't want to give away the secret of your decoder ring.
12215. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 5:23:41 PM
Hey, that is officially Glen DaJean!
12216. glendajean - 4/10/2001 5:26:26 PM
Judith has uncovered my secret.
12217. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 5:27:38 PM
I knew you were French as soon as we ordered dessert!
12218. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 5:28:59 PM
Maria,
That made me think of Stephen Tyler the sexiest ugly man around!
Not that that had anything to do with Glendajean. I'm just free associating.
12219. mgleason - 4/10/2001 5:31:08 PM
See? Tyler is très cool.
12220. glendajean - 4/10/2001 5:31:18 PM
And Ms. No has seen me in person.
I am crushed.
12221. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 5:36:23 PM
Ban Gatekeepers
12222. Ms. No - 4/10/2001 5:36:39 PM
Because I don't think you're ugly?
12223. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 5:40:31 PM
...no we should ban them just for their general uselessness.
(Had to take advantage of the x-post)
12224. JJBiener - 4/13/2001 12:29:44 PM
My, it certainly got quiet in here. Imagine that.
12225. CalGal - 4/13/2001 12:31:11 PM
"Peace. It's wonderful."
Name the movie.
12226. Cellar Door - 4/13/2001 12:34:27 PM
How about "Die, Niggers DiE!' That would make a great thread. We'd explain why all police killings of black "suspects" (face it, they're black therefore they're guilty) are justified.
In fact the police don't shoot enough of 'em!
12227. JJBiener - 4/13/2001 12:39:04 PM
Cellar - Perhaps you can explain to us that all crime is really perpetrated by white police officers and they then pin the crimes on innocent black men. Obviously they just kill the blacks that refuse to cooperate and take the fall. That is what you believe, isn't it? After all if they are black, they couldn't possibly be guilty.
12228. Ms. No - 4/13/2001 12:43:54 PM
Cellar & JJ,
This conversation needs to go to either Politics or Social Issues if you're going to continue it.
Thanks!
12229. JJBiener - 4/13/2001 12:48:50 PM
Ms. No - Yes, Ma'am.
12230. Fielding - 4/16/2001 12:40:28 PM
I don't have much free time these days, and The Rants Thread is the kind of thread that needs an active host in order to generate discussion.
I offer the following choices:
1) RIP it. (This will make the thread reduction Nazis happy).
2) Assign a new host.
3) Assign a co-host. It would have to be somebody that I could work with, which only eliminates about three people. It would also be with the understanding that I will have periods of less frequent involvement.
4) Keep it alive and accept that it will have periods of dormancy.
Any of these options is fine with me. Based on previous discussion, there seems to be more sentiment for RIPing it than trying to keep it alive.
12231. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 12:42:33 PM
#12230
Should have been in the rant thread...
12232. seadate - 4/16/2001 12:44:44 PM
#12231 should be deleted.
12233. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 12:45:46 PM
You guys are too funny..
12234. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 12:53:34 PM
Fielding,
Would you prefer a new host or would you prefer a co-host?
Are there volunteers for either?
12235. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 1:25:11 PM
#12232
Should be banned for wearing golf shorts.
12236. seadate - 4/16/2001 1:34:21 PM
yes.
12237. seadate - 4/16/2001 1:36:33 PM
proper attire should be swim trunks, hawaiian shirts and sandals for the guys and for the girls ..... uh, I won't dictate that lest I be forced to walk the banning plank.
12238. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 1:46:22 PM
Boys, don't make me take off my shoe.
12239. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 1:51:20 PM
#12238
nononono...leave THOSE on. ;->
12240. seadate - 4/16/2001 1:53:25 PM
Nuthin' quite like a mean barefoot babe.
12241. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 2:01:55 PM
Lab,
I thought I was s'posed to leave my Hat on?
Seadate,
Grrrr!
12242. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 2:08:37 PM
I suggest keeping the hat but only for measuring the time in which it would "fall" off.
12243. JJBiener - 4/16/2001 2:15:50 PM
Ms. No - I thought I was s'posed to leave my Hat on?
Ooh. Did it suddenly get warm in here.
12244. Fielding - 4/16/2001 3:06:24 PM
Ms. No:
(May I call you Dr. Know?)
I prefer the option that is preferred by the community. If everyone is indifferent, I guess I would prefer a co-host (depending on who volunteers).
12245. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:16:25 PM
Fielding,
(May I call you Dr. Know?)
No.
If everyone is indifferent, I guess I would prefer a co-host (depending on who volunteers).
That's fine. Has anyone come forward yet or have you propositioned anyone? If someone owes you money you can put pressure on them and forcibly recruit them.
12246. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/16/2001 3:49:00 PM
The good doctor would like to lodge a formal protest with the strutting jackbooted martinet and his hypnotized harem minions over the recent impersonations that have occured in the thread of many names.
Someone has been forging posts in an attempt to ridicule me. Doubtlessly Nilson is behind this latest effront to my person. Elsewise the perpetuator would be banned post haste.
Persist in such pestilating and I shall be forced to terminate the peace I have so graciously and undeservedly bestowed between us, Nilson.
I shall also offer my estimable services once more to host the Rancid Thread, if Fieldmouse vacates it.
That is all.
12247. JJBiener - 4/16/2001 3:59:26 PM
X - The good doctor would like to lodge a formal protest with the strutting jackbooted martinet and his hypnotized harem minions over the recent impersonations that have occured in the thread of many names.
Your protest has been noted, documented, evaluated, and ultimately shredded.
Someone has been forging posts in an attempt to ridicule me.
I find this hard to believe. I can't imagine someone even attempting to post something as ridiculous as your real posts.
By the by, Von Cretin's name has been added to my enemies list.
An honor I am sure he wears with pride.
I shall also offer my estimable services once more to host the Rancid Thread, if Fieldmouse vacates it.
I believe there was conditional approval for you to host a thread. I believe the condition had something to do with Hell freezing over.
12248. Indiana Jones - 4/17/2001 10:13:46 AM
Would there be any interest in a "Race Relations" thread with Cellar and Cal as co-hosts?
12249. seadate - 4/17/2001 10:35:25 AM
LOL!
12250. rubberducky - 4/17/2001 10:35:49 AM
heh, yeah, now that the other 'War' thread was renamed ...
12251. seadate - 4/17/2001 10:41:08 AM
Good one RD. Maybe you could've just handed over politics and avoided a few emotional scars.
12252. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/17/2001 6:58:32 PM
An enquiry into the wheels of JUSTICE.
Has Von Cretin been banned yet?
He forged posts in my inimitable style and I demand the local layabout donut-munchers do their duty.
What kind of police state is this? One composed of venal trumpeteers who engage in arrogant and shameless acts flouting their brigandish colors without bothering to crack the skulls of miscreants who regularly assault the people of goodwill who go about their daily business and offend no one.
12253. Deep Thoughts - 4/17/2001 7:08:28 PM
Would a DEEP THOUGHTS thread be of interest to the denizens of Mote?
12254. JudithAtHome - 4/17/2001 7:09:15 PM
Sure...let's get Stuart Smalley to host...
12255. JJBiener - 4/17/2001 10:47:50 PM
X - What kind of police state is this?
One that just barely tolerates your presence. Watch it.
people of goodwill who go about their daily business and offend no one
Let me guess, you include yourself in this group. There is a link in the Health thread to an article about the role of self-delusion in self-esteem. I suggest you read it and take it to heart.
12256. Cellar Door - 4/17/2001 10:49:17 PM
I'm up for a "Why CalGal Should Be Cellar's Personal Slave" thread.
12257. JJBiener - 4/17/2001 10:52:58 PM
Or vice versa
12258. Cellar Door - 4/17/2001 11:15:42 PM
GACK!
12259. msgreer - 4/19/2001 3:38:56 AM
jonesatlaw
I'm having a hard time reaching you.
I answered your email and it got bounced back to
me. Odd because I hit reply. I also tried another email address but that got bounced back too. Want to help me out?
12260. Deep Thoughts - 4/19/2001 7:31:47 PM
Always on the outside of whatever side there was
When they asked him why it had to be that way,
"Well," Cazart answered--"just because..."
Cazart, Cazart...
WHAT MADE THEM WANT TO
COME AND BLOW YOU AWAY?
12261. arkymalarky - 4/19/2001 8:12:02 PM
Hey DT's. A Dylan fan, eh? Hmmm. I know another Mote Dylan fan, but he hasn't been around in awhile.
Cazart's dead?
12262. arkymalarky - 4/19/2001 8:12:42 PM
And leaves toys everywhere, too. Curioser and curioser.
12263. arkymalarky - 4/19/2001 8:13:10 PM
Now?
12264. pseudoerasmus - 4/20/2001 7:17:22 AM
I sent a mail to moderator@mote.com, which I mention just in case it's not checked regularly.
12265. Fielding - 4/20/2001 10:08:08 AM
Has anyone come forward yet or have you propositioned anyone?
No. The silence is deafening.
12266. JayAckroyd - 4/20/2001 10:10:28 AM
PE--
Wabbit's pretty busy right now, and may not see the mail quickly. Is it a pressing issue?
12267. rubberducky - 4/20/2001 10:20:08 AM
sorry, Fielding.
i would volunteer, but not until i can ban posters that i feel interfere with my hosting abilities.
12268. seadate - 4/20/2001 10:21:58 AM
Fielding, how much effort is involved?
12269. pseudoerasmus - 4/20/2001 10:26:52 AM
Jay: It's not pressing, but my request could be filled in about 10 seconds.
12270. Fielding - 4/20/2001 10:35:26 AM
RD:
Understand completely.
seadate:
It depends on what people want from the Rants thread. I had hoped to start various rants myself to spur discussion about life's little annoyances. I think that there would be value in that. Unfortunately, I've hit a real busy stretch, and haven't been able to do anything with the thread. I'm not sure if people even want a Rants thread, even though there was a lot of enthusiasm the first few days.
If somebody (but not just anybody) wanted to cohost and help get the conversations started, I would be amenable to it. If not, the options are to RIP it, or let it lay dormant for weeks at a time.
If you were interested, I would support your becoming a cohost.
12271. seadate - 4/20/2001 10:44:00 AM
Fielding,
What is involved behind the scenes?
12272. JayAckroyd - 4/20/2001 10:46:57 AM
PE
Drop a note directly to Christin, then.
12273. JayAckroyd - 4/20/2001 10:48:49 AM
Ducky,
Would you drop me a note when you get a chance?
jay@ackroyd.org.
I'm leaving the office shortly and won't be back till the end of the day, so there's no rush.
12274. JayAckroyd - 4/20/2001 10:49:49 AM
Oh, and I would offer, PE, but my rights are limited.
12275. Fielding - 4/20/2001 10:55:27 AM
seadate:
Not much. I guess we would send each other e-mails from time to time
The only responsibilities are the occasional editing job. People don't flame each other in The Rants Thread, so it isn't too much.
The real effort would be starting conversations about things that annoy people.
12276. seadate - 4/20/2001 10:58:56 AM
I'm good at annoying people.
My email is cloudysail@hotmail.com.
12277. rubberducky - 4/20/2001 11:01:43 AM
Jay: sent.
12278. pseudoerasmus - 4/20/2001 11:30:25 AM
What is Christin's email?
12279. marjoribanks - 4/20/2001 11:37:33 AM
I hope you're asking for a thread, Pseuder.
If you are, just say so. At least three people can set one up for you and it'll be faster if you declare your intent here.
12280. Francis Urquhart - 4/20/2001 11:45:21 AM
I have a friend who tried to register for the Mote. The friend received a confirmation but no authorization to post yet. This was approximately one week ago.
12281. CalGal - 4/20/2001 11:54:23 AM
Oh, lord. We turned it off because of the Ferguson situation. I'll send a note to GJ; he's been swamped at work.
12282. Francis Urquhart - 4/20/2001 11:56:49 AM
No big. I just thought someone should know that the gates were closed.
Additionally, I'm positive Ferguson has stock-piled his personae.
12283. CalGal - 4/20/2001 11:59:54 AM
No doubt. But he was creating one id after another, and the work load of deleting them was considerable.
I'm not 100% sure that's what the problem is, it could be technical. But I sent off a note to GJ and Alistair to check into it.
I was worried when we turned it off that this would happen, but it was pretty much lose lose either way.
12284. CalGal - 4/20/2001 12:00:55 PM
But he was creating one id after another, and the work load of deleting them was considerable.
Add "and was spamming the threads continuously" where appropriate.
12285. ElliottRW - 4/20/2001 12:02:30 PM
Ferguson situation? I think I missed something interesting during my hiatus. Anyone willing to give me a recap?
12286. CalGal - 4/20/2001 12:09:26 PM
Click on the Policies subthread (in blue on the butterscotch bar) and read Alistair's 1382. I think it's an excellent assessment.
12287. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 12:32:19 PM
From politics:
16325. AceofSpades - 4/20/01 5:28:12 PM
Of the forty posts from 16291-16320, jexster is responsible for 20, or an astounding 50%.
Jay, please. I thought you were going to take care of this.
That doesn't even count the most recent 3-out-of-5.
Jexster, go away. I am sick of you, you fucking imbecile.
And Jay, if Jexster has the right to spam this thread, I figure I do too. Next time I see him posting fifteen or twenty spam posts at the end of the night, *I* will post thirty to forty spam posts to bury his.
I thought that this problem was going to be dealt with.
I thought the claim was that simply reasoning with Asshole would be enough to change his behavior.
Gee, I'm shocked that didn't work.
12288. ElliottRW - 4/20/2001 12:32:45 PM
Thanks Cal.
The impersonation problem is serious and difficult to solve. Good luck.
12289. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 12:47:10 PM
To all:
Since Jex makes Politics unreadable/unpostable for so many people, including me, I'm doing the same service for him.
Either you will create some rule to stop all spamming or you will not. But you will not stop me while permitting Jexster to spam at will.
12290. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 1:05:54 PM
Well, I'm done for now. It only took me a half hour to completely spam the thread and bury all previous discussions.
Such a small investment of time... for such a large amount of cybervandalism.
The next time Jexster spams, I will be there again to counterspam.
Thank you.
12291. Cellar Door - 4/20/2001 1:10:50 PM
And the next time Ace spams -- counter-counterspam.
12292. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 1:12:50 PM
Cellar,
Thank you for your help! You contributed about three-quarters of the spam I did, which nearly doubled my spam output, and thereby helped bury Jexster's spam all the quicker!
You've done a man's job, sir.
12293. JJBiener - 4/20/2001 1:13:51 PM
Cellar - The problem is that the stuff you were posting was good stuff. It just doesn't belong in Politics. It belongs in Arts & Music. I liked the review of The Producers.
12294. glendajean - 4/20/2001 1:17:22 PM
Francis,
Have your friend email the Gatekeeper at gatekeeper@dbsinyc.com.
Maybe they got caught in the transition between automatic and hand registration.
Your friendly gatekeeper
12295. janjon - 4/20/2001 1:29:34 PM
Ace - I wouldn't get too smug over your achievement. When you get off on one of your rambling toots (which is often), you have the same chilling effect. In Politics or wherever.
12296. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 1:31:27 PM
eat my corn-studded green turds you piece of shit...
poopstain!
12297. Cellar Door - 4/20/2001 1:37:07 PM
Actually it DOES belong in Politics, due to the fact that this country's President's family are major Nazi supporters.
12298. janjon - 4/20/2001 1:42:59 PM
corn-studded you say.
Doesn't fit my image of you at all. What with all the verbal diarhhea you spew forth, I just somehow assumed your other end was more of the same.
12299. Fielding - 4/20/2001 1:56:13 PM
Cellar:
Didn't the President's Daddy enlist to fight in World war II against the Nazis?
12300. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 1:57:35 PM
No, he enlisted to fight the Japs. Plus, he lost four planes under his command, almost certainly deliberately.
12301. Fielding - 4/20/2001 1:59:39 PM
Ah. No wonder he was afraid to finish of Saddam Hussein.
12302. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:06:39 PM
I'm so glad this "Articles" thread is being used by Cellar and Jexster.
12303. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:09:49 PM
I am thinking of changing my & VonKreedon's thread to "Alternative Politics."
This thread wil be a vanilla politics thread, except that Jexster will not be allowed to post there at all, and each poster can only post/link ONE article per day, UNLESS the articles are cited in support of a live controversy.
Now tell me why I can't.
12304. labwabbit - 4/20/2001 2:10:58 PM
Wipe yer chin...
12305. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 2:13:28 PM
Friends, it is clear that what the Politics domicile needs is the clear steady hand of the good doctor.
I know where the delete button is and I like to use it.
Not only is the mawkish police state of the strutting jackbooted martinet Nilson lawless and arbitrary but as well it is inefficent and chaotic. If the present ruling bellacose puppets misjudge my couragious stand and strength in a short-sighted manner and mount a reckless attack upon my person, than Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane shall take it as the best opportunity to root out the very source of trouble in this Mote.
12306. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:13:40 PM
New Political DISCUSSIONS thread now active.
You want to actually discuss politics WITHOUT spam? Come to my & vK's thread.
First penalty for spam: Deletion and warning.
Second penalty: Permanent ban.
Come one, come all! Except Jexster.
12307. labwabbit - 4/20/2001 2:14:53 PM
Rosetta Stone suffers reprieve?
12308. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:19:46 PM
To the Management:
Let my experiment go forward. Let Moters vote with their feet.
Let us see whether the prefer a spam-free politics thread where lunatics are banned or whether they prefer posting in the sick joke of a thread we have now.
Thank you.
12309. PelleNilsson - 4/20/2001 2:20:07 PM
Ace
I'm not sure yours is a contructive move.
12310. CalGal - 4/20/2001 2:22:00 PM
Until today, I thought the Politics thread was doing pretty well. Not perfect, but there was intelligible conversation every day and Jex kept his posts down to 2 or 3.
12311. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:22:51 PM
I don't see how it isn't.
We have both Politics and Current Events. We have a variety of occasional sub-threads on specific political topics.
There are many here who find the Politics thread unreadable. It isn't just me. It's half the mote.
Why not attempt a spam-free thread and see how it goes?
I have posted bright-line, sensible rules. Let's see how it goes.
12312. labwabbit - 4/20/2001 2:24:07 PM
or whether they prefer posting in the sick joke of a thread we have now.
Compared to when...?
12313. PelleNilsson - 4/20/2001 2:35:42 PM
Ace
I think you are acting contrary to the spirit of the Mote. I could change the name of International to "Swedish History" or "Abortions in the US" but such a thing is simply not done. A thread is created for a specific purpose, in the case of your thread to provide a forum for light-hearted manly discussions.
Sorry for being so dour and humourless but with hosts changing the purpose of their threads willy-nilly we'll glide into chaos.
12314. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:37:43 PM
Fine. RIP the thread then. And explain why everyone must be forced to either post in a SpamZone or simply stay away entirely.
12315. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:39:36 PM
The Management has told us repeatedly that we would try such half-assed measures as the "Articles" thread and we would "see how that worked."
We were told that Jay would talk privately to Jexster and we would "see how that worked."
Well, we see how it worked now. Predictably, it did not work at all.
The Management of this place is astounding. You are willing to let thirty posters suffer in order to spare the feelings of one spamming lunatic.
12316. Francis Urquhart - 4/20/2001 2:42:15 PM
I like to think of the alternative Politics thread as necessary, given the absolute inability of the Labour government to do anything about Professor Poopstain. It is laughable that Pelle now puts upon those who are adapting, and adapting in an inobtrusive fashion, his clear inabilities.
12317. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 2:46:27 PM
It is my hour, Nilson. Turn to the strong man on horseback and your puppetrydom may yet survive.
12318. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:48:18 PM
It is plain that there are two disparate groups in Politics:
Those who approve of spamming;
and those who do not.
Those who do not approve of spamming have protested until blue in the face about the need to restrict spam.
Management has been entirely (or nearly entirely) unresponsive.
There are two groups. It is unfair to demand that one group play by the rules of the other, especially since many posters (such as Stumbo) have stated, unambiguously, that they will simply not read or post in a SpamZone.
There are two groups. There differences are irreconcilable.
There are two groups. Half-assed measures cannot satisfy both simultaneously.
There are two groups. There should be two threads.
12319. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:50:10 PM
Another yea...
2156. Dusty - 4/20/01 7:46:31 PM
Ace
Cool idea.
If you can't bring Mohammed to the mountain...
12320. CalGal - 4/20/2001 2:50:54 PM
Ace is just doing what I proposed as the remedy to the actual Politics thread--weed it ruthlessly. I still feel that is the only solution to the problem, whether it is in the actual politics thread or a second one.
12321. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 2:54:45 PM
Act quickly Nilson, or even the good doctor may abandon you to your fate.
Give me Politics. Ass Spade refused it and now steals it from under your nose.
Ackroyd is liable to turn off the server over having his domicile foisted from under him.
Your empire is tottering. But a strong arm stands ready to man the siege decks.
Heads will roll, just let the good doctor wield the cleaver.
12322. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 2:58:22 PM
The thread is now "Page 3 Girls and Political DISCUSSIONS."
This is therefore a thread *similar* to the original conception.
Thank you.
12323. janjon - 4/20/2001 2:59:34 PM
Why is it I get the feeling that Ace has, yet again, been passed over for some sort of hoped for promotion.
12324. PelleNilsson - 4/20/2001 3:01:45 PM
The good doctore is politely invited to go fuck himself in the closet beside the lavatory. Thank you.
12325. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:02:27 PM
Gee, and I thought liberals were pro-choice.
What precisely is the harm in offering a choice, JanJon?
Are you upset that some people will no longer be forceably "educated" by wading through Jexster's spam?
12326. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 3:04:57 PM
Lady Fortune's wheel has certainly turned now, what, what, friends?
In shameless hussery Nilson took my thread and gave it to Ass Spade. Now Ass Spade uses the good doctor's domicile to plot a little coupe de tat.
It is needless to say that this vociferating upon the part of the lawless brigands upholding the Nilson regime has long been predicted by yours truly. Once miscreants like Von Cretin were permitted to assault law-blidng citizens and flout the rules in such a careless manner it was doubtless only a few passes of time's winged chariot before Nilson's martinet cancan show had its finally curtain wrung down upon he and a host of hoary onlookers.
12327. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 3:07:28 PM
Where are the other members of the hypnotic harem?
I must complain about the needless abuse being hoisted upon my person by Nilson in countermandance to his role here.
I think everyone understands that such impudent affrontery shall not go unresponded to by the good doctor.
This means war!
12328. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:17:35 PM
Pelle,
I am sorry that I am taking a combative posture. I am sorry that I am challenging your authority.
I do not mean to.
Let me back down, like this:
If you want me to change the thread back, I will.
However, before you make such a demand, I would ask you to think about it. Just think about it.
We have asked -- pleaded --for an end to spam for a long, long time now.
No effective solutions have been implemented.
Before you demand I change the thread back, please ask yourself: What is the harm?
What is the harm in allowing people to post in a Spam-Free thread, as they have repeatedly begged you to allow them to do?
You do not wish to ban Jexster, or take any action against him whatsoever. Fine. That is your right.
But for those of us who are sick of the spam, who which to discuss politics without having to wade through pages and pages of spam, what is the bloody harm in letting us do so?
12329. CalGal - 4/20/2001 3:19:38 PM
Ace,
Out of curiousity, why didn't you volunteer to host politics and do the same thing?
12330. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:20:29 PM
I did; no one took me up on the offer.
12331. janjon - 4/20/2001 3:21:38 PM
What is my problem, Ace?
It is that, in my humble opinion, you have been as big a pain in the ass in Politics as Jexster ever has been. I suspect you would acknowledge this in the quietness of something or other.
If it is true that there are posters out there who avoid Politics because of its tone or whatever, you certainly are as much to blame as anyone.
Therefore, I see this as nothing more than a hypocritical game you are playing.
That's my beef.
So to speak.
12332. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 3:22:59 PM
Before departing lest some pretext or another be invented for making yours truly suffer the same fate as young Lord Ferguson, I shall once more lodge a complaint about the recent forgery of my posts in the coupe de tat thread.
The good doctor believes that out of at least a token sense of law and order rather than the invited caos reigning down upon you all Von Cretin at least ought to boxed about the ears for his affrontery to my person.
That is all.
12333. Francis Urquhart - 4/20/2001 3:25:14 PM
Ace
You're love of process and rules is to be commended.
But abandon it.
Simply take the reins, rule as you see fit in your thread, and stop explaining each call. If the thread works to bring the anti-spammists in, great. Victory.,
If the pro-spammists jump in, as they will, to spam in protest of a site where spam is not allowed to run free, you will be tested, and it is best to respond silently, ruthlessly, and without explanation.
12334. ElliottRW - 4/20/2001 3:26:21 PM
Someone mentioned American butcher shops. Honestly, I've never been to one. But I know they exist because one sponsored a baseball team I played against when I was 7. I was the third baseman for "Alex's Kosher Market." Our arch rivals were sponsored by "Coronado Prime Meats." At the end of the season everyone got a coupon for a free steak.
12335. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:27:10 PM
No, I like rules. Rigid rules will help restrain my more more arbitrary, spastic impulses.
I will not "explain each call" forever. But the rules are new. Just as with any game show (Weakest Link, for example), you must explain the rules repeatedly at the beginning of things.
Eventually, everyone knows the rules, and you don't need to explain them anymore.
12336. ElliottRW - 4/20/2001 3:27:29 PM
Hehe. Sorry, that post was meant for another thread.
12337. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:28:35 PM
"If it is true that there are posters out there who avoid Politics because of its tone or whatever, you certainly are as much to blame as anyone.
Therefore, I see this as nothing more than a hypocritical game you are playing. "
Awwww. Does your pussy hurt too?
12338. janjon - 4/20/2001 3:35:31 PM
That didn't take long.
You are so predictable, Ace, that you verge on being boring.
12339. PelleNilsson - 4/20/2001 3:40:00 PM
Ace
I am thinking. The problem with jexster is a real one. In fact I was one of the first to criticise him for excessive posting and I got the gracious "fuck you" in reply. Let us leave things as they are for now. Jay should have the first shot.
12340. janjon - 4/20/2001 3:43:45 PM
Lord. It will be interesting to see who is left around here once the place is sanitized of everyone who is a "problem".
12341. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:46:26 PM
JanPussy,
Since you are such a fan of Jexster, I invite you to correspond with him in the regular politics thread.
I notice that you seem willing to talk to me (every chance you get, unfortuneately) and yet unwilling ot talk with him at all.
So. Go yuck it up with him. Have a battle of poopstains if you like.
Ta ta, pussy.
12342. janjon - 4/20/2001 3:48:18 PM
Infant.
12343. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 3:51:31 PM
PE,
You can reach me at bridgeburner99@yahoo.com
Ace,
Glad you're going to be vigilant against spam.
Now all we need is a third Politics thread where folks can go to discuss political issues without having to defend their mother's honor or their own sexuality every time they want to express an opinion.
12344. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 3:54:09 PM
Ohhhh, a little cut.
That sounds terrific to me too, Ms. No. Make sure you craft very detailed rules about what is an insult ("You're an idiot") and what is not ("Your post is, as usual, absolutely idiotic").
And make sure you apply the rules fairly against everyone, including special creatues such as Cellar.
12345. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 4:08:28 PM
Ace,
You're the one with a bee up his ass today. Galloping through like a bull in a china shop demanding an immediate end to an annoyance and then taking matters into your own hands. You calm down enough to apologize to Pelle, but you turn right around and start calling Janjon a pussy because he says you're abusive.
You ARE abusive. You play rough and you're proud of that fact so don't pretend that it isn't annoying to others or that it doesn't turn people off.
I sincerely hope that your thread is an improvement but you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall all over myself congratulating you for the manner in which you've gone about it.
12346. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 4:13:15 PM
The good doctor would like to register a complaint about the so-called "host" of the new "politics thread."
He referred to me as Dr. Poopstain without provockation when I responded to a straightforward question by one of my most loyal readers.
12347. pseudoerasmus - 4/20/2001 4:13:18 PM
Christin, the mail was sent.
12348. Fielding - 4/20/2001 4:15:21 PM
Ms. No:
YGM.
12349. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 4:15:26 PM
Do not hold your breath, good sir. The local donut munchers are too busy taking cruises to Norway with embezzled funds from the supporters of the Mote to hear the cries of the people.
12350. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 4:16:54 PM
"Galloping through like a bull in a china shop demanding an immediate end to an annoyance..."
An immediate end? Worse than that, actually. I (and a dozen others) asked for an end to this annoyance three months ago.
And then two months ago.
And then again one month ago.
And then again two weeks ago.
Thusfar we have been told that we will "see how it all works out."
"and then taking matters into your own hands."
I don't know, Ms. No. Precisely how long were we all supposed to wait?
Forever?
Look up "vigilantism." It means "taking law into your own hands when the official government will not, or can not, stop crime."
"You calm down enough to apologize to Pelle, but you turn right around and start calling Janjon a pussy because he says you're abusive."
So frigging what? Who cares if I call JanPussy a pussy?
I backed off of Pelle, dear, because it's not my place to make ultimatums, and because making an ultimatum would simply force Pelle to come down on me.
But JanJon is a Pussy. You know it, I know it, the American People know it.
"You ARE abusive."
So? Who hit you with the fag-bat?
"You play rough and you're proud of that fact so don't pretend that it isn't annoying to others or that it doesn't turn people off."
Eh, who cares.
"I sincerely hope that your thread is an improvement but you'll have to excuse me if I don't fall all over myself congratulating you for the manner in which you've gone about it."
I didn't ask for your congratulations.
12351. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 4:18:06 PM
Got it and right back to you.
12352. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/20/2001 4:19:30 PM
In terms of being so-called "abusive," I would like to humbly point out that Nilson told me to fuck myself and he is a so-called "moderator" here.
12353. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 4:20:06 PM
12351 was to PE.
12354. janjon - 4/20/2001 4:24:18 PM
Ace - if you only knew how easy you are and how many people know it.
Like melting a piece of butter on a griddle.
12355. Fielding - 4/20/2001 4:24:26 PM
Ms. No:
Did you get mine?
12356. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 4:37:36 PM
Ace,
We're all aware of the problem and steps HAVE been taken to try and correct it. They haven't been successful. Fine, something else needs to be done, but rather than deciding a new course of action as a community you think that the thing to do is to storm in and make ultimatums.
As for who cares if you're a bully, I'd say that a lot of people do and if you're really concerned about traffic and participation then you should care too, but of course you don't. It's annoying when Cellar or Jex or Rosie turns people off but folks ought to just get over it when you do it because by-gosh you're darned funny. Right?
Whatever. Go play. The more of this shit I hear the less it seems worth my time.
12357. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 4:39:02 PM
Fielding,
Yes, I did. I'll set that up within the next couple of hours. I have to go to a meeting right now, but you'll be installed as co-hosts by 5pm PST.
12358. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 4:40:02 PM
Oh, Ms. No, as ever, the definition of "abusive" depends on who's doing the abusing.
You're not insulting me, right? No-- you're just "telling it like it is."
Whatever. It's not worth your time and no one ever requested your time. No one asked you for congratulations; no one asked you for anything.
The only thing asked of you is that you do nothing.
12359. janjon - 4/20/2001 5:00:23 PM
Ace is now in his really macho, tough guy mode.
Right.
12360. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 5:02:16 PM
Oh, Janny, either I'm too "abusive" and demanding or else I'm too much of a pussy who backs down at the drop of a hat.
I suppose I can be both. But then it's hard to claim I'm "too much" one or the other.
Make up your mind which, Janny.
12361. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 5:02:56 PM
I'm the big, bad abusive bully who's far too quick to apologize and back down from hasty ultimatums.
You know-- THAT sort of abusive bully.
12362. ycmeehan - 4/20/2001 5:08:23 PM
No, that sort: The big, bad, abusive bully who everyone hates to love.
12363. janjon - 4/20/2001 5:08:33 PM
Ace - speaking for myself only, I couldn't give a fig whether you are in your abusive or your macho or your addlebrained or your smug or your defensive or your insecure or your whatever mood.
You are perceptive enough to know that you don't get to me. Never have. Never will.
But, no question in my mind that a lot of people tire of you very quickly around here. Whether you get to them or not.
12364. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 5:09:51 PM
Whichever. I don't care.
If I'm so fucking poisonous to this place, ban me already.
12365. ycmeehan - 4/20/2001 5:10:47 PM
oh, Janjon, not that bad. He can apologize at least.
By the way, where have you been lately?
12366. AceofSpades - 4/20/2001 5:11:56 PM
Janny,
Okay. I "get to" many people here but never to you. You're above all that.
Just avoid my thread, then. I won't post in Jexster's thread (and really, why don't we just give the thread to him officially? It's his anyway) and you don't post in mind.
That way you can spare yourself all the pain of encountering me which you don't suffer anyway because you're above.
12367. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 5:13:51 PM
Take it to the Inferno.
12368. janjon - 4/20/2001 5:15:44 PM
ok. a post or two in the inferno.
12369. janjon - 4/20/2001 5:24:06 PM
ycmeehan. Out of the country. On business.
12370. Ms. No - 4/20/2001 6:58:11 PM
The archived thread Travels with Pseudoerasmus now has a link to a cleaned up page with full color photos which were no longer visible in the Archives due to Geocities' policy change.
12371. PelleNilsson - 4/21/2001 3:29:40 AM
PE's thread is also available as a sub-thread in International. It is a highly recommended read.
12372. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/21/2001 11:23:17 PM
I should like to host a thread on Japan.
The current international issues thread is dominated by Nilson's obession with the middle east asia. Doubtless this single-mindedness arises from Nilson's own belief that he is some kind of expert on this subject and can hence excessively consume the attention span of others by hectoring adinfinitum nauseam them to submission.
In point of fact, two so-called "politics threads" are running concurrently so there should be no serious valid "objection" to two threads having a distinctly international flavor.
By the by the world is greater than the american empire, so it follows without debate that if it takes two domiciles to cover the american scene it cannot possibly be denied that more than one is required to successfully encompass all that is happening in the great blue sphere we know as earth.
Second but no less importantly the good doctor wishes to know how the case against Von Cretin is progressing. I have not seen the url about lately so am I to assume that for once the grand-high muckety-mucks have actually carried out their lawful duties rather than merely strutting and preening in the velvety robes their high offices convey upon them whilst admiring their own butcheries of justice and cameraderie and the people of goodwill.
Thirdly, someone ought to start a welcome center here because several of my friends colleagues and patients plan to be dropping by. I am far too busy to explain to all of them the so-called "ropes" of this Mote. It would be best if one of the few friendly sort here did it, especially all of the truisms not included in the so-called "rules of engagement."
That is all.
12373. Autodaffy - 4/21/2001 11:43:30 PM
When you call for a welcome center for your "friends colleagues and patients," I assume you mean something akin to a halfway house for recovering lunatics?
12374. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/21/2001 11:52:02 PM
In point of fact "Autodaffy" the good doctor was preadventure being just a hint of tongue in cheek.
This mote needs a welcome center other than the so-called Try the Mote, which in point of fact is actually an experimental domicile contrasting with a true welcome center for those unacquainted with the power/b> politics at play here.
In adddition to serving as a place to explain to newcomers how this mote actually in point of fact operates it could also be a gathering spot, a place for coming together if you will, for newfolken not yet absorbed into one another like those who have been living here since so-called time immemoriam.
Doubtlessly it would be a very friendly place in contrast to the cold insectuous turgidity that the rest of this domicile inspires.
Perhaps the ever friendly Beano would be the so-called "host" for it.
12375. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/21/2001 11:55:11 PM
By the by I must allow myself a chuckel at the notion of some wight going by the name Autodaffy" to rise to humor over the notion of halfway houses for the good doctor and his patients.
12376. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/21/2001 11:55:59 PM
12377. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/21/2001 11:56:26 PM
What what?
12378. Autodaffy - 4/22/2001 1:48:34 AM
Three "in point of fact" in three sentences. Not since John Dean's "at that point in time" has an arsehole bleated so regularly.
12379. JudithAtHome - 4/22/2001 1:45:36 PM
CalGal and mgleason have suggested a Periodicals thread in the past, for magazines like The New Yorker and Harpers and Atlantic Monthly ...how about it? Lots of food for thought in these publications.
12380. msgreer - 4/22/2001 5:56:59 PM
I'll vote for a Periodical thread. I think mgleason would make the ideal host for this thread if she felt she had the time.
12381. Indiana Jones - 4/22/2001 6:03:16 PM
I've baffled as to what is going to be discussed in a periodicals thread.
12382. JudithAtHome - 4/22/2001 6:04:48 PM
Different articles in the magazines....
12383. CalGal - 4/22/2001 6:05:44 PM
Well, I had originally suggested The New Yorker, but Judith and MGleason pointed out that it applies to Harpers, Vanity Fair and Atlantic as well.
Obviouly, any of the articles could be discussed in the appropriate thread and that may be the right idea--given the push to reduce threads, I will defer to that option, if it's the one chosen.
But quite a few of us enjoy talking about them and it just seemed like it might be fun.
12384. JudithAtHome - 4/22/2001 6:09:54 PM
Tell me again what the reasoning is behind this "limiting the threads" idea?
12385. RosettaStone - 4/22/2001 6:12:11 PM
If CalCal wants it, (chop! chop!): Make it happen.
But, instead, I would suggest (as I already have) that we start a generic MEDIA THREAD with CD and me hosting.
BTW, how long does Spade get to keep his Vanity thread up? Has it become an evergreen?
BTW, too: You should be ashamed of yourselves for banning JontheCad.
12386. CalGal - 4/22/2001 6:14:08 PM
The argument is that it diffuses focus and encourages balkanization. To a certain extent I agree, although I think Francis' push to 12 to be clearcutting, rather than thinning.
But I think there are a few threads that could be archived and then the content subsumed into other areas.
12387. Indiana Jones - 4/22/2001 6:14:39 PM
I'm all for people having a thread to discuss whatever they want to, if even two or three people want it. I just don't think it sounds very focused and we have a lot of "general gab" threads already.
What it sounds like could be either in "Cafe" or "Current Events" or--depending on the subject--some other thread.
It's also funny that we created a subthread in Politics to eliminate posting articles in lieu of conversation. We could move that thread to the main bar and use it as a periodicals thread. (BTW, I can't find it now--was it already killed off?)
It appears to me from reading Current Events and PP's Sports Bar that sometimes articles inhibit a conversation, rather than sparking interest, if they become the "meat" of the thread.
Anyway, this is all just observation because I don't have any objection to a periodicals thread.
12388. CalGal - 4/22/2001 6:18:37 PM
It appears to me from reading Current Events and PP's Sports Bar that sometimes articles inhibit a conversation, rather than sparking interest, if they become the "meat" of the thread.
That's something I've noticed as well, although I love Grey's stories. But he's quite punctilious about not linking in his articles in the middle of a conversation, too.
In any event, I decided to try and post about a magazine article in H&G to see what happened, and conversation did start. So that works fine for me. I had just thought it might be fun to give people who read the magazines (including newcomers) a place to check in.
It is quite different from the articles subthread (which was deleted).
12389. RosettaStone - 4/22/2001 9:53:19 PM
Reality check!
Unbelievable. Rs has been gone for over two weeks and the Music thread is as dead as it was before he left.
I state the obvious about the lack of interest by the moderator, and he deletes the posts.
Maybe it's because Diva is gone, but the thread really needs a leader and a focus.
I like Jj, but I think it's time for new blood/leadership in that important evergreen thread.
I'm posting here because I'm afraid that Jj will delete a similar post in his thread. Obviously he doesn't like criticism.
BTW, you should be ashamed of banning JontheCad.
12390. JJBiener - 4/22/2001 10:45:30 PM
Bite me, Rosie.
12391. jonesatlaw - 4/23/2001 7:48:46 AM
What !? more banning? Good lord, light the faggots and bring on the witches.
12392. JayAckroyd - 4/23/2001 8:35:27 AM
IJ--
Yes, the articles subthread in politics was removed because it wasn't being used.
12393. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 8:57:37 AM
Just purchased Katie Hafner's "THE WELL: A Story of Love, Death & Real Life in the Seminal Online Community" (Carroll & Graf) and unfortunately no mention of Slate's Fray, let alone mote.
Interview with the author
12394. wabbit - 4/23/2001 9:03:19 AM
Can someone please be more specific about what a Periodicals thread would entail? It seems to me that any discussions inspired by a magazine article could take place in the appropriate thread from the beginning. We've always had multiple conversations going on in threads, why is this different? Also, I believe Maria declined hosting this last time it was brought up.
12395. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 9:09:08 AM
Too bad, Jay. I thought it was a good solution that everyone could live with.
On another note, I think it should be easier to create a thread. As is well known, I support thread hosts being able to run a thread largely as they see fit, but a second component of that should be people aren't totally at the whim of a thread host with whom they are at loggerheads.
My proposal: Change the interface so that any existing thread host (or even any Motier who has been a member for more than one month, if we want to go that far) can create a new, immediately active thread, which will be hostless until someone volunteers and a moderator installs that person as host. If no one volunteers within 72 hours or if the moderators decide the thread is unacceptable, then the thread is deleted.
The database as I recall has a date field in it that we could use to track whether someone has been a member for a month. If someone created more than say three threads that the moderators had to delete because of lack of interest/offensiveness/whatever that person (Stone) could lose thread creation abilities at the moderators' discretion.
If anyone objects to this notion as "balkanization of discussion," please explain to me the Politics situation. In essence, Ace has de facto done what I'm proposing (although without increasing the actual number of threads).
12396. Fielding - 4/23/2001 9:25:10 AM
Good idea, Indy. I think it should be a year minimum. We look terrible when we give threads to people like Manon Dumay (who lost interest), or Xavier T. Coltrane (who lost interest and then decided to become unpleasant).
12397. Fielding - 4/23/2001 9:26:05 AM
Lets give a big welcome to seadate, who is now an official cohost of the Rants thread.
12398. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 9:26:49 AM
BTW, I don't propose this change necessarily because of the Politics situation. MsIvoryTower made some valid points earlier, and if Motiers are truly to vote with their feet, they will leave the Mote if that is the only place their feet can take them.
I want hosts to have lots of power within their threads, but I also want your average Motier to have the power of starting/moving to an alternative discussion if the host of the existing thread is jerking them around--without having to find that alternative discussion at another site.
Also, we could make it policy that any non-moderator created thread that went for more than a week without a post would be RIP'd without comment.
I think a side benefit of this would be many, short, topical (focused) conversations rather than the same few threads that meander on endlessly now.
12399. Fielding - 4/23/2001 9:29:05 AM
I don't know where to put this because we don't have a Periodicals thread.
CalGal:
Did you see the profile of August Wilson in last week's New Yorker? I thought it was a little sketchy, but it had a lot of good information.
12400. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 9:39:35 AM
Fielding: I think a year would be too long. Have even you been here a year?
The month limit is to keep people (Stone) from ginning up pseuds repeatedly as he does at TableTalk just to pollute the place with inflammatory threads. Yet I think too many times Mote policy is controlled by a fear of the one or two bad things that could happen as a result of the abusers, coupled with an unwillingness to come down on the bad behavior/poster when it does occur.
Much tentativeness results.
TableTalk is likely going to close up soon. IMO the Mote isn't very healthy either, and TT's demise may be the last chance we get to turn this place into something other than a few people who like each other's company (on most days) talking.
If that's what we want. Otherwise, I think as alistair said a few months back, it's just going to dwindle down from attrition.
BTW, I posted the Mote to a search engine yesterday. Hope I didn't duplicate anyone's effort. Heh.
12401. PsychProf - 4/23/2001 9:41:44 AM
Good and accurate points Indy.
12402. Fielding - 4/23/2001 9:45:02 AM
Indy:
It seems like years, but I have been around here for only about six months. My point is that you want to keep out riff-raff like me.
"Yet I think too many times Mote policy is controlled by a fear of the one or two bad things that could happen as a result of the abusers, coupled with an unwillingness to come down on the bad behavior/poster when it does occur."
This is a good point.
12403. wabbit - 4/23/2001 9:59:18 AM
"Yet I think too many times Mote policy is controlled by a fear of the one or two bad things that could happen as a result of the abusers, coupled with an unwillingness to come down on the bad behavior/poster when it does occur."
True enough, but please bear in mind that when those one or two bad things do happen, there are only a few of us here who have to deal with the situation. I remember spending my father's birthday sitting at a computer, chasing down a spate of fake ID's and deleting them. Not fun. And then we get to have shit rained down on us when we take action. We are in a no-win situation here and cannot please everyone. Your understanding is greatly appreciated.
Meanwhile, allowing members who have been here for a given length of time to be able to create threads would be a technical issue that Alistair would have to address. It sounds like we could quickly become another TT with a proliferation of individual threads. In that case, server space might become a problem and that would be Jay's department.
12404. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 10:13:27 AM
wabbit: I think you have done an incredible job, especially considering the amount of payback you get (and I mean this in the sense of participating here, as well an monetary compensation). That is, you very rarely post, so I especially am thankful that you continue to put in the effort you do without even the fun that comes from having a good site to talk to interesting people. Without a doubt you and alistair have put in the most effort for the least reward (though at least in alistair's case he has the satisfaction of written code, whereas all you get is Rosetta's criticism). Consistently, I've seen your fairness and restraint surpass what I would be able to muster.
Yet I think we have to decide what it is we want here. Right now, we have the strengths associated with smallness--one of which is lots of control, including the ability if we want to prune branches that start to take off in directions we don't like. And if that's what we want, we can keep the Mote a small garden in which even the absence of one poster like Diva leaves a gaping hole.
Or, we can try to grow, but that means giving up some of the advantages of smallness.
I like what we have, but one way or the other, I don't think we'll have it forever.
12405. CalGal - 4/23/2001 10:16:12 AM
Alistair and others have been predicting the death of this place due to attrition since some two or three months in. Likewise, someone has been saying "....otherwise, the place will dry up due to attrition as Alistair predicted last month" nearly as long.
While volume is down, we continually have new members. I did a rough count of people the other day and came up with nearly 80 regular posters--no stretch involved. Far more than that if I kick in the people who show up only on occasion.
I'm not going to argue that the place is fine. But I see no relationship between your solutions and the problems you purport to fix. In general, I dispute that the place isn't reasonably healthy. It just depends on how active you want it. Speaking only for myself, I don't want activity if it's TT's sort.
As for TT, they will either like it or they won't. We've had more than a few people check it out and stay. I don't think changing the entire paradigm into a perversion of WebX is any way to "fix" the Mote.
As for Politics and Ace's thread, I don't understand why Ace didn't just volunteer to take over the Politics thread and do the same thing that he's doing within his own thread. The fix is exactly right. If Jex isn't going to cooperate, then I still think that is what should be done in the thread itself. I don't think that situation should be used as evidence of anything wrong with the interface, but rather an attempt to fix a serious problem with a single thread.
12406. wabbit - 4/23/2001 10:22:01 AM
I agree with you, IJ. One of the advantages of being small, as you said, is that we can still make changes as a community. I like change, change is good. Let's see what Alistair and Jay have to say about your suggestions.
While we're discussing changes, I must apologize to everyone for being so tardy at getting the rewrites done for the RoE and the host guidelines -- 18 hour days will be my undoing. I should have some free time again in about two weeks (she says hopefully).
12407. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 10:25:07 AM
Cal: It won't dry up entirely as long as a few people are willing to come here and post day after day and try their best to keep it alive. But sooner or later, these people are going to die, if nothing else.
Or they are going to have babies (Cartman and Diva). Or get married. They may continue to drift in and out, sure, but there has to be some level of core fuel around to keep the chain reaction firing, if you know what I mean.
I'm not saying that a slow wind down of the Mote is a terrible thing--if that's what you want. It's a 'hood, and sooner or later the old gang breaks up and leaves the hood, hopefully with fond memories.
So let's leave the question of "Is the Mote dying?" aside and concentrate on thread creation. What great harm do you see in a Motier of some duration being able to create a thread? Why do you see Ace's fix as "exactly right" but that it might not work in similar instances for other posters?
12408. marjoribanks - 4/23/2001 10:32:34 AM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with 95% of Jexster's posts. This is a much higher percentage than that of his most frequent detractors.
Everyone can see this simple fact, by the way. The high volume displayed by his chief detractors in no way fools anybody.
12409. CalGal - 4/23/2001 10:34:10 AM
I don't see Ace's use of his thread as a de facto politics thread as "exactly right"; I see his enforcement of a certain discussion norm on Politics as "exactly right". I thought he should have taken over politics and done it. I still don't see why he didn't. I don't think having a second thread like that is a good idea at all and I hope it gets addressed one way or another.
I see thread proliferation as a horrible idea. Quite apart from control issues--we have just had some twenty discussions on getting rid of threads because a good number of people here think there are too many.
12410. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 10:35:29 AM
"I don't understand why Ace didn't just volunteer to take over the Politics thread and do the same thing that he's doing within his own thread. "
I told you -- I *did* volunteer.
12411. CalGal - 4/23/2001 10:36:03 AM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with 95% of Jexster's posts.
I doubt you've seen what we're talking about, then. As for "frequent detractors", I'd be interested to see if you could even name them.
12412. marjoribanks - 4/23/2001 10:38:35 AM
I read the thread. As for his most frequent detractors, i'm talking about those who've talked about his posts ad nauseum here as a problem.
12413. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 10:41:41 AM
Oh. Right. You mean me, CalGal, FU, Indy, Dusty, and Stumbo?
Not to mention Pelle.
12414. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 10:43:05 AM
Cal thinks my new rules are a good fix.
Does anyone else concur? If JayAckroyd concurs, would he implement such rules in the regular politics thread?
12415. janjon - 4/23/2001 11:02:29 AM
This lamenting about Jexster is just another indignant ego ride by Ace. Jex has the ability to puncture Ace's balloon quite adroitly (and frankie's). As if heckel and jeckel are just aching to have a "real" political discussion. (Always reserving the right, of course, to go off on one of their nauseous toots if someone says something "ridiculous".
Marj is right on correct.
12416. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 11:05:46 AM
"Jex has the ability to puncture Ace's balloon quite adroitly (and frankie's)."
When precisely does this happen? When I am advised to "eat [Jexter's] runny shit"? Or when I am invited to "suck down [Jexter's] viral load"?
12417. Francis Urquhart - 4/23/2001 11:07:42 AM
The viral load would probably have a greater ability to puncture.
12418. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 11:10:09 AM
Lots of disinformation this morning. Dr. X was canned because Pelle didn't like him and some VIPS complained about his moving their posts to Inferno.
Jj deletes stuff he doesn't like and no consequences.
I haven't posted in TT in months and probably won't until there last days.
You'll know when I do because I use our mote cafe to test my ID.
I think it would be a big mistake to give Spade the Politics thread. And his and Niner's spamming of NYTimes "Money Dowd" goofs in the Politics thread is as bad as Jex and Wizard's stuff.
Ducky's stewardship did terrible things to that thread and it will take Jay a while to bring it back to live.
BTW, the way you banned JontheCad was terrible.
12419. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 11:11:59 AM
there=their
live=life
12420. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 11:13:06 AM
Rosie=suckjob
12421. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 11:18:28 AM
Ace, why don't you go and change the name of your Vanity thread again. The same title has been up for more than 24 hours.
12422. janjon - 4/23/2001 11:19:48 AM
Ooooh, the decicious irony of seeing Ace meow about the abuse he has to suffer. Imagine someone hurling out simple little one or two word phrases in his direction. And, even if his prolonged toots don't necessarily equate to spam, they are the equivalent.
Nothing more amusing than watching an indignant, non-self analytical buffoon at work.
Ace - that is your cue.
12423. Francis Urquhart - 4/23/2001 11:20:06 AM
It is a fair point. One man's "Poopstain!" and "Suck my viral load" and "the Bastard in Chief!" is another's extended lampoon of a Pulitzer prize winning essayist.
Hence, two threads catering to two different tastes.
12424. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 11:21:03 AM
And his and Niner's spamming of NYTimes "Money Dowd" goofs in the Politics thread is as bad as Jex and Wizard's stuff.
I agree with this...they aren't about Politics and they go on far too long. It's okay to make funny remarks and slam the lady but after awhile, it becomes a bore.
12425. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 11:23:10 AM
Well, Fielding didn't think the Money Dowd parodies were spam. He said that one of the posts was one of the funniest he had read in a long time.
To my knowledge, no one has ever told Jexster that his latest "Da Moron's leaving Major League Poopstains in his BVD's!" was one of the funniest posts they'd read.
Then again, they're all so good it's difficult to single one out for special praise.
12426. rubberducky - 4/23/2001 11:25:30 AM
Ducky's stewardship did terrible things to that thread and it will take Jay a while to bring it back to live.
this is true enough
i often lament how i was unable to match the heretofore unmatched greatness of your hosting in your 'Balkan' thread
12427. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 11:27:01 AM
JAH,
Who cares if you felt it was a "bore"? There are many conversations which I think are boring.
But they are, nevertheless, conversations which the posters involved (at least) enjoy.
It's hysterical. The claim is now that the ridicule/critique of a Pulitzer Prize winning NYT columnist is not fit for the Politics thread.
What the hell is it for, then?
I suspect JAH's primary problem with the parodies is that she enjoys Money Dowd, and thus didn't find it fair, funny, or interesting. But that's a ludicrous basis upon which to state the parodies were "spam."
It's a Table Talk mentality. "It's spam if I don't agree with it."
12428. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 11:27:11 AM
I didn't say they weren't funny...I said they went on for too long. Sometimes, they do...and so does Jex...but why single out one poster who irritates when there are so many?
12429. Francis Urquhart - 4/23/2001 11:27:34 AM
I fail to see the source of acrimony.
One Politics thread caters to the more erudite, what with consistently pithy references to poopstains, Da' Moron, the Bastard in Chief, and sucking a contrinutor's viral load, and the other Politics thread caters to the more earthy.
12430. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 11:33:16 AM
Actually Niner and Ace are the ones who have used "poopstains" to the x power.
Jex used it a while back but stopped.
The real question is why we have two POLITICS threads and how does a host get to change the title of his thread so often.
12431. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 11:35:43 AM
I don't even read Maureen Dowd; I think she's ridiculous. But YOU seem to know why I find something you beat to death over and over is boring to me so why even bother with what I really feel?
Ace, you don't need me to tell you that you're funny...you should know that and have enough confidence in your humor to accept a bit of criticism.
12432. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 11:40:03 AM
"The real question is why we have two POLITICS threads and how does a host get to change the title of his thread so often. "
Because Management is CalGal's puppet, but CalGal is MY puppet.
I'm running the show here, doofus. I'm surprised you hadn't figured that out already.
12433. janjon - 4/23/2001 11:42:07 AM
I have seen the light. I like the separate playpens.
12434. CalGal - 4/23/2001 11:44:14 AM
Do I think there should be two threads? No. It's foolish to pretend that there is a need for them, or two different clienteles.
At the moment, though, I wonder why we need any politics threads, given that there's no activity in them and plenty of activity in here.
12435. rubberducky - 4/23/2001 11:45:53 AM
...how does a host get to change the title of his thread so often.
i can see why you'd be confused by surprisingly simple user interface that the thread hosts use.
oh right, you're the one who couldn't even figure out to even delete a post.
wonder of wonders you couldn’t change the title.
12436. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 11:46:06 AM
You may have a point, Ace. I can't imagine anyone else getting away with changing the name of his Vanity thread 15 to 20 times and using the names of other posters in his headlines to insult them.
A new low for mote.
12437. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 11:46:33 AM
Maybe we need another thread...a place where we can gripe but not rant, argue but not suggest, and accuse others of all sorts of things they don't mean...oh wait! We have that already...
12438. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 11:52:14 AM
Right, Judy. Once they made the decision to have both an Inferno thread and a Rants thread, I knew that the place to post was in here.
12439. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 11:58:45 AM
JAH,
"YOU seem to know why I find something you beat to death over and over is boring to me so why even bother with what I really feel?"
To be fair, I said I "suspect" that you enjoy Dowd. I didn't claim I "knew" anything.
Did the Dowd parodies go on for "too long"? Perhaps. But then, any conversation someone isn't interested in seems to go on "for too long." People were bored by the substantive global warming discussion, too. I am bored to tears by every new abortion discussion.
Such is life.
12440. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 12:07:44 PM
Incidentally, JAH, it wasn't meant as an insult. You seem to take everything I say as some sort of cut-to-the-heart insult.
It is simply an undeniable truth that when one ridicules someone we like, we find it "unfunny" and boring. Meanwhile, we clap appreciatively when someone ridicules a politician we think deserves it.
Now, you say you don't like Dowd. Fine. It was merely a guess. It wasn't some brutal insult you need get so defensive about.
12441. Fielding - 4/23/2001 12:13:47 PM
The Dowd parodies were both funny and on target. Dowd is pathetically formulaic, even if she is often funny.
12442. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 12:55:22 PM
They were neither, Fielding. The first time I read them in real time, I sometimes chuckled. Maybe it's because I hoped they would get funnier. No such luck and when I went back the next day to see if I had missed anything, they just looked stupid.
Although they still may be wearing their high-heel shoes, Niner and Spade have lost their spark.
Ace, particularly, since he's started his own Vanity thread, has lost his luster. Maybe he's frustrated about his employment situation.
Maybe they should take some time off from posting to recharge.
12443. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 12:58:21 PM
Suckjob,
I became less entertaining to you at approximately the same moment I told you to shut the fuck up and called for your banning.
12444. Ms. No - 4/23/2001 1:00:32 PM
Re: Thread Creation
I'd like to point out that one of the reasons Pelle and I were brought in to help moderate was so that new threads could be created more quickly, however, when we've attempted to be more responsive to those requests we've gotten nearly endless complaints about it. "Why did you create that thread? We don't need that thread! There are too many threads! Get rid of those threads!"
Enabling 80 other people to create threads isn't going to help that mentality.
12445. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 1:04:31 PM
Ace:
Nothing I say is understood by you, eveidently...I'm not insulted; my original post was trying to show that anything taken to extreme can become boring. You've said it yourself: But then, any conversation someone isn't interested in seems to go on "for too long." And I was saying that applies to not only Jex but to you and FU and the parodies, some of which I found to be very funny but after 40 posts or so, became too much.
I may have become defensive, yes, but so have you in the past when someone alludes to your humor or lack thereof; I wasn't speaking of the humor but more to the overabundance of it...sometimes, less really IS more.
And Fielding:
Dowd is pathetically formulaic, even if she is often funny.
Remove the word "formulaic" and that could describe the parodies, too...which is fine but they can get tiresome, just as saying "poopstain" and "Clintoon" and "White House rapist" over and over can.
12446. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 1:05:02 PM
You told me to "shut the fuck up" when I started asking questions about your Vanity thread, Ace.
You called for my banning when that didn't work.
12447. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 1:07:23 PM
I meant, take out the word "pathetically"; I really did!!!!
12448. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 1:10:38 PM
Not so, Dr. No. Pelle was brought in to be the heavy. The enforcer.
What he did to Dr. X was unconsciousable. And the coverup is worse.
Now the call is to ban anyone who disagrees with the policy.
12449. CalGal - 4/23/2001 1:15:42 PM
I totally agree with MsNo about thread creation.
And if we can ban people who disagree with policy, can we ban Stone, please?
Fielding--Yes, I read that article on Wilson. I thought of you, too. I had a comment or two which, if I can remember, I'll put in A&M.
12450. Ms. No - 4/23/2001 1:26:23 PM
Re: The Stagnant Mote
Ask yourselves honestly why you'd rather come to Suggestions and gripe about policy than go have a discussion with other Moties about current events.
Can you really not have a conversation because of the number of threads? Are you really unable to engage in discourse because spamming is verboten? Did you run out of things to talk about because cazart or jon are gone?
These are all "management" actions. I don't think they're the problem. No amount of new threads or new links or rules or procedure is really going change the atomosphere here because the atmosphere is created by the posters.
If you're concerned about not enough new people coming in then go out and get your friends to sign up.
If you think newbies aren't being welcomed properly then rather than point fingers at everyone else why don't you make the extra effort yourself to make them feel welcome. It isn't welcoming to have people fight over your entrance even when some of them claim to be fighting on your behalf.
If you object to off topicality and chatter in a thread then make extra sure you're not guilty of it someplace else.
Problem with spam? Bring it to the attention of the thread host or the moderators and then don't give the spammer the satisfaction of responding. Don't add to the clutter by playing tit-for-tat.
Problem with attitudes? Try to restrain yourself from getting involved in the endless battles. Try ignoring it. Try not picking up the gauntlet every time it's thrown.
This is a FORUM. There are rules, yes, but in the end it is what the contributors make of it. If each person here would rededicate himself to interaction and a sense of open discussion, concentrate on being the best most valuable poster he can be then I guarantee things would improve. It isn't the task of a couple of people to change things here, it's the task of everyone who participates.
12451. RosettaStone - 4/23/2001 1:32:05 PM
Is that a serious threat, CalCal? Should I stop questioning our leaders about why some threads are grandfathered, while others are deleted without cause? Or why, Vanity thread can exist with different headlines every day.
I guess I should be concerned, especially if you start counting the number of posts I've made over the years in the various thread. After all JontheCad was banned because o, ef your pressure.
12452. Ms. No - 4/23/2001 1:33:55 PM
Rosie,
You've now been complaining about the demise of Dr. X's thread for more than four weeks. If you simply cannont get over it I suggest you seek counseling.
In any event more comentary on it in this thread will be moved to the Inferno. If you keep it up I'll suspend you for spamming.
12453. Francis Urquhart - 4/23/2001 1:34:11 PM
I don't think The Mote is stagnant. And I agree with Ms. No, as long as rededication is not misinterpreted to mean more, contentless blather.
I hold myself out as the model poster. My advice for others who desire improvement in The Mote is to read me, and follow suit.
12454. Wombat - 4/23/2001 1:34:36 PM
Unconsciousably? Are you our President*?
12455. JJBiener - 4/23/2001 1:45:59 PM
Niner - I hold myself out as the model poster.
Does this mean you are 2-dimensional and taped to a teenager's bedroom wall?
12456. janjon - 4/23/2001 1:48:16 PM
doesn't he wish.
12457. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 2:07:56 PM
Message # 12450
Right on, MsNo!
12458. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2001 2:51:23 PM
Moties are cordially invited to a contest:
Write the lyrics to the song "Whining Rosetta". The tune is of course "Waltzing Mathilda".
12459. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 2:52:09 PM
Pelle,
Please provide the actual lyrics to "Waltzing Mathilda" and I'll have a go.
12460. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2001 2:53:55 PM
I don't have it (them?). You'll have to do a search. It's part of the contest,
12461. Francis Urquhart - 4/23/2001 2:54:31 PM
Rosetta's the next notch in my belt.
12462. AceofSpades - 4/23/2001 2:56:14 PM
"You'll have to do a search. It's part of the contest:"
how conveeeeeeeeeenient.
12463. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 2:58:11 PM
And he carped and he moaned as he waited for his Vanity Thread...you'll come a Whining, Rosetta, with me...
Whining Rosetta, whining Rosetta, you'll come a whining, Rosetta with me.
12464. CalGal - 4/23/2001 2:58:49 PM
Pelle,
Can't we make Rosetta the swagman?
12465. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2001 3:37:11 PM
You mean
The swagman he up and he jumped in the water-hole,
Drowning himself by the coolibah tree...
Water hole = The Mote
Coolibah tree = This thread.
Ingenious.
12466. mgleason - 4/23/2001 3:54:25 PM
There's an excellent word for all this whining, sulking, and pouting: grizzling.
12467. Wombat - 4/23/2001 4:03:50 PM
"Gurning" is also a good term.
12468. marjoribanks - 4/23/2001 4:05:18 PM
Hindi has the best word of all, if perhaps a little polite : nakra.
Another good Hindi word for all this: bandobast.
12469. Wombat - 4/23/2001 4:09:57 PM
I thought "bandobast" had "bluster"-ing connotations.
12470. mgleason - 4/23/2001 4:09:58 PM
I also like the Spanish tiqui tiqui, because it adds an essential nitpicking dimension.
12471. marjoribanks - 4/23/2001 4:14:34 PM
Wombat, it does, kind of a sound and fury signfying nothing kind of thing.
12472. Wombat - 4/23/2001 4:15:57 PM
I turn to Thurber. Rosie makes me want to "squk his thrug 'till all he can whupple is geep."
12473. mgleason - 4/23/2001 4:17:57 PM
That's the most entertaining thing I've read all day.
12474. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 7:52:26 PM
Ms. No: I find your 12444 strangely defensive. The idea that other people should be able to create threads isn't a reaction against the speed with which the moderators create threads or even that there are too few threads. It's a criticism of the Mote's rigor mortic structure. In fact, by saying that one of the reasons you and Pelle were brought on was to speed thread creation, you support the idea that this was a problem before the two of you arrive and hence shouldn't be seen as a deficiency for which you're responsible.
Enabling 80 other people to create threads isn't going to help that mentality [that thinks there are too many threads].
This is akin to saying "Some people have the mentality taxes are too high and a bill that widens the tax base sure isn't going to make those people feel any better." So...is the mentality the problem or is the mentality correct?
12475. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 8:02:53 PM
Ask yourselves honestly why you'd rather come to Suggestions and gripe about policy than go have a discussion with other Moties about current events.
Because frequently no discussion is occurring. Because I see fewer and fewer people posting here (despite the "80" or so you mentioned in your previous post) with any regularity.
These are all "management" actions. I don't think they're the problem.
You may be responding to Stone here, but I haven't criticized the banning of cazart (which I initially did) or Jon (which I have supported each time it has occurred). And again, the call for thread creation flexibility isn't a criticism of management: it's a desire for more freedom and more chance for a Motier to have some control over a little tiny piece of the Mote, rather than it all being centralized in a few hands (regardless of how capable those hands may be).
Several Motiers aren't happy about the way hosts are treating posts: Ms IT, Cellar, Cal, bubbaette to start with. Ducky has asked that thread hosts be able to ban certain posters from the thread. vonK and Ace have more or less done so in their thread. Those are host issues, not moderator criticisms.
I think that host leeway fine, but I also think posters should be able to go elsewhere within the Mote and talk as they see fit. wabbit as said she wants to hear what alistair and Jay have to say, and I'm curious about that, too.
12476. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 8:14:39 PM
It isn't the task of a couple of people to change things here, it's the task of everyone who participates.
Great. Then let everyone who participates (at least on a regular basis) have the ability to really change the forum.
The position that somehow the community is going to run amok and do something terrible if the community is allowed control has an irrational fear at its base. The community should be allowed to make mistakes because the only thing the community will hurt is itself. And without the courage to allow itself to make mistakes, the community cannot grow. And if the community starts going off the rails, then the parental moderators can step in.
You yourself created the "articles" subthread, which was almost immediately withdrawn as a mistake. I don't think it was, BTW. You created the Man Thread, which again was withdrawn after only 24 hours after criticism in some quarters. Again, I personally don't think it was a mistake. Be that as it may, however, you are still moderator, right? You still have the power to create threads, right?
Why? Because those two "mistakes" weren't that big a deal! What is so terrible about the possibility of a bad thread?
Rosetta had not one but two threads. Dr. X had a thread. Ace has a many-headed monstrosity that has trashed every rule we have and at some point invited loathing by just about every Motier, but I still say the Mote is better for it.
As William Wallace said, "FREEDOM!"
12477. Ms. No - 4/23/2001 8:17:21 PM
Indy,
I'm not sure why you find it defensive. Clamoring for more and newer threads faster was one of the things that lead to adding Moderators and yet one of the most frequent complaints we get is "Why have you created all these dumb useless threads that some bozo I don't like asked for?"
If we have 80 people creating threads there will be potentially 80 times the number of "dumb useless threads" and constant clamoring for Pelle, wabbit and myself to RIP this or that or the other thread because it reached it's time limit for non-posting 10 seconds ago and dammit if we'd stay on top of shit like that theMote wouldn't be in it's death-throes yet again.
You ask for more threads more quickly created and then when you get them you complain that there are too many and not RIPed fast enough. It leads me to believe that the number of threads isn't the problem. It's the quality of conversation. That can only be solved by improving conversation skills.
12478. Ms. No - 4/23/2001 8:37:04 PM
Because frequently no discussion is occurring.
Frequently no discussion is occurring.
So rather than go start a discussion it's better to come in here and complain that no one is discussing anything?
Frequently no discussion is occurring.
If I understand you correctly you feel that this is because we don't have enough specialized threads. My question to you is why there are no suggestions for these threads and why you think it will improve things to create 50 more places where no discussion will occur after the first 30 posts.
Table Talk has thousands of dead threads just lingering on and on and the majority of them are duplicates of some other thread created by folks who like the topic but didn't like the participants in the first thread.
It's not tough to get a thread started here. Unless you're a total loon pretty much all you have to do is suggest it and find a someone willing to host it. It helps to have other folks say they want to participate but it's not as if you need a quorum or even more than two or three folks saying "Hey yeah, lets talk about that. We don't have anyplace to discuss that."
12479. rubberducky - 4/23/2001 9:10:44 PM
Mrs Nuh-Uh
It's not tough to get a thread started here. Unless you're a total loon pretty much all you have to do is suggest it and find a someone willing to host it.
that's kinda mean to disqualify half the participants like that.
12480. JudithAtHome - 4/23/2001 9:22:38 PM
It helps to have other folks say they want to participate but it's not as if you need a quorum or even more than two or three folks saying "Hey yeah, lets talk about that. We don't have anyplace to discuss that."
I don't agree with that...not long ago we suggested a CarTalk thread and 3 or 4 people liked the idea and someone was proposed to host it and nothing at all happened.
I think it's that sort of thing Indy is suggesting and I don't think 80 people will want 80 threads...but everytime lately when threads are even discussed, they get shot down by the Lean Team who want fewer threads. No one is saying we have to become TT but trying a few threads with different hosts won't kill us, surely. If they don't measure up...fine. Kill 'em.
(Meaning the threads, not the hosts.)
12481. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 10:56:31 PM
So rather than go start a discussion it's better to come in here and complain that no one is discussing anything?
Believe it or not, Chris, I don't come here just to read my own posts. And I don't flatter myself that that's why everyone else comes here either. Heh.
(I'm aware we all really come here to see what madcap capers that loopy Rosetta is cutting today.)
If I understand you correctly you feel that this is because we don't have enough specialized threads.
Nope.
My question to you is why there are no suggestions for these threads and why you think it will improve things to create 50 more places where no discussion will occur after the first 30 posts.
I don't want my suggestions. I want other people to be able to create threads if they want. I've 'splained and 'splained that I think it's the second-half of empowering thread hosts: allow competition.
Maybe no one will create any good threads. Heck if I know. But they sure won't if they're not given the opportunity.
12482. CalGal - 4/23/2001 11:38:20 PM
Because I see fewer and fewer people posting here (despite the "80" or so you mentioned in your previous post) with any regularity.
Well, "regularity" is a tough thing to nail down. But I just did a quick list of all the people who have posted here in the past two weeks, excluding one timers and tossing in the few people who have had babies. The number is 84, and there's not a single real stretch on the list, unless you count Coltrane, who everyone seems to think is a multiple. You would recognize every moniker readily.
I wish things were more active, too. But it's a mistake to think they're not active because we don't have numbers. We do have numbers, and we do have people talking. We also have new people joining us at a fairly impressive rate, given that we really don't have any advertising--something I continue to investigate but don't seem to find the venues that Irv talks about.
12483. pseudoerasmus - 4/24/2001 12:03:15 AM
Ms. No: I have sent you mail.
12484. Uzmakk - 4/24/2001 8:51:44 AM
I don't work with a computer and don't have access to it for a good deal of the time, it being in my son's room. I think that will change soon;
computer will go in the basement and be available to those of us who have important stuff to worry about-- like the Mote.
12485. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 9:28:52 AM
AGAIN I ASK...
A good generic, evergreen thread would be one on News Media Criticism. You have two experts here on the subject: Cd and Rs.
Take advantage of the experience.
BTW, let me congratulate Spade for not changing the name of his Vanity thread for a third day.
New record.
12486. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 9:43:38 AM
Cal: 84? I don't envy you the task of that, so I won't double-check your accuracy, hee-hee.
If we're discounting multiples, Stone has posted under at least three names, BTW, in the last couple of weeks: Every Grain of Sand, his own, Tintin, and I think there was another, which I've already forgotten.
What was it, RS?
12487. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 9:48:05 AM
Huh?
12488. JayAckroyd - 4/24/2001 9:58:07 AM
I personally think there are too many threads, not too few.
12489. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:10:48 AM
Agreed, Jay. IJ is just annoyed that he's not the gatekeeper anymore and doesn't have access to private information.
Axe Spade's Vanity thread ASAP. Heck, the moderators hardly ever publish there anymore.
But you do need a News Media Criticism-themed thread reviewing all the new media.
12490. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 10:10:54 AM
Jay: Aside from the number of threads (which I'm not arguing about at all), what do you think about allowing well-established Motiers of say three months' residence to create threads?
That would likely result in more threads, true, but it's not necessarily the most important consideration.
And if there are too many threads, then why aren't they being reduced?
As far as server space, what's relevant is the total number--and length--of posts. So if server space is an issue, perhaps we should do everything we can to keep posting to a minimum.
12491. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 10:11:28 AM
BTW, Jay, the last wasn't a jab at you personally. Just a joke.
12492. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 10:14:30 AM
Stone: The only person who's annoyed that I'm no longer Gatekeeper is--I'm guessing--glendajean.
12493. JayAckroyd - 4/24/2001 10:15:07 AM
Again, this is my personal opinion. It is not a space issue. Space is cheap. As to why threads aren't being eliminated, I would say that it's because my view is not the consensus view. But because I think there are too many overlapping threads with controls, I certainly don't like the idea of creating threads on the fly. Moreover, we have had occasional instances of every thread being spammed. Imagine walking in one morning and seeing a hundred new, identically titled threads.
12494. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 10:18:30 AM
i actually do agree with the villiage idiot that 'page 3' needs to go
it is a joke that has long since stopped being funny.
12495. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 10:19:16 AM
Imagine walking in one morning and seeing a hundred new, identically titled threads.
Jay: I've seen close to that on TableTalk. But who is going to do that here? And if they do, then we ban them. What's the big deal?
It seems to me one advantage of a small place is that we are better able to control membership than TableTalk.
However, since there appears to be little support for my idea from the powers that be, I acquiesce in the community's judgment.
12496. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:20:45 AM
I never believed all the accusations leveled at you in TT regarding privacy issues, IJ, until I started reading your stuff here about your experiences as gatekeeper.
Do you think that once you're no longer mote's gatekeepr, that you can reveal what you learned when you had that position? Shameful. You should be suspended for two weeks.
No way should you ever be given any leadership positions in mote again, I say.
12497. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 10:22:30 AM
Stone: I agree.
12498. CalGal - 4/24/2001 10:46:03 AM
Indy,
I didn't only not count Every Grain of Sand or Tintin, I didn't count Revenant, who posted some interesting stuff in Literature, Ocean's 11, who has posted once or twice but I'm not sure will be back, or any name that, as I said, isn't instantly recognizable. I think the whole task took me 15 minutes.
I generally agree that we have a few too many threads, even if I don't think Francis' culling down to 10 is desirable. The main reason I think we still have them is that no one wants to upset the people whose threads are pulled.
12499. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:49:37 AM
The most obvious duplicates is RANTS and INFERNO.
How that was allowed to happen should be investigated.
12500. bubbaette - 4/24/2001 10:50:31 AM
I hope Oceans 11 will come back. I like him.
12501. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 10:51:58 AM
Rosetta Slide may not be a private detective, but he sure drinks like one!
i stole that, btw
12502. seadate - 4/24/2001 10:57:32 AM
Bubb,
I'd also like to see Oceans11 return.
12503. Fielding - 4/24/2001 11:01:18 AM
The Rants is not a duplicate of the Inferno. The Rants does not permit personal flaming, and has moved flame wars to the Inferno in the past.
12504. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 11:04:00 AM
So, that's the only difference? Pathetic.
How about using RANTS on odd-numbered days, and INFERNO on even.
12505. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 11:04:34 AM
Fielding,
You're right. I occasionally read the Inferno. I never read Rants.
12506. Fielding - 4/24/2001 11:05:27 AM
No one is forcing you to post in either of thos threads.
12507. Fielding - 4/24/2001 11:06:09 AM
And that goes for Ace too.
12508. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:06:10 AM
Oceans11 is rumored on TT to be another Cazart/Jade incarnation. I personally don't yet have an opinion because I haven't seen any Oceans11 posts that stuck with me. I vaguely remember him taking a position in a previous policy debate, but can't remember what it was.
BTW I also think that the general--and usually accurate--assumption that anyone "new" is likely a multiple says something about the Mote.
12509. bubbaette - 4/24/2001 11:07:33 AM
Nah, I don't think Oceans 11 is a multiple.
12510. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:09:15 AM
bubbaette: Not even of Oceans 1 through 10?
12511. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 11:09:53 AM
Fielding,
Just ribbin' ya. I got my own embarassment on my hands, don't I?
12512. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 11:13:18 AM
yeah, not to mention your thread...
12513. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 11:14:47 AM
Ace's thread, if it had stayed COMIC, might have worked. As it is, he turned it into his own attack vehicle.
Axe it.
12514. CalGal - 4/24/2001 11:15:43 AM
Oceans11 is rumored on TT to be another Cazart/Jade incarnation.
I don't know who over there would be rumoring it. On the other hand, it "says something" that people over at TT are talking about the Mote. Unless you're just referring to the Cafe thread, in which case you really mean Cazart.
That said, Oceans 11 seemed like a multiple to me, too.
BTW I also think that the general--and usually accurate--assumption that anyone "new" is likely a multiple says something about the Mote.
You say this like it's any different from anywhere else. In fact, quite a few new people have shown up and not been presumed to be multiples. It's indisputable that a fair amount of new monikers are multiples.
But you act as if this is somehow different from other places. Forums are all very similar, Indy. Most new people who check out a forum don't stay. We actually have a good percentage stay, considering how few check us out. There are a few weird fucks who come back over and over again under new ids. Also not particularly unusual.
If you want it more active, then talk about things that interest you. But the observations you make are not restricted to life at the Mote, and aren't the cause of the problems you perceive.
12515. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:16:51 AM
Stone: Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your desire to have Dr. X's "vanity" thread restored as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Mote and your desire to have Ace's "vanity" thread killed?
(Lordy...I must be bored. I've posted to Stone like four times in one day.)
12516. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:23:26 AM
Cal: Oceans11 is a handle at TT as well. People in the NRA thread and spudboy's thread who are familiar with Cazart/Jade and Oceans11 talk to them like they're all the same person, even running their monikers together into one word.
I don't follow those threads regularly, though, and just happened to notice it recently when spudboy's thread was at the top and I glanced in. (spudboy's gone a little nuts about the militia stuff and from hanging out at TT for so long, but I think he's another ex-Motier that we could use back.)
Dunno what basis the lumping of the three was, so I can't say that it's accurate.
12517. CalGal - 4/24/2001 11:29:40 AM
Spud doesn't like mockery. TT gives him two things he values: the people who agree with him are plentiful and the people who don't agree with him are actual morons. I wish he'd come back, too, but I suspect that disagreement from people he can't dismiss as easily makes him cranky.
12518. seadate - 4/24/2001 11:33:01 AM
(Lordy...I must be bored. I've posted to Stone like four times in one day.)
Glad you admitted it Jones. Admission's the first step in rehabilitation.
12519. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 11:33:16 AM
eh, spud was 'a little nuts' when he left here
12520. Fielding - 4/24/2001 11:42:16 AM
Indy:
"Stone: Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your desire to have Dr. X's "vanity" thread restored as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Mote and your desire to have Ace's "vanity" thread killed?"
Both are part of Stone's pattern of complaining about everything and trying to undermine The Mote.
12521. sakonige - 4/24/2001 11:42:47 AM
So who is the 'gatekeeper' here nowadays?
Is it MsNo, formerly ChristinO? She's at least someone I at least remember.
My frame of reference for this messageboard is still early Fray, pre-CalGal. I didn't pay close attention to newcommers to this group after about the time CalGal arrived. I felt I knew enough people and I was busy with other things. Now I can't easily distinguish the features of most of the people I've met here later than 1998.
The former gatekeeper was, I believe, Indiana Jones, someone I know practically nothing about, except that he is a male American Christian web developer who engages in a lot of messageboard politics. I don't know whether he was part of the early Fray, but I don't recognize him.
12522. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 11:44:06 AM
Spuddy also suffers from the Nomenclator's Syndrome.
Roman and Greek Nomenclators would follow around politicians, telling them the names of each citizen they encountered.
Spuddy, as a reporter, is a natural Nomenclator. He doesn't know much about science or law, but the fact that his job requires him to frequently read articles on these subjects means that he knows the names of the players, and has at least a facile grasp of the language used in these fields. He doesn't understand what the jargon means, but he recognizes it, at least.
Spuddy suffers from the delusion that the mere facile ability to name something gives him powers of understanding. He has asserted numerous times that the fact that he interviewed this or that lawyer or scientist or CIA agent makes him a near-expert in each's respective field.
Like the Nomenclators of old, Spuddy thinks he's smarter than the politicians, lawyers, and scientists he meets, and better at their fields of expertise to boot.
12523. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:44:18 AM
Fielding: Sure. That's why I admitted to barrel-fish shooting.
12524. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 11:48:37 AM
Spuddy drove me insane when he asserted that Jimmy Carter was an "idiot" because he pronounced nuclear "nook-yuh-lar."
Jimmy Carter. You know-- the President and nuclear engineer.
Eh. Sorry for this. No more.
12525. sakonige - 4/24/2001 11:51:50 AM
I like Spudboy. I would think that as a journalist, he probably enjoys the visibility TT offers. He likes to broadcast his messages to as large an audience as possible.
12526. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:56:29 AM
sakonige: Please don't tell me I've replaced pseudo as your "hobby."
You "know" only what I let on, and I've never stated my actual profession here at the Mote or elsewhere; you're making an assumption based on knowledge I've exhibited. But I could be no more a Web developer than IRS agent--or Cazart/Jade is a weapons specialist.
In truth, I'm a gigolo for actresses in their late thirties and early forties (i.e., just past their Hollywood prime). As well as being a part-time Nomenclator and teaching archaeology at a major Ivy League University.
12527. sakonige - 4/24/2001 11:57:20 AM
What's the difference between AceofSpades and Indiana Jones? I've never had the patience for the politics threads, and I can't really tell the difference between them from anything else I've skimmed. I think I recall AceofSpades has been part of this group longer, is older, and is not a web developer.
12528. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 11:58:19 AM
I am more well-endowed than Ace.
12529. sakonige - 4/24/2001 11:59:36 AM
Indiana Jones -
I guess I must have gotten you mixed up with someone else who posts under another name in TT.
12530. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 12:00:25 PM
It's not the size of the ship, it's how many times I've plugged your bitch-whore mother up the ass.
12531. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 12:00:35 PM
And FU doesn't send me any love letters like he does Ace.
Sob.
(Well, not in a long time, anyway.)
12532. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 12:04:46 PM
It's not the size of the ship
Tugboats always say that.
Ask the Japanese whether it's better to be a fishing trawler (Ace) or a nuclear submarine (me).
12533. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 12:06:09 PM
Ask your mother why she calls me "The Rear Admiral."
12534. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 12:14:08 PM
mother or father?
12535. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 12:21:00 PM
Sakonige,
Glendajean is the current Gatekeeper. He took over for Diva when she went for her laying in with Skeeter.
Gentlemen,
Take it to a chat thread.
12536. sakonige - 4/24/2001 12:32:00 PM
Thanks, Ms. No. I tend to get glendajean mixed up in my recollection of LadyChaos who I guess still posts here occasionally.
12537. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 12:34:14 PM
I suggest that we do set up a welcome thread of some kind for refugees and newcomers. The try the mote thread isn't quite right, and most of the other likely threads are quite insider-ish.
I'm willing to start off as the host, if it is understood that I'm unlikely to be around all the time at all.
Some rules will be laid down. Humor and congeniality and camaraderie will be stressed. Outrageous and incorrect references to "we" as in "we do things this way" will be deleted and/or treated with the scorn and ridicule such idiocy deserves.
Finally, we need to post regular references to this site's existence in promising areas of other forums, particularly TT since it appears to be going under.
The International folder there has at least half-a-dozen really interesting people regularly contributing, most very interested in pursuing discussion with Pseuder. Ideally he should be outright recruited to start his own World Language thread and the others encouraged to follow. I'd do this explicitly but I've once again had my TT moniker disabled for comparing that forum' s interface unfavorably to this one.
But the welcome thread should comeabout. And others should be lined up to host, maybe in rotation. Those who regularly indulge in egregious and fraudulent insiderism should not apply.
Finally, such a thread should be permanently anchored either at the top or the bottom of the thread list. So should this thread and Try the Mote, for that matter. That last is more of a requirement than a suggestion.
12538. sakonige - 4/24/2001 12:35:48 PM
Wait, is AceofSpades a NY lawyer who uses a lot of obscenities? I can't remember what he used to be called, but I do think remember him from the Fray.
12539. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 12:39:05 PM
Also, I'd like to suggest that Ace's thread be axed for lack of interest from all parties and a new Sex thread be created.
For a host, I nominate Cellar Door, who will do an excellent and thought-provoking job as moderator if he decides to.
12540. sakonige - 4/24/2001 12:41:55 PM
marjoribanks -
I've heard that Pseuder is moving soon to a part of the world that lacks cheap, high-speed internet access. That's got to make it difficult for him to continue to carry on the way he does so famously.
12541. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 12:43:21 PM
Also, Health Policies and Notices and Queries should simply be removed immediately. Useless threads, add nothing here but clutter.
I also believe that the hosts ability to change the thread name should be limited or taken away. The Travel thread should simply be that, not gibberish. Same thing with Education and Literature.
Giving a host the ability to mess with the title was a good idea and most who simply wanted to play got their ya-ya's out in the early days. But the facility can be abused, or perhaps worse, used in a mediocre manner. Take it away.
12542. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 12:45:33 PM
I'd like to co-host a Sex Thread with Cellar. One homosexual, one heterosexual, two perspectives, and they have dined together.
I second every one of banks' suggestions.
12543. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 12:47:17 PM
I support that self-nomination. Urquhart, I trust that you will aim for the thoughtful as well as the T&A.
12544. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 12:52:38 PM
I also suggest the Table Talk project, to be set up in marj's new thread. We start to hoard TableTalk email addresses, and when the Titanic goes under, we swoop in, send the welcome email to the homeless, and they come on over.
I also plan to survey TT and enter into high level and confidential negotiations with long-term thread operators to hammer out a tacit agreement that if and when TT folds, they will bring longstanding threads here, as those threads will be replicated immediately on The Mote.
Ms. No, wabbit and/or Pelle - before I enter these negotiations, I need what is known as fast-track authority (i.e., that when the time comes, I can call upon you to immediately set up the thread for the newcomers, no discussion, no democracy). Without this power, I cannot engage in the diplomatic efforts discussed.
My email is slawyer@hotmail.com. Please email me to discuss.
12545. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 12:56:46 PM
the last thing theMote needs is another chatty thread
12546. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 12:58:22 PM
"One homosexual, one heterosexual, two perspectives..."
Errrr... Who's the heterosexual again?
Francis, though he dares not say so directly, calls for the abolishment of my thread.
If I've lost Francis, I've lost America.
The Mote Management can RIP my thread when they like.
I *strongly* urge JayAckroyd to implement rules such as I've suggested. If he is unwilling to, I would ask him to step down and let people willing to spam-patrol take over.
12547. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 12:59:00 PM
I also think (perhaps alone) that several of the institutional threads could do with new hosts, even if only for a while. New blood, as in thread regulars from outside, would be best. But current regulars interested in the job, and energized about hosting, would be nearly as good.
12548. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:00:27 PM
Ace
I feel like Senator Scott walking to the Nixon White House.
As for Jay, I think he's getting his feet wet and showing some skills as host. Rubberducky is a good man, a decent man, but he was undisciplined.
12549. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:02:22 PM
Jay has frequently announced his core belief that "censorship and deletions are bad." Once again, he gives us the same bullshit of voluntary compliance and "let's see how it works out."
We have already seen how it "all works out," a half dozen times.
You are a pussy and an apologist. There is no cock of power you will not gladly kneel to suck.
12550. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:04:29 PM
Ace
Senator, you and I are part of the same hypocrisy. In the end, I expect you'll be shaking and sweating and saying "She was laughing" at one of my brother's massage parlors in Reno.
12551. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:05:52 PM
My proposal:
One post containing a link/quoted article per day. The one POST may contain multiple links and multiple articles, however. But only ONE post.
Other articles can be linked and quoted only IF they are cited in the context of an actual debate or controversy.
All other article links/quotes are to be deleted.
A sub-thread, News of the Day, will be tucked into the Poltics folder. People who wish to cut and paste political news-stories may do so there.
But the main Politics thread will be discussions only, and will not be article thread, aside from the exceptions noted.
12552. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:07:26 PM
Can I get a second?
And, given the fact that no one changes anything around here without twenty-six supporters, can I get a third through twenty-sixth?
12553. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 1:07:35 PM
Rubberducky is a good man, a decent man, but he was undisciplined.
thank you. but, if you recall, i was very clear on the 'undisciplined' point prior to taking the reins of the thread. it's the one thread that requires an active and ... merciless host. i'm neither.
12554. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:09:14 PM
My proposal:
Keep Ace's thread, make it POLITICS II - DISCUSSIONS, and to the extent jexster is off his medication, others want to actually discuss, people will learn to go there for the time being.
This is a more realistic proposal, as even you, Ace, when jexster was not present, reverted to the original Politics thread, as opposed to your own newly created thread.
12555. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 1:09:36 PM
Enough with the damn proposals that will result in one thread renamed, one thread deleted, one new thread.
All power to the Soviets.
12556. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:10:34 PM
Further, I would also propose that if a majority of posters are in favor of these rules, and JayAckroyd is unwilling/unable to implement them, that he voluntarily step down in favor of someone who will.
It's not quite true that a thread hosts should be allowed to make up his own rules. Thread hosts are there to serve the Mote at large. If a thread host's notion of what constitutes good rules diverges from those who post in his thread, he ought not to be the thread host.
12557. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:11:30 PM
This is a more realistic proposal, as even you, Ace, when jexster was not present, reverted to the original Politics thread, as opposed to your own newly created thread.
I reverted to the original Politics thread, and to Current Events, because other posters were there.
12558. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 1:12:37 PM
You are a pussy and an apologist. There is no cock of power you will not gladly kneel to suck.
How many times have you been made to kneel Ace, and the proverbial option of "suck this" was yours for which you consciously performed? On your job? For benefit of family, friends or for a priciple? If you say never...you are lying. If you deny doing so then you are in no position to accuse others...AND if you DON'T deny it, again. you are in no position to derisively accuse others as well.
Why are you so pre-diposed to thoughts of "cock" and sucking anyway?
12559. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 1:12:53 PM
deposed...
12560. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:13:14 PM
Quite frankly, I'd rather change my thread back to what it was originally, but a few people (such as Dusty) have urged me to "see what happens."
12561. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 1:13:23 PM
BTW, I have a proposal of my own.
1) If having your cock sucked is part of being in a position of power around here, then I withdraw my earlier agreement with Rosetta that I should never be put in a position of power again.
2) More importantly, why doesn't one of the techies write a bot that will log in under a TT handle and systematically acquire all the TT email addresses so we can spam TTers mailboxes with photos of Jen or sto (depending upon the TTer's orientation) and asking that they come to the Mote for "chat."
12562. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 1:13:28 PM
they are good suggestions, Ace, but i don't favor telling a host what s/he may do with her/his own thread. don't like the precedent.
and, no, Fran, theMote doesn't need 2 political threads just yet - not until TT shuts down.
12563. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:13:59 PM
disposed, Labwabbit.
12564. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:14:19 PM
Exactly. In fact, since you went there, so did others. But my proposal allows for a haven when jexster is present and obstreperous, and others want to talk something other than Poopstain.
I think your proposal is dandy. Unrealistic, never-going-to-happen, but dandy nonetheless.
12565. seadate - 4/24/2001 1:14:29 PM
I like Banks' idea of a "welcome" thread and how it should be managed.
12566. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 1:15:24 PM
The Cockpit or Ace's Happy Bottoms Riding Club were the best of a bad lot, Ace.
(The Cockpit was actually good.)
12567. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 1:16:25 PM
No Ace..
..deposed. Quit trying to put things in my mouth that you willingly accept.
12568. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:16:29 PM
duck
Why not? The complaint is jexster (and to a lesser extent bbb), nothing will be done because jexster is a legacy and a charity case, these are unalterable facts that only a masochist chooses to defy, when jexster is wacky, people leave, so why not give them an underutilized option for those occasions?
12569. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:17:41 PM
they are good suggestions, Ace, but i don't favor telling a host what s/he may do with her/his own thread. don't like the precedent.
If a thread host, say, turned the politics thread into a "Gun Control only discussion thread," I don't think you'd have much of a problem telling him he was not meeting the needs of the posters, RD.
"It's bad precedent to tell a thread host what he can do." What piffle. What utter bullshit.
So we need 26 supporters to even get a Man Thread going, but once we do, no one can tell me what to do? Bullshit. The no-porn rule was an absolute prerequisite to getting the Man Thread.
Pelle told me that I couldn't/shouldn't change the Man Thread into a Political Discussions thread. (Although we've been operating under some sort of tacit compromise since then.)
I don't want a Political Spam Thread. Almost no one does, except Jexster, JanJon, and JayAckroyd.
12570. PelleNilsson - 4/24/2001 1:20:49 PM
I support marj's proposal for a Welcome thread hosted by him. It could replace Try the Mote.
I also offer the hosting of International to anyone (almost) who is interested.
12571. JudithAtHome - 4/24/2001 1:20:53 PM
But the main Politics thread will be discussions only
...and no parodies or 40 post runs of alleged humor or 20 post runs of faux insults and snide closeted homosexual innuendo? Well, we can't have that...it just wouldn't be Politics without all that crap.
12572. Cellar Door - 4/24/2001 1:21:06 PM
Maybe it's a J-thing.
12573. Jenerator - 4/24/2001 1:21:32 PM
Indy,
Message # 12561
That'll cost you.:-)
12574. Cellar Door - 4/24/2001 1:22:14 PM
Politics without faux insults and snide closeted homosexual innuendo?
Surely you jest!
12575. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:22:51 PM
It is only "unrealistic" because the present host refuses to do it.
Most other hosts would be very willing to do it.
Are we going to say that Stumbo COULD NOT implement my rules were he to take over the Politics thread?
Are we claiming that the "Thread Host may set the rules," UNLESS he adopts rules against spam and enforces them, in which case he cannot set the rules?
If the Thread Host may set the rules, and we shouldn't "tell Thread Hosts what to do," then let us replace JayAckroyd with... well, virtually anybody. Stumbo, me, Indy, FU, VonKreedon, whoever.
12576. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 1:23:33 PM
Gracious of you, Pelle. How about Pseuder as a replacement?
How about an immediate implementation of the axing suggestions, and the Sex thread creation with Cellar and Urquhart as hosts?
12577. janjon - 4/24/2001 1:24:21 PM
The problems with Politics include the more than occasional run-amucks that you two pull off. Until you recognize that, all of your meowing about jexster is just that.
And, yeah, I know that you claim that your inimitable form of mockery is just that and always, but always, is justifiable.
Bull shit, to be succinct.
12578. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 1:25:00 PM
BTW, I wasn't thinking of International as one that could necessarily benefit from a (temporary?) hosting shakeup.
12579. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:25:20 PM
Banks,
I like your suggestions. Particularly the Welcome thread and having Cellar and FU host a Sex thread.
Cellar, would you co-host a Sex thread with Francis?
12580. janjon - 4/24/2001 1:26:56 PM
Make sure Cellar's name goes on top.
12581. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:28:16 PM
Ms. No
Please take up my earlier request for fast-track negotiating authority with the other two members of the triumvirate and email me with thoughts - slawyer@hotmail.com
12582. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:28:26 PM
And FU,
Ten minutes ago you second all of Majori's proposals, which include killing my thread, prompting me to ask for it to be RIPped.
Now you say the thread should be continued as an anti-Jexster haven.
Which is it?
Janny,
16730. janjon - 4/24/01 3:59:52 PM
your toys, but what the heck.
Well, you've convinced me, Acey.
W's handlers are environmentalists, deep down.
please explain how this useless, substanceless snarky denial is any better than a post which disagrees with mockery.
Mockery and ridicule are just a form of argumentation, Janny. And a much funnier form than your typical "Yeah, right" rejoinders.
12583. seadate - 4/24/2001 1:28:40 PM
I disagree with the earlier opinion that "Notices and Queries" be deleted. I find this thread very useful. The lack of traffic makes the thread effective.
12584. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:30:05 PM
Ace,
Could you calm down for just a minute so we can get moving here?
I'm happy to try you as the politics host, I belive Jayackroyd only adopted it because no one else would do it.
12585. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:30:32 PM
Ace
Actually, I didn't really ALL of marj's proposals, but I think my position is clear now: POLITICS II - DISCUSSIONS, with the tacit understanding that when Poopstain becomes too much, it is there for use.
12586. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 1:32:16 PM
12,585 suggestions later...
12587. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:32:44 PM
FU,
Yes, I'll email you regarding that. I'm in favor of the idea to a certain extent but I don't want to rush into it. Give me a few minutes to think about it.
12588. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:32:53 PM
"Could you calm down for just a minute so we can get moving here?"
I am calm.
"I'm happy to try you as the politics host, I belive Jayackroyd only adopted it because no one else would do it."
What am I, Jan Fucking Brady? Am I invisible? Have I no voice?
I offered to host Politics two or three times when RD resigned. I assumed no one would take the offer seriously. Apparently no one did, because no one even remembers I made the bleeding offer.
I specifically stated that I thought a three-or-four host structure would be good. The thread gets a lot of traffic, needs a lot of attention, and could do with the ideological balance.
12589. janjon - 4/24/2001 1:32:54 PM
Ace - one of your problems is that you never know when to stop. Another is that you frequently think you are being funny when you aren't. A third is that you always, and I mean always, evince a tone that says you are both constipated and irritated. It gets tiresome after a short while, but it all would be quite more pallatble if it weren't for the fact that your toots are so fucking prelonged. Spam in a different form.
12590. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:34:27 PM
My idea of Ideological balance:
Four hosts for Politics: Me, FU, Concerned, and Adolf Hitler
12591. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:35:37 PM
Ms. No
Thanks. I suggest you get a consensus from Sulla and Pompey on the matter, because it is an enormous grant of authority, but one I can only undertake with such authority, devoid of the constraints if democrats and committees. If I do it, I will need absolute assurance that when negotiating rights with foreign powers, I have the full faith and currency of The Mote behind me.
12592. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 1:35:40 PM
So...there are too many threads (per the earlier discussion), but we're going to start a Sex thread and a Welcome thread.
Snort.
12593. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:35:59 PM
"Apparently no one did, because no one even remembers I made the bleeding offer."
And three days ago CalGal asked "Why didn't you just offer to host Politics?" I told her then, twice, that I *had* offered.
But no one even remembers that.
I'm Jan Fucking Brady. It's just Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.
12594. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:36:58 PM
Ace
The quartet is a disaster. Politics requires a Caesar. If you can't wear the crown, step aside.
12595. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:37:13 PM
Ace,
I'm glad you're calm. Could you slow down the number of posts in here while you're being calm? Specifically could you and JanJon insult each other somewhere else. I'm trying to keep track of suggestions but they keep getting buried under repetitive posts.
Let's address one thing at a time.
I apologize for having overlooked your sincere offer to host Politics when RD stepped down. I was not aware that it was serious. It's often hard for me to tell what you're serious about.
Let me email Jay and see if he's willing to give up the hosting job.
Janjon,
Please take it to the Inferno.
12596. janjon - 4/24/2001 1:37:39 PM
frankie - are you going to try to use your wiles to induce people like spudboy here as well as your own ilk?
12597. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 1:37:50 PM
Ace: I think you're hallucinating. Or that you offered with the condition that four other people host with you.
12598. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 1:38:04 PM
Re: Message # 12568, Francis Urquhart.
Why not?
3 reasons. one, if some of Ace's 'suggestions' were taken, then the point is moot and i think that's the proper course of action.
secondly, we don't really have the traffic. as you may or may not recall, when i suggested we have a presidential debate thread, Ace was one of the very people to say 'we don't need it, it'll just make the political conversations harder to follow’. what has made him change his tune i wonder?
thirdly (if that's a word), Jex doesn't spam all THAT much and when he does it is mostly off peak hours. BBB has been MIA for a couple weeks so he's a non-point.
12599. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:38:34 PM
janjon
Yes.
12600. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:39:31 PM
"The quartet is a disaster. Politics requires a Caesar. If you can't wear the crown, step aside."
Oh, eat me, you tin-plated bureaucratic fuck.
The quartet is necessary, because you need multiple people hosting to cover the day. BBB and Jexster can suddenly spam at a moment's notice.
12601. janjon - 4/24/2001 1:41:57 PM
MsNo. I will grant you that it is a fine line, but with all due respect, the manner in which Ace and FU comport themselves in Politics much of the time is part of the problem.
But, your wish is my command.
12602. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:43:18 PM
Ace
It is a solemn duty. I understand your reticence.
12603. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:43:20 PM
"BBB has been MIA for a couple weeks so he's a non-point."
He was spamming just Thursday or Friday, with some dopey American-Chinese summit dialogue.
12604. JayAckroyd - 4/24/2001 1:44:12 PM
The spamming issue in politics has been dealt with. I didn't deal with it publicly. But I dealt with it. You'll notice that there has been no spam since the spate over the weekend, much of it from Ace. I do not intend to handle problems with participants in public. It just leads to these bootless arguments.
12605. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 1:44:23 PM
Ace:
oh, ok, i must've blocked it out...
12606. JJBiener - 4/24/2001 1:47:32 PM
Ace - While janjon is someone I am always hesitant to agree with, he has somw valid points in #12589. Your recent tirade in Current Events is a prime example. While I may agree with much of what you say, the way you say it makes it hard to read. This is just some constructive criticism. Take it FWIW.
12607. PelleNilsson - 4/24/2001 1:49:02 PM
marj
Pseuder would be the best, but will he do it? Sto and I asked him about a year ago but he flatly refused without giving a reason.
12608. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:51:46 PM
Janjon,
Thank you.
I agree regarding the turn-offs in politics, but I appreciate your willingness to continue addressing your dispute with Ace outside this thread for now.
Jay,
Ace says he wants to host Politics. What do you think? If you'd like to remain as host that's fine by me, but I couldn't remember if you became host by default or if you really wanted the job.
12609. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 1:52:45 PM
Ace has actually stated that he'd like to co-host Politics. Jay and Ace.
12610. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:52:50 PM
"Your recent tirade in Current Events is a prime example. While I may agree with much of what you say, the way you say it makes it hard to read."
The tone may be too hot. This is an entirely separate issue, however. Each post is plainly substantive and responds to other posters' arguments. There is none of the FU-Ace parody-mockery that some people, apparently, believe to be a form of spam.
"This is just some constructive criticism."
Constructive criticism it may be, and true it may be, and I will take it under advisement. But it's not spam, and that's what we're discussing.
Jay,
If you have dealt with it, kudos. If you think it will work, fine, and let's see what happens.
I hope, however, that if your current method of operating doesn't end up working, then you will perhaps consider another plan.
12611. CalGal - 4/24/2001 1:54:11 PM
With the exception of the instance over the weekend, the Politics thread has been very good since Jay took it over. If Jay says he has handled it (and there haven't been any more incidents) then I'm happy to let it keep going and see what happens. Ace, if you volunteered to host politics earlier then I missed it and I'm sorry for the questions.
While I think Politics needs tough management, I'm willing to believe that the toughness can be done offline. In fact, that might be less scary to newcomers than the openly autocratic method I support.
12612. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:54:21 PM
I'm sending emails to a few hosts regarding possible combinations and R.I.P.s
Anyone seen Cellar? Will he co-host an orgy with Francis?
12613. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 1:54:33 PM
One man's spam is another man's filet mignon...
12614. rubberducky - 4/24/2001 1:54:43 PM
Ace has actually stated that he'd like to co-host Politics. Jay and Ace.
i like this - what ever happened to creating a new id for duel hosts?
i propose Jace
12615. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:56:21 PM
I actually prefer to handle that sort of thing offline, but invariably we get cries of secret government activities. Airing dirty laundry in public isn't always the best way to handle things.
12616. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 1:56:28 PM
"Ace, if you volunteered to host politics earlier then I missed it and I'm sorry for the questions"
MsNo, Cal,
There is no need to apologize. The "Jan Fucking Brady" stuff was intended to be funny. It's just that Jan Brady makes several suggestions in the Brady Bunch movie, all of which are ignored by the family, prompting her to ask "Am I invisible? Have I no voice?"
I am not upset that someone missed a couple of my posts, I assure you.
12617. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 1:57:48 PM
I hereby swear to try and not use the words "actually", "however" or "really" for the rest of the day.
12618. JayAckroyd - 4/24/2001 1:58:03 PM
I'd like to give peace a chance for a while longer, MsNo. I think Ace has a point about having a pair of hosts with different ideological viewpoints, but they would also have to share viewpoints regarding Host Log vs Host Stork. I'd be happy to cohost with another Host Stork.
I do think, Stork or Log, the host(s) of that thread should not be frequent or vituperative participants. If the host is gonna post stuff like:
"Oh, eat me, you tin-plated bureaucratic fuck."
it's not gonna be a thread rich in content.
12619. CalGal - 4/24/2001 1:59:39 PM
Ace,
I understood that it was funny. Nonetheless, my questions had been a bit needling and I wouldn't have made the comments if I'd realized you'd volunteered.
12620. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 2:00:36 PM
""Oh, eat me, you tin-plated bureaucratic fuck."
it's not gonna be a thread rich in content. "
This is true.
In this instance, please note I'm spleening at FU. I feel I can say anything to FU and Indy and VonK (and a few others), because I assume they know I'm kidding.
12621. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:00:52 PM
Ms. No.
The list is as follows
1) actually
2) however
3) really
4) quite
5) fucking
6) nevertheless
7) moreover
8) quintessential
9) grok
10) all extreme adjectives
I violate this list, and it bothers me. I understand your pain.
12622. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:06:03 PM
Jay,
As long as you're content to run the thread then I'm fine with leaving you as host. As I said, I couldn't remember if it was a job you wanted or a job you accepted to help out. I must admit that you make a less inflammatory host than Ace might.
12623. JayAckroyd - 4/24/2001 2:06:28 PM
"I hope, however, that if your current method of operating doesn't end up working, then you will perhaps consider another plan."
Ace,
I am sorry that I missed this. Yes, if it doesn't work, then we consider another plan. Would you mind dropping me an email?
12624. JudithAtHome - 4/24/2001 2:07:43 PM
In this instance, please note I'm spleening at FU. I feel I can say anything to FU and Indy and VonK (and a few others), because I assume they know I'm kidding.
That would be all fine and good if you and they were the only participants in the thread...
12625. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:07:56 PM
FU,
8 & 9 aren't personal bugaboos for me. 5 is only a problem for me verbally. I have to watch myself with it.
12626. JayAckroyd - 4/24/2001 2:09:28 PM
No
I said that I would take the thread under the condition that I would not be deleting threads or enforcing rules. If it turns out that such stuff is really necessary, then I'll turn it over to someone who works that way.
12627. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:13:18 PM
As for the various proposals to axe--I think Try the Mote is our defacto Welcome thread. Maybe change the name? Or take Try the Mote off the main page and just have it be a link that people can get to to create test posts. I like the idea of a specific Welcome thread.
I don't think we need all the various social threads--Health and Education are really just social policies. Ditto Parenting. But it's nice to have a place for people to talk about specific parenting/health/finance issue and the Cafe doesn't seem suited for that.
12628. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 2:16:37 PM
"As for the various proposals to axe--I think Try the Mote is our defacto Welcome thread. Maybe change the name? "
Yes, change the name. "Welcome to the Mote" is much friendlier than "Try the Mote."
Besides, isn't "Try the Mote" for trying out HTML and stuff?
If you want that "Try the Mote" thread, why not tuck it in as a sub-thread to "Welcome." OR-- link to it as a subthread from EVERY thread, so that whatevery thread you're in, it's convenient to test out HTML.
12629. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:18:03 PM
Welcome to the Mote makes sense. Change it. Give marj the reins.
12630. Cellar Door - 4/24/2001 2:18:57 PM
"Will he co-host an orgy with Francis?"
YES!!!!
But he's got to bring his own "Lube."
12631. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:19:52 PM
It's a deal.
Triumvirate, make it so.
12632. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 2:21:06 PM
Pelle,
He may not. Which is why a good idea is to persistently seed the International Issues folder at TT with references to this place, and hint to them that threads may be available.
I'd offer the thread to Lohr outright, he'd bring in a dozen others. Or offer it to Khazal, or davenhill, or Huber. Each would be diligent about (1) maintaining the exciting new digs (2) making sure that all TT buddies know about it and visit.
This, I think, is the strategy to grow.
(1) Find willing and suitable hosts from well-trafficked sites.
(2) Point out the superiority of this interface as created by the Father of the Motion.
(3) Give them threads.
(4) Watch as they bring their buddies in.
(5) Deal firmly and unequivocally with unnecessary and fraudulent insiderism and cliquishness from the regulars here.
12633. janjon - 4/24/2001 2:21:38 PM
The thread hasn't even started, and already he's thinking of menage a trois.
(I'll leave now.)
12634. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:21:52 PM
I also don't know that we should add new threads--be they Sex or otherwise--until we get some old ones cleared out, given the priority some people place on that. After all, what's the difference between Ace's thread and Sex, now that politics is gone? (or with politics, for that matter)
I don't see the need for Rants, either. Survivor II will be gone soon enough, and I'm not sure if we need N&Q anymore. Seadate seems to like it.
12635. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:22:17 PM
Dead on.
Hence, my request for fast-track negotiating authority.
12636. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:23:15 PM
12635 was in response to 12632
12637. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 2:24:00 PM
N&Q actually seems to serve a useful purpose.
The fact is, everyone here is so used to everyone else telling each other things that we seem to leap to respond when someone asks a question.
I've gotten some fairly quick responses from N&Q.
12638. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:24:34 PM
Coming up:
The Sex Thread: Hosted by Cellardoor and Francis
Welcome to theMote: Hosted By Marjori Banks
With a subthread of Try the Mote for HTML but I'd like to change the title maybe.
12639. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 2:25:04 PM
In the end, this place willstand on its own if we let it and cut out the incestuous self-referential self-obsessed crap.
Why will it stand on its own?
Because of one core thing. The interface is great. The interface is the best forum interface on the WWW. All praise to that one quirky little man who made it happen, entirely creating it out of his own mind and long-time experience and sheer cussedness.
God bless the Father of the Motion.
12640. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:25:19 PM
Banks,
I need a public email addy to plug you in as host.
12641. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:25:31 PM
Christ. So we're going to have more threads? This after Francis whined for 50 posts about moving it down to 10?
12642. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:26:30 PM
banks is correct. The self-referential crap, however, can never be excised. That's why this thread is in many ways the most valuable. It sucks up the incestuous nature of the place.
12643. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 2:26:39 PM
Cal: Ace's thread has been ripped.
12644. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 2:26:45 PM
"Test the Mote" or "Test your HTML" seems to say it more clearly.
I never really remember what "Try the mote" is supposed to be for.
12645. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:27:04 PM
To say nothing of the fact that Ace's thread is a Sex thread, and that's why it was started--by his own admission.
So now we have two sex threads, three rude/rant/insult threads. But at least we've weeded out one politics thread.
12646. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:28:08 PM
Oh, okay. So we're down to one sex thread and two rude/rant/insult threads. (ace's did double duty).
It's still a lot of threads, given that there were many complaints about the number from the same people who are now demanding threads.
12647. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:28:25 PM
Cal
There was no support for thread-reduction. There was only support for talking about thread-reduction. And talking, and talking, and talking some more about thread-reduction.
I never fight City Hall.
12648. Cellar Door - 4/24/2001 2:28:27 PM
Barney Frank's new boyfriend Sergio should surely be discussed in our new thread.
Whatever it's about.
What SHOULD it be about? Politics and Culture are drifting about so aimlessly these days. The usual Media Whores (like Howie Kurtz) try to make it all sound exciting, but most people can barely stifle a yawn.
Anyway, I'm off to lunch with Mary McNamara of the "L.A. Times." She's doing a piece about the impact of AIDS on American society today.
See y'all later!
12649. JudithAtHome - 4/24/2001 2:28:35 PM
After 2 weeks, Survivor will be gone so it's only one new thread...actually, it isn't any because Welocme is really Try the Mote...
12650. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:29:09 PM
I cannot implement all the changes all at once. It's far easier to create a thread than to R.I.P. one. I've sent out emails to hosts whose threads I'd like to R.I.P. or consolidate. When I hear back from them I'll let you guys know.
12651. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 2:29:36 PM
marjoribanks@hotmail.com
Thank you for the prompt response, Ms. No. The axings will be almost equally prompt I hope.
Also, I like 'HTML scratchpad'.
12652. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:30:45 PM
There was no support for thread-reduction.
Please. There was considerable support for it--just not down to your weird notion of ten. The problem is getting rid of threads when the host objects. However, given that you felt it was a problem, why accept a new thread?
12653. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:31:32 PM
It's not new. It replace Ace's thread.
12654. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:31:49 PM
Banks,
Done and done. Thanks!
12655. JudithAtHome - 4/24/2001 2:31:51 PM
Because he wants one now, Cal....
12656. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:32:57 PM
Juditha
Well, yeah. That too.
12657. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 2:33:51 PM
"HTML scratch pad"
Damn...
For a sudoriferous, uncircumcised dog, Banks comes up with some good ideas.
But then, he is a Yankees fan.
12658. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:34:11 PM
Franci,
Sure.
In any event, I think we need to get rid of some threads, and combine others.
12659. janjon - 4/24/2001 2:34:18 PM
duh. Who would've thought it.
12660. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:35:00 PM
Cal
Good suggestion. I wish you well.
12661. seadate - 4/24/2001 2:37:02 PM
Ace wrote: I've gotten some fairly quick responses from N&Q.
That's exactly my point. The relatively low traffic in N&Q produces quick responses. In a busier thread, a Notice or Query gets lost after a day or so of posts.
12662. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:40:38 PM
Okay, Welcome is up with Try the Mote renamed and sub-threaded.
The Sex Thread is up.
Hosts, you are welcome to change the abstracts. You may also pick different permanent titles than the ones in place now. Please don't change the thread titles every couple of days though. Change your abstract and use news links to draw traffic when you've got something hot going on.
Do any of you need the hosting links and info?
12663. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 2:41:29 PM
I do. I do.
slawyer@hotmail.com
12664. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:44:48 PM
Coming right up.
12665. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 2:46:18 PM
From the Sex Thread:
7. AceofSpades - 4/24/01 7:44:33 PM
This thread needs a couple of women to co-host.
MsNo strikes me as a dirty bird. Why not her?
12666. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 2:46:25 PM
BTW, just for clarification, does the Sex thread have a 24-hour self-destruct button?
I hate putting my invaluable insights into threads that suffer from premature RIP'ulation.
12667. Fielding - 4/24/2001 2:47:19 PM
I've asked this question several times and have not gotten it answered yet, but I'll try one more time:
What is the harm of having extra/excessive/duplicative/inactive threads?
It seems to me that for too many people here, arguing about threads is a power game.
12668. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 2:49:18 PM
Fielding,
I'm starting to agree with you.
I also notice that Francis "I will Suck Cock for Power" Urquhart gets all of his little goofball threads ten microseconds after he asks for them.
What a world.
12669. ycmeehan - 4/24/2001 2:50:58 PM
I also think (perhaps alone) that several of the institutional threads could do with new hosts, even if only for a while. New blood, as in thread regulars from outside, would be best. But current regulars interested in the job, and energized about hosting, would be nearly as good.
I certainly agree. Language should be World Languages and PseudoEramus one of the hosts.
Hashke would have approved.
12670. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 2:54:35 PM
Ace,
hahahaha, I wonder where you got that idea? I'll likely post, but I'm already watching too many other threads to help host there.
Indy,
No there is no pre-ordained limit on the Sex Thread
Fielding,
If we consolidate threads it may cause more interaction between posters which is what we want. It doesn't mean that we won't create new threads or that we want to combine unrelated topics, but if we spread out and specialize too much we end up with not enough people interacting to keep things moving.
It's certainly worth a try.
12671. glendajean - 4/24/2001 2:57:55 PM
Just thinking aloud .... I wonder what the Constitution would have looked like if it was written in the Mote.
12672. mgleason - 4/24/2001 2:58:15 PM
Consolidating threads while adding non-substantive, bullshit threads seems a bit counter-productive.
12673. CalGal - 4/24/2001 2:59:50 PM
What is the harm of having extra/excessive/duplicative/inactive threads?
Inactive threads--not much, if they are perennials. Duplicative/extra/excessive seems fairly self-explanatory as to why they aren't desirable.
I don't see any need to complain about power trips. It was Francis who first made the push for it and there was a lot of agreement that there were too many threads. Given that there was a lot of bitching and we're adding new threads, I think it's worth revisiting.
12674. PelleNilsson - 4/24/2001 3:00:14 PM
Ms No
You have a space betwenn Urquhart and the comma. That could create problems.
12675. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:00:44 PM
I also notice that Francis "I will Suck Cock for Power" Urquhart gets all of his little goofball threads ten microseconds after he asks for them.
Quite true. As Judith pointed out, there was a lot of interest in a car thread but no action.
12676. AceofSpades - 4/24/2001 3:00:50 PM
". It was Francis who first made the push for it and there was a lot of agreement that there were too many threads. "
Am I invisible? Have I no voice?
It was ME who suggested it and pushed for it.
12677. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:02:15 PM
Really, Ace? I could swear that was Francis. In any event he was the endless spammer of the combination proposal, with all the Delete this and Combine that. Sorry if I'm not giving you credit again.
BTW, my last post wasn't a complaint about the moderators or favoritism. It's just dynamics.
12678. Fielding - 4/24/2001 3:08:18 PM
Duplicative/extra/excessive seems fairly self-explanatory as to why they aren't desirable.
In other words, nothing.
12679. Fielding - 4/24/2001 3:09:07 PM
I note that I proposed a "Welcome" thread several months ago. I'm glad that Banks is hosting it.
12680. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 3:11:23 PM
Can someone fix the comma situation under the Sex thread?
(and please, please, I hope that someone is not me)
12681. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:17:25 PM
Yes, I'll fix the comma, sorry.
12682. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:18:52 PM
FU,
Did that help?
12683. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:20:15 PM
Fielding,
No, plenty. It's sloppy, disorganized, leads to confusion, and it just doesn't look good.
12684. Fielding - 4/24/2001 3:21:10 PM
Uh, whatever.
12685. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:22:06 PM
I hasten to add that I am not saying the Mote has reached these dire straits. I was responding to Fielding's assertion that there is nothing wrong with duplicate/excessive threads. I think there is plenty wrong with it, and that's why I think it's worth ensuring we don't go down that road.
I also don't think we need to purge down to 10 or so, which goes the other way.
12686. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 3:24:30 PM
Ref: Welcome Thread
Capital Letters?
Perhaps the only thread header with flashing gifs?
How many characters are allowed on the thread summary? Navigation/Special feature tips/Intro to current moderators?
Anchor at the top of the list?
Allow responses to newcomers in an embassage capacity?
12687. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:27:08 PM
Two steps forward, one step back.
I vaguely recall the requests for a Car Thread. IIRC Doc Brown was proposed as host but was too busy to accept. Then the whole thing got buried and lost in the endless posts about thread consolidation and how theMote is dying and so and so isn't acting like I want him to act.
All in all we've got a pretty good record for creating threads that the community is interested in.
Fielding,
I addressed the issue of thread consolidation and why too many threads on the same topic isn't a great thing. It prevents the molecules from bumping into one another therefore leaving the mixture to settle and stagnate.
12688. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:29:18 PM
L'Wabbit,
I've got an email to Alistair about anchoring the Welcome thread at the top of the list. I think it's a very good idea.
I don't agree that any other threads--particularly this one---should be stationed thusly, but the Welcome Thread should be easily accessible.
12689. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:30:34 PM
Christin,
As I said, it wasn't a complaint. But it's quite true that every thread Francis has requested he gets instantly, whereas other suggestions with more support don't. I suspect it's due to when the suggestion is made, among other things, but it's true enough as an observation.
12690. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:31:19 PM
Top? No. Bottom would be better.
12691. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:31:40 PM
Or maybe this discussion should be hosted by Cellar in the Sex thread.
12692. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:36:09 PM
CG,
You're right that it has mainly to do with timing. But I'm hard pressed to recall what threads FU has put forth other than The Man Thread.
Sex was suggested by Marjoribanks with Cellar as host and FU volunteered to co-host.
Rants, Education, Parenting, Employment & Careers, The Health Thread, Ace's Thread even Ask Dr. Coltrane and the Inauguration thread were created pretty quickly and without major debate.
12693. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:38:21 PM
CG,
If the bottom of the page were what appeared first then that's where the Welcome should be, Otherwise it ought to be right up front where people can see it immediately....unless you're one of those strange people who believe your Welcome mat belongs in the basement?
12694. CalGal - 4/24/2001 3:40:44 PM
Welcome mat? What's that? Must be some invention for people who want visitors.
I understand what you're saying, but from a design standpoint we have far more people here who aren't new than are. Putting a thread on top that only benefits a very small percentage of the overall users doesn't make much sense, to me.
12695. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 3:45:57 PM
Since Dr. Francis T. Urquhart is engaging in wholesale deletion in his thread, I'd like to ask why my last post was deleted.
FU: You have said Inferno stuff would be deleted. My post was a question about thread policy.
Further, your deletion rather than moving of posts is in contravention of the recently promulgated hosting guidelines by wabbit.
Second, I'd like the original question answered. Are pics tolerated?
12696. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 3:48:27 PM
CG,
I think it would behoove us to notice when a newbie has entered the Welcome thread so that we can go in and greet him and make him feel welcome. Invite him to whatever thread it is that we happen to be posting in at the moment.
With the Welcome Thread on top those who don't feel welcoming will soon get used to it and ignore it and those who do will be reminded of their cordial duties and those who are new won't have to look around for long trying to figure out where they might be able to go first.
12697. JudithAtHome - 4/24/2001 3:51:08 PM
Makes sense to me about it being at the top...most guests are welcomed right off, at the front door.
12698. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 3:51:22 PM
Indy
Read the Rules.
As to your question, pictures will be tolerated if in context.
If the rules are not explicit enough, don't fret. You'll get the hang of it.
But, iIf you want to use the thread to beat personal chests and mash poetic about your vision, or hector about how one post stayed but YOUR post was zapped, use this thread, or better yet, the Inferno. I like to do that too, because I too am convicned I know better and everyone is fascinated with my take on everything from potato soup to internet forum management.
I expect a lot of blood early, but hopefully, not shed in vain.
12699. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 3:52:00 PM
What patience is displayed here by the gentle Ms. No.
Thanks, Ms. No, for what has been achieved today. And you have earned a cool drink, and perhaps even a warm compress for your forehead.
I'd certainly have been cussing and breaking things by now.
12700. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 3:53:49 PM
I'd like to gratuitously add that Urquhart has taken his reins as if he were born to that particular saddle.
Fine job, Urquhart, fine job.
12701. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 3:54:02 PM
So it was intentional.
I'm hurt to the core.
I was hoping you'd continue your well known errancy with the host controls.
Oh well...work will set us free.
12702. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 3:54:37 PM
you'd continue = you were continuing
12703. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 3:55:34 PM
HOW TACKY!!!
Without any discussion with the industrious dusty, who has hosted the thread for almost a year, you change the title and host.
And I can't think of a worse person to give Mote's POLITICS thread to than Spade.
Unless, the hosts were Jex and Ace.
12704. Fielding - 4/24/2001 3:55:44 PM
Indy:
I'm staying away, at least until Franny gets his act together.
12705. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 3:58:56 PM
Best have wabbit send Dusty an email to apology before he finds out for himself what happens when you work for a living and can't be on line 24/7.
You did that to me with the Balkan Civil War thread so I know the disappointed when you come online to participate and have your thread gone.
12706. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 3:59:38 PM
Prediction, Fielding: The title will soon change to "Francis's coming out thread."
12707. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 4:01:15 PM
Dude, I'm out. I got the flag, the merit badge, and the chaps to prove it.
12708. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 4:02:45 PM
RosettaStone,
Thank you for your polite concern, but I have been in contact with Dusty and have his explicit permission to RIP Try the Mote. Rather than dust it completely I installed it as a subthread of Welcome where newbies and others can go test their HTML skills.
As you can plainly see Ace is not hosting the Politics thread nor is there a plan for him to do so as Jayackroyd is currently doing quite a fine job and is happy in that position.
12709. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 4:03:19 PM
Thanks, Banks. I'm thinking of the ocean.
12710. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 4:14:21 PM
FU: Seriously?
BTW, none of the links in your 'scotch bar link except the one for the RULES.
12711. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 4:15:45 PM
Oops. Salon does too, but not the other two.
12712. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 4:17:21 PM
Indy
Serious.
Thanks re: the links. I'll fix them.
12713. Fielding - 4/24/2001 4:21:24 PM
Indy:
Then I guess that this is the FU coming out thread.
12714. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 4:23:11 PM
Wow, Niner.
Sorry about the kidding. To be honest, I dunno what to say and am going to have to take a moment.
Or two.
Hasta luego, mi amigo.
12715. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 4:24:25 PM
Just relax and kiss me, you fool.
Damn, I'm gay.
12716. CalGal - 4/24/2001 4:26:52 PM
I disagree. It will be very irritating to always see the Welcome thread at the top. If it is specifically for welcoming, then it won't be used all that much. If it is not specifically for welcoming, then it will devolve into a chat thread. In either case, it should be at the bottom.
Why not take people there immediately upon creating their login?
12717. PsychProf - 4/24/2001 4:27:37 PM
I love it. Francis, you crack me up.
12718. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 4:30:08 PM
PP
Before I forget, if you are going to the Outer Banks this year, let me know when - slawyer@hotmail.com. One of these years, we will match up.
12719. PelleNilsson - 4/24/2001 4:34:08 PM
Rosetta
An apology to Ms No is clearly required. Let's see if you have the guts for it.
12720. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 4:34:08 PM
Niner: You'd better not be pulling my leg, asshole.
Either way, es nada, but it just changes the context of things, and I'm going to need some time to adjust.
Lots of material will have to be rewritten.
12721. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 4:34:58 PM
Indy
Two words.
Hold me.
12722. glendajean - 4/24/2001 4:36:56 PM
IJ -- I wouldn't take this too seriously. Francis still likes to play basketball and I only know one gay man that ever did. It was a bummer for him, his liking sports, because he ended up dating guys who thought that Touched By An Angel was the best thing on television. He had so few gay friends to talk about sports.
12723. Francis Urquhart - 4/24/2001 4:38:17 PM
You know who's hot?
Bill Bradley.
12724. Ms. No - 4/24/2001 4:40:20 PM
ahem.
Move it or lose it guys.
12725. Indiana Jones - 4/24/2001 4:40:39 PM
Okay, well I do have work to do.
The BB remark sounds like a tipoff to me.
What an asshole FU is.
Toying with a sensitive guy like me.
12726. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 4:51:00 PM
Sure, pELLe. I apologize to CHRIS for thinking that SHE WOULD you would ACT LIKE YOU DID TO ME AND dR. x WHEN YOU DELETED OUR THREADS WITHOUT THE COURTESY OF AN EMAIL.
sPEAKING OF WHICH, DID YOU EVER RETURN THAT BOOK THAT YOU LOST?
12727. marjoribanks - 4/24/2001 5:01:52 PM
Hahahahaha.
There is the ancient Indian story of Raja Vikram and the betal (gargoyle-like demon) that he is forced to carry every night from its perch to a certain destination. The betal speaks endlessly and Vikram is to stay silent for the alotted time. If he is provoked into response of any kind, the betal flies back and the Raja is forced to repeat the process.
I find Stone to be a wonderful likeness for the betal, and Pelle for Vikram.
12728. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/25/2001 4:05:10 PM
The good doctor was unable to get into this Mote for a considerable period and thought I had been banned.
Is the strutting jackbooted martinet responsible for this latest offense to my person?
12729. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/25/2001 4:08:29 PM
By the by, Nilson has made a sham offer of reqinquishing his post hording the International domicile.
As has doubtlessly been noted, the good doctor has just recently expressed a "desire" to have his own domicile dedicated to Japan which is obviously being ignored.
So-called "kismet" has thus occurred culminating in the fruition of just transferring the resident "international" wares to yours truly.
12730. CalGal - 4/25/2001 4:08:37 PM
No. The server was down. I send out a mailing on long outages, or you can check The Mote Cafe at Table Talk.
12731. AceofSpades - 4/25/2001 4:09:09 PM
Dr. Xavier,
You are practicing what I call "The Comedy of Insistence," in which annoying stupidity eventually becomes funny if it is simply repeated insistently enough. Tom Green does this; Letterman often does this; I do this.
Your posts started out annoying. Then they became funny.
The trouble is, they don't stay funny forever. You are now on the steep slope of the diminishing returns side of the curve, and this act is getting annoying again. It will not get funny again.
I suggest you finally give up this riff and start a new one.
12732. AceofSpades - 4/25/2001 4:13:14 PM
Just my 2 cents.
There's only so many permutations of "strutting jackbooted marionette" and "affront to my person" you can come up with.
12733. janjon - 4/25/2001 4:33:08 PM
at least they are more alliterative than idiot and moron.
just thinking of irritating predictables.
12734. janjon - 4/25/2001 4:40:25 PM
frankie - is this for real? If so, here's to you.
If it isn't, you deserve to get your ass whipped in a different manner.
12735. Francis Urquhart - 4/25/2001 4:57:34 PM
You know, I'm beginning to realize how hard it is in this society to be a proud, gay man.
12736. CalGal - 4/25/2001 5:03:38 PM
BTW, I've finally got around to building a distribution list--completely unofficial--to notify people when the Mote is down for any length of time. Usually I'm the one who talks to Jay so it's a way of spreading the info. It is entirely voluntary, but if you have an email you feel comfortable sending me, you can send it to the_calgal@yahoo.com or post it here.
12737. Fielding - 4/25/2001 5:05:46 PM
fielding99@hotmail.com
12738. AceofSpades - 4/25/2001 9:07:13 PM
To the Preening Leatherclad Dominatrix Ms.No:
I demand you immediately re-active my thread. I further insist you resign yourself from any position of responsiblity from which you might commit another greivous affront to my person.
You have been warned. There will not be a second warning.
12739. RosettaStone - 4/25/2001 9:28:47 PM
Funny stuff, Ace, until you realize that these are the same people who blew away two courageous people who had the nerve to question the religious authority here.
I pity the poor immigrants who come here from TT who don't play mote's politics just right.
12740. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 12:45:51 AM
Ace, you are over-bold. Take a time out or feel my wrath.
12741. LimeGirl - 4/26/2001 12:59:37 AM
emilystarr@evergo.net -- Thanks!
12742. CalGal - 4/26/2001 2:44:01 AM
Fielding and Lime, I've sent you notes saying you've been added to the list.
12743. alistairconnor - 4/26/2001 5:14:35 AM
I just tied the welcome mat to the front door.
12744. SnowOwl - 4/26/2001 5:24:54 AM
Cal, since I'm not at home, and have no idea at present when I will be returning, would you send any notification emails to me at this address glennysfa@hotmail.com - thanks.
12745. Fielding - 4/26/2001 9:52:12 AM
I don't like the anchor. I understand why its there, but it causes confusion. Maybe we can shade it or something to set it apart.
Also, just for the record, was Ace consulted before his masturbation thread was pulled? Its a policy question that I think deserves an answer.
12746. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 10:21:09 AM
Maybe we could make the Welcome thread header green or dark gray....
12747. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 10:21:42 AM
On second thought...black.
12748. rubberducky - 4/26/2001 10:38:34 AM
Ace asked for his thread to be deleted so i don't know why he'd need to be notified when it was finally put down.
12749. AceofSpades - 4/26/2001 10:53:57 AM
I wasn't notified, really, and I never saw a "RIP" (do we still do that? We didn't do it here), and I was a little suprised that it was suddenly gone, but whatever. The thread was getting no traffic and had outlived its usefulness.
12750. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 10:55:42 AM
The good doctor is heartened to see that one of my recent suggestions has been stolen by the unimaginative cadwallers who run this show. To wit, I refer you to my missive 12372
> Thirdly, someone ought to start a welcome center here because
several of my friends colleagues and patients plan to be dropping by. I
am far too busy to explain to all of them the so-called "ropes" of this
Mote.
The local bounders and heels darest not have the temerity of appointing a true newcomer (yours truly) to the postion of host by the by. No, they instead instigate a sham so-called "indoctrination center" which the strutting jack-booted martinet shall make sure all newcomers learn to toe the mincing Nilson line.
So-called "anchoring" it at the top is a mistake because it is idiotic. It already says "wlecome to the mote" there.
The good doctor suggests that the existing "welcome to the mote" somehow be made to link to this endocrination domicile and the thread otherwise not appear to clutter the view of those too busy to scroll, such as yours truly.
I daresay it is rather pointless and absurd to have a domicile "anchored" at the top when it likely will scarcely have any thing other than Nilson's latest so-called "lessons" for all new indocronaires to learn.
I should be put in charge of this enterprise to make sure Nilson's brainwashing is kept to a minimum but I shall consider tolerating the current resident as my cohost.
That is all.
12751. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 10:58:26 AM
By the by, the good notes with grim satisfaction the banning of Von Cretin.
Two good moves back to back, what what, hey, hey.
12752. bubbaette - 4/26/2001 11:12:23 AM
endocrination, indocronaires?
The first might actually be a word, but is the the Mote actually involved in the process of producing or implanting internal secretions from the thyroid, pituitary or adrenal glands?
As for indocronaires, I hesitate to venture a guess, but suppose it might have something to do with rich friends from India.
I suggest that the doc trade in the thesaurus for a good dictionary.
12753. Fielding - 4/26/2001 11:13:24 AM
Maybe we should put the words "Discussion Threads" below the Welcome Thread. That might work.
12754. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 11:21:12 AM
Fielding:
That sounds like an excellent solution...
12755. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 11:30:41 AM
Ho ho.
Then there shall still be two Welcome to the Motes at the top and the redundancy shall be immensely more noticeable.
The good doctor's solution is imminently more sensible. Have the largish welcome go where I say and dispense with the so-called "anchoring."
But the bumbling Nilson faction cannot tolerate my superior wisdom highlighted by his removal of my prestigious font of wisdom so they shall do some jackdawish muddling out of sheer unreasoning gutlery.
12756. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 11:48:17 AM
X Coltrane...Your ad nauseum bullshit doesn't belong in the welcome thread.
I hope it is dealt with effectively.
12757. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 11:49:31 AM
What, pray tell, is "gutlery"...
12758. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 11:53:29 AM
> Your ad nauseum bullshit doesn't belong in the welcome
thread.
The good doctor begs to differ, labrabid.
The welcome center was idea.
The current "host" made it clear old-timers were to stay out with their usually gabfabblery.
I certainly know more about what a newcomer experiences here than you do, welp.
12759. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 11:53:31 AM
And say hello to Willie the Shake for me since you seem to be keeping company with him in your addled mind.
12760. Fielding - 4/26/2001 11:57:09 AM
"The welcome center was my idea."
No it wasn't. I suggested one before you showed up -- at least before you showed up in your current incarnation.
12761. CalGal - 4/26/2001 12:00:56 PM
I hate the anchor. For one thing, "anchor" means bottom and that's where it should be.
And it must be said that, technically, I'm responsible for the user interface. I was not consulted, not informed of the change, and in my capacity as UI Goddess I would not have approved. It sucks.
12762. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 12:03:02 PM
If you made such as suggestion before I showed up, fieldmouse, then it was ignored now for months.
Unusual, what, what?
By the by, my suggestion was made within hours of Major Banks repeating it before its subsequential adoptation.
12763. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 12:08:52 PM
Cheers, friends and people of goodwill, I must leave off this latest struggle to claim credit for the good doctor's hair-raising brilliancy, but I must make my rounds.
My parting shot
Drop anchor at the Mote!
12764. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:13:51 PM
Anchor: 12765. AceofSpades - 4/26/2001 12:17:13 PM 12766. glendajean - 4/26/2001 12:27:26 PM It is a little unsettling. 12767. CalGal - 4/26/2001 12:30:03 PM I suggested that earlier as well. It is absolutely wrong where it is for all the reasons I said earlier. You don't distort the front page for the majority of the users, it's absurd. 12768. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:35:17 PM I think we won't even notice it after awhile...I can't believe people are so resistant to change around here. 12769. glendajean - 4/26/2001 12:38:09 PM Judith, our being old farts is consistent. 12770. glendajean - 4/26/2001 12:38:30 PM Oh, I was not including you in the "our." 12771. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:39:20 PM That's okay...I'm more of one than you! 12772. janjon - 4/26/2001 12:41:01 PM Putting it first (and keeping it as friendly and unconfusing for newbies as possible) makes a lot of sense. Judith is correct - we won't even notice after a while. And, putting it first could be very helpful for new people. 12773. glendajean - 4/26/2001 12:41:13 PM Oh, no. You are much younger than me. And less cranky. 12774. CalGal - 4/26/2001 12:46:09 PM We have had a lot of new people thus far, and that's without a welcome thread at all. If it must be anchored, it should be at the bottom. 12775. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:46:40 PM You lie so charmingly, GJ...what year were you born? 12776. glendajean - 4/26/2001 12:48:32 PM Judith -- sometime in the (ur, cough, cough) 1950s. 12777. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:48:47 PM Cal: 12778. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:50:12 PM GJ: 12779. glendajean - 4/26/2001 12:52:35 PM Now who's the liar. 12780. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:53:56 PM And besides, continuing the Welcome idea, with it at the top, it's much easier for anyone to notice a new name and go in and actually welome the person. With it at the bottom and only popping up to the top when it's posted on, it would be overlooked easier. 12781. CalGal - 4/26/2001 12:54:08 PM Judith, 12782. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:55:19 PM GJ: 12783. janjon - 4/26/2001 12:56:29 PM distort the front page's purpose? By having people get conditioned to only glancing at the top entry (where, gee, they might see that someone new has posted and might be curious to go see who it is, what they are interested in, etc.) before delving right in on the rest of them. 12784. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 12:56:58 PM Ace, 12785. janjon - 4/26/2001 12:57:10 PM well, I guess I should ask - what are the downsides that are perceived. 12786. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 12:57:55 PM Cal: 12787. AceofSpades - 4/26/2001 12:59:14 PM 12788. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 1:00:42 PM I like Fielding's idea of having Discussion Threads be a barrier between the Welcome Thread and the others. 12789. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:01:03 PM People here generally check out new users anyway, and if the Welcome thread isn't anchored (which I don't see much purpose for anyway), then it will roll to the top when someone posts in it, just like any other thread. 12790. glendajean - 4/26/2001 1:01:39 PM Here's a downside (and I do not consider the Thread name or its host as a negative, btw): 12791. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:01:57 PM Of course, I should say that there is more than one solution, too. That's just the one everyone settled on, apparently. And I have no problem with that. It's the implementation that I don't like. 12792. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 1:04:25 PM Ace, 12793. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:05:28 PM I've never seen it as having a downside. 12794. AceofSpades - 4/26/2001 1:06:47 PM 12795. rubberducky - 4/26/2001 1:07:09 PM i dont really care for it being at the top either. 12796. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 1:09:46 PM Cal: 12797. glendajean - 4/26/2001 1:12:06 PM The Doctor Coltrane schtick is about as tiresome as the Dolly the lamb thing of a while back. That we put Dr. C at the top of our page and newcomers read entry after entry of his supposedly funny and stilted outrage doesn't seem all that welcoming to me. 12798. janjon - 4/26/2001 1:13:33 PM Let's hear what the downsides are, Judith. 12799. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 1:16:47 PM CG, 12800. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 1:17:46 PM Not only should it be at the "anchored" top, but should have Larger "other-colored" title. 12801. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 1:19:22 PM Glendajean, 12802. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 1:21:12 PM Of course these titles or introductions would be sent to banks to insert. 12803. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 1:22:38 PM ...also, any posting to it will be disallowed except for the moderator to maintain a "welcome" context. 12804. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 1:25:27 PM C'mon guys...a little imagination needed here. 12805. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:29:46 PM Christin, 12806. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 1:33:21 PM > I'll consult with him about how to maintain the 12807. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 1:34:25 PM ....can't you just shut the **** up? 12808. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 1:35:30 PM > can't you just shut the **** up? 12809. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 1:38:47 PM Cal: 12810. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 1:40:18 PM haha 12811. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:42:44 PM Judith, 12812. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 1:44:15 PM Cal: 12813. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 1:45:17 PM What a quandairy. 12814. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:51:10 PM Judith, 12815. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 1:51:23 PM Some might say it is cruel to strike an unarmed opponent so we won't. 12816. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 1:53:04 PM Message # 12815 was for Dr. X 12817. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 1:55:08 PM And, given that UI is indeed my bailiwick, your snotty implication that I get more say than you is probably true. But unlike you, I am extremely solicitous of the user community. 12818. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 1:57:00 PM Pray tell what is UI? 12819. CalGal - 4/26/2001 1:57:13 PM Sigh. Judith, do you know what UI is? I suggest you find out and then realize that I am speaking within the context of UI and my technical responsibility to the site. If you do know, then you have no excuse for being an ass. So my suggestion is go with the ignorance plea. 12820. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 2:00:21 PM Cal: 12821. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 2:00:32 PM Oops. There goes my beeper. 12822. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 2:01:21 PM CG: 12823. janjon - 4/26/2001 2:03:29 PM Good God. It is a pride of authorship snit. 12824. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 2:04:32 PM Ms NO....finally. 12825. CalGal - 4/26/2001 2:06:06 PM I would imagine UI is User Interface or some such esoteric computer speak... 12826. janjon - 4/26/2001 2:07:25 PM The only objection (other than the generalized ugly and the - my GOD who would want to spend the time and energy - comment that it hadn't been tested, analyzed and discussed to death) that has been raised that makes sense is that we will want to make sure that the welcome thread doesn't become a distorted here-are-all-of-our-warts-right-up-front-and-at-you kind of thread. There must be ways of either creating (or enforcing) that. 12827. CalGal - 4/26/2001 2:10:08 PM It is a pride of authorship snit. 12828. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 2:10:54 PM Cal: 12829. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 2:13:55 PM There must be ways of either creating (or enforcing) that. 12830. CalGal - 4/26/2001 2:14:19 PM I can understand why you'd be upset, but the issue of how the change was made is separate from the change itself. 12831. Slackjaw - 4/26/2001 2:16:12 PM don't care enough to learn the history but I'm not a fan of the new thread perpetually at the top. 12832. CalGal - 4/26/2001 2:16:18 PM I know you are upset about this going in before you had sufficient say in the matter. 12833. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 2:18:11 PM It is a good idea. And is much more constructive and positive than the contributions of any singular parts. It may actually offset the #1 reason for waning participation and exploration. 12834. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 2:18:35 PM ...to some extent. 12835. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 2:20:27 PM But as many policy discussions (and threads) before, it will most likely be a hissy-fit that prevents any new and possibly positive changes within this forum. 12836. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 2:20:41 PM Labwabbit, 12837. mgleason - 4/26/2001 2:26:31 PM In my opinion the Welcome thread accomplishes nothing that a New Members FAQ wouldn't. Any new member could be taken there upon first registering to read the ROE, read a brief summary of the threads, obtain directions to the HTML practice thread, etc. The FAQ would have the virtue of not having to be constantly policed for offensive posts, and could be featured prominently on one of the sidebars. 12838. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 2:26:32 PM Somebody say hello in the Welcome thread so cazart is not holding forth. 12839. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 2:47:21 PM CG, 12840. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 2:57:26 PM Instead of calling it an "anchor" (which should stay at the bottom), let's call it the "balloon" that rises to the top. 12841. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 2:58:59 PM It isn't AN anchor; the thread is anchored. 12842. sakonige - 4/26/2001 3:03:25 PM 12843. sakonige - 4/26/2001 3:06:45 PM 12844. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 3:08:57 PM Maria, 12845. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 3:13:35 PM Perhaps you, Pelle, and Wabbit can lend a hand and just delete inappropriate posts. And...Stone and Dr C...the Welcome Thread is not for you. Please post elsewhere. 12846. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 3:17:19 PM PP, 12847. mgleason - 4/26/2001 3:18:46 PM The thing is, Prof, that the moderators can't always monitor the activity here that closely. If our desire is to welcome new members and give them an overview of the site, we can easily do so without giving mischief-makers yet another forum in which to operate. 12848. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 3:19:24 PM I bleieve he will appreciate the help, and it will encourage him to stay on in the position. This is a fine step in making The Mote a friendlier place. 12849. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 3:21:58 PM Maria...well, that is how I do things, ineffectual or not. And...I am certainly open to new ways to accomplish the same ends, but why not give the new look a chance? 12850. janjon - 4/26/2001 3:23:43 PM well, if not exactly friendlier (although that may be a side effect), one which makes it clear that it wants and encourages the participation of new people. 12851. PelleNilsson - 4/26/2001 3:24:33 PM Alistair's and CalGal' fighting over the baby may eventually kill it. 12852. CalGal - 4/26/2001 3:25:08 PM Chris, 12853. labwabbit - 4/24/2001 3:07:22 PM Can this thread be anchored at the top of the list? 12854. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 3:25:23 PM Yes, JanJon, that is what I meant...I guess sort of "user friendly"... 12855. alistairconnor - 4/26/2001 5:04:09 AM OK, stand by... 12856. alistairconnor - 4/26/2001 5:15:21 AM Looks like it works. Just a quick and dirty hack. Let me know if you want any fancy formatting. 12857. PelleNilsson - 4/26/2001 6:28:50 AM Well done, Alistair. 12858. marjoribanks - 4/26/2001 8:55:22 AM Thank you Alistair. 12859. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 11:37:04 AM Tres bon Alistair...Merci beaucoup! 12860. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 3:26:40 PM JanJon...if you are inclined, drop me an e-mail at my ozzienelson@hotmail.com address. 12861. dusty - 4/26/2001 4:16:31 AM I agree with labwabbit, that this thread should be anchored to the top (assuming it is technically easy). Someone will complain that htey look to the top of the list for the most active discussion. There are two possible responses: 12862. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 3:27:25 PM mg 12863. CalGal - 4/26/2001 3:28:32 PM Alistair's and CalGal' fighting over the baby may eventually kill it. 12864. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 3:31:09 PM Sorry, the strange posts here were moved from the Welcome Thread. Off topic and non-welcoming posts were moved to the Inferno. 12865. labwabbit - 4/26/2001 3:34:14 PM Whew... 12866. mgleason - 4/26/2001 3:37:11 PM Prof, it's not a matter of objecting to a new 'look;' the fact is that I'm too weary of having to dredge through sludge in this thread and in many others to wish such an experience upon newcomers, in a thread designed to welcome them. You know very well that there are those who will not respond to polite requests to cease and desist; why give them an opportunity to do what they always do? 12867. Jenerator - 4/26/2001 3:37:22 PM What a non-issue for the Mote. I mean, if there's disagreement over a *Welcome* thread for new moties, who the heck would want to stay once they realize what we're like. 12868. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 3:38:46 PM If true be told, THE MOTE CAFE is the thread that should be "anchored" to the top like a "balloon." 12869. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 3:39:11 PM true=truth 12870. Laura C - 4/26/2001 3:40:51 PM I agree with mgleason. A welcoming FAQ page would convey the same information without the incessant struggle to police, and without inconveniencing regular posters. Link to it in the butterscotch bar and when linking to the Mote from other sites. 12871. PsychProf - 4/26/2001 3:42:02 PM Jen...there really are sound opinions on both sides of this issue, and I guess this is just how MoteHeads think and work. It's our place and we like to keep it "tidy". 12872. CalGal - 4/26/2001 3:42:29 PM I agree with much of what Maria says about the downside of a Welcome thread, but I also think it is worth trying. Had XTC not shown up to spam we probably wouldn't have even thought of it. 12873. CalGal - 4/26/2001 3:43:58 PM I agree with much of what Maria says about the downside of a Welcome thread, but I also think it is worth trying. 12874. mgleason - 4/26/2001 3:54:25 PM I wouldn't mind helping with a FAQ. 12875. CalGal - 4/26/2001 3:58:58 PM ha ha. 12876. mgleason - 4/26/2001 4:08:58 PM Yeah, I was just looking at them. They'd be a very good addition to the registration process. 12877. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 4:09:15 PM So CalCal gets to write the FAQ and other evergreen mote material that no one reads UNTIL THEY'RE THREATENED WITH BANISHMENT TO MORDOR. 12878. AceofSpades - 4/26/2001 4:11:47 PM 12879. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 4:17:54 PM Nilson looks around desperately for someone to rid him of this troublesome doctor. I shall depart then, but before I do, let us have a recounting of the whole sordid tale, what, what? 12880. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 4:18:12 PM 12881. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 4:18:49 PM You should also fix the preview feature because it does not tell you that your post is too long when it is. 12882. janjon - 4/26/2001 4:21:04 PM yes, it does. 12883. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/26/2001 4:24:30 PM I must dispute with you. in order to get my last missive through I had to split it into two posts even thought the so-called "preview" cleared it. 12884. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 4:29:07 PM Not always, janice. 12885. janjon - 4/26/2001 4:31:54 PM well, my experience differs. 12886. janjon - 4/26/2001 4:33:02 PM Stone - you are so unctuous that you make me laugh. 12887. PelleNilsson - 4/26/2001 4:33:55 PM Who is this Nilson Coltrane is so obsessed about? 12888. Wombat - 4/26/2001 4:36:39 PM Nilson Coltrane? Did the jazzman have a fling with a Swede? 12889. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 4:37:42 PM Pelle, I fear you are talking to yourself...clearly, he is not a Swede or he would know your name means Son of Nils....two esses. 12890. PelleNilsson - 4/26/2001 4:48:21 PM Judith 12891. Ms. No - 4/26/2001 4:50:14 PM Pelle, 12892. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 4:58:14 PM Pelle: 12893. PelleNilsson - 4/26/2001 4:59:54 PM Judith 12894. janjon - 4/26/2001 5:04:04 PM Swedes. 12895. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 5:06:27 PM I guess I should do the same. 12896. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 5:07:17 PM ...and the women who service them. 12897. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 5:08:35 PM Rosetta: 12898. janjon - 4/26/2001 5:22:40 PM you've seen a picture of Rosetta? 12899. JJBiener - 4/26/2001 5:23:38 PM janjon - The film composer? 12900. janjon - 4/26/2001 5:29:48 PM no, the MAD one. 12901. RosettaStone - 4/26/2001 5:34:54 PM I get mistaken for Mel Gibson all the time. Especially during his Brave Heart period. It used to be a blessing, but now it's just a shrug. 12902. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 5:41:59 PM Especially during his Brave Heart period. 12903. janjon - 4/26/2001 5:44:15 PM hehehehe, Judith. 12904. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 5:53:49 PM No, down here in Texas, blue eyeshadow rules so I could hardly fault him on that. 12905. Frankster - 4/26/2001 6:13:15 PM I saw blue eye shadow on a hooker in the Grand Boulevards area of Paris. I didn't know they still made the stuff. 12906. janjon - 4/26/2001 6:18:52 PM and she (making an assumption) was just the first one in the line, right near the main drag, eh. 12907. Frankster - 4/26/2001 6:31:06 PM Janjon, 12908. PsychProf - 4/27/2001 9:08:16 AM Well...it looks as if Cal and Maria are right. If Stone is going to fill the Welcome Thread with trash its purpose will be negated. ..and to have it anchored at the top with Stone's slop prominently displayed is doubly persuasive. If we can't supervise timely deletions, then the FAQ approach seems more appropriate. 12909. Francis Urquhart - 4/27/2001 9:16:02 AM Wabbit, Ms. No, Pelle 12910. Francis Urquhart - 4/27/2001 9:18:05 AM And yes, I know he can't be kept from posting in the thread. 12911. Fielding - 4/27/2001 9:25:42 AM Applause goes to Banks for his deletions in the Welcome Thread. I hope that he continues his good work, and that he doesn't get bored of doing it. 12912. wabbit - 4/27/2001 9:29:51 AM Unfortunately for Rosie and Dr. X, I had some free time this morning and looked at what has been happening in the new Welcome thread. 12913. janjon - 4/27/2001 11:38:23 AM wabbit is wise. 12914. JJBiener - 4/27/2001 11:45:08 AM That's why the wabbit is the wabbit. 12915. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/27/2001 12:05:19 PM Absurd. 12916. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/27/2001 12:05:45 PM Speak not of me or to me and we shall all get along just fine. I reserve the right to of course welcome any so-called "new-comers" should they ever in point of fact appear. 12917. vonKreedon - 4/27/2001 12:48:13 PM 12918. JudithAtHome - 4/27/2001 12:50:18 PM Oh get real...I am hardly the only person to "banter" with Stone. I've done nothing to you, VK; why not try doing the same to me? 12919. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/27/2001 12:50:42 PM And after all the goal is to get people to leave hey, hey? 12920. JJBiener - 4/27/2001 12:56:46 PM X - So those on my enemy list Beano, the recently banned Von Cretin and of course Nilson himself and his harem of harpies need not utter my name again. 12921. vonKreedon - 4/27/2001 12:58:16 PM 12922. JJBiener - 4/27/2001 12:59:10 PM X - I reserve the right to of course welcome any so-called "new-comers" should they ever in point of fact appear. 12923. Jenerator - 4/27/2001 1:04:57 PM Dr.C, 12924. janjon - 4/27/2001 1:13:37 PM Biener takes his there-by-circumstances role in establishing this place far too seriously. 12925. JudithAtHome - 4/27/2001 1:13:41 PM I would prefer if people ignored Electric Stone, but that is all. 12926. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/27/2001 1:16:38 PM Beano sez: 12927. JJBiener - 4/27/2001 1:32:44 PM janjon - Biener takes his there-by-circumstances role in establishing this place far too seriously. 12928. PsychProf - 4/27/2001 1:36:04 PM I prefered it when XTC useta call Biener "Weiner"... 12929. JJBiener - 4/27/2001 1:37:08 PM X - Your first missive needs correcting, Beano, to say something like if you will emit pleasureable noises while I abuse you I shall abuse you somewhat more gently. 12930. JJBiener - 4/27/2001 1:38:30 PM Psych - That was Jade, not X. 12931. PsychProf - 4/27/2001 1:40:43 PM Bingo. 12932. RosettaStone - 4/27/2001 1:42:38 PM I won't post anymore in the WELCOME thread, wabbit. Just keep hand-handed Pelle out of it. 12933. RosettaStone - 4/27/2001 1:43:54 PM heavy-handed Pelle 12934. Autodaffy - 4/27/2001 9:44:12 PM I think the usual phrase that goes before Pelle's name is "jack booted martinet," to which you might add a distictive "ham fisted" if you so desire. 12935. arkymalarky - 4/27/2001 11:36:01 PM I post to whomever I please in here, and don't like the suggestion that I ostracize certain posters that nobody hesitates to criticize. Some people just don't bug me like they do other Moters, and when they do (as Rose did in the Cafe) I don't mind a bit telling them. There are others here who aren't ever mentioned who are guilty of some of the same crap, except they're serious and so treated with kid gloves (by me as well--mama didn't raise a fool). It still doesn't make their effect any less, in fact it's probably worse, but no one ever mentions banning them. What other Moter's posts were deleted by Marj? 12936. RosettaStone - 4/28/2001 12:31:16 AM My hero!!! 12937. RosettaStone - 4/28/2001 12:46:05 AM This is for Dusty, or anyone else thinking of investing in Salon.com 12938. RosettaStone - 4/28/2001 12:54:33 AM 12939. Ms. No - 4/28/2001 2:57:51 AM Arky, 12940. RosettaStone - 4/28/2001 8:16:24 AM I've suggested it before, but once again, there is a need for a thread that highlights other interesting websites. 12941. wabbit - 4/28/2001 8:38:31 AM Rosie, 12942. arkymalarky - 4/28/2001 10:50:11 AM No (mind if I call you that for short?), 12943. Ms. No - 4/28/2001 7:34:17 PM Arky, 12944. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/29/2001 9:56:40 AM Such is the power of Dr. Coltrane that even when I ask that my name no more be spoken particularly by mein enemies it still is irresistible to everyone. It is with some relief that I see the , friends, though sometimes it be necessary for a man with the skill of a surgeon such as yours truly to extract it. 12945. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/29/2001 10:02:46 AM The reason for this unprecedented in the history of humanity intervention by Mas No was a so-called "black helicopter" image. To wit, the good doctor reproduces his post below 12946. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/29/2001 10:16:19 AM By the by, I should like a new domicile. Whereupon this current domicile is for so-called "new threads" and so-called "new features," I should like a thread called "Complaints." 12947. wabbit - 4/29/2001 11:00:29 AM Dr. X, 12948. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:05:27 AM Point well taken, Dr. X. The people who control mote's huge bank account seems to be able to spam whereever they want. Their posts never get deleted or erased. 12949. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:07:22 AM hold=holds 12950. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:11:38 AM I second the need for a COMPLAINTS thread if wabbit doesn't want this thread to be the place to deal with problems. 12951. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:11:40 AM I second the need for a COMPLAINTS thread if wabbit doesn't want this thread to be the place to deal with problems. 12952. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:11:43 AM I second the need for a COMPLAINTS thread if wabbit doesn't want this thread to be the place to deal with problems. 12953. wabbit - 4/29/2001 11:14:15 AM And what "criticism" are you talking about, Rosie? That poor Dr. X's posts were unjustly deleted? Marj set out the rules for his thread and posts that didn't follow those rules were either moved or deleted. You two were not the only ones who had posts moved and/or deleted, but you two were the only two warned because of the tone of your posts. As always, you have proved to be gracious. Dr. X has not. 12954. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:14:25 AM sorry. i don't know how that happened. I give you my permission to delete two of the last three posts, plus this. 12955. wabbit - 4/29/2001 11:16:27 AM I'll say it again, if you want to complain, we have a Policy thread for complaints. I don't believe I've ever deleted a post in that thread. 12956. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/29/2001 11:27:20 AM Strange. I am told to "knock it off" yet in the same breath my missives are "welcome" everywhere but the welcome thread. Ho-ho-ho. 12957. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 11:27:49 AM "I don't believe...." 12958. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/29/2001 11:30:44 AM By the by, as I have stated many times, I do not care to discuss this affrontery further myself, but I shall not allow misrepresntations of the facts at my expense to go unchallenged. 12959. wabbit - 4/29/2001 11:43:54 AM Rosie, 12960. dusty - 4/29/2001 12:45:53 PM marjoribanks 12961. marjoribanks - 4/29/2001 4:07:42 PM Dusty, kindly take your suggestions as to the propriety of rules in this thread to the appropriate thread. 12962. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 5:37:09 PM This WELCOME thread is a real embarrassment. Best include it in the MOTE CAFE thread and use marjoribanks's considerable talents to go to MOTE's CAFE in TT to recruit members. 12963. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/29/2001 5:47:47 PM I must commend Major Banks on the eruditive job he is doing in the so-called welcome outpost. If the harem and martinet can leave the good man alone, he may yet arrive at so-called domicile nirvana--provided he remain more under my tutelage rather than theirs. 12964. JudithAtHome - 4/29/2001 7:17:43 PM Rosetta: 12965. dusty - 4/29/2001 7:26:23 PM marjoribanks 12966. RosettaStone - 4/29/2001 8:36:45 PM Understand the new rules, Dusty. Some people can talk about anything, anywhere--but others have their posts deleted or moved for doing the same. 12967. MsIvoryTower - 4/29/2001 10:37:09 PM I have a suggestion: 12968. JJBiener - 4/30/2001 1:26:21 AM X - It might help your case if you used words you actually understand and know how to spell. I am not one to normally quibble about details of spelling and grammar, but since you are attempting to hold yourself out as a man of intelligence, it would help it you used words properly. "Conscious of the Mote" makes no sense. I think you mean "Conscience". "Eruditive" is not a word. "A soft voice turneth away anchor?" I don't think so. 12969. Wombat - 4/30/2001 8:00:16 AM A rock seabed turneth away anchor. 12970. JudithAtHome - 4/30/2001 10:12:58 AM Either way your posts are a joke and not to be taken seriously. 12971. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/30/2001 11:34:17 AM I would that the bombastic babboonery of Beano be directed in some other's direction because as the good doctor has stated many times I no longer wish to converse with such a lowbrow intelligence as evidenced by such jacknapery. 12972. JJBiener - 4/30/2001 11:43:33 AM Judith - I agree. This is Stamper Redux. No one could consistently misuse words in so humorous a manner unless it was intentional. No one could really believe that using that vocabulary will make one appear intelligent. Even in his current post he hasn't corrected Conscious to Conscience. Which reminds me. We haven't seen Mr Davis in the Mote for some time. Coincidence? 12973. JudithAtHome - 4/30/2001 11:47:35 AM I think he's on the mainland, at present. 12974. JJBiener - 4/30/2001 11:51:24 AM Judith - If it isn't Davis, it is someone with his talent for character. I don't know many who can pull it off. I know I try to do characters when I do the Mystery Theatre, but I think they all usually end up sounding like me. 12975. Fielding - 4/30/2001 11:53:21 AM JJ: 12976. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/30/2001 11:57:53 AM > they all usually end up 12977. labwabbit - 4/30/2001 12:00:56 PM I see the children here are still divvying up sandbox. 12978. JudithAtHome - 4/30/2001 12:03:22 PM Nope! Not many... 12979. JJBiener - 4/30/2001 12:03:55 PM Fielding - No one but the President, you mean. 12980. JudithAtHome - 4/30/2001 12:05:02 PM Trust me, he does it naturally. 12981. JJBiener - 4/30/2001 12:08:20 PM Judith - Go back and read XTC's earlier posts. You can watch the character as he develops. The language and the posting style are becoming more and more pronounced. It is almost to the point of self-parody. This is the same thing that happened with Stamper. That's how we finally figured out it was a put on. 12982. marjoribanks - 4/30/2001 12:09:25 PM That Beiener post reminds of the SNL skit depicting a brilliant, in-charge, micromanaging Ronal Reagan who slipped into the doddering public persona when it suited him. 12983. bubbaette - 4/30/2001 1:20:48 PM I wonder if he does it so others will underestimate him, which they seem to do consistently. 12984. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 8:50:22 AM How long are you going to keep the WELCOME thread on the top of the column? It's embarrassing. Again, my recommendation is to anchor the CAFE thread up there with welcome-type language subhead. 12985. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/1/2001 9:17:44 AM The welcome domicile just needs my loving hands to help Major Banks. It is a capitol idea aside from the so-called anchorage situation. As it is the jackbooted struttery has intimated all from "posting" there whilst no new victim fare is being served from the four corners. 12986. Jenerator - 5/1/2001 9:25:50 AM I'm starting to agree wrt the Welcome Thread. I'd rather have it a few spaces lower. Can we have any type of banner for threads when they're "hot" like we did in the fray? It seems better to me, that the more popular threads should be on top. 12987. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/1/2001 9:44:39 AM A capitol suggestion. Preadventure this so-called banner not yet being available, perhaps the virtuous Jenerator would be so kind as to direct the good doctor to the "hot" threads so I can partake of hardy comradery and warm fellowship.......? 12988. marjoribanks - 5/1/2001 9:56:44 AM Hmm, the Welcome thread has in fact not turned out like I'd imagined. The primary reason may be that there hasn't been someone there to welcome. 12989. marjoribanks - 5/1/2001 9:57:46 AM I do think that we're likely to get at least a significant number of lurkers in the next few weeks as the writing on the wall at TT becomes clearer to its users. 12990. CalGal - 5/1/2001 10:09:07 AM perhaps it could become a thread on Digital Culture which discusses life online, cool websites and Internet services, and the history and development of online forums like this one. 12991. marjoribanks - 5/1/2001 10:10:16 AM I'm cool with that. 12992. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 10:21:28 AM Good to hear that you want the digital/internet thread that I recommended last weekend. 12993. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/1/2001 10:22:34 AM Do not give up yet, good fellow Major Banks. 12994. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/1/2001 10:24:12 AM Yes, yes, the CalGal has hit upon exactly what I propose! 12995. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/1/2001 10:25:03 AM Except there is already a "Welcome" on the left side that could just link in the fashion described. 12996. CalGal - 5/1/2001 10:25:41 AM As for banks mention of more TT folks, did anyone see the most recent chutzpah from Salon? It's in the Times, and I swear that Talbot is going to have to retract. 12997. rubberducky - 5/1/2001 10:35:02 AM $150? 12998. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 10:45:28 AM As someone famous once said: 12999. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 10:47:02 AM Talbot is paid so much to think like this? Great job... 13000. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 10:47:21 AM Oh well... 13001. seadate - 5/1/2001 11:00:18 AM no contest 13002. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 11:00:22 AM Do your best to keep your thoughts to one post, instead of three, my precious. I would hate to think that you're one of the Democratic airheads I read about so much. 13003. Cellar Door - 5/1/2001 11:01:59 AM "I would hate to think that you're one of the Democratic airheads I read about so much." 13004. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 11:03:32 AM With the internet, my world is limitless. 13005. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 11:04:13 AM Rosetta...my thoughts about your cluelessness would fill a thread. I wanted the millennial. 13006. seadate - 5/1/2001 11:04:19 AM CD, 13007. seadate - 5/1/2001 11:05:15 AM Millenial concept to some, LS. 13008. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 11:09:07 AM I know...isn't it outragious? 13009. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 11:25:18 AM Who is this LS, you're responding to. 13010. Jenerator - 5/1/2001 11:30:56 AM Hey, don't pick on seadate! (or Judith!) 13011. Dusty - 5/1/2001 11:36:04 AM marjoribanks 13012. seadate - 5/1/2001 12:42:49 PM I typically ignore insulting types, but I crack up at Rosie's posts. He's shooting blanks while having full confidence that he's packin' a howitzer. 13013. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 1:07:45 PM You never ignore my post, seasick. Que reste-t-il des nos amours? 13014. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 1:10:19 PM Merde. 13015. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 1:16:28 PM Cal: 13016. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 1:18:58 PM Judy: I see you've come into my Salon Central thread regarding PREMIUM. Before they're erased, read some of "Sans Souci" posts from last weekend to see my style. 13017. Laura C - 5/1/2001 1:21:03 PM That Times article is amazing. 13018. seadate - 5/1/2001 1:22:11 PM You never ignore my post, seasick 13019. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 1:25:29 PM Rosetta: 13020. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 1:36:08 PM Go on and do it, my precious. Learning is a life time experience. 13021. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 1:39:25 PM And you would know this how? 13022. seadate - 5/1/2001 1:42:20 PM Rosie: I often read your posts due to my fascination in your ability to respond with a profoundly ludicrous post to a simple point that you will never understand. 13023. CalGal - 5/1/2001 1:54:29 PM Laura, 13024. CalGal - 5/1/2001 1:56:47 PM Judith, 13025. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 2:02:09 PM Judywhodoesn'tunderstandBusiness: 13026. seadate - 5/1/2001 2:04:51 PM Grinding Stones. 13027. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 2:04:54 PM No one is making fun of me...if you'll notice, Joe-el quoted me and said I made an excellent point. 13028. rubberducky - 5/1/2001 2:05:13 PM 'HTML Scratchpad' should be linked in 'Mote Links' 13029. Rivendell - 5/1/2001 2:10:03 PM RosettaStone - 13030. CalGal - 5/1/2001 2:17:33 PM Oh, that's a good idea, Ducky. So both of them could be added to Mote Links. 13031. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 4:30:30 PM Rosetta just went over to TT and tried another pseud in Salon Premium. He was caught of course, but this just shows what a psychopath he really is...glory hog, thy name is Rosetta and it is pathetic the extremes you'll go to for attention. 13032. alistairconnor - 5/1/2001 5:07:45 PM OK, so I upped the anchor. Apologies for an ill-considered change, I wasn't really paying attention. Over to the moderators for the Welcome links. 13033. JJBiener - 5/1/2001 5:10:00 PM Alistair - It looks much better this way. Thanks. 13034. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 6:32:51 PM This from one Trebor S. at TT on Salons asking for money: 13035. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 7:00:38 PM So when are we getting the Digital Culture thread? 13036. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 7:12:18 PM What a friend we have in Jesus. 13037. JudithAtHome - 5/1/2001 7:12:57 PM I don't know Jesus....is he new here? 13038. RosettaStone - 5/1/2001 7:16:21 PM That post was meant for Pope Wabbit. 13039. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 9:06:36 AM "J.R.R. Tolkien's Christian-inspired views of good and evil are relevant to a world still reeling from Hitler and Stalin--to the allegorical, in which Frodo is featured as a savior not unlike Christ."---NYTimes, 04/22/01 I beleive the Fray had such thread, hosted by Rivendell, our resident expert on the topic. 13041. PsychProf - 5/2/2001 9:56:12 AM toys 13042. theDiva - 5/2/2001 10:32:06 AM yes, the giant hobbit himself did indeed host that thread. And webbie tried to feed him butternut squash soup as part of his rehab. 13043. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 10:40:45 AM Never heard of him. Where is it located. 13048. Dusty - 5/2/2001 1:19:48 PM Rosetta, 13051. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 1:24:42 PM In fact, reading through TT's Book folder made me say to think that Salon may die. It's only their political people who are such assholes. 13052. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 1:25:02 PM say=sad 13054. Ms. No - 5/2/2001 1:29:32 PM Rosie, 13077. Fielding - 5/2/2001 2:02:15 PM Unless Rosie had permission to reveal info about JAH, he should be banned. Enough is enough. 13078. marjoribanks - 5/2/2001 2:04:38 PM The "Holme's estate"? 13079. Ms. No - 5/2/2001 2:06:25 PM Missing posts regarding copyright laws and J.R.R. Tolkein were moved to Literature thread. Very cool discussion. 13080. AceofSpades - 5/2/2001 2:11:12 PM 13081. AceofSpades - 5/2/2001 2:11:57 PM 13082. AceofSpades - 5/2/2001 2:13:39 PM It's post 17754 in politics, MsNo. 13083. CalGal - 5/2/2001 2:40:36 PM Judith has mentioned her TT id here before, I believe. It's just Stone being a moron. 13084. JudithAtHome - 5/2/2001 2:52:29 PM Yes, I've given my name and don't mind people knowing it...what I do mind is the jerk telling lies about what I did or didn't post. 13085. JJBiener - 5/2/2001 3:02:31 PM If we banned assholes, there would only be three or four of us left. 13086. Deep Thoughts - 5/2/2001 3:14:53 PM But there might me a whole new group of immigrants coming here singing "No More Auction Blocks For Me" 13087. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 3:34:25 PM Fielding is our DH100, I see. 13088. Ms. No - 5/2/2001 3:39:08 PM Fielding, 13089. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 3:41:04 PM Dr. No: Banks has changed the name of his WELCOME thread to DIGITAL CULTURE. 13090. marjoribanks - 5/2/2001 3:44:13 PM I wonder if Stone acts like this off-line. 13091. marjoribanks - 5/2/2001 3:55:55 PM Rosetta Stone is acting-host for Digital Culture. 13092. marjoribanks - 5/2/2001 3:57:29 PM By the way, it's been at least twelve minutes and he's doing a terrible job. 13093. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 4:02:02 PM marjoribanks: Good luck in your continuing efforts to turn evil to good. 13094. Fielding - 5/2/2001 4:23:48 PM "As has been pointed out, Judith's handle at TT is common knowledge so Rosie wasn't spilling the beans on it." 13095. JudithAtHome - 5/2/2001 4:27:51 PM Thanks for watching out for me, Fielding...as I said, his using my name didn't upset me half as much as his lying did, though. 13096. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 5:01:33 PM The funny thing, Fielding, is that Stone once went on a tirade because Charlie L mentioned Stone's real name here, which is also common knowledge at TT. So I don't necessarily think what Stone has done should be totally okay, but since Judith isn't complaining.... Anyway, he probably should receive a warning for it IMO. 13097. JudithAtHome - 5/2/2001 5:10:06 PM IJ: 13098. vw - 5/2/2001 5:11:49 PM a banned Stone would be more annoying than what we currently have 13099. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 5:36:56 PM vw: It's like this. Once a person hits the ban and ban again cycle, there's little incentive to play by the rules. You've fired your ICBMs and yet still they live. 13100. ycmeehan - 5/2/2001 5:38:44 PM Deep Thoughts, 13101. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/2/2001 5:44:23 PM Many thanks for reempowering the good doctor's account. 13102. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 5:44:34 PM yc: No, that's Stone. 13103. ycmeehan - 5/2/2001 5:53:55 PM Thanks, Indiana. 13104. labwabbit - 5/2/2001 6:00:46 PM Let's all get Stone... 13105. RosettaStone - 5/2/2001 6:13:18 PM Fat chance of that, lab of wabbit. 13106. vonKreedon - 5/2/2001 10:47:28 PM 13107. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 12:09:59 AM Not going to happen, vonKreep. 13108. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 10:36:14 AM The first and initial demand of FUCOFF as spokespeople for the people of goodwill is the identification by some member of the ruling elite as to the primary and secondary functions of the petty functionery known as Beano. 13109. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 10:38:00 AM That is all. 13110. Dusty - 5/3/2001 10:39:28 AM ::yawn:: 13111. Dusty - 5/3/2001 10:40:17 AM Dr.XavierTColtrane 13112. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 10:40:46 AM Not at all; you are dreaming of a time that never was, Dusty. 13113. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 10:48:54 AM Dr. X: Jj is the unofficial treasurer of the mote. People send him money and he spends it. 13114. Dusty - 5/3/2001 10:49:48 AM JudithAtHome 13115. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 10:50:25 AM A very "interesting" missive from you, Dustbin. Do you have an answer for my question? 13116. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 10:53:47 AM A rich playboy's little playground, eh? That explains a lot. 13117. rubberducky - 5/3/2001 10:56:05 AM By the by, yours truly has asked that question repeatedly for days on the so-called "policies" thread and drawn no response. 13118. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 10:56:53 AM By the by, Dustmite, I shall return to being a so-called "productive" member of this Moat when my rights are respected. 13119. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 10:59:04 AM Thank you for the direction, friend Rubberducky, but that is precisely where I have been posting my question for days without response. 13120. Dusty - 5/3/2001 11:10:09 AM Dr.XavierTColtrane 13121. Dusty - 5/3/2001 11:13:51 AM XavierTColtrane 13122. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 11:21:29 AM > Your question has been answered. 13123. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:22:30 AM Dusty - Does anyone remember when the Doctor was interesting? 13124. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 11:25:15 AM > I don't recall that we have ever conversed before, so I don't know that you have any valid rationale for the unwarranted hostilities. 13125. Dusty - 5/3/2001 11:27:49 AM Dr.XavierTColtrane 13126. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 11:28:50 AM I guess now I do not feel so all alone, 13127. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:29:12 AM X - No one answers your questions because everyone knows you are a fraud. You are also a liar. The joke was funny for a while, but that time is past. It is time for a new shtick. 13128. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 11:33:59 AM Since Stone has been in control of the Digital Culture thread, no one but Stone has posted there....is this what was envisioned when the thread was conceived? By anyone other than Stone, I mean... 13129. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/3/2001 11:34:07 AM The good doctor was not addressing you when you made your first unwarranted provocatation. 13130. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 11:35:14 AM Teta teta, your own self. 13131. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:35:32 AM Judith - I was just about to comment on that. Stone has 11 of the last 12 posts. The only post that isn't his is from jonesatlaw who was only there to torment him. 13132. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:37:41 AM Stone - You have successfully driven a stake through the heart of the Digital Culture thread. I think it is now truly dead. Congratulations. Masterful job. Is this what you had in mind for Arts & Music? 13133. Dusty - 5/3/2001 11:38:59 AM Stone does have a good point. 13134. PsychProf - 5/3/2001 11:43:26 AM It is clear to me that Cazart/Jade/Dr X and Stone are hell bent on strangling the Mote with insufferable boredom. 13135. Dusty - 5/3/2001 11:44:35 AM JJBiener 13136. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:45:48 AM Dusty - Merely asking for a thread does not confer on that person the ability to host it effectively. I think we have seen that Rosie's abilities in that area are sufficiently lacking to disqualify him from future hosting duties. 13137. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 11:48:52 AM Coming from Jj, that's a hoot. 13138. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 11:51:53 AM I blame some of what ...banks did to the way the Ace of Spades got away with changing the name of his thread every day. 13139. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 11:51:56 AM I blame some of what ...banks did to the way the Ace of Spades got away with changing the name of his thread every day. 13140. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:53:55 AM Dusty - The Welcome Thread was ill-conceived. It seemed like a good idea, but when we restricted conversations to only welcoming activities, it became a non-starter. Good idea, not practical. 13141. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 11:54:43 AM Dusty: 13142. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 11:56:08 AM Rosie - There has been a steady stream of traffic through A&M. You've had none. 13143. janjon - 5/3/2001 11:57:11 AM no, it isn't because he is insufferable (though he is). 13144. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 12:00:03 PM janjon - Tomato, tomahto 13145. seadate - 5/3/2001 12:02:42 PM janjon couldn't pass on the opportunity to use the "n" word. 13146. janjon - 5/3/2001 12:05:43 PM I didn't say that Rosie was neutered. 13147. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 12:08:45 PM Of course there as been traffic, Jj. Because Diva, Jenerator, DonS and others have been frequent posters. 13148. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 12:09:41 PM my=why 13149. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 12:12:54 PM Even Judithesnitch contributes her infrequent regional gay theatre reviews. The ones the local papers turn down. 13150. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 12:14:49 PM Rosie - Because Diva, Jenerator, DonS and others have been frequent posters. 13151. Dusty - 5/3/2001 12:24:14 PM JJBiener 13152. Dusty - 5/3/2001 12:24:30 PM But the transformation of the Welcome thread into a DC thread raises Policy issues. Do we create thread topics and assign hosts to manage that subject, or do we grant thread hosting rights to individuals to do whatever whim strikes their fancy? I know that Ace has pushed into new ground on this issue, but Marj has taken it a quantum leap beyond. While some may misinterpret this as a slap at Marj, that is not my intent. What are the rules? Can Wombat decide that History is boring and change the thread title to "Discuss Sex and Policy here?" 13153. seadate - 5/3/2001 12:27:15 PM So something was tried that didn't work. Big Deal. 13154. Wombat - 5/3/2001 12:29:52 PM Dusty: 13155. janjon - 5/3/2001 12:31:12 PM exactly. The portentousness of much of what goes on here would be suffocating if one didn't take a lot of it with a bit of bemusement. 13156. Dusty - 5/3/2001 12:31:42 PM seadate 13157. seadate - 5/3/2001 12:32:43 PM K 13158. CalGal - 5/3/2001 12:34:22 PM Dusty, 13159. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 12:35:46 PM Over the past week, I've sent 18 invitations to people at TT suggesting they might like the Mote. I've received good feedback from many of them, too. 13160. janjon - 5/3/2001 12:37:33 PM these are 18 people who are unaware of Stone's presence here, right? 13161. mgleason - 5/3/2001 12:40:32 PM I agree that the title change and the ability to change subjects is problematic. For example, we added the "Welcome" link on the front page to take the user to what was the welcome thread. But now it's the Digital Culture thread. 13162. Fielding - 5/3/2001 12:41:43 PM Thread reduction is a bad idea, championed primarily by people who are into power struggles. 13163. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 12:42:40 PM these are 18 people who are unaware of Stone's presence here 13164. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 12:43:48 PM Try the Mote is still here...it's just renamed and linked. 13165. CalGal - 5/3/2001 12:46:10 PM Could we please change it back to Welcome, in the short term? 13166. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 12:47:48 PM Cal, you will be hearing from the Stone if you do...he has his little feifdom now. 13167. mgleason - 5/3/2001 12:48:14 PM Try the Mote is now the HTML Scratchpad on the Digital thread, not that any newcomer is going to know what he or it is doing in that thread. 13168. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 12:48:59 PM The person who caused this problem is ...banks. 13169. mgleason - 5/3/2001 12:50:14 PM I must have missed the discussion regarding establishing a Digital thread, which Rosetta Stone claims was going to be 'turned over' to him next week. 13170. CalGal - 5/3/2001 12:50:35 PM Well, it is also on the front page as a link. But I agree generally that it made more sense linked into the Welcome thread. 13171. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 12:52:04 PM Cal...my point exactly. 13172. mgleason - 5/3/2001 12:54:24 PM If we're going to have a Welcome thread, then let's link the relevant FAQs to it, and make it something that newcomers will find useful. The posts in there now have nothing to do with such an endeavor. 13173. rubberducky - 5/3/2001 1:01:49 PM Re: Message # 13165, CalGal. 13174. mgleason - 5/3/2001 1:04:23 PM I agree. 13175. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 1:10:15 PM Not to put too fine a point on it but if anyone from TT does happen to saunter over and see the Welcome! thread with Rosetta all over it, they will never return. 13176. rubberducky - 5/3/2001 1:12:58 PM yes, that's true, but as a new person, were i to read a thread labeled as having 100 some odd posts and only find half that due to deletions (in the Welcome! thread no less), i wouldn't be back either 13177. Ms. No - 5/3/2001 1:23:22 PM I have returned the name to the Welcome thread but disabled posting to it until I have a chance to talk with Marjoribanks. 13178. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 1:28:07 PM mgleason. Just because you missed it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. 13179. mgleason - 5/3/2001 1:31:06 PM Where is the discussion regarding a decision to create a Digital thread with Rosetta Stone as host? I'm most interested to read it. 13180. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 1:34:24 PM Go back upstream in this thread, mgleason. 13181. mgleason - 5/3/2001 1:36:17 PM You misunderstand me. I remember you asking for such a thread, but no decision about granting it to you. 13182. Dusty - 5/3/2001 1:37:24 PM CalGal 13183. rubberducky - 5/3/2001 1:37:34 PM MG: 13184. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 1:40:02 PM Dr. No: I spent a lot of time making hot links to interesting threads last night in DC. I would hope that you don't erase them. 13185. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 1:42:35 PM mgleason: Not only did I offer to host it. I'm the one who came up with the idea for it. 13186. Dusty - 5/3/2001 1:42:39 PM mgleason 13187. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 1:43:13 PM Be a man and admit you're not up to the task, Stone...stop blaming others for your shortcomings. 13188. Dusty - 5/3/2001 1:44:41 PM RosettaStone 13189. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 1:47:40 PM Dusty: 13190. seadate - 5/3/2001 1:49:43 PM I guess Stone is addicted to the sensation of shitting on his own feet. 13191. mgleason - 5/3/2001 1:50:38 PM Dusty, 13192. rubberducky - 5/3/2001 1:54:15 PM i don't think taking away the ability to change the name of the thread is a good idea. i did it as a host as have lost of others. 13193. CalGal - 5/3/2001 2:00:48 PM I agree, Ducky. I don't think it's right to disable thread name change privileges. It's the topic change that is problematic. I don't think Ace intended to start a trend, but it's fixed easily enough--we all just don't do it anymore. 13194. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 2:04:15 PM I'm sorry, Dusty. But that's the reality. Threads have been grandfathered to the first ten people who betaed mote from fray. 13195. Ms. No - 5/3/2001 2:06:58 PM Ducks & CG 13196. Ms. No - 5/3/2001 2:08:57 PM RosettaStone, 13197. CalGal - 5/3/2001 2:12:54 PM Stone, 13198. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 2:49:09 PM If Judithesnitch is telling the truth 13199. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 2:51:02 PM 18 TTers, eh? 13200. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 2:53:21 PM I don't have to name them; they know who they are. 13201. Dusty - 5/3/2001 3:02:13 PM I believe her. I don't need names. 13202. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 3:05:25 PM Oh, I believe her, too. But 18? You know how women are with numbers. 13203. Dusty - 5/3/2001 3:21:56 PM If women have trouble with numbers, it's because men say, "Yep, that's 12 inches. Really." 13204. bubbaette - 5/3/2001 3:24:00 PM Any thread that Rosie has is bound to fail because his obnoxious manner of posting has alienated 95% of the people on the Mote. I've never been in favor of banning posters, but I've come close to changing my mind wrt the puling little fuck. He constantly pushes the line about revealing personal information, he's a pathological liar, and he's an incessant whiner who consistantly blames others for the problems he creates. 13205. Fielding - 5/3/2001 3:24:51 PM "Someday I'll tell you what Boomer told me about how a fray member from northern CALifornia harrassed him offline." 13206. Fielding - 5/3/2001 3:26:54 PM "If women have trouble with numbers, it's because men say, "Yep, that's 12 inches. Really."" 13207. rubberducky - 5/3/2001 3:27:52 PM don't forget plagiarist, bubb 13208. CalGal - 5/3/2001 3:29:47 PM Cunning? Please. In fact, it's probably a lie. BoomerJeff had problems with a stalker very early on--possibly even before he joined the Fray. It certainly isn't the reason why he didn't join the Mote. The reason he gave several people is because he didn't like us not accepting web-based emails. 13209. Fielding - 5/3/2001 3:54:37 PM It is still funny. He made it sound like you were the stalker. 13210. PsychProf - 5/3/2001 4:03:00 PM Well Fielding, to each his/her own...I think it is stupid, boring, and hypocritical, not funny. Especially from someone(Stoned) who cries like a stuck pig over transgressions relating to the release of personal info. CharlieL, a favorite of mine, is gone because of Stone's manipulations. Stone has become absurd. 13211. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2001 4:03:50 PM That is not "funny". That is malicious. 13212. Fielding - 5/3/2001 4:10:59 PM Well I agree with you, PP and Saint Pelle. I think we ought to put Stone on final warning. 13213. Indiana Jones - 5/3/2001 4:45:03 PM I suggest a two-week RosettaStone free Mote. 13214. CalGal - 5/3/2001 4:50:38 PM He made it sound like you were the stalker. 13215. Indiana Jones - 5/3/2001 4:51:53 PM If this is considered "too Stone" specific, we could codify a general rule that says any Motier can lodge an official complaint about any other Motier requesting a moderator judgment. Should the moderators find for the plaintiff, then the defendant is suspended for two weeks. If OTOH, the moderators find no such reasonable action, then the plaintiff is suspended for two weeks for filing a false report. Three total losses and you're out. 13216. vonKreedon - 5/3/2001 4:52:35 PM 13217. JudithAtHome - 5/3/2001 4:54:38 PM Cal, the only thing I saw as clever that Fielding might be alluding to was the spelling....CALifornian. But then, Rose always refers to me as juDY which I choose to take as a death threat from him. :-) 13218. Fielding - 5/3/2001 4:59:54 PM Judy: 13219. marjoribanks - 5/3/2001 5:00:14 PM Well, well. Leave a perfectly good thread in the hands of Stone for half a day and this is what happens. 13220. marjoribanks - 5/3/2001 5:04:02 PM I also see no reason whatsoever to either ban Stone or talk about him endlessly. Forums can become like villages, he's the official simpleton of this one and likes being it. 13221. Indiana Jones - 5/3/2001 5:05:50 PM vonK: I tried the "don't interact" with him approach with cazart and think it fails. However, if we make mentioning him punishable, then maybe that would help. 13222. janjon - 5/3/2001 5:07:27 PM Here we go - talking about banning again. Stone may be - make that is - a ninny, but Good God - do people really want this place to be a plain vanilla type of experience? 13223. Indiana Jones - 5/3/2001 5:07:45 PM banks: I thought your exercise was worthwhile, but others were every bit as responsible as was Stone for its failure. Imagine someone running along the road and giving the simpleton bad directions as he drove the oxcart. 13224. janjon - 5/3/2001 5:10:04 PM The trick with the Stones of this world is to not get sucked in (and I am as guilty of this as most - he is irksome but more than that he is just too easy a target) or even if you do, don't take him or the little brouhahas he creates very seriously. 13225. CalGal - 5/3/2001 5:10:43 PM Stone will always be the obsequious cavilling puling and, not incidentally, completely dishonest ass. But banning him? He is like the creamed onions at Thanksgiving dinner--we all puke at the sight, but hey, it's tradition. 13226. Fielding - 5/3/2001 5:11:33 PM We should start a "Should Stone Be Banned?" thread. I'll nominate Judith to host. At least then this thread wouldn't be polluted with the incessant Stone whining. 13227. Fielding - 5/3/2001 5:13:26 PM Another option would be to make a special exception to the Rules of Engagement for Stone. We could create a special exception to the rule against violence or threats of violence. :) 13228. Indiana Jones - 5/3/2001 5:14:35 PM janjon: No, I don't want a vanilla experience at all. As I've said, I think banning Stone is impossible. I want us to do something to get out of this loop of advanced primates chasing a smaller primate who keeps flinging crap at them while their food rots. 13229. glendajean - 5/3/2001 5:45:32 PM Saturday Night Live dealt with Andy Kaufman by having an election. 13230. labwabbit - 5/3/2001 7:05:36 PM We should start a "Should Stone Be Banned?" thread. I'll nominate Judith to host. At least then this thread wouldn't be polluted with the incessant Stone whining. 13231. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 7:49:08 PM I know we can make this work... 13232. vw - 5/3/2001 8:13:19 PM Uhmmm, why have a thread dedicated to "listing" URLs when they can't can't be bookmarked, indexed or searched in this format? 13233. CalGal - 5/3/2001 8:21:26 PM That's what I thought was originally the plan--whenever it is recreated again. I realize that most people aren't as fascinated by forums as I am, but I was looking forward to talk about their future. I don't think most of the big 'zines are going to be providing them for much longer. 13234. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 8:29:39 PM Not true, CalCal. Forums are succeeding at the NYTimes, C-SPAN, NPR, Washington Post and CNN. 13235. CalGal - 5/3/2001 8:49:09 PM Stone, read it again and find out where I mentioned success. Of course, using the word is as close as you'll ever manage to get. 13236. RosettaStone - 5/3/2001 9:08:35 PM Is that like a warning to the moderators not to continue the thread that started last night? 13237. vw - 5/4/2001 12:59:39 AM Have you been following Salon Premium, their delisting, and the fact that they don't have enough cash to make it through the year? 13238. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 7:56:00 AM diverse? 13239. vw - 5/4/2001 8:11:35 AM Or, at least not in its POLITICS and WHITE HOUSE folders. 13240. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 8:19:34 AM You're right, vw...I never went back to Politics after a few forays there. I got slimed and rather than stay there like a masochist, I ventured out into the rest of TT and had an enjoyable and informative time there...still am, in fact. 13241. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 8:35:33 AM No, what surprised me is the number, Judithesnitch. Not 17, nor 19. But 18. 13242. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 8:42:23 AM Hey, I'm not done yet...I've found a few more in my travels the last 2 days. The reason for "18" is that I had the list sitting next to me when I posted and I happened to have 18 on the list. 13243. vw - 5/4/2001 9:56:02 AM soul purpose = sole purpose (duh) 13244. Dusty - 5/4/2001 10:00:12 AM vw 13245. Fielding - 5/4/2001 10:03:47 AM Survivor is over for 11 hours, Rosie hasn't started whining yet about RIPping the Survivor thread. He must be getting soft in his old age. 13246. vw - 5/4/2001 10:05:06 AM 13247. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 11:09:51 AM Right, Fielding. The Survivor thread should be axed on Monday. 13248. Fielding - 5/4/2001 11:21:46 AM I'm making fun of you, and you are agreeing with me. 13249. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 11:56:49 AM Comedy is in the eye of the beholder, Fielding. And, no, I don't agree with you. 13250. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 11:57:39 AM you're=your 13251. JJBiener - 5/4/2001 12:16:37 PM Rose - Why should No reopen the DC thread when you are the only one who has expressed interest in it? When it was open you were the only one posting to it. You had your shot. No one was interested. Drop it already. 13252. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 12:20:42 PM ...drop it already? 13253. Indiana Jones - 5/4/2001 12:29:57 PM Stone: Do you wish to continue here as the pressure valve which other Motiers use to release their hostilities through, or would you like to serve some other function in life? 13254. pseudoerasmus - 5/4/2001 12:44:46 PM What is this link on the left margin about "Ethnicity: Is it cultural, linguistic or genetic"??? That description has almost nothing to do with what's being discussed. 13255. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 1:03:22 PM Rosie, 13256. Indiana Jones - 5/4/2001 1:10:28 PM Good move, Christin. 13257. JJBiener - 5/4/2001 1:12:43 PM Ms No - You are really going to give it to him? Ye gods! 13258. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 1:13:23 PM I think he looks on it as a "Cool Links" site more than a discussion forum, though. 13259. janjon - 5/4/2001 1:19:03 PM Well, it is clear that I am not as charitable in spirit as Indiana. 13260. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 1:20:03 PM Wabbit set up the thread for Rosie and after talking with her I agree. There's plenty of interest in the thread and Rosie surfs the net more than most people here so he has a lot to offer to such a topic. 13261. janjon - 5/4/2001 1:26:02 PM hmmm. A test for Rosie, eh. 13262. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 1:28:22 PM Here's a nice little thought piece that should go in the new thread but probably won't: 13263. rubberducky - 5/4/2001 1:34:55 PM well, i think giving him yet another thread is a colossally bad idea, but oh well. 13264. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 1:58:10 PM I understand the hesitation of many people regarding Rosie as the host of another thread, but I'd like to ask that you give him a fair chance. If you feel that you cannot contribute or participate without slamming him then please just don't post to his thread. 13265. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 2:02:28 PM thank you, wabbit and ms. no. K.'s confirmation is sunday. monday is good. 13266. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 2:03:56 PM I'm willing to give him a fair chance. I hope he is planning to allow discussion in his thread, however. Seems a legitimate concern to me... 13267. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 2:07:10 PM By all means, give the chap some more rope. We have plenty. 13268. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 2:07:40 PM I want discussion and encourage everyone to come up with lists of web sites they go to every day. 13269. seadate - 5/4/2001 2:08:32 PM So is this his reward for acting like an idiot? 13270. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 2:09:57 PM Rosie, 13271. RosettaStone - 5/4/2001 2:12:57 PM I'm willing to have guest co-hosts and choose vw, if she's interested. Now that I know her moniker in TT I realize that I've been reading her material in TableTalk for a long time. 13272. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 2:14:14 PM That has a funny way of happening, Rosie. 13273. janjon - 5/4/2001 2:26:04 PM If Stone had even a half-wit, he would be outraged at the condescension surrounding his being entrusted with yet another thread. 13274. Fielding - 5/4/2001 2:45:53 PM "So is this his reward for acting like an idiot?" 13275. bubbaette - 5/4/2001 2:55:24 PM No, I would say that it's his reward for acting like a royal flaming asshole. 13276. CalGal - 5/4/2001 2:56:46 PM I think Janjon has the right of it, but I thought that was the point. 13277. JJBiener - 5/4/2001 3:12:43 PM Ms No - If you feel that you cannot contribute or participate without slamming him then please just don't post to his thread. 13278. Dusty - 5/4/2001 3:30:37 PM Good call Ms. No. 13279. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 3:36:55 PM ....or an Aztek and a million bucks. 13280. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 3:43:29 PM Dusty, 13281. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 3:44:43 PM Just want to put everyone on notice that I am about to start a campaign for my own thread... Household Hints and Organizing Your Space. I plan to follow the Rosetta Method of wearing you down with constant whining and demands that I get my own way or I will stamp my little feet and turn you all into toads. 13282. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 3:47:06 PM Should we create a "Talk about RosettaStone" subthread? How deadly tired I am of this endless yadda, yadda about Rosie this and Rosie that. 13283. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 3:48:50 PM Judith, 13284. mgleason - 5/4/2001 3:52:20 PM Future topics in Judith's thread: 13285. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 3:52:57 PM MsNO: 13286. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 4:16:36 PM darn. 13287. AytchMan - 5/4/2001 4:17:56 PM If it's acceptable to the Trilateral Commission: 13288. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 4:20:36 PM An entirely acceptable idea, Sir. 13289. AytchMan - 5/4/2001 4:28:16 PM pelle- 13290. Jenerator - 5/4/2001 4:36:27 PM Ms No and Judy, 13291. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 4:36:45 PM Pelle is a nickname. My real first name is Per. Draw your own conclusions. 13292. Jenerator - 5/4/2001 4:38:36 PM Thanks Happy Camper, 13293. mgleason - 5/4/2001 4:40:34 PM I suppose no belly-button is safe around Happy Camper. 13294. Jenerator - 5/4/2001 4:45:51 PM Dear Heloise, 13295. Jenerator - 5/4/2001 4:49:32 PM Thanks for the "tip" happy camper. 13296. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 5:03:06 PM Looks like you have a new career, Jen... 13297. JudithAtHome - 5/4/2001 5:03:42 PM ...Lintiste. 13298. Cellar Door - 5/4/2001 5:50:07 PM I think "Tom Cruise is Gay" would make a lovely thread topic. 13299. JJBiener - 5/4/2001 6:00:54 PM I think "Tom Cruise is Gay" should be added to all of the thread headers. Maybe we can get some publicity by getting sued by the man himself. 13300. Cellar Door - 5/4/2001 6:02:15 PM Now you're talkin' J.J. ! 13301. Ms. No - 5/4/2001 6:06:34 PM I only want him to sue us if we get to talk to him face to face. If all we get is harrassing letters from his legal team then I'll pass. 13302. RosettaStone - 5/6/2001 9:34:45 AM wabbit: I'll be ready to start tommorrow noon, 12 est. 13303. AytchMan - 5/7/2001 2:30:46 AM I've made the Survivor thread read-only (I fervently hope). I'll archive it in a day or two (assuming I can do that). 13304. Fielding - 5/7/2001 9:07:58 AM Well done, Aytch! 13305. Fielding - 5/7/2001 9:15:58 AM I would like to propose a Food and Wine thread. There have been a number of conversations recently about Mario Batali restaurants, the perfect hamburger, whether a hamburger is a kebab (its not), and recipes for ceviche. It would seem to me that a thread on this subject would be most appropriate. As an inveterate foodie, I nominate myself to host or cohost this thread. 13306. CalGal - 5/7/2001 10:09:42 AM I thought the hamburger and alcohol discussions were perfectly on topic for H&G, and there is already a lot of overlap between Travel and H&G. 13307. JJBiener - 5/7/2001 10:16:35 AM Fielding - I would not object at all to your suggestion for the Travel thread. I think it is a great idea. To me eating out and food are closely related to travel. Especially the way I travel. 13308. AceofSpades - 5/7/2001 10:19:30 AM 13309. JJBiener - 5/7/2001 10:22:43 AM Where does this guy get off? 13310. Fielding - 5/7/2001 10:27:07 AM Ace: 13311. JJBiener - 5/7/2001 10:29:14 AM Fielding - I knew that one was there, but I wasn't going to use it. I am not sorry that you did. . . 13312. RosettaStone - 5/7/2001 4:51:52 PM email sent to wabbit. youngest daughter deleted lots of saved emails, including your. 13313. Ms. No - 5/7/2001 5:26:24 PM Rosie, 13314. RosettaStone - 5/7/2001 5:47:29 PM Is 8 pm est, Okay? 13315. Fielding - 5/7/2001 5:58:50 PM Any interest in a Food and Wine thread? 13316. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 6:00:04 PM I'll bite. 13317. JJBiener - 5/7/2001 6:02:38 PM Judith - Cute. 13318. Fielding - 5/7/2001 6:27:57 PM Just don't bite on the Spam. :) 13319. Ms. No - 5/7/2001 6:36:27 PM Rosie, 13320. RosettaStone - 5/7/2001 7:38:35 PM What Ace said. 13321. vw - 5/7/2001 8:05:06 PM I have not heard from vw yet. Maybe she hasn't seen the mention here on Friday. 13322. Ms. No - 5/7/2001 8:17:14 PM Rosie, 13323. RosettaStone - 5/7/2001 8:18:05 PM Would you like to co-anchor the INTERNET thread? 13324. vw - 5/7/2001 8:35:31 PM Well, thanks for thinking of me RS. At the moment, I don't know how much help I would be to you. 13325. vw - 5/7/2001 8:35:47 PM elave = leave 13326. RosettaStone - 5/7/2001 9:15:40 PM Thanks for being helpful, vw. 13327. vw - 5/7/2001 9:20:35 PM But I doubt that my Gollum-type personality can be hidden for more than 3 or 4 weeks. 13328. JudithAtHome - 5/8/2001 5:38:22 PM I can understand FU moving the posts about Clinton to Politics but not the posts about sex and the definitions of sex...why move entire blocks of posts to Politics? Why not move the "offensive" posts about sex (on the SEX thread!!) to the Inferno? 13329. janjon - 5/8/2001 5:44:29 PM frankie - do yourself a favor. Look at what you've done the past few minutes and think, just think, about whether you've both made some bad judgments in terms of the "legitimate" content of that thread and then overreacted in terms of what you call "bitching". 13330. sakonige - 5/8/2001 7:47:07 PM 13331. Francis Urquhart - 5/8/2001 8:06:55 PM Juditha 13332. ScottLoar - 5/8/2001 8:17:20 PM Francis Urquhart, you are becoming a very good writer. You are one of the very few who have remarkably improved by their presence here. 13333. sakonige - 5/8/2001 8:24:23 PM 13334. Indiana Jones - 5/8/2001 8:45:52 PM sakonige, my darling, perhaps you should post the specific post numbers and also mention this problem on the Politics thread, where the host can delete them. 13335. sakonige - 5/8/2001 9:07:52 PM 13336. Ms. No - 5/8/2001 10:12:33 PM Sakonige, 13337. sakonige - 5/8/2001 10:36:52 PM 13338. Fielding - 5/8/2001 10:55:32 PM Ms. No: 13339. wonkers2 - 5/8/2001 11:24:30 PM That is a serious breach of Mote ethics. I have assumed that names, email addresses, mote names and passwords are secure and not accessible to a bunch of people??? This has never happened to me. What is the actual situation? 13340. RosettaStone - 5/8/2001 11:57:57 PM What is the breach? Moving posts from one thread to another. Please. 13341. CalGal - 5/9/2001 12:02:42 AM Wonkers, 13342. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 1:07:20 AM sakonige, 13343. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 1:10:27 AM Re: Posts moved from Sex thread 13344. wonkers2 - 5/9/2001 6:57:18 AM Okay, no big deal. 13345. JudithAtHome - 5/9/2001 9:51:10 AM Look, I'm not making a big deal out of this and it's certainly not enough to make me "vote with my feet" but FU sort of demanded we take any questions about his moving the posts to the Inferno or to Suggestions, which is what I did...I think I had a valid point about part of them being moved to Politics. I guess the confusion came in thinking we could discuss sex on the Sex thread. 13346. CalGal - 5/9/2001 10:47:11 AM I agree that Francis moved a number of completely ontopic posts to Politics. The ones on Clinton were fine, but the majority of the posts were on oral sex or the definition of sex, and he was either lazy or uncomfortable with any non-pornographic discussion. If the thread is to be Porn Queen Survivor Island, then I suggest he resubmit the idea for approval, delete the Sex thread, and start all over. 13347. Francis Urquhart - 5/9/2001 11:00:51 AM Governance is imprecise. 13348. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:01:54 AM That is, the king can do no wrong. 13349. Zojak Quafeth - 5/9/2001 11:03:40 AM Collateral damage, huh? 13350. AceofSpades - 5/9/2001 11:10:28 AM I don't understand why FU moved the posts. 13351. CalGal - 5/9/2001 11:10:54 AM I'll take that last as an "I fucked up" and leave it at that. 13352. CalGal - 5/9/2001 11:13:18 AM Ace, 13353. AceofSpades - 5/9/2001 11:15:44 AM 13354. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:15:50 AM I think if you move posts you pretty much have to take an all or nothing approach to a "discussion" because you break it by moving some and not the others. 13355. Francis Urquhart - 5/9/2001 11:18:32 AM what . . .what 13356. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:19:09 AM My candidate has directed me to correct that last statement to say, "FU is a lazy imbecile when it comes to things computer.) 13357. CalGal - 5/9/2001 11:20:11 AM Ace, 13358. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:24:28 AM He didn't just move. He was adroit enough to delete a couple of resulting ones which, in very mild ways, querried/puzzled as to what the heck he was doing. 13359. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 11:26:23 AM It's so not a big deal that you felt the need to mention it in multiple threads? 13360. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 11:27:53 AM I'm sorry, that was snarky. I'm irritible this morning. 13361. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:28:03 AM BTW, can one of the moderators create a login for "Teri Weigel" and email me the password? 13362. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 11:28:25 AM and still don't spell well. 13363. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:28:58 AM there seems to be a discussion about it going on in two threads. I went to this one second. Is this somehow offensive? 13364. JudithAtHome - 5/9/2001 11:28:58 AM Thanks for the validation but I have had enough for today...over in the Sopranos thread, amid much speculation about the dead or live Russian, I've been called the "sanest poster". ha.... 13365. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:29:21 AM The login part of the post above is serious: please create such an account (temporarily) and email me the password: IndianaJones@resourceful.com. 13366. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 11:30:09 AM Indy, 13367. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:31:14 AM by the way, it is troubling to know that even "innocent" posts (bitching my eye - if anything I was trying to be helpful. Frankie has his faults, but he's usually mostly rational in what he does. His moving of all of those posts to Politics - especially when it was indeed HE who had started the Clinton aspects) - was baffling.) 13368. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:33:41 AM well, you may have your spelling hiccups, but I left out the thrust of my last comment - it is troubling to know that even innocent posts can just be incinerated as it were. Smacks of being unduly sensitive to what is perceived as criticism. 13369. CalGal - 5/9/2001 11:34:11 AM Indy, 13370. JJBiener - 5/9/2001 11:34:11 AM Indy - You don't write checks on the Mote account. If there are going to be any expenses relating to Ms Weigel's appearance in the Mote, you will have to get them approved by the PTBs. If they are going to be considerable, then you are just SOL. 13371. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:34:46 AM You're going to make a world-famous celebrity jump through hoops like this? 13372. AceofSpades - 5/9/2001 11:37:01 AM Janny, 13373. JJBiener - 5/9/2001 11:37:06 AM Indy - What do you mean? We cut through red tape here. . . lengthwise. 13374. CalGal - 5/9/2001 11:39:26 AM Indy, 13375. AceofSpades - 5/9/2001 11:39:52 AM 13376. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 11:41:06 AM Janjon, 13377. PsychProf - 5/9/2001 11:42:36 AM This is obviously very serious business. 13378. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 11:43:32 AM PP, 13379. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:44:36 AM Well, Cal, "The Most Accomplished Performer of Our Time" is surely a busy woman. The best we can hope for is a quick swing by--especially since JJ is being stingy with the Mote's entertainment budget. If I'm going to do this on a shoestring, I'll have to tell her it's a charity case and keep the impact on her hectic workaday schedule to a minimum. 13380. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:45:10 AM Ah yes, the man who just hates what he perceives as spam. 13381. PsychProf - 5/9/2001 11:46:19 AM Dr No...you gave it to me for safe-keeping, as I recall... 13382. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:47:51 AM ms. no - you are being uncharacteristically a bit overly touchy on this. But, if you want it all (or what, if anything remains, in one thread, why don't you just move the relevant stuff from either here to there or there to here. You may even delete any redundant posts of mine as far as I am concerned.) 13383. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:53:18 AM incidentally, Ms No, I initially posted my little querry to frankie since when he was throwing things here and there in the sex thread last night he announced that under the rules "bitching" belonged in either the Inferno or the "New" thread. I somehow assumed that he would be moving my (and fielding's) offensive (again - looking at it from his perspective) posts to one or both. Who in hell knew. Instead, he just deleted them. 13384. JJBiener - 5/9/2001 11:54:13 AM Ace - We're all writing for posterity here, guys. 13385. janjon - 5/9/2001 11:54:20 AM christ. That should have said "posted my little querry to frankie in two threads" 13386. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 12:03:55 PM Never mind about the Teri Weigel thing because I just thought of a rather obvious solution. 13387. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 12:10:05 PM Janjon, 13388. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 12:10:39 PM PP, 13389. JJBiener - 5/9/2001 12:14:47 PM Ms No - I'll go have some coffee and flirt with the webmasters and rejuvenate. 13390. Ms. No - 5/9/2001 12:20:46 PM JJ, 13391. sakonige - 5/9/2001 12:24:58 PM 13392. sakonige - 5/9/2001 12:25:51 PM 13393. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 1:04:48 PM I think the crowd here is over-critical. Mr Urquhart shows great progress in the mechanics of hosting. Recall that last time he tried to manipulate a large number of posts they all disppeared. And haven't we seen him link at least once? Be reasonable. 13394. Wombat - 5/9/2001 1:24:06 PM Sakonige is almost as much a martyr here as Rosie. 13395. JJBiener - 5/9/2001 4:42:47 PM Sakonige - Or maybe to say hello or goodbye to an old friend. 13396. AytchMan - 5/10/2001 1:31:27 AM On the slowly disappearing Survivor thread: 13397. sakonige - 5/10/2001 1:39:50 AM 13398. Dusty - 5/10/2001 7:24:41 AM sakonige 13399. JudithAtHome - 5/10/2001 1:21:38 PM Rosetta is doing a nice job with his thread...he's made an offer in one of his last few posts that seems pretty generous, too. 13400. JJBiener - 5/10/2001 2:43:47 PM sakonige - I've always assumed you didn't like me because of my race, religion and politics. 13401. janjon - 5/10/2001 2:47:19 PM "I never allow politics to get in the way of friendship." 13402. rubberducky - 5/11/2001 10:47:05 AM um 13403. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 11:06:16 AM janjon - Don't worry. I would never hold your being a nutjob against you. (G) 13404. janjon - 5/11/2001 12:03:26 PM Biener. I do take politics into account when deciding whom I want to be friends with. Life is too short to spend it with idiots. 13405. janjon - 5/11/2001 12:04:21 PM Not that it is much of an effort, since I really don't know many Republicans beyond casual or strictly "business" connections anyway. 13406. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 12:11:01 PM janjon - I do take politics into account when deciding whom I want to be friends with. 13407. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 12:14:15 PM Some of my good friends are Republicans...I just look on it as a lapse in sanity and carry on...I'm sure they do the same for me. 13408. theDiva - 5/11/2001 12:16:35 PM "I do take politics into account when deciding whom I want to be friends with." 13409. janjon - 5/11/2001 12:23:02 PM Without getting unduly serious about it all, Biener, it is definitely true that a lot of the things I am interested in - good music, art, architecture, literature - cut across political lines. (Mostly - I have noticed that the Republicans I know do tend to shy away from a lot of the architecture I enjoy). 13410. bubbaette - 5/11/2001 12:23:35 PM My pop is a lifelong Repulbican. But after 8 years of the republican administration in state government, he's finally coming around. So remember, Jan Jon, Republicans can reform. 13411. janjon - 5/11/2001 12:24:58 PM Funny you would mention family. I was just thinking of mine and my wife's. Not a Republican in them, at least to the first cousin level. Beyond that, I don't know. 13412. bubbaette - 5/11/2001 12:29:08 PM Well, pop's a Republican of the libertarian variety, not the right wing Christian variety, so it's not like I had to effect a total conversion. 13413. janjon - 5/11/2001 12:32:07 PM Well, admitting something so obvious might come easier for some. 13414. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 12:40:06 PM janjon - Without getting unduly serious about it all, Biener, it is definitely true that a lot of the things I am interested in - good music, art, architecture, literature - cut across political lines. (Mostly - I have noticed that the Republicans I know do tend to shy away from a lot of the architecture I enjoy). 13415. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 12:42:46 PM Bubbaette - I was discussing this with a good friend and life-long Democrat. We decided that after this last election, neither party is worth a damn and we are much better off to focus our attentions on other endeavors. 13416. rubberducky - 5/11/2001 12:48:13 PM meanwhile... 13417. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 1:00:14 PM I think the Welcome thread or link or whatever is confusing...of course, it makes sense to us because we're here but maybe it's a bit obscure to new people. 13418. bubbaette - 5/11/2001 1:10:09 PM We decided that after this last election, neither party is worth a damn and we are much better off to focus our attentions on other endeavors. 13419. MaxMacks - 5/11/2001 1:12:33 PM janjon--I agree with you regarding your list 13420. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 1:13:41 PM Bubbaette - Not to be confused with renting from two landlords which is the evil of two lessors. 13421. MaxMacks - 5/11/2001 1:16:47 PM ok it did. I dont necessarily thing Republicans 13422. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 1:18:29 PM Max - That's all right. I can spot a Democrat on TV in seconds. They all say the exact same thing. 13423. MaxMacks - 5/11/2001 1:19:30 PM Hi Judith AH - I took have found some confusing 13424. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 1:36:56 PM Well, Max, it is current but maybe there was just a glitch in the mailing...who knows? 13425. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 1:37:25 PM rund=runs 13426. janjon - 5/11/2001 3:42:16 PM Biener. I am glad you are able to be so magnanimous when it comes to who you are friends with. 13427. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 4:23:39 PM janjon - There is nothing magnanimous about it. I am friends with people because I like and respect them. I don't have to agree with someone to like and respect them. I guess you have different standards. I still think it is your loss. 13428. janjon - 5/11/2001 4:26:45 PM different strokes for different people. 13429. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 4:31:13 PM janjon - different definitions of respect too, I suspect. 13430. janjon - 5/11/2001 4:35:59 PM of course you do. 13431. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 4:42:42 PM janjon - Life is too short to spend it with idiots. 13432. janjon - 5/11/2001 4:53:36 PM the feeling is distinctly mutual. 13433. MaxMacks - 5/11/2001 5:39:19 PM Gosh , can't we idiots all get along??? 13434. janjon - 5/11/2001 5:42:21 PM rocket science is passe, you know. 13435. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 5:42:36 PM Max - I hope you and janjon are very happy together. Tell me again how tolerant Democrats are. 13436. janjon - 5/11/2001 5:44:06 PM Biener - just remember: the only good Republican is a defeated one. 13437. JJBiener - 5/11/2001 5:46:27 PM I see the Democratic tradition of hatred and intolerance still rings through loud and clear. 13438. MaxMacks - 5/11/2001 6:30:04 PM JJ ..my earlier post did not make it so 13439. JJBiener - 5/12/2001 1:05:55 AM Max - I don't worry about it one way or another. I slept fine while Clinton was in office and I sleep fine now. What goes on in Washington has very little bearing on my life. 13440. arkymalarky - 5/12/2001 1:11:06 AM And Reagan slept fine while he was in office.... 13441. JJBiener - 5/12/2001 1:36:16 AM Arky - I think Clinton caused far more damage sleeping his way through the Presidency. 13442. arkymalarky - 5/12/2001 1:38:57 AM Awww, you're just mad 'cause I nabbed the big M in the Cafe. 13443. JJBiener - 5/12/2001 1:41:33 AM Mad? Nah, I am happy for you. You got it fair and aquare. I just couldn't resist the Clinton joke. It was just sitting there begging to be posted. 13444. arkymalarky - 5/12/2001 1:50:23 AM I know what you mean. I thought he more or less hummed his way through his presidency, though. 13445. JJBiener - 5/12/2001 1:53:59 AM Actually it was . . . Nah. I better not go there. 13446. RustlerPike - 5/12/2001 12:18:00 PM Originally posted elsewhere but belongs here: 13447. JudithAtHome - 5/12/2001 12:25:17 PM Didn't New Coke teach you anything? Don't mess with a Classic... 13448. CalGal - 5/12/2001 12:27:03 PM Actually, I didn't design that image. You'll have to talk to JJ. The front page needs to go through a change for other reasons anyway, so if there's sufficient interest in a logo change, by all means make a suggestion. 13449. JudithAtHome - 5/12/2001 12:30:50 PM If there's a change in the works, I'd like to suggest rays of sunlight with motes filtering through. 13450. CalGal - 5/12/2001 12:32:02 PM That sounds pretty. 13451. dusty - 5/12/2001 5:35:01 PM 13452. CalGal - 5/12/2001 8:26:20 PM Lord, such dramatic language. "Rejected" indeed. I can't even remember the specifics anymore, but it was either not actually cleaner, a different font (which someone did submit but I don't know if that was you), or I just completely forgot all about it, since I can't install the changes myself. We went a long time with no changes because I couldn't test them, then lost a machine, and so on. 13453. Dusty - 5/13/2001 8:16:57 AM You see drama in "rejected"? How over-reactive. 13454. PelleNilsson - 5/13/2001 12:55:22 PM The janjon/JJ(MaxMacks discussion should be move out of here but I don't have the energy. You guys should know better. We have plenty of chat threads. This is not one of them. 13455. dusty - 5/13/2001 7:39:09 PM The font name is "Hansa". If you have it installed you will be able to see this: 13456. dusty - 5/13/2001 7:42:53 PM (I should have mentioned, even if you can see that, it is plain ol' red, not the color selected for the logo. I did figure out the color before, but I'll let the graphics experts do the color match, as the program I had that can do color match is no longer on my computer.) 13457. JJBiener - 5/13/2001 11:49:08 PM Dusty - Thank you for providing the information. The machine that I had that stuff on is currently nonfunctional. Out of the three machines on my network, only one is functioning normally. Very frustrating. 13458. don s. - 5/14/2001 1:07:36 AM Someone should point out to the graphic artist the difference, typographically, between a "dash" and a couple of hyphens strung together. 13459. RustlerPike - 5/14/2001 2:37:47 AM Well - I think we can do a lot better graphically. There must be some way of deciding what's ugly and what isn't. I think the pimento is ug-lee, and the logo at the top of the threads is just not very good.. 13460. Dusty - 5/14/2001 8:49:17 AM don s. 13461. don s. - 5/14/2001 11:22:39 AM Home page: 13462. marjoribanks - 5/14/2001 11:24:32 AM Take a look at Don S's site, Motards, especially you Pike. A fine fine example of good and quirky/hip web design. 13463. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 11:30:12 AM Motards? 13464. Dusty - 5/14/2001 11:38:40 AM Don S. 13465. marjoribanks - 5/14/2001 11:43:47 AM It looks around 800 times better with the space. 13466. JJBiener - 5/14/2001 11:44:15 AM If there is enough interest in having a new banner, why don't we have people submit entries and then we can vote on it. We can even have a thread where we can post the entries. Who would be up for such an endeavor? 13467. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 12:02:54 PM do i see a Thread Banner Survivor thread in the future? 13468. don s. - 5/14/2001 12:09:01 PM The space after the EM dash in display type is acceptable. 13469. don s. - 5/14/2001 12:10:32 PM Marj, you don't need to drive traffic to my site right now. Parts of it are 2+ years old and, along with newer parts, it has become a cacophony. I'm working on a new cacophony... 13470. Ms. No - 5/14/2001 12:24:49 PM JJ, 13471. JJBiener - 5/14/2001 1:22:16 PM Ms No - Ideally the host would provide a web site where the banners can be posted. There would be a link on the butter bar for this site. People could view the entries at their leisure and comment on them in the thread. After a suitable amount of time we could vote, either in the thread or via email. 13472. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 1:23:42 PM i have the time 13473. Ms. No - 5/14/2001 1:51:18 PM Right on Ducky, you're nominated! 13474. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 2:42:37 PM ok, all i need are some images to get started. 13475. JudithAtHome - 5/14/2001 2:45:29 PM Could you make it narrower, so it will all fit on the screen? 13476. PelleNilsson - 5/14/2001 2:45:56 PM Good show, ducky. 13477. PelleNilsson - 5/14/2001 2:47:15 PM What kind of screen do you have, Judith? It fits very well with space to spare. 13478. Ms. No - 5/14/2001 2:47:59 PM Looks good, Ducks! Guess I'd better get in gear and get your thread up, eh? 13479. JudithAtHome - 5/14/2001 2:49:22 PM Pelle: 13480. Dusty - 5/14/2001 2:49:32 PM Currently, there is one image that shows only in the Home page, and a different image that shows up at the top of each thread. 13481. Ms. No - 5/14/2001 2:50:53 PM I think we're talking about both/either/neither depending on what submissions we get and how it all looks. 13482. Dusty - 5/14/2001 2:51:11 PM I don't have a width problem, but I don't see the original graphic. Is it not there yet ducky? Or do I have a display problem? 13483. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 2:53:05 PM Dusty: 13484. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 2:54:37 PM dusty: i think we x'ed in 13482/3. did i answer your question? 13485. Ms. No - 5/14/2001 3:03:19 PM Ducky, I'll post here when it's ready to go live. Should be about ten minutes. 13486. Ms. No - 5/14/2001 3:10:08 PM Okay, the thread is ready for you anytime you want to open it. You'll need to go to the maintenance page and enable posting to the thread. 13487. rubberducky - 5/14/2001 3:10:57 PM ok, sounds good 13488. don s. - 5/14/2001 4:13:53 PM It makes much more sense to base the thread header image on the "splash" (home page) image. 13489. MaxMacks - 5/14/2001 7:18:49 PM Pelle Nilson, Sorry if I chat on your thread 13490. Stumbo - 5/14/2001 9:40:26 PM Limericks are supposed to rhyme, Max. 13491. Ronski - 5/15/2001 12:10:17 PM How about breathing some life into the Language Thread by formally adding Ethnography to it? 13492. Ronski - 5/15/2001 12:14:19 PM Ethnology, rather. Though I suppose Ethnography would also be welcomed. 13493. Dusty - 5/15/2001 12:40:20 PM rubberducky 13494. bubbaette - 5/15/2001 1:28:53 PM There once was a feller called Stumbo 13495. MaxMacks - 5/15/2001 2:54:38 PM A guy named Max stumbled into a Mote 13496. Fielding - 5/16/2001 5:09:24 PM Do you think we could open a thread for just one week devoted to 13497. JJBiener - 5/16/2001 5:18:38 PM Fielding - I have no problem with a Dylan birthday party. You are welcome to post Dylan lyrics in the Arts & Music thread. If there are some links you would like in the butter bar, let me know and I will put them up. We can put a link on the front page as well if you would like. I am big Dylan fan. Maybe you can use the precedent set in the Sex thread and get the man himself to post. 13498. RosettaStone - 5/16/2001 5:19:56 PM I like it. 13499. Fielding - 5/16/2001 5:22:08 PM Bienwer = Biener. 13500. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 12:56:55 PM If CharlieL isn't banned, please reinstate JontheCad and Cazart. 13501. MsIvoryTower - 5/17/2001 12:57:59 PM Ban Stone! 13502. MsIvoryTower - 5/17/2001 12:58:35 PM "he" meaning Stone. 13503. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:07:16 PM Can't imagine who will hire you as their attorney if you have define "he" so soon after you're first reference. 13504. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:08:00 PM you're=your 13505. MsIvoryTower - 5/17/2001 1:10:02 PM boo hoo 13506. rubberducky - 5/17/2001 1:10:18 PM i'd be surprised if CharlieL was actually banned 13507. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:11:09 PM No, he was banned, according to Wabbit. 13508. MsIvoryTower - 5/17/2001 1:12:17 PM you sort of ruined the effect, you know, with Message # 13504 13509. JudithAtHome - 5/17/2001 1:12:40 PM I'd be upset if CharlieL was shoved off again due to Rosettas carping. He was gone for a time after the alledged infraction and now he's back and has stated he intends to ignore Rosetta... 13510. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2001 1:15:16 PM wabbit suspended Charlie L. She didn't ban him. 13511. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:15:27 PM Rules are rules. If CharlieL is allowed back after being warned about revealing personal information and then banned, why can't JontheCad return? 13512. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:16:34 PM How would you know, IJ? She said banned. 13513. MsIvoryTower - 5/17/2001 1:17:35 PM IJ 13514. Ms. No - 5/17/2001 1:23:41 PM Rosie, 13515. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:27:44 PM For the record, Wabbit said banned, Ms. No. 13516. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2001 1:29:39 PM In post 9597 wabbit announced that Charlie L's ID had been "disabled." She did not use the word "banned." 13517. JudithAtHome - 5/17/2001 1:38:16 PM IJ: 13518. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:41:04 PM Neither were "disabled" for revealing personal information about a member, let alone the home address and phone number of a child. 13519. janjon - 5/17/2001 1:43:57 PM Stone would be well-advised to stop his one-note carping and pay more attention to his thread. It isn't exactly a beehive of activity or interest. 13520. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:47:52 PM Actually, the thread is doing fine. Lots of good information there on the web. 13521. janjon - 5/17/2001 1:49:47 PM the thread is doing fine if you like talking with yourself, Stone. 13522. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 1:52:38 PM It's a "fountainhead" of useful information, janjan. It doesn't need a lot of chit chat. 13523. Ms. No - 5/17/2001 2:04:13 PM RosettaStone, 13524. rubberducky - 5/17/2001 2:19:41 PM and I'll shutup 13525. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 2:28:49 PM Actually I've ignored CharlieL for years until he--as a political weapon--published my name, home address and daughter's telephone number in TableTalk. He did it more than five times. Since then, others have done so. 13526. janjon - 5/17/2001 2:35:17 PM god - he really is pathetic, isn't he. 13527. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2001 2:41:00 PM Gollum is back. 13528. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 2:44:06 PM Ah, now comes the name calling. Such is the copy from people who have no defense to the accusations that they are ignoring the rules. 13529. Ms. No - 5/17/2001 2:44:18 PM RosettaStone, 13530. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 2:47:23 PM "...in this forum." 13531. Ms. No - 5/17/2001 2:51:14 PM Please restrict Peanut Gallery comments to the Inferno. If you have something of import to post then by all means do so, but heckling merely prolongs this kind of crap. 13532. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 2:52:25 PM Policy changes go to the Inferno? 13533. wabbit - 5/17/2001 2:54:17 PM Rosie, 13534. RosettaStone - 5/17/2001 2:57:51 PM Amazing. So the rules have been changed. And I have been threatened for bringing it up. 13535. janjon - 5/17/2001 3:00:58 PM well, you could always take your marbles and go play somewhere else, eh. 13536. Ms. No - 5/17/2001 3:03:20 PM RosettaStone, 13537. Ms. No - 5/17/2001 3:04:42 PM Hiya Wabbit! Good to see you! 13538. don s. - 5/17/2001 11:33:49 PM Like most urban dwellers, I frequently see grizzled, shabby people walking along the street, muttering to themselves and gesturing madly. I always feel guilty for finding these spectacles amusing. 13539. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:40:04 AM If you expect to traipse around flicking people on the ear with impunity or believe that you deserve some kind of sympathy when somebody turns around and smacks you back you're destined for disappointment. 13540. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:41:11 AM 13541. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:42:58 AM 13542. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:48:35 AM 13543. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:01:19 AM Ms No/Wabbit: 13544. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:02:04 AM 13545. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:14:56 AM 13546. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:16:01 AM Public information 13547. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:21:02 AM Threats 13548. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:25:07 AM Well, I'm going to bed now. 13549. stostosto - 5/18/2001 4:45:20 AM I just took a look at the Rules of Engagement. 13550. stostosto - 5/18/2001 4:47:53 AM I see I cross-posted with Ace. 13551. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 8:32:22 AM Ace: First thing, don't take Stone's statements as anywhere near the truth. As usual, he has greatly exaggerated and distorted everything. 13552. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 8:40:30 AM Before anyone works themselves too much into a lather about Stone's privacy, please check out post 19166 in Politics. 13553. RosettaStone - 5/18/2001 8:58:01 AM Everything I said about CharlieL's decision to publish my name, address and phone number for hateful reasons is correct. ( Although he probably didn't know that the phone number is the one connected to my daughters' rooms.) 13554. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 9:09:11 AM There you go again...revealing personal info about where your address can be found. You need to stop this or live with the consequences. 13555. RosettaStone - 5/18/2001 9:18:15 AM I made the mistake, not Ace, Judith. And you use your whole name (if that is your name) as your handle in TT. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you're used it here. 13556. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 9:30:44 AM My heartiest apologies to Ace for confusing him with you...I doubt he can forgive me but I am seriously sorry for it! 13557. RosettaStone - 5/18/2001 9:40:22 AM Of course, you infuriate people. You're doing it right now. Anyone who writes two to three hundred posts a day does. 13558. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 9:47:54 AM Stone: The phone number he published was tied to your name, so of course he didn't know it went to your daughter's room. I think it's pitiful the way you keep bringing your kids into these situations and that more so than anything else you do online is the reason I don't respect you. 13559. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 9:48:57 AM No, people who infuriate others lie and exaggerate just as you did in your last post. I don't write two to three hundred posts a day. Nor do I call people names nor do I post things that are lies. 13560. Ms. No - 5/18/2001 12:41:51 PM Why wasn't CharlieL banned? 13561. RosettaStone - 5/18/2001 12:55:46 PM Spudboy? What are you talking about? 13562. Ms. No - 5/18/2001 1:08:54 PM Public information 13563. PsychProf - 5/18/2001 1:11:22 PM Stone...your incessant whining has gone beyond stupefying boredom. Let the Chiefs here do their job. 13564. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:14:32 PM 13565. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:16:38 PM 13566. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:19:22 PM 13567. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 1:24:06 PM Ace: 13568. Ms. No - 5/18/2001 1:27:50 PM Ace, 13569. RosettaStone - 5/18/2001 1:30:18 PM Good old Judith. Two posts within three hours to apology to Ace and dis me. Gotta get her quota up to 200 before dinner. 13570. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:30:57 PM 13571. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:34:02 PM 13572. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 1:35:46 PM Rosie: 13573. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 1:38:34 PM Ace: 13574. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:40:47 PM 13575. rubberducky - 5/18/2001 1:43:14 PM What the fuck is wrong with you people? 13576. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 1:43:48 PM The Mote Cafe at TT is not an extension of this forum. 13577. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 1:44:59 PM Ace: Rosetta is lying about the daughter part and the phone number was actually revealed at TT. 13578. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 1:45:02 PM Ducks: 13579. Ms. No - 5/18/2001 1:48:13 PM Ace, 13580. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 1:50:43 PM You have publicly stated that it is your intent to destroy this forum. If you decide to pursue that course of action let me remind you that it is a bannable offense 13581. Ms. No - 5/18/2001 1:53:52 PM Ace, 13582. Ms. No - 5/18/2001 2:12:56 PM Ace, 13583. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:20:08 PM Any time that happens and I or Wabbit or Pelle makes a decision that you disagree with you come in spewing filth 13584. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:20:19 PM "That's obviously a "loose" interpretation of the RoE that you have no problem accepting since it allows you to behave as you wish without punishment. " 13585. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:21:08 PM 13586. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:25:16 PM 13587. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:29:33 PM 13588. glendajean - 5/18/2001 2:39:59 PM Ace -- it's a private website. If it is too arbitary for your tastes, go find one that makes you happy. 13589. PsychProf - 5/18/2001 2:42:58 PM Ace...come on over to PP's SportsBar...beer is on the house. How bout a Knob Creek? 13590. glendajean - 5/18/2001 2:47:49 PM Knob Creek bourbon? Very fine. 13591. PsychProf - 5/18/2001 2:48:56 PM Come on over too GJ...and it is very fine. 13592. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:51:00 PM 13593. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 2:53:03 PM 13594. don s. - 5/18/2001 3:06:23 PM Like most urban dwellers, I frequently see grizzled, shabby people walking along the street, muttering to themselves and gesturing madly. I always feel guilty for finding these spectacles amusing. 13595. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:07:12 PM 13596. stostosto - 5/18/2001 3:08:17 PM don s. 13597. don s. - 5/18/2001 3:08:48 PM You know it, big guy. 13598. marjoribanks - 5/18/2001 3:09:12 PM Ace, 13599. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:09:37 PM 13600. don s. - 5/18/2001 3:09:40 PM #13597 was in response to #13595 13601. don s. - 5/18/2001 3:11:21 PM Marj, don't play this down. If you posted like Ace, you'd be a little paranoid about people finding out who you are, too. 13602. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:13:02 PM If we're taking "context" into account, why are we not examining the "context" of CharlieL looking up Rosetta's address and phone number and posting them on-line? 13603. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 3:18:25 PM I think that all of us need a vacation. 13604. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 3:19:17 PM Why aren't we examining the context of Rosetta telling lies about other members of this forum IN this forum? 13605. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:20:36 PM 13606. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:21:32 PM 13607. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 3:22:00 PM I see that Ace is into his favourite endeavour: building a hen of a feather. For some reason he got worked up at 4 am and now he has to defend his position. 13608. glendajean - 5/18/2001 3:23:22 PM No, they're fairly nice people running a private forum. And if passive aggressive behavior is ludicrous in a man (???), aggressive behavior over nothing is worse. 13609. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 3:23:24 PM Ace, 13610. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 3:24:49 PM And let's not even begin to talk about banning Ace. That's ridiculous. 13611. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:29:09 PM 13612. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 3:30:19 PM 13613. don s. - 5/18/2001 3:34:30 PM Just like real life, eh Jen? 13614. PsychProf - 5/18/2001 3:35:45 PM This topic smoked Floyd out... 13615. Francis Urquhart - 5/18/2001 3:38:26 PM They forgave Nixon and he became a star emeritus. Eventually, they'll forgive Clinton. You should prepare for this eventuality and practice with the pardon of Charlie L. 13616. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 3:50:04 PM What's like real life Don? That some things are frustrating? If so, yes. 13617. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 3:52:12 PM A thought strikes me. This discussion possibly provides a clue to the identity of the late Dr Coltrane. 13618. JJBiener - 5/18/2001 3:57:02 PM Ace - You and I have know each other for a long time. I say this to you with all due respect. Shut the fuck up already. You look like an idiot. 13619. JJBiener - 5/18/2001 3:57:33 PM Pelle - Eerie, isn't it? 13620. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:01:36 PM 13621. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:03:05 PM 13622. don s. - 5/18/2001 4:07:31 PM “What’s like real life Don?” 13623. JJBiener - 5/18/2001 4:10:25 PM Ace - Civility prig? That's funny. BTW, if you have your heart set on looking like an idiot, far be it for me to try to talk you out of it. Enjoy. 13624. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 4:10:33 PM Don, 13625. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:10:37 PM 13626. PsychProf - 5/18/2001 4:13:14 PM CharlieL is in Rhode Island this weekend, revealing his musical talents. 13627. don s. - 5/18/2001 4:14:11 PM Jesus, Jen, you are dense. I was making an analogy. Sheesh. 13628. JJBiener - 5/18/2001 4:15:37 PM Jen - It was a joke. He was referring to your prayers to God as "emails to the Management". It is an interesting comparison, but not particularly apt. 13629. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 4:15:51 PM 13630. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 4:17:57 PM I'm not dense, I just tend to take things literally. 13631. don s. - 5/18/2001 4:21:50 PM “But, kiss my ass anyway Don. Have a nice day getting your hair done at the salon.” 13632. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 4:23:22 PM (Jen: I'll send you some email.) 13633. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 4:25:07 PM Indy, 13634. Fielding - 5/18/2001 4:30:02 PM Indy: 13635. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 4:35:01 PM Fielding: Dunno. Throwing the dice that one of them might be willing to. Plus, this is all about friendship, right? 13636. CalGal - 5/18/2001 4:39:28 PM Why is it you think that CharlieL is buddies with any of the three moderators? 13637. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 4:41:34 PM This is crazy...if someone breaks the rules, let them pay for it. Aces idea is like making the police go to jail if a parolee commits a crime. 13638. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 4:47:20 PM Cal: I'm going by what Ace says. Plus, if no one is willing to stand good for Charlie L's character, then maybe bringing him back is not such a good idea. 13639. CalGal - 5/18/2001 5:03:59 PM Cal: I'm going by what Ace says. 13640. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 5:06:58 PM If we did, then by rights we could ban you, too, as you've noted. 13641. CalGal - 5/18/2001 5:09:21 PM I thought you said you revealed real life information. If not, I apologize. 13642. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 5:14:38 PM Cal: The distinction is that as you point out the rules are different at TT. We have one social contract here and they have another there. But I do think that the social contract among us should be in force at other sites. For example, when Cellar put up that photo of you and just linked to it from here, technically that was on another site. So if we don't say our mutual covenant extends to other sites then it's pretty useless. 13643. don s. - 5/18/2001 5:15:20 PM Gee, I hope Andrew Sullivan never joins the Mote. 13644. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 5:24:47 PM don -- or Tom Cruise, for that matter 13645. CalGal - 5/18/2001 5:25:11 PM For example, when Cellar put up that photo of you and just linked to it from here, technically that was on another site. 13646. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 5:40:34 PM Now we're into the legalistic morass again. What if... what if... what if.... We cannot cover all eventualities in the RoE and it would be useless to try. 13647. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:47:30 PM 13648. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 5:50:35 PM Yes, Ace. We know that you have set yourself the target of destroying this forum. 13649. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 5:51:43 PM So what if he doesn't do it again...who promises to leave if he doesn't do it? 13650. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:52:04 PM 13651. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:53:32 PM 13652. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:54:13 PM 13653. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 5:54:13 PM Well, thanks a lot, Ace...we'll just have to tell them you have "issues". 13654. glendajean - 5/18/2001 5:55:05 PM Doomed to be Cassandra, a prophet never believed... 13655. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:56:40 PM 13656. JJBiener - 5/18/2001 5:56:50 PM Ace - Jeez. No wonder you were hiding behind the XTC moniker. 13657. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:57:59 PM 13658. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 5:58:43 PM 13659. Fielding - 5/18/2001 5:59:28 PM Ace: 13660. glendajean - 5/18/2001 5:59:38 PM Ace, sheesh. Learn to spell. It's faggot. 13661. JJBiener - 5/18/2001 6:00:14 PM Ace - Sure you would have. It is the best way to throw off suspicion. Now why don't you drop this act and stop acting like a child. 13662. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 6:00:17 PM Ace 13663. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:00:47 PM 13664. glendajean - 5/18/2001 6:01:54 PM And you are an aggrieved whiner. Trash the place. It's what you do best. 13665. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:03:28 PM 13666. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 6:04:35 PM We used to know somebody else who mis-spelled words deliberatidly, didn't we? 13667. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:04:37 PM 13668. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:06:41 PM 13669. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:07:37 PM 13670. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:08:14 PM Ace, 13671. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:11:37 PM 13672. PelleNilsson - 5/18/2001 6:12:17 PM I couldn't resist a last glance. 13673. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:13:18 PM Bullshit. He was banned for revealing RS's name. 13674. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:13:32 PM 13675. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:14:32 PM 13676. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:15:09 PM 13677. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:16:30 PM Ace, 13678. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:16:40 PM 13679. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:18:39 PM no one knew it was his real name until JadeCunt looked his children's names up in a school roster. 13680. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:18:49 PM 13681. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:19:27 PM 13682. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:21:02 PM 13683. Francis Urquhart - 5/18/2001 6:23:04 PM Everybody gets their bennies from this little chat area. Some get a little more slack than others. That's how it works. Charlie flipped out. He got bumped for awhile. Stone is kind of dick most of the time, but he hangs on, always skirting the edge. Cazart/Ferguson come and goes. Ace goes crazy on occasion. Jexster is retarded. Cellar has flipped. Cal and jenerator have a spitting fight. Seguine went bonkers. 13684. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:24:08 PM He said it was his name. 13685. Francis Urquhart - 5/18/2001 6:25:28 PM Cal 13686. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:26:49 PM RS never complained about it until JadeCunt threatened to have her myriad retarded cousins beat the kid up, Dopey. 13687. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:26:58 PM 13688. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:28:01 PM Francis, 13689. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:28:56 PM 13690. Francis Urquhart - 5/18/2001 6:29:55 PM Ace 13691. Cellar Door - 5/18/2001 6:30:42 PM Banning is a small town just outside of Palm Springs. 13692. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:32:13 PM You told people where you scored, approximately. 13693. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:32:47 PM 13694. Francis Urquhart - 5/18/2001 6:33:56 PM Ace 13695. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:37:16 PM 13696. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:40:30 PM 13697. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:40:32 PM Ace, 13698. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:41:09 PM but ROSETTA STONE never explicitly connected the moniker "Rosetta Stone" with the name "____ ______." 13699. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:43:00 PM 13700. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:46:17 PM No. Long before that. He changed monikers every month for a while, and in every case would go a while pretending to be a newbie and then eventually admit that he was [real name], which he openly acknowledged back then. It wasn't until he saw he could use it as a way to get people banned that he started objecting to it. 13701. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:50:03 PM 13702. marjoribanks - 5/18/2001 6:57:01 PM Spades, 13703. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 6:59:11 PM 13704. CalGal - 5/18/2001 6:59:52 PM You told everyone ON LINE that you had scored in the X percentile on a test whose results were posted on-line, and which included your real name. 13705. marjoribanks - 5/18/2001 6:59:57 PM The way Ace rails about "Management" in this volunteer-driven site is touching, in its own way. It may be interpreted as one man's search for God, the unknowable but desired pathway of pure righteousness, Santa Claus even. 13706. AceofSpades - 5/18/2001 7:09:50 PM 13707. CalGal - 5/18/2001 7:11:27 PM It wasn't a privacy violation, Ace. 13708. RosettaStone - 5/18/2001 7:13:45 PM Enough already. I know you're not doing this for me, Ace, and I appreciate it. But it's time to stop until wabbit returns or until the problem happens again 13709. CalGal - 5/18/2001 7:18:32 PM I did finally pay the $20 to join Slate. 13710. rubberducky - 5/21/2001 10:07:59 AM ouch 13711. don s. - 5/22/2001 11:35:31 AM I haven’t been suspended yet. What’s the hold-up? 13712. JudithAtHome - 5/22/2001 11:37:21 AM Everyone is suffering from pollen allergies...meds, my man, meds are slowing down response times. 13713. rubberducky - 5/22/2001 11:56:51 AM that could be J@H, but i thought it was because everyone was gunnin' for that sore-head Don S. 13714. don s. - 5/22/2001 11:57:50 PM If, for some reason, I am indeed suspended/banned in the near future, I would like to invite everyone to the Moat Cafe thread at Table Talk for an explanation. 13715. glendajean - 5/23/2001 11:40:51 AM It sounds like Fielding is willing to co-host Home and Garden. He will bring a needed food angle. 13716. ElliottRW - 5/23/2001 4:41:11 PM Are there plays to add a search capability to TheMote? It would greatly facilitate linking to historical posts. 13717. ElliottRW - 5/23/2001 4:42:38 PM Plays? What a terrible typo. Should be "plans." 13718. glendajean - 5/23/2001 4:46:02 PM Darn -- we're were going to out this skit. I had a killer role. Oh well. We'll search for something else to do on a Wednesday afternoon. 13719. glendajean - 5/23/2001 4:46:21 PM to act out... 13720. khaval alazman - 5/26/2001 3:12:49 AM Hey there, hoomans. Sorry to bust up the discussion, but I have an idea for a new thread. 13721. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 3:36:47 AM It's not a bad idea, khaval. Let's see if it gets some support. Don't expect a lot of comments in the near future, though. The Mote is usually slow on weekends and I understand that it's now a long weekend in the US during which everybody will be watching Pearl Harbour. 13722. Ms. No - 5/26/2001 2:42:49 PM Not if they want to see a good film. 13723. JJBiener - 5/26/2001 3:02:07 PM Khaval - I would love to see a thread dedicated to speculation about the future. Excellent idea. Would you be willing to host such a thread? I think you would do an excellent job. 13724. arkymalarky - 5/26/2001 4:13:33 PM That was a funny little dig, Pelle. More subtle than what Europeans usually get from Americans in here. 13725. JJBiener - 5/26/2001 4:20:57 PM Arky - Don't take this the wrong way, but how can you spend 2 hours in Wal-Mart? I am lucky if I can last 15 mintues. 13726. dusty - 5/26/2001 4:22:26 PM I like the thread idea 13727. arkymalarky - 5/26/2001 4:28:08 PM JJ--Duh, read it again. I said SuperWal-Mart! 13728. JJBiener - 5/26/2001 4:36:40 PM Arky - And? 13729. arkymalarky - 5/26/2001 4:42:23 PM psst--don't tell anybody, JJ, but it was a joke! 13730. JJBiener - 5/26/2001 4:50:21 PM Arky - If hanging out at the local Wal-Mart is the future of American society, you might as well kill me now. I don't want to live to see that. 13731. arkymalarky - 5/26/2001 5:12:07 PM Hahaha. I made a vow a few years ago that I wouldn't set foot in Wal-Mart again, but was forced to break it. Now Sam's, though...There's the place to shop. 13732. JudithAtHome - 5/26/2001 6:10:27 PM Face it Arky...we forced y'all to go there when we visited. And she is right, JJ...Arky is well known in her town and everywhere we went, she was mobbed by fans. 13733. JJBiener - 5/26/2001 7:31:21 PM Judith - It doesn't surprise me that Arky has fans around her town. I would be surprised if she didn't. 13734. RosettaStone - 5/26/2001 7:40:18 PM To know her is to love her, I guess. 13735. arkymalarky - 5/26/2001 8:23:21 PM How sweet! Y'all are making me blush--and you have no idea how difficult it is to get an Arky to blush! 13736. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 8:40:08 AM There has been some support for khaval alazman's proposal of a Future Thread. Unless there are serious objections I suggest we go ahead provided she agrees to host. 13737. khaval alazman - 5/29/2001 10:06:02 AM Yay. It sounds like fun. 13738. JJBiener - 5/29/2001 11:02:01 AM Arky - Y'all are making me blush--and you have no idea how difficult it is to get an Arky to blush! 13739. marjoribanks - 5/29/2001 2:55:23 PM Consider this post a further endorsement of Khaval's suggestion. I look forward to reading her stuff. Cyberpunk will get a new flavor, right here in The Mote. 13740. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 3:38:58 PM I plan to have the thread up shortly after midnight EDT. Please don't post until khaval has done so. 13741. arkymalarky - 5/29/2001 6:53:22 PM JJ, 13742. JudithAtHome - 5/29/2001 6:55:13 PM (Good one, Arky!) 13743. JJBiener - 5/29/2001 9:14:38 PM Arky - I am not going to argue about Huckabee. After Tucker and Clinton, he is not much of an improvement if at all. You guys have been batting .1000 for years now. 13744. labwabbit - 5/29/2001 9:36:14 PM "I deserve someone who likes me for who I am pretending to be." CG 13745. don s. - 5/30/2001 12:23:39 AM Gov. Ashcroft, anyone? 13746. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 10:15:53 AM not that i want to get into the 'too-many-threads-no-there's-not-there-are-just-enough' debate, but if we are gonna create a new thread, i'd like to see one go. 13747. Fielding - 5/30/2001 10:21:52 AM I propose we merge the Finance and Careers thread with the Sex thread. We can call the new thread Prostitution. Or Prostitution and Marriage. :) 13748. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 10:45:44 AM ducky 13749. CalGal - 5/30/2001 10:57:18 AM I certainly think that Health Policy is a dupe of social issues or a chat thread, so I don't see why we need it. I also don't see much need for the Rants thread--it operates primarily as a separate Cafe. 13750. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 10:59:01 AM Pelle, 13751. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 11:04:23 AM oh, Pelle, the main reason i posted to you (which i forgot to include) was that i think it's a good thread idea, but i'd only support it if we can axe a couple old threads at the same time. 13752. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 11:06:25 AM Why isn't Education part of Social Issues? And why can't Parenting stories be done in the Cafe with the more serious Parenting stuff taken up in Social Issues when they arise? 13753. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:12:46 AM I'm against the Israel/Palestine new thread idea, and not because of any thread proliferation concerns. 13754. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 11:15:50 AM Language could be axed or merged with International. I've suggested this before but then DanDillon (and ycmeehan) pleaded for it as a memory to Irving. The fact is that it has never picked up speed since Hashké passed away. The recent spate of posts had little to do with language and the latest serious dicussion of linguistic issues took place in International. DanD has not been seen in a long time. Being the end of the school year he is busy, perhaps. 13755. CalGal - 5/30/2001 11:16:50 AM Why isn't Education part of Social Issues? And why can't Parenting stories be done in the Cafe with the more serious Parenting stuff taken up in Social Issues when they arise? 13756. CalGal - 5/30/2001 11:18:36 AM The other possibility with creating an Israel/Palestine thread is that it might be soaking up any other conversation possibilities in International, which might free up International for other topics. 13757. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 11:20:07 AM Pelle: you were right that Language should've been axed when you suggested it (if not before). 13758. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:20:59 AM Language should definitely not be axed. For get the memorial aspects, it retains potential for any number of serious discussions. Maybe the new folk from TT (the much-forseen exodus may well be underway) will give it a jolt of the proper energy. 13759. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 11:22:24 AM enough with the almighty TT'ers for pity's sake. 13760. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2001 11:22:52 AM I don't think any thread should be axed without the host's consent or "consent by non-participation." 13761. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 11:23:57 AM likewise, threads haven't ever been kept around because of some fascinating discussion just around the corner, if there is a conversation that warrants a thread, one is created. 13762. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 11:24:13 AM Westerner and his ilk on the one side, and TonyQ and his on the other are exactly the kind of posters we don't need here. Very shrill, given to excessive personal abuse and insults, and compeletely predictable, they run the same arguments over and over again like old vinyl disks that have become stuck. Westerner, for example, has essentially two post templates he alternates between. 13763. don s. - 5/30/2001 11:30:07 AM [post removed; thought better of] 13764. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:30:55 AM New Internationalist blood, ducky old pal. That's what I'm after. Rather than trawling the world for it, I'm for sucking it out of the extant corpus at TT. 13765. wabbit - 5/30/2001 11:42:29 AM All, 13766. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:45:13 AM Good. Very good. Make it just 'Society' and I'd call it excellent. 13767. CalGal - 5/30/2001 11:52:13 AM I don't think it should be used as a substitute for Social Issues, but a central place for Parenting, Finance & Career, Future of Education, and the health chat portion of Health policies would certainly work. 13768. JJBiener - 5/30/2001 11:53:44 AM I think Health Policy should remain an independent thread. It doesn't always have a lot of traffic but it remains a place where people can go when when they need support relating to health issues. We are fortunate to have a host who is knowledgeable in the area and who is willing to go out of her way to help her fellow moties. I think it is important that it be maintained as a resource that moties can turn to. 13769. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 11:54:03 AM I did think that was what I just said. If it wasn't, this is what I meant 13770. CalGal - 5/30/2001 11:58:57 AM People with aches and pains can look MsGreer up in the Cafe, or in any thread for general discussion about life issues. There will be no loss of whatever service she can provide. Actual health care policy can be moved to Social Issues. 13771. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 12:02:05 PM It is...deja vu all over again. I think the Mote has a cycle, like women and trees. After so many days, a discussion of thread deletion arises. 13772. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 12:28:52 PM We have to belly up to the buzz saw, and I think we're reaping the whrlwind from it. 13773. Fielding - 5/30/2001 12:40:58 PM The Dylan tribute is now over. I hope that some of you enjoyed it. 13774. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 12:44:07 PM Enjoyed it considerably more than Rosies tortured Bushisms. 13775. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 12:51:16 PM Actually, I think Marji's right. In a way, International has become de facto Israel/Palestine thread, and without this issue, the thread would see very little serious content. 13776. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 1:04:05 PM And here's where I disagree vehemently with Marji: 13777. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 3:20:44 PM khaval 13778. PsychProf - 5/30/2001 3:27:15 PM 13779. labwabbit - 5/30/2001 3:30:20 PM Uh..good post. 13780. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 3:41:27 PM PP 13781. PsychProf - 5/30/2001 3:44:26 PM Ah, Pelle...the chainsaw was for the "bad posters"...your respect for khaval remains intact. 13782. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 1:48:00 AM Er... in my own defense: 13784. stostosto - 5/31/2001 6:50:55 AM Where's pelle's post #13783? It shows on the thread list, but not here? 13785. stostosto - 5/31/2001 6:54:33 AM It's apparently been transmogryphied into otherworldly spheres, perhaps to realms of hyacinthial scents and burly grunge music. 13786. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 9:26:28 AM You have such a way with words, Sto3... 13787. Fielding - 5/31/2001 1:44:35 PM Where did we decide is the best thread for posts about The New Yorker? Maybe Uzzie's thread should be expanded to include periodicals. 13788. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 1:46:52 PM Fielding, 13789. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 1:49:39 PM There used to be a Chess Thread. Is it still a subthread somewhere, or did it get RIP'd? 13790. Fielding - 5/31/2001 1:52:20 PM Who around here plays? I'd be up for a corrspondence game with a decent player. 13791. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 2:08:52 PM Fielding: The thread is still in the archives. Looks like Ohio was the host, so maybe he's game. Many of the other posters are gone now. I think maybe Wombat plays(?). 13792. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 5:21:59 PM Please take a look at this and let me know what you think. There are additional comments on the page but for the life of me I just couldn't print the table here---too many characters. 13793. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 5:25:25 PM Looks good to me...nice job and easy to grasp, laid out that way. 13794. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 5:45:43 PM Thanks Judith 13795. CalGal - 5/31/2001 5:53:27 PM MsNo, 13796. CalGal - 5/31/2001 5:54:42 PM The reason for that suggestion is that Social Issues, when it takes off, can go for hundreds of posts on something and a query for help on a finance or health issue would easily get lost in the shuffle. One is policy, the other is personal. 13797. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 5:56:59 PM Excellent work Ms. No! One objection only. Language should go to International because it's more or less the same crowd that frequents the two threads. 13798. don s. - 5/31/2001 6:00:19 PM No, that might be confusing to the dozens of new participants whose arrival is imminent. 13799. janjon - 5/31/2001 6:04:00 PM Combining Language and International doesn't make any sense, especially if the only real justification is that the participants are more or less the same. 13800. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 6:11:22 PM CG, 13801. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 6:12:10 PM Don, 13802. janjon - 5/31/2001 6:12:28 PM By the way, Ms. No - you did a peach of a job. 13803. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 6:14:27 PM IMO: 13804. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 6:20:34 PM Addendum to 3: A host should be removeable for cause. If a poster lodges a complaint here and the three moderators concur that the host is abusing his or her duties, then a warning should be issued (and labeled as such). Upon a second offense, the host should be replaced or the thread RIP'd. 13805. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 6:39:18 PM 1) Why not? It works quite well for some threads 13806. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 6:52:13 PM Okay, I've updated the table to put Social Issues back in as a separate thread. 13807. vw - 5/31/2001 8:35:07 PM Whew ... I almost missed that. Thanks Cal for stepping in and explaining it exactly as I would have. 13808. CalGal - 5/31/2001 8:40:41 PM I just mentioned one in parenting that maybe you could take on. Why don't courts mandate that parents exercise visitation as vigorously as they mandate child support payments and refusal of visitation? 13809. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 9:11:47 PM vw, 13810. Ms. No - 5/31/2001 9:15:07 PM I'm doing a re-post since the old link has scrolled off. I'll also put up a news link on the front page to the original post. 13811. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 9:21:25 PM 1) Why not? It works quite well for some threads 13812. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 9:24:20 PM The only reason a thread is RIP'd against the host's wishes is because of the power games that go on here and the desire to humiliate other posters. The discussion in the Inferno re deleted and moved posts is even truer about threads. 13813. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 9:28:26 PM 3a. I've never seen a host removed via the mechanism I described. 13814. msgreer - 5/31/2001 10:04:54 PM Ms No. I do not agree with splitting the Health Thread. Also, sometime ago I posted I have plans for the next three year and was lucky enough to have JJ and Rick co-host. I would to hear what JJ and Rich have to say. Afterall, in your suggestions you put me as co-host with Erin. JJ and Rick belong on any thread concerning Health. 13815. msgreer - 5/31/2001 10:16:49 PM Ms. No I do not agree with splitting the Health Thread. If nothing else, Rick and JJ should be heard from. I believe many Moties would agree Health Thread is just not taking up space on theMote. You have me co-host with Erin. I have made it clear the next three years are going to very full for me. I certainly don't want to start co hosting a thread which, omho, looks like someone just threw in these threads willy nilly. 13816. msgreer - 5/31/2001 10:24:08 PM Third try. I don't know what's happening to my posts. Ms.No, I do not agree with your plans for Health Thread. First of all I got Rick and JJ to cohost because soon I will be very busy. Now the fact the Health Thread doesn't get alot of traffic should not be the consideration. It's the context of that thread. You now have me co-hosting with Erin. 13817. msgreer - 5/31/2001 10:24:33 PM test 13818. msgreer - 5/31/2001 10:26:38 PM SORRY for the posts. I did the first one and it didn't show, same with the second and finally the third. 13819. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 11:21:29 PM The whole issue with the language thread is very interestinging. 13820. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 12:41:49 AM I disagree with combining the Health thread with any other thread. The Health thread is an important resource for people dealing with health issues of any kind. It is a source of information and support and I object to any attempts to change it. 13821. Wombat - 6/1/2001 8:23:21 AM I agree with JJ. (Happens occasionally!) 13822. Uzmakk - 6/1/2001 9:14:54 AM Polyglot arcana, English obsessionism, poetry, literature, all in one spot? Interesting. I like it. Anyway, I can always find a place to discuss what I want however you box the place up. 13823. ElliottRW - 6/1/2001 9:44:31 AM Ace of Spades used an interesting technique to disguise a post that (even) he found offensive. What he did was put the post in a white font; ({font color="white"}here's an example{/font}) it is easy to see posts in white fonts--you simply have to "select" the hidden area with your cursor. I think this is a good method of 'censoring' posts that don't meet thread standards of civility, etc. I suggest that thread hosts white-out posts (or sections of posts) instead of deleting them. Save deletion for the very worst posts (e.g. threatening, spamming, revealing of personal information, etc.) 13824. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2001 10:18:06 AM Elliot 13825. ElliottRW - 6/1/2001 10:22:44 AM hosts cannot edit posts Right. It would be have to be a new feature. To prevent abuse, I don't support general post-editing due to the mischief that it could create; I only want this white-out capability. If it's too hard to implement selectively, I think it would still be useful as a kind of soft-delete of an entire post. 13826. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 10:42:59 AM The reason for that suggestion is that Social Issues, when it takes off, can go for hundreds of posts on something and a query for help on a finance or health issue would easily get lost in the shuffle. 13827. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 10:43:35 AM 13828. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 10:44:07 AM 13829. CalGal - 6/1/2001 12:57:07 PM Judith, 13830. Fielding - 6/1/2001 1:05:16 PM I support Judith and CalGal's recommendation to create a separate Television Thread. 13831. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 1:08:13 PM CalGal: 13832. PsychProf - 6/1/2001 1:09:30 PM I stll like these as separate threads...Health, Education, Careers & Finance, Parenting... 13833. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:11:03 PM You didn't bring up a separate thread that time. You whined about how there was no attention paid to Television and how people were snooty about how low-rent Survivor was, and I responded by linking in a several hundred post conversation on Survivor that demonstrated you had your head up your ass and it was screwing up your memory. 13834. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 1:15:56 PM Cal, it is no wonder people remember the animosity in your posts rather than the suggestions YOU recall making. 13835. labwabbit - 6/1/2001 1:18:15 PM Hmmm...that explains why your post sounded so muffled this morning Judith...hehe. 13836. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 1:19:48 PM Yes, lucky for me I had a high colonic recently. 13837. Fielding - 6/1/2001 1:21:19 PM Judith: 13838. PsychProf - 6/1/2001 1:24:16 PM Judith...your ability to place your cranium in such a position speaks of extraordinary flexibility and indeed athletic prowess. 13839. labwabbit - 6/1/2001 1:28:23 PM Yep..Judith, but I hope you realize at what disadvantage that puts you in having to do that on occasion. I respect your efforts in trying to compete from time to time with those who are able to speak directly from that position with no effort whatsoever. 13840. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:51:27 PM Judith, 13841. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 2:19:22 PM I'm not so sure I remember it inaccurately. This is my perspective, remember? I'm not whining about anything but your seeming inability to treat people with respect. 13842. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:34:48 PM Judith, I don't believe I have ever been rude to you except when you complain--and that's almost always because you are misrepresenting something. It gets quite tiresome. 13843. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:36:52 PM Incidentally, Fielding is incorrect as well. I have not "recommended" that a new TV thread exists. There are plenty of complaints that there are too many threads, and I don't see the problems that others do with mixing the two. I merely don't object. I don't consider it a pressing problem, and frankly I think most people who push for it want it because they think I'll be upset in some way. I won't. But nor do I think it's a huge problem. There are many conversations about television in the thread, and I've never seen them broken up by movie chatter. 13844. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 2:40:49 PM I think perhaps we are both practicing selective memory. Whatever....I'm done. 13845. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 2:43:42 PM She musta have reached her quota. 13846. Fielding - 6/1/2001 3:13:15 PM I support Judith's proposal for a Television thread, a proposal for which CalGal has a nuanced position, a position that generally does not oppose the thread, but perhaps you had better ask her yourself, because it might not be what it seems, or something like that. 13847. CalGal - 6/1/2001 3:21:09 PM Actually, Judith made no such proposal either. She said that she has "long since thought" that it should be so, but that the "idea" was met with resistance. It hasn't been, but there you go. 13848. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 3:23:29 PM Yes, CalGal, that is indeed what I wanted to do. You are so right. 13849. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 3:27:01 PM How about a CAT FIGHT thread with CalCal and Judywhocan'tdoe-mail as co-hosts? 13850. don s. - 6/1/2001 3:34:21 PM “As I've mentioned before, it is important to be accurate if you wish to be snide.” 13851. msgreer - 6/1/2001 3:41:43 PM Judith Come on over for a visit. I have a nice glass of wine waiting for you. We can watch the sunset together, have a light meal and watch Sex in the City tonight. I know they're reruns but we can get some giggles out of it. 13852. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 3:50:08 PM Sounds good.... 13853. msgreer - 6/1/2001 3:57:26 PM you've got mail, Judith. 13854. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:02:22 PM I'm sure this is less than important in the whole scheme of things but Rosetta has listed his e-mail address wrongly on his thread heading. He has used "org" in place of "edu". I know this because, upon attempting to send him an e-mail, it was returned to me from Georgetown.org in Georgetown Texas. I linked directly from his name at the top of the page. 13855. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:02:39 PM Hi MsGreer. I have a suggestion for my boss. Do you think I could post it here? 13856. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 4:05:43 PM 13857. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 4:14:04 PM Another issue is the grandfathering of certain threads to our mote masters. I think a housecleaning is long overdue 13858. Ms. No - 6/1/2001 4:19:13 PM Do we have a host for the proposed Television thread? 13859. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:20:39 PM Rosie - Blow me. 13860. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:21:43 PM I'll do it if no one else wants the job. I think Cal said she asked Doc Brown once and he declined... 13861. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 4:22:06 PM Give it to Judithesurvivor. She's a watcher 13862. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:22:21 PM I mean, I know Cal said Doc declined. 13863. Ms. No - 6/1/2001 4:23:32 PM Rosie, 13864. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:23:33 PM Judith - At first I thought 13860 was a response to 13859. I was disappointed when I realized it wasn't. 13865. Fielding - 6/1/2001 4:24:16 PM JJ: 13866. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 4:24:36 PM Let Judy have it. It will give her and her old man something else to do on the couch rather than the usual. 13867. Ms. No - 6/1/2001 4:26:56 PM Judith, 13868. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:27:07 PM JJ & Fielding: 13869. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:28:37 PM MsNO: 13870. CalGal - 6/1/2001 4:31:05 PM I agree that Judith is a fine host for TV, and I second Ace's proposal. 13871. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:35:41 PM Thanks, Cal...I'll probably need the use of your photographic memory from time to time. 13872. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:36:38 PM That's funny, I have a phonographic memory. (G) 13873. PsychProf - 6/1/2001 4:38:22 PM Frankster has a pornographic memory. 13874. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:38:29 PM Mine is swiss cheese. 13875. Ms. No - 6/1/2001 4:38:38 PM CG, 13876. Fielding - 6/1/2001 4:40:12 PM Can we agree on where theater posts should go? 13877. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:40:48 PM Just a tad, MsNO...how about Balm For The Masses? TV or Not TV? Just kidding... 13878. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:41:56 PM Theatre posts in Arts & Music? 13879. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:43:12 PM Fielding - Theater posts go in Arts and Music. 13880. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:44:01 PM Can we call the threads, The Big Screen and The Little Screen? 13881. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:45:46 PM Movies...The Big Screen 13882. CalGal - 6/1/2001 4:45:49 PM Theater posts have always gone in A&M until recently, although we sometimes talk about plays in other threads. I don't know about Tonys, but I'd really rather the Oscars stay in Movies. 13883. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:46:30 PM X:post, JJ...I like Little better, anyhow. 13884. Fielding - 6/1/2001 4:47:34 PM Would Oscars be in the TV thread? I don't think so. 13885. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:47:48 PM Great minds, Judith. 13886. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:47:54 PM Of course, the Oscars ought to stay in movies...maybe the Tonys should be in Arts, too... 13887. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 4:49:02 PM Having the Tony's in Arts and Music is fine with me. I would prefer it that way. 13888. Fielding - 6/1/2001 4:49:30 PM X-post. 13889. janjon - 6/1/2001 4:50:56 PM This is absurd, you know. If you are one of those (many) who've been kveching about there being too many threads. 13890. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 4:51:21 PM Okay, but I want the Westminster Dog Show in TV!! 13891. CalGal - 6/1/2001 4:55:41 PM Janjon, 13892. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 5:36:33 PM On second thought, janice has a point. Why separate movies from TV. And where do "videos" fit into that. 13893. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 5:47:39 PM Rosie - Perhaps you missed it the first time: 13894. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 5:59:14 PM A parable: I once went to see The Bryds perform in concert at Syracuse. The year was probably 1968. They were clearly bored with their music. Breaking up. I could tell because McGuinn kept looking at his watch while performing. After 50 minutes they were off the stage. Booing from the audience. 13895. JJBiener - 6/1/2001 6:39:08 PM Rosie - I have resisted the urge to disparage your thread and your hosting abilities. I would appreciate the same courtesy. 13896. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 6:43:32 PM Permission denied. You should either spend more time in your threads, making them interesting, or give them up. 13897. Ms. No - 6/1/2001 6:50:02 PM Take it to the Inferno, guys. The thread stands with current host. 13898. Fielding - 6/1/2001 8:07:46 PM "And I will not be silented." 13899. Francis Urquhart - 6/2/2001 8:49:04 AM Since Ted Olson is our Solicitor General, the front page should be updated. 13900. Jenerator - 6/2/2001 1:06:51 PM Ms. No, Pelle or Wabbit, 13901. RosettaStone - 6/2/2001 1:10:50 PM ...what do I do next? 13902. Jenerator - 6/2/2001 1:13:23 PM Okay. Prayer is always good.;-) 13903. angel-five - 6/2/2001 2:06:48 PM If one should get smacked for being inaccurate, CalGal, you'd best buy a hockey mask and wear it. If you like you can paint it to look more fierce. But wear it. There's only so much impact trauma one's face can take without falling off, you know. 13904. angel-five - 6/2/2001 2:15:59 PM I DO think that everyone, at least everyone outside moderators, should be limited to hosting one thread. That only makes sense given the notion that people will vote with their feet. If hosts can run more than one thread, then, new threads should be implemented so that overall one host cannot exert undue sway over the tone of the Mote. I don't see extra threads being a problem, so long as moderators approve them. I do agree with Christin that moderators should not be limited to hosting one thread, for two reasons. The first is that, obviously, moderators already have wideranging power over the Mote and therefore it's pointless to try to limit them by limiting their ability to host threads. I mean, we want them to have wideranging power, and limiting them to one thread isn't going to crimp it anyway. Since the rationale behind limiting people to hosting only one thread reduces to a check on power.... The second reason moderators should be allowed to host or cohost more than one thread is that it's common for them to have to at least temporarily babysit a thread until a new host pops up. 13905. angel-five - 6/2/2001 2:17:15 PM I don't really see the problem with having more threads. I doubt if anyone can spell it out defensibly. 13906. JudithAtHome - 6/2/2001 3:16:43 PM I don't think I've heard a definitive reason for this mania to limit the number of threads, either. It's been stated that space is no problem. 13907. Indiana Jones - 6/2/2001 6:35:10 PM a-5: 13908. angel-five - 6/2/2001 8:40:18 PM This is true to some extent. Nevertheless, it's important to keep in mind that on average this place has lots more suggested good threads than it has people willing to spend time tending them. I think making it possible to have more good threads is far more of a benefit to the Mote than having a moderator temporarily host three or four threads is a detriment. I mean, the Mote does in theory still want to grow its membership base, right? What's the problem with having fifty threads, for starters? The only detriment I can see to that is that it will make it harder for obsessive compulsive types to keep track of everything that is said at any one time. Is that really a detriment? More threads, more space, more breathing room, more things to bring people in, more people involved in running the Mote, more ideas floated, more information to learn and to impart, more individuality... versus... what? 13909. arkymalarky - 6/2/2001 8:44:15 PM "Is that really a detriment?" 13910. angel-five - 6/2/2001 8:48:35 PM FWIW the only reasons I can think of to bother RIPing a thread are as follows: limited resources or damage to the forum. The first is if there's only so much space available and it's thought that another thread will be more productive. The second is if a thread's existence somehow serves to do more damage to a forum than it benefits that forum. If a thread is going to go slow for a bit, so be it. In the on and off time I spent in TT I saw any number of threads lie in suspended animation for a while until something came up, and then go briskly until the subject was exhausted. What's wrong with that? It doesn't harm anyone and if space isn't a real problem there's no need to kill a thread. I think if this place were ever to grow to the size of Tabletalk at its peak, we could start worrying about ditching threads. That day is a good ways off. 13911. angel-five - 6/2/2001 8:51:48 PM I don't see how we could possibly grow to the point where unwieldiness would be a problem. We could grow two orders of magnitude before we started having a problem finding threads. We aren't going to grow by two orders of magnitude. All the arguments against growing large only start to carry weight once we grow much, much larger than we are now. 13912. CalGal - 6/2/2001 11:33:05 PM We're not only not as big as TT, we're not anything like TT. So the fact that they have lots of unused threads isn't really relevant to the conversation. 13913. angel-five - 6/3/2001 12:17:46 AM One person, either Francis or Ace, you forget which. Doesn't sound like a push to me, much less this nebulous 'people' of which you spoke earlier. We're not only not as big as TT, we're not anything like TT. So the fact that they have lots of unused threads isn't really relevant to the conversation. Um, yes, I suppose it is, at that. However, no one's proposed that it is relevant, or that we are or should be like TT. What was said was that TT has threads which remain dormant until some topically relevant item comes to the forefront, and then the thread moves right along for as long as necessary, and then it goes dormant again. The obvious inference is that dormant threads aren't useless but rather serve a purpose for people who are interested in diverse topics. Unless of course you're Calgal, in which case the obvious inference seems to be that TT has dormant threads and that we're nothing like TT and moreover it's worth explicitly saying so. 13914. angel-five - 6/4/2001 12:18:12 PM No doubt this groundswell of support for weeding out threads is still going strong and has just for some legitimate reason temporarily lost the power to post. Silent majorities are like that, I understand. 13915. Ms. No - 6/4/2001 5:12:16 PM Angel, 13916. angel-five - 6/4/2001 6:00:06 PM Oh, this I do know, actually. The point I was making was not that 'little fits and starts' demanding thread weeding or consolidation happen, but that it was indeed any large concerted thing that 'people' felt strongly about. If it were widespread -- if it were even marginally widespread -- you'd expect at least one person to have piped up by now with at least one reason why we should have some mechanism for keeping our thread-count small. 13917. Ms. No - 6/4/2001 6:10:45 PM Angel, 13918. angel-five - 6/4/2001 6:24:43 PM Who, then? Rubberducky and either Francis or Ace. Perhaps both. Who else? And I'm not talking about asking that a particular thread be RIPed but generally calling for energetic thread weeding. 13919. CalGal - 6/4/2001 6:37:27 PM Angel, 13920. angel-five - 6/4/2001 6:42:49 PM Either I read or I take her word for it? That's as false a dichotomy as ever was constructed, and moreover beside the point, as is almost always the case with you. If you are going to go on about how some indefinite 'people' want to keep a small thread count, presumably you have some idea of who they are. Or, of course, you do not, and you are just as per usual failing to be accurate. 13921. CalGal - 6/4/2001 6:49:30 PM No, it's not besides the point. No one is "going on" about this--well, except you. I myself can't remember all of the people who pushed for it, but there is no question that Francis and Ace started the original call. Beyond that, I didn't keep a tally, but there was a good deal of back and forth discussion. So if you want more than that, and Christin's excellent summary doesn't suit you, then do your own reading. 13922. angel-five - 6/4/2001 6:59:11 PM No, it's not besides the point. No one is "going on" about this--well, except you. I'm hardly the one who brought it up, CalGal, and I made no airy passing reference to what 'people' want in the course of discussing thread counts in the Mote. You did. You presumably either confused one poster, Francis or Ace you're not sure which, with being a plural entity, or you have others in mind. Or you made a mistake. I asked for clarification a few times as to who you had in mind, and you've not answered, and now you tell me to go and look for myself if I really want to know -- when what I wanted to know is what kind of justification you had for the reference. So, you see, this 'go and look it up yourself' gambit you've seized upon is beside the point, although I will allow that it's about halfway likely you didn't realize that. Now you say you can't remember who did call for it, you just know that some people somewhere did call for having a static thread count. Which is I suppose as much of an answer as I'm going to get out of you. Funny how you were just the other day going on about how people who made passing references without qualification or grounded proof were 'full of shit', but now you can just shrug and act as though it's a normal everyday occurrence and certainly nothing worth explanation on your part. 13923. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 6:59:22 PM 13924. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 7:02:04 PM 13925. CalGal - 6/4/2001 7:03:00 PM 13926. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 7:07:12 PM BTW, on whether it was me or Francis who first championed the notion: 13927. angel-five - 6/4/2001 7:07:48 PM In any event, the one thing that is certain is that there is no way to determine the will of a majority of posters. We can't ever really determine what the consensus opinion is from people who post in here. This is totally irrelevant, and wrong to boot. If you call a vote over some time and ask people to participate, you'll get an idea of the majority's desires. I don't mean quietly mentioning it in one thread and posting the question in Policies, but rather a concerted effort to get people's opinions. You'll get a good picture of how the active posters break down, especially if you wait some period of time to collect the results. Experience has proven that I have to qualify what I just said to you, otherwise you'll leap to a conclusion. I'm not calling for any such vote --merely pointing out that you, once again, are shockingly wrong about a very simple and intuitively easy matter. And, moreover, I never did ask for what the group consensus was on the matter of thread count. I'm more interested in what the arguments against letting the thread count grow happen to be. I haven't really seen a good one or come up with a good one on my own, and am genuinely curious. 13928. angel-five - 6/4/2001 7:16:38 PM At least Ace has some names. Whether or not we should have fewer threads is sort of irrelevant to the question of whether we should have an unlimited number of threads, which I understand is your suggestion. I doubt there'd be many people who'd support that. I'm sure that's your understanding. It's also wrong. What I do favor is removing any arbitrary limit to thread count, and let it grow in size until it actually approaches being a problem. It's nowhere near that stage now. For god's sake, stop whining about it. What the fuck does it matter, ultimately, how many people supported the idea? Why the fuck are you demanding proof and names and citations for something so ridiculously trivial? Buckle up that attention span, Acey Ace, I'll try it again. I asked for names because I saw CalGal making a passing reference to some nebulous amount of 'people' who 'pushed' for weeding threads. When asked about it she couldn't even nail down one name. She's given to conducting argument by casual assertion and it's useful to at the start find out the basis for what she tosses out in passing. 13929. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 7:16:47 PM The less-threads discussion begins at 9758. 13930. angel-five - 6/4/2001 7:18:22 PM I mean, what the hell use is it to say 'they' want a static thread count? Who the hell is 'they' and why don't 'they' offer an argument for it? 13931. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 7:18:40 PM 13932. Cellar Door - 6/4/2001 7:20:26 PM Re musicals: see my latest post in "American Politics" on Larry Karamer, Ace. 13933. angel-five - 6/4/2001 7:21:44 PM That's why you came a-looking for it, Ace. Do you have any real argument for having fewer threads, or did you call for it just because you're Ace and you don't like to count past six? 13934. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 7:25:43 PM 13935. AceofSpades - 6/4/2001 7:28:16 PM or did you call for it just because you're Ace and you don't like to count past six? 13936. angel-five - 6/4/2001 11:04:59 PM I think everyone by definition is against an overproliferation of threads. Growth of the thread count does not equate to that, however. As far as the 'nice one, Shecky' bit: Oh, like it isn't true. You have to be the laziest reader I've ever heard of. If someone posts anything longer than one post or carefully enumerates points in response to you, your comprehension of what they say drops like a brick past the first two paragraphs. One can almost hear you reading the words aloud and then breaking into 'etc., and so on, yadda yadda' after a few sentences. Things have to be extremely simple and short and preferably bulleted for you to devote your intellect to them. If they aren't you just skim it and then label it in simple, easy, black and white terms and thereafter base all your responses as if the labels were accurate. I'm hardly the first person who has noted this. 13937. JJBiener - 6/4/2001 11:07:48 PM Angel - Take it to the Inferno, please. The first paragraph belongs here. The rest doesn't. 13938. angel-five - 6/4/2001 11:21:51 PM I am looking for your name next to Host: and not finding it, JJ, so I think I'll wait for one of them to weigh in before I go there. I'm talking to Ace about why he wanted threads merged. So far I've only got the idea that he thought axing threads would start more conversations, the way trapping people together in an elevator starts conversations. It strikes me as dubious. In these circumstances, nothing that Ace just personally likes and even requires things to be short and simple is germane to the topic, whether or not you grasp it. 13939. JJBiener - 6/4/2001 11:28:07 PM Angel - Your questions to Ace about his desire to ax threads is perfectly germane to this thread. I have no problem with that. I also think his reasoning is dubious. 13940. angel-five - 6/4/2001 11:35:55 PM JJ: Nod, thank you. People are going to come in occasionally and check this place out. They will hang out a bit if they see something that appeals to them; they will participate if they find a place they feel confident enough to jump in. They will stay if they can come back and find something similar the next day to jump into. Combining threads works for the first but against the other two. 13941. angel-five - 6/4/2001 11:38:02 PM JJ: Nod, thank you. People are going to come in occasionally and check this place out. They will hang out a bit if they see something that appeals to them; they will participate if they find a place they feel confident enough to jump in. They will stay if they can come back and find something similar the next day to jump into. Combining threads works for the first but against the other two. 13942. JJBiener - 6/4/2001 11:45:36 PM Angel - I understand the problem of having too many threads. It is one of the reasons I never hung around Table Talk. I don't think we are anywhere close to having too many threads. The people who want to delete and combine threads seem to be the ones who want to do something just to be doing something. I don't subscribe to that notion. 13943. Stumbo - 6/5/2001 12:25:41 AM (FWIW, I don't think I was at all involved in the thread-pruning discussion.) 13944. AceofSpades - 6/5/2001 12:30:42 AM 13945. don s. - 6/5/2001 6:29:15 PM Here's a good rule of thumb: the number of Mote threads should not exceed the number of Mote participants. 13946. don s. - 6/5/2001 7:57:00 PM And ... once you've pared them down to the appropriate number, please reserve one for my new suggested topic: a read-only thread in which Ace serializes one of his screenplays. Each day, an new installment. What do you think? 13947. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2001 8:01:22 PM I think it's a great idea, even if you're not serious. But I doubt that Ace would want to expose himself that way. I mean, his screenplay. 13948. CalGal - 6/5/2001 8:13:57 PM Well, he could serialize his goofy screenplays, which are terrific. 13949. CalGal - 6/5/2001 8:14:27 PM I mean the ones he does as a goof--not that his screenplay is goofy. 13950. PsychProf - 6/5/2001 8:58:09 PM Don(Message # 13945)...its been a tough day...thanks for the laugh. 13951. Ms. No - 6/6/2001 1:52:59 PM Five posts have just been removed from the Inferno because they contain the real name of a poster who has explicitly stated that he does not want his real name referred to in this forum any longer. 13952. RosettaStone - 6/6/2001 3:14:00 PM ...and longer? 13953. RosettaStone - 6/6/2001 3:14:03 PM ...and longer? 13954. Ms. No - 6/6/2001 3:31:42 PM Rosie, 13955. RosettaStone - 6/6/2001 4:05:15 PM 1. g4,e5 13956. arkymalarky - 6/6/2001 7:10:04 PM It would seem that if you wanted your real name not to be noticed, you'd have emailed a moderator rather than posting an attention to it in the thread where it occurred. What Joe and A-5 did show from the context of their discussion is that they, as well as most of the other people here, aren't paying any attention. The rest couldn't care less, they just like to gig you. Imagine anyone getting entertainment out of such a waste of time and energy. 13957. joezan - 6/6/2001 7:19:57 PM I would think that any sane person who didn't want his real name used on the Internet would not have been posting under said name for months. 13958. arkymalarky - 6/6/2001 7:24:38 PM That's what I mean. It was obvious that neither of you had a clue that he and that name were attached. Until he came in and unceremoniously announced it, that is. 13959. don s. - 6/6/2001 11:48:03 PM “I could have and would have acted faster had either of you seen fit to get my immediate attention and point out the offending posts.” 13960. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 6/7/2001 12:55:48 PM The good doctor proposes to host a domicle entitled 13961. Stumbo - 6/7/2001 1:01:09 PM Utterly... utterly... 13962. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 6/7/2001 1:33:48 PM Pray tell, what happened to that welcome domicile hosted by my good friend the Major by the by? 13963. RosettaStone - 6/7/2001 4:27:01 PM Welcome back, DrX. You've been missed. Pelle has been fairly quiet since you left. 13964. Ms. No - 6/11/2001 2:21:23 PM Fielding is retiring as host of the Quiz Thread. The thread will be retired in three days. Future quizes can be posted to topical threads or in the Cafe. 13965. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 2:26:04 PM Hi Ace. 13966. rubberducky - 6/11/2001 2:27:58 PM Ms No: 13967. Ms. No - 6/11/2001 2:40:49 PM Ducks, 13968. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 2:43:20 PM There are reasons to believe that Coltrane may be Ace. Subtle nuances of style and the fact that Coltrane disappeared from view after being bashed by Ace. 13969. AceofSpades - 6/11/2001 5:30:20 PM Ummmmm... yeah. 13970. RosettaStone - 6/11/2001 6:28:25 PM Uuggh!! I had almost forgotten about the ACE THREAD. God, what a nightmare, with the thread title changing every fifteen minutes and Ace deleting posts of anyone he didn't want to read. 13971. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 10:46:48 AM I am willing to host the Quiz thread to avoid its retirement. A thread that only really gets folks worked up when it gets ready to retire... Some stats: Incidentally, the Quiz thread has 92 percent as many posts as the Inferno. 13972. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 10:49:54 AM BTW, is Fielding also retiring as host as "Å Barrel of Rants!"? Then query seadate about lopping that, rather than the Quiz Thread. 13973. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 10:56:03 AM Neither the Inferno nor the Quiz Thread are supposed to be busy continously, are they? I mean, weren't they instituted as sporadic threads? So why retire the thread when all it needs is a new host? 13974. rubberducky - 6/12/2001 11:04:12 AM i don't think the point is total number of posts since inception, rather the point is number of posts that are somewhat recent. 13975. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 11:15:30 AM the point is number of posts that are somewhat recent. 13976. RosettaStone - 6/12/2001 11:15:41 AM I never understood why RANTS existed in the first place. Those types of posts should be in either INFERNO or CAFE. 13977. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 11:19:08 AM The mission of the Rants Thread has always been duplicative to me. I'm aware of the subtle difference between it and the Inferno, but IMO that makes it a subset of the Inferno. 13978. rubberducky - 6/12/2001 11:31:43 AM IJ: 13979. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 11:50:52 AM i think you are forgetting that i'm hardly in favor of keeping any of those threads and have been a vocal advocate of constant thread turnover. 13980. rubberducky - 6/12/2001 11:59:15 AM it is easy to justify, IJ, because the host is stepping down. 13981. Cellar Door - 6/12/2001 12:03:47 PM TT refugees can be found at World Crossing. 13982. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 12:11:29 PM the content is suited for other threads. 13983. Dusty - 6/12/2001 12:16:09 PM Cellar Door 13984. rubberducky - 6/12/2001 12:16:51 PM IJ: 13985. Dusty - 6/12/2001 12:17:39 PM I agree with IJ 13986. Dusty - 6/12/2001 12:29:37 PM I wish I had more energy. The right way to do the quiz thread is for an active host to find, solicit, beg, borrow and steal quiz topics from various sources, post the quiz in the quiz thread, and simultaneously in a separate page (so late comers wouldn't have to keep scrolling back.) 13987. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 12:42:27 PM ducky (13984): So far, this argument can be summarized like this. 13988. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 12:43:41 PM I've had a few TTers write me and ask where I plan to go Aprés TT...these are people I didn't contact in my recruiting efforts; I invited them over here and GJ has stated there have been quite a few new people apply this past week. 13989. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 12:44:27 PM As far as your "demise," ducky, feel free to add your name to the list. Maybe you had a vacation recently, but I thought you were gone for a while. 13990. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 12:48:29 PM Judith: Unfortunate for us that the JF incident made gatekeeping even more cumbersome. gj was very helpful in getting an account arranged for Teri Weigel, but it's still a drag that it's no longer automatic. 13991. rubberducky - 6/12/2001 12:49:31 PM a couple of points you miss: 13992. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 12:57:55 PM IJ: 13993. Dusty - 6/12/2001 12:59:03 PM We can measure recent activity by counting the posts in a fixed time period, or measuring the time associated with a fixed number of posts. I chose the latter. 13994. Indiana Jones - 6/12/2001 1:06:56 PM ducky: Is it "harmful" to RIP any thread? As far as 30 threads, why is that a magic number?(Rhetorical questions.) 13995. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 1:15:52 PM I'm more than "somewhat" in favor of keeping it even though I rarely participate in it...I think it's useful for those who do. If more people had posted quizzes for people to solve in the last month or so, it would've been busy, obviously...because I've yet to see a quiz just tank in it. 13996. rubberducky - 6/12/2001 1:24:27 PM IJ: 13997. PsychProf - 6/12/2001 1:25:48 PM The Quiz thread adds to diversity and seldom contains hostility...it is my impression that many see The Mote as inbred and intensely nasty. 13998. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2001 2:16:51 PM I used to be with ducky, i.e. somewhat of a hardliner when it comes to keeping the number of threads down. For reasons not entirely clear to myself, i.e. of the intuitive kind, I have amended that position. I now think that threads that have a purpose which distinguish tem from other thread should stay and those which do not should go. In the present discussion this means that I align myself with the opinion that Quizz should stay and Rants go. 13999. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 2:28:54 PM I promised myself to keep my ideas to myself after the badly aborted Welcome Thread episode. 14000. khaval alazman - 6/12/2001 2:29:21 PM millennial? 14001. don s. - 6/12/2001 2:36:29 PM millennial plus one? 14002. khaval alazman - 6/12/2001 2:39:39 PM Don.s... (giggle) Nice one. 14003. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 2:42:36 PM Ta, Khaval. 14004. CalGal - 6/12/2001 2:46:09 PM You could call it the TT Diaspora. 14005. PsychProf - 6/12/2001 2:48:01 PM Tabled Talk 14006. CalGal - 6/12/2001 2:50:05 PM ha. that's good, too. 14007. janjon - 6/12/2001 2:54:42 PM I thought frankie was commissioned (well, actually, he volunteered), carte blanche, to do what he could do to get "selected" TT souls over here. 14008. Dusty - 6/12/2001 2:57:37 PM marjoribanks 14009. khaval alazman - 6/12/2001 2:59:21 PM TT as a topic is a particularly good idea because of the intimdating nature of some of the threads. TTfugees will feel much more comfy (and will be far more likely) to post on a topic in which they feel they are expert. 14010. MsIvoryTower - 6/12/2001 3:08:46 PM khaval 14011. CalGal - 6/12/2001 3:11:58 PM hahahaha! I was thinking much the same thing. 14012. Shannon - 6/12/2001 3:18:39 PM I like the TT thread idea as well. 14013. khaval alazman - 6/12/2001 3:21:08 PM MsIT, as you might have surmised, I am not pafrticularly prone to indimation. But I think most people are, and that the confrontational nature, the incestuous banter (to be expected, of course), and the intelligence of some posters could all combine to intimidate the newbie - especially one who has only ever posted on TT and has become used to the familiar environemnt. 14014. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 3:28:29 PM Pelle, as the only Triad member about, it's up to you right now. 14015. wabbit - 6/12/2001 3:34:45 PM Checking in. 14016. marjoribanks - 6/12/2001 3:44:41 PM I nominate Indiana Jones for host of the TT thread, with the proviso that he subtitle it something like "What can we learn?" 14017. RosettaStone - 6/12/2001 3:50:31 PM Definitely, IJ. 14018. RosettaStone - 6/12/2001 3:51:47 PM ...can they all be enjoying the silence of a long afternoon? 14019. mean marlene - 6/12/2001 3:54:13 PM Can the mote handle a large influx of new posters sucessfully? Nothing would be worse than for a bunch of newbies to come in and things here start to crash. It wouldn't be fair to the orginal moties (which I am NOT one of). 14020. PsychProf - 6/12/2001 3:54:52 PM Like fingernails on a blackboard, Stone is. 14021. CalGal - 6/12/2001 4:09:59 PM I don't mind much of fairness, but the timeoutproblem we've been having lately bothers me. I'm nearly sure it's not load, though. Jay and Alistair both say that we can easily accomodate some 200-300 posters. I'm not expecting TTers to come here by the thousands, so I hadn't been worried. 14022. janjon - 6/12/2001 4:10:19 PM Stone is a one note symphony. D flat. 14023. mean marlene - 6/12/2001 4:13:50 PM Apparently they are upgrading or install software fixes. I think it is a yearly ritual. But I'd be worried that the mote might get overran by post menopausal hyenas. You know they travel in large packs. 14024. Shannon - 6/12/2001 4:18:20 PM Funny, Marlene. 14025. milkmaid - 6/12/2001 4:19:04 PM LOL. Really, though, do you want to invite all the crones? I think you have a good thing going right now. 14026. mean marlene - 6/12/2001 4:30:37 PM That's part of the reason I like the mote- it seems more down to earth me than TT does at times. 14027. CalGal - 6/12/2001 4:46:31 PM Argggh, I just got the three times timeout again. Most irritating. 14028. mean marlene - 6/12/2001 5:33:22 PM There are certain times when I am posting over at TT that I have to remind myself that the general population over there has a different set of sensibilities than I do and sometimes I have had to tone down or phrase things carefully so as not to offend unintentionally. 14029. don s. - 6/12/2001 5:35:54 PM what a concept! 14030. CalGal - 6/12/2001 5:36:05 PM 14031. don s. - 6/12/2001 5:36:56 PM Go ahead, CG, don't be shy. 14032. sakonige - 6/12/2001 5:55:57 PM I nominate Indiana Jones for host of the TT thread, with the proviso that he subtitle it something like "What can we learn?" 14033. sakonige - 6/12/2001 5:59:57 PM re: #14016 14034. mean marlene - 6/12/2001 6:04:17 PM don s: Cal's posting balls don't scare me- I like the frankness. It's a refreshing change. I have the problem (being too wishy washy/wanting to be liked)- Cal doesn't. 14035. Laura C - 6/12/2001 7:06:52 PM Hyenas notwithstanding, a TT thread is a good idea, especially since "The Reaper" is spamming all the TT Worldcrossing threads with instructions to come here. But it should be implemented soon - people are settling into their new virtual subdivisions. 14036. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 7:09:02 PM I think it's a great idea, too... 14037. RosettaStone - 6/12/2001 7:26:30 PM No one can start posting here until we check their perigrees. 14038. PsychProf - 6/12/2001 7:28:56 PM Judith and IJ sound like the right mix to me for the TT thread... 14039. milkmaid - 6/12/2001 7:31:58 PM What's a perigree? Some kind of small dog? 14040. PsychProf - 6/12/2001 7:34:22 PM 2 small grees... 14041. sakonige - 6/12/2001 7:42:59 PM 14042. sakonige - 6/12/2001 8:02:06 PM 14043. sakonige - 6/12/2001 8:03:42 PM 14044. don s. - 6/12/2001 10:32:58 PM Intefadah 14045. arkymalarky - 6/12/2001 10:37:12 PM groan... 14046. don s. - 6/12/2001 11:04:39 PM Yeah, I flopped the first two lines. 14047. milkmaid - 6/13/2001 9:04:17 AM So do you think TT is gone for good? Why don't they just come out and say it? 14048. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 9:07:49 AM They are still in denial... 14049. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 9:18:11 AM Having a minor professional emergency, so have to post and run. 14050. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 9:20:34 AM I'll also note that I see the Quiz thread is still RIP'd. Now that Pelle has weighed in as also in favor of keeping it, at least four Motiers have said so. 14051. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 10:24:20 AM Re 14050: Nevermind. It appears someone has unRIP'd it. Thanks--I'll try to post a good quiz there either today or tomorrow. 14052. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 10:29:02 AM It's silly to waste this opportunity while TT is down by going back and forth on hosts. 14053. wabbit - 6/13/2001 10:30:50 AM Well, marj, how about I put your name on it for now? 14054. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 10:33:01 AM banks: I agree with you that time is of the essence. If my suggestion isn't a good one (Michael Mele and Judith), then put Judith in there by herself or you and Judith or just you. 14055. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 10:33:28 AM xpost 14056. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 10:34:19 AM Fine, wabbit. I'll pass the duties on as soon as someone likely volunteers. 14057. wabbit - 6/13/2001 10:39:45 AM Thread will be up momentarily, banks. 14058. sakonige - 6/13/2001 10:40:57 AM 14059. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 10:44:25 AM sakonige: Moot point now. If you just wish to disparage Michael Mele, perhaps you should go to the Inferno, where I'm sure many will be happy to rebut your (mis)characterizations. 14060. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 10:45:31 AM Wabbit, 14061. Cellar Door - 6/13/2001 10:45:35 AM Indeed! 14062. Erinyes - 6/13/2001 11:13:34 AM Where is the Wizard of Whimsy's design submission? Where is Spike's submission? 14063. rubberducky - 6/13/2001 11:20:29 AM you, and anyone, can check out the Wiz's thoughts in Message # 132 in thread 108 & Message # 133 in thread 108. but the 'official' submission is in Message # 137 in thread 108 14064. glendajean - 6/13/2001 12:39:18 PM Please note the name change for Home and Garden. We now have Majori's "The Good Life." 14065. rubberducky - 6/13/2001 12:43:51 PM so ... will JJ's travel thread be going away and will you be adding 'travel' to your thread title? 14066. Ms. No - 6/13/2001 12:44:18 PM Indy, 14067. Ms. No - 6/13/2001 12:56:44 PM Ducky, 14068. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 1:11:39 PM Christin: It appears you have taken my disagreement with a policy decision too personally. 14069. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 1:45:41 PM Hey, Irv's back! I thought he was banned from the mote for having ruined the old fray for its inhabitants. Crimes against humanity, etc. 14070. Erinyes - 6/13/2001 1:47:25 PM rubberducky, thanks! 14071. rubberducky - 6/13/2001 1:52:41 PM Erinyes: 14072. glendajean - 6/13/2001 2:19:57 PM Ducky -- I don't know about travel. That is up to PTB. 14073. Ms. No - 6/13/2001 2:42:38 PM RosettaStone, 14074. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 2:47:55 PM I like the new name of the H&G thread; good wine, good food, beautiful homes and plants, wonderful pets and great friends...what could be more of a "Good Life" than that? 14075. rubberducky - 6/13/2001 3:07:25 PM what is the policy on gatekeeping? GJ is doing a good job from what i have seen, but does he want/need help? 14076. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 3:14:31 PM I think we should go back to the old way of letting people in until the gatekeeper decides they're banned or otherwise undesireable (fake email address). It makes more sense to throw the occasional bad egg out than the other way around. 14077. rubberducky - 6/13/2001 3:17:39 PM that's a good point and suggestion IJ 14078. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 3:18:40 PM Agreed, IJ. To set up a whole system to monitor new people from joining to keep one young man with a broken heart from breeding is just too sad for words. 14079. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 3:19:23 PM Agreed, IJ. To set up a whole system to monitor new people from joining to keep one young man with a broken heart from breeding is just too sad for words. 14080. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 3:26:12 PM To read Rosie's pathetic lies not once, but twice is just too sad for words. Were you born this obnoxious, Rosie or did it take a lifetime of practice that makes you such a destestable puling little fuck? 14081. PsychProf - 6/13/2001 3:28:40 PM I vote for a combination/interaction of genetics and some intense experiential factors/episodes. 14082. don s. - 6/13/2001 3:30:12 PM Yes, I'm fairly certain that one or both of Rosie's parents were sick, twisted, passive-aggressive neurotics. 14083. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 3:30:38 PM I think he's in dire need of a third degree pink belly and a prolonged twirley. 14084. don s. - 6/13/2001 3:31:51 PM Well, I was going to say euthanasia, but let's try your idea first. 14085. janjon - 6/13/2001 3:32:09 PM well, you've certainly confused the hell out of me, bubba. 14086. Erinyes - 6/13/2001 3:32:50 PM What in the world? 14087. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 3:32:53 PM Then my job is done here. 14088. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 3:35:04 PM Think back to your junior high school days. A pink belly is when you pull up someone's shirt and smack them repeatedly on the belly til it turns pink. A twirley is when you stick their head in the toilet and flush. Given Rosie's junior high personality, I think those punishments are fitting. 14089. glendajean - 6/13/2001 3:37:15 PM (Damn, she was a tough one in junior high school) 14090. janjon - 6/13/2001 3:40:09 PM yet another reason I am glad I went to boarding school. 14091. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 3:43:28 PM Bubba: I thought your weapon of choice was sticking your huge breasts in someone's face, causing him/her to practically sufficate? 14092. don s. - 6/13/2001 3:45:05 PM Hey, Rosie, your insults would pack a bit more punch if they're weren't riddled with elementary spelling errors. 14093. Erinyes - 6/13/2001 3:49:54 PM Guess so! 14094. glendajean - 6/13/2001 3:52:00 PM Erinyes, Bubbaette is like the beautiful camelias she grows in Virginia -- a refreshing bloom just at the time you need it, so unexpected and ravishing. 14095. PsychProf - 6/13/2001 3:52:34 PM Gotta love the twirly... 14096. Frankster - 6/13/2001 3:54:32 PM I think he's in dire need of a third degree pink belly and a prolonged twirley. 14097. PelleNilsson - 6/13/2001 4:04:56 PM Well, if it wasn't for the fact that we like to have an essentially harmless village idiot around to amuse us and, occasionally, upset us, Rosetta wouldn't be around. 14098. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:12:20 PM Well, I hope no one was too anxious about receiving a load of TTers over here...I just went over to WorldCrossing and they are really steamed about those remarks of Marjs..."we have fulfilled lives off-line" and "we're not as addicted to the net as TTers" or whatever he alluded to...they were insulted and think we are being elitist. 14099. janjon - 6/13/2001 4:19:01 PM Without knowing, I know that The Reaper has to be none other than Stone. 14100. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 4:19:34 PM link, dearest. 14101. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 4:20:43 PM For the record, no, I'm not the reaper. I don't even know where world crossing is. 14102. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:21:01 PM Rose: 14103. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:23:13 PM I didn't say "he" went to World Crossing; he spammed threads at TT and other places before it went down. I've got a call out for someone to send me a copy of one of "his" little gems...but we know who it is, don't we? 14104. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 4:25:57 PM I never spam. I create threads. There is a difference. 14105. janjon - 6/13/2001 4:29:20 PM create, yes. 14106. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 4:30:16 PM Oh cool. I meant those comments to be provocative. 14107. janjon - 6/13/2001 4:31:19 PM bad idea, marj. 14108. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 4:31:33 PM Of course Stone is the reaper. Stone, if you think you're fooling anyone you may be right. But not me. 14109. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:36:18 PM The Reaper...in Guest Mode so no one can check his e-mail address...has his own thread in World Crossing...here's a sample: 14110. CalGal - 6/13/2001 4:36:31 PM Of course Reaper is Stone. 14111. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:38:43 PM Marj: 14112. janjon - 6/13/2001 4:40:56 PM juditha - surely the people from TT would realize that this Reaper is just a vindictive sicko. Why would this color their impressions of the Mote? 14113. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:41:06 PM Yes, Cal, you'd think that, wouldn't you? So how do you explain the really terrible reaction from a broad cross section of posters, people who are dedicated forum people? 14114. MsIvoryTower - 6/13/2001 4:43:10 PM How does one explain it? 14115. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:44:41 PM Why would this color their impressions of the Mote? 14116. janjon - 6/13/2001 4:44:45 PM words are tricky, especially in cyberspace. And, the people at TT have to be especially unsettled at this point. After all, something they've enjoyed and know well is going under. 14117. CalGal - 6/13/2001 4:48:39 PM Look, we'll get some people from Tabletalk--in fact, we already have. But just as there is no "they" at the Mote, there's no "they" at TT. 14118. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 4:48:54 PM Judithesearepeoplewhoactuallylikeme: 14119. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 4:52:21 PM Relax, people. I'm the Reaper. And you should read the entire thread. 14120. Ms. No - 6/13/2001 4:53:18 PM I think what's been forgotten is that the Mote is seen by many TTers as separatist, elitist and condescending and has been from the beginning. We don't have the best rep with them because we basically came to their forum as a way station and then left. On top of that it appears to many of them that we've been trying to "steal" their participants. 14121. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 4:54:57 PM For what it is worth, anybody who appears tied to The Mote is immediately assumed to be Rosetta by those on TT. 14122. CalGal - 6/13/2001 4:56:17 PM So how do you explain the really terrible reaction from a broad cross section of posters, people who are dedicated forum people? 14123. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 4:57:05 PM I think what we've done is just fine. The welcome mat is out, and the TT thread is a natural place for them to congregate. If they come, they do, if they don't, they don't. If they can't handle banks' comments, they're not likely to last long here anyway. 14124. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 4:58:06 PM Many of the TT folk I've yammered with as The Reaper are funny and a few have said they'll check it out. A whole different group says "Seen it, hated it." And a third group is convinced that Rosie and CalGal are leading a dangerous cabal of mindreaders and saboteurs. 14125. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 4:58:53 PM xpost, obviously, re the Reaper's identity. 14126. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 4:59:19 PM FU: 14127. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:00:09 PM A whole different group says "Seen it, hated it." 14128. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:01:07 PM Juditha 14129. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 5:02:21 PM It doesn't look deleted to me. 14130. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:03:05 PM In fact, my two Reaper franchises are alive and well. 14131. Ms. No - 6/13/2001 5:03:16 PM Judith, 14132. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:03:30 PM Reaper Mania! 14133. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 5:04:05 PM I came over to say that : 14134. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:05:02 PM If you are referring to me, as I'm sure you are 14135. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 5:05:11 PM BTW, FU, the first few of the Reaper's posts I was pretty sure you weren't Stone, but when you started that third person stuff, I didn't know anymore. Stone's style is pretty easy to pick up, so I thought it might be his way of finally trying to disguise himself. Especially when you started the money part. Plus, the Reaper seemed like a conservative, and that narrowed the possibilities down. 14136. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:05:13 PM The Reaper will bring eclectic thrill-seekers, not people scared by the name "The Reaper." 14137. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 5:05:26 PM I don't know how many you have over there but one was deleted or said to be... 14138. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 5:05:47 PM link, link, please. 14139. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:06:48 PM Incidentally, my comment about banks is not meant as complaint. I myself can drive thousands away just by saying "hello". It's a gift. I was just jealous of his temporary success. 14140. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:07:30 PM Indy 14141. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:08:05 PM How does one get to this worldcom place and what are the thread names? It occurs to me that I'm not banned there! bwahahahahaha. 14142. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 5:08:59 PM If the 50 people you emailed all came over, saw that post, and left in a huff, then I suggest you ask them if they are claiming that no such posts of that nature were ever made at TT. If they say no, then they are beyond help. If they say "yes, but..." then go from there... 14143. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:10:10 PM Well, Stone just showed up. 14144. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 5:10:12 PM FU: 14145. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:11:12 PM Judith, 14146. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 5:11:25 PM Judithee-mailer 14147. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2001 5:11:45 PM Hey, now! 14148. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 5:12:06 PM No I haven't, Niner. But I want too. 14149. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:12:19 PM Juditha 14150. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:13:40 PM And you side with foreigners over your own flesh and blood? 14151. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:14:03 PM I gave them. 14152. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 5:16:35 PM Yeah...I think smug is the operative word. 14153. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:17:45 PM Judith, 14154. Francis Urquhart - 6/13/2001 5:17:46 PM The Reaper was smug? 14155. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 5:25:54 PM It sounds to me like most of the TTers have found landing spots. Any liabilities that they've seen wrt the Mote would show up sooner or later, and I think it's probably best now--rather than trying to hit them over the head and drag them to our cave, tell them if they don't like it sum quod sum and tough, then wonder why they run out at the first opportunity--just leave the welcome mat out in the form of the TT thread (stains and all), try to make it as easy as possible for new people to register and navigate (speaking of which, I haven't had a time-out in a while), and go on with no further promotional strategies. 14156. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:29:56 PM What is this sum quod shit? 14157. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 5:31:53 PM "We are what we are." 14158. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 5:32:19 PM It's Latin. You know, elitist and all. 14159. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:35:56 PM Well, duh. I was just trying to let lurkers know that we're not all Latin spouting snobs. 14160. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 5:36:19 PM Actually, it's a chapter in Lake Wobegone, so it also tied in with Salon via Garrison Keillor. 14161. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 5:46:05 PM I found the pictures in the other forum to be very distracting. Too much of a bardate thing. 14162. CalGal - 6/13/2001 5:58:47 PM You can turn those pictures off, did you know? 14163. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 6:10:52 PM Just read another update from Salon's TT. 14164. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 6:26:02 PM "We are what we are." 14165. MsIvoryTower - 6/13/2001 6:34:23 PM Baked or mashed, makes no difference to me. Just not candied please. 14166. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 6:37:31 PM I tried to check it out but am too dense to navigate over there, evidently. 14167. MsIvoryTower - 6/13/2001 6:43:43 PM It's called 14168. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 6:48:06 PM MsIT: 14169. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 6:49:07 PM I have to say that I thought the Reaper was funny, too. But then I have a soft spot in my head for Francis. 14170. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 6:54:40 PM If you hadn't know it was FU, but thought it was Rosie...would it still have been funny? I only read the one in the TT TV thread and it's not there any longer...the entire time I was reading it, I was thinking it was Rose (not being privy to the MrMoto routine)and it just irritated me. 14171. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 7:01:18 PM I figure if they want to check out the Mote they'll check it out. If not, well the internet is a big place. I think it's fairly evident who has an ax to grind. 14172. MsIvoryTower - 6/13/2001 7:02:25 PM I can't answer that Rosie, I read it after FU confessed and posted the directions to the site. 14173. MsIvoryTower - 6/13/2001 7:03:08 PM Rosie???? 14174. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:03:47 PM 14175. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 7:08:08 PM Michael Mele a marxist. I don't think so. 14176. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:08:12 PM Just who was I channeling there?? 14177. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:09:57 PM Personally, I don't think we need an invasion of paranoid conspiracy-theorist Marxist homosexual shut-ins. 14178. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:11:57 PM 14179. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 7:13:28 PM Ace is trying the "Aw, who needs you anyway?" strategy. 14180. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:14:36 PM Arky, 14181. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 7:14:58 PM Here! Hear! 14182. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:17:45 PM 14183. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 7:18:02 PM Irony of ironies that #180 is followed by #181. 14184. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 7:18:15 PM They're not going to come here, Ace. Their leaders--Muel and DH100--hate us with a passion. 14185. bubbaette - 6/13/2001 7:20:52 PM That's really not been my experience at TT -- though I avoid the Politics threads over there like a plague. 14186. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:22:36 PM Look, I just think we don't want too many people like that. 14187. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:25:59 PM 14188. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:26:30 PM 14189. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:27:14 PM Watch out...running the joing can get tiresome. 14190. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:28:00 PM 14191. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:28:27 PM It's hip slang for "crib." You wouldn't understand. 14192. AceofSpades - 6/13/2001 7:28:50 PM 14193. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 7:29:03 PM How do you have the run of the joint? You're not here nearly often enough and you don't hang out in enough threads! 14194. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:29:06 PM Sure I would...I've got quals. 14195. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:29:56 PM Damn you Ace!! Just wait till I get mt DSL. 14196. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:30:21 PM mY....a typist who can spell. 14197. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 7:31:46 PM Judith! Just do like Ace and turn a typo into the latest slang. 14198. RosettaStone - 6/13/2001 7:32:01 PM Speaking of a crib. Especially a NYC crib. My daughter just rented "Coyote Sluts" from Blockbusters. 14199. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:40:35 PM Hey, Arky...that's the ticket! MT DSL...Mote Transfer DSL; yeah, that's what it is... 14200. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 7:42:27 PM I think you accidently put a "u" in that last word, Rose. 14201. boyblue - 6/14/2001 8:56:31 AM Why is there not a single thread in The Mote devoted to gay topics of any sort? I have seen the insulting remarks by some toward gays participating in some threads. There ought to be a thread where gay politics and culture could be discussed on a consistent basis. The absence of one raises a serious question about the inclusiveness of The Mote. Is The Mote inclusive in the manner in which Dubya is "inclusive?" 14202. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2001 8:58:31 AM All the threads here are gay. 14203. bubbaette - 6/14/2001 9:00:48 AM Boyblue 14204. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2001 9:01:35 AM boyblue: Some threads are gayer than others. 14205. RosettaStone - 6/14/2001 9:04:29 AM The Sex thread, with two gay hosts, is pretty much the homosexual thread here, littleboyblue. 14206. don s. - 6/14/2001 9:09:37 AM Rosie, from six posts ago: 14207. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 9:12:06 AM Serious doubts about the "inclusiveness" of The Mote? We've more than our share of village idiot of every stripe - check out American Politics (and I'm sure you will). 14208. vw - 6/14/2001 9:22:35 AM Blueboy: 14209. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 9:29:14 AM 14210. RosettaStone - 6/14/2001 9:31:50 AM Give him/her some sissy space, Ace. Blue is one of the TT recruits that CD brought in. 14211. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 9:37:15 AM 14212. rubberducky - 6/14/2001 9:40:43 AM boyblue: 14213. Dusty - 6/14/2001 9:41:28 AM boyblue 14214. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 9:44:32 AM 14215. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 9:51:43 AM 14216. JudithAtHome - 6/14/2001 9:54:29 AM Why even bother to invite people here? Why don't we post a warning that this place is filled with rude assholes who think they are clever and who hurl insults to test newcomers mettle to see if they are "worthy" of staying and receiving insults on a regular basis? 14217. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 9:57:50 AM 14218. iiibbb - 6/14/2001 10:00:15 AM As long as I've been posting here you're on your own sticking up for yourself. 14219. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 10:02:05 AM 14220. rubberducky - 6/14/2001 10:03:01 AM Ace: 14221. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 10:04:07 AM 14222. JudithAtHome - 6/14/2001 10:05:00 AM No one wants to be a member of a club whose current members beg and plead for newcomers. 14223. Cellar Door - 6/14/2001 10:06:11 AM Ace is waiting for heterosexuality to come back into fashion. 14224. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 10:06:32 AM Ace I confess, it's hard for me not to like you. I've tried, God knows I've tried, but bizarre intellects have always attracted me. 14225. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 10:06:42 AM 14226. iiibbb - 6/14/2001 10:09:23 AM I also came in about 2 years ago and started off with a bang. I seem to remember posting something about gun control and having to duke it out with about 10 people. Some of them were insulting, but predominantly I was here seeking a debate and I got it... and I got one that was 80% coherent... which is way better than most debate sites. 14227. rubberducky - 6/14/2001 10:10:22 AM i agree Loar. Ace is like a bad SNL skit (is there any other kind these days?): 14228. iiibbb - 6/14/2001 10:12:11 AM joust properly that is. 14229. CalGal - 6/14/2001 10:14:57 AM Well, Judith, if they were invited to come for a look, it doesn't make sense to run around vacuuming just to look nice for company. 14230. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 10:16:08 AM On the contrary, I find Ace intolerable only when he's serious. 14231. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 10:16:12 AM 14232. Wombat - 6/14/2001 10:26:23 AM Discussions of "gay" issues--most of which bore the crap out of me--pop up in the contexts of the thread subjects. It requires actually reading various threads over time. 14233. JudithAtHome - 6/14/2001 10:29:59 AM it doesn't make sense to run around vacuuming just to look nice for company. 14234. MsIvoryTower - 6/14/2001 10:31:00 AM Man, if this set of posts doesn't scare them away, nothing will. 14235. CalGal - 6/14/2001 10:34:44 AM Ms, 14236. CalGal - 6/14/2001 10:35:26 AM Judith, 14237. RosettaStone - 6/14/2001 10:36:53 AM Is there any reason why these posts are not being made in the TABLED TALK thread? (second time I've asked.) 14238. iiibbb - 6/14/2001 10:37:42 AM I thought there was a gay thread in the past anyway... did it fail or just change names? 14239. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 10:38:24 AM They're not funny. They're mostly juvenile. And this thread is perhaps the least representative thread if you're talking about substantive or congenial discussion. 14240. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 10:39:46 AM 14241. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 10:41:01 AM Banks, get laid. Really. Get laid. 14242. AceofSpades - 6/14/2001 10:41:20 AM 14243. wabbit - 6/14/2001 10:42:04 AM Ok, how about continuing this somewhere else. 14244. marjoribanks - 6/14/2001 10:44:09 AM Loar, believe me I just did. 14245. arkymalarky - 6/14/2001 10:46:55 AM I'm gonna go put on my Anti-Fag-Bat Helmet. 14246. wabbit - 6/14/2001 10:48:52 AM While I'm here, is there any interest in a short term (and by that I mean it will be archived on Monday morning) thread about fathers? MsIT started it in the Inferno and it seems we have several parents of new babies and young children among us. I'll host if there is any interest. 14247. RosettaStone - 6/14/2001 10:49:33 AM Wabbit: Do your duty. Get the hook and [move] the last forty+ posts to TABLED TALK. 14248. RosettaStone - 6/14/2001 10:50:09 AM token 14249. Wombat - 6/14/2001 10:50:20 AM Could that not go under the "Family" thread? 14250. arkymalarky - 6/14/2001 10:52:09 AM But Banks is right. We're far too given to hyper-analyzing in here, when we should just be out there welcoming and talking to all the new people who are already participating. 14251. wabbit - 6/14/2001 10:52:38 AM Wombat, 14252. Wombat - 6/14/2001 10:52:41 AM I mean the "Parenting" thread. 14253. MsIvoryTower - 6/14/2001 10:55:17 AM WABBIT!!! 14254. wabbit - 6/14/2001 10:57:27 AM Now Ms, you know I'm not big into moving posts. Wombat is right, though, it would be nice to have the father discussion in the Parenting thread. 14255. MsIvoryTower - 6/14/2001 10:58:01 AM NO! 14256. JudithAtHome - 6/14/2001 11:52:55 AM I think short threads for specific holidays like Mothers and Fathers days and Christmas are a great idea...they would only be here for awhile and have a definite mission. 14257. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 2:23:16 PM marj, the dour hunourless sub-con. 14258. RosettaStone - 6/14/2001 2:26:01 PM Take it to the Inferno, chainsaw villian. 14259. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 2:51:18 PM What a viscious, witty, devastating attack! I'll go flagellate myself in the blue cupboard (hommage to Hashke). 14260. don s. - 6/14/2001 3:10:41 PM I had a hunour once. It was noisy, smelly and resistance to training. I don't blame marj for getting rid of his. 14261. bubbaette - 6/14/2001 3:13:27 PM You should never try to keep a hunour indoors -- they need plenty of room to run and they shed profusely. 14262. don s. - 6/14/2001 3:15:00 PM I named mine "Joe." 14263. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:01:16 PM Ms. No, Wabbit 14264. RosettaStone - 6/15/2001 5:02:23 PM For the record. I don't think it is appropriate for you to threaten me with suspension because I inform new people that CharlieL can break the privacy rules by publishing my name, home address and daughter's telephone number and get away with it. 14265. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:05:54 PM You've said knock it off. You've given him two "final" warnings. 14266. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 5:07:46 PM To recap, Stone posted #51 in Tabled Talk, which was in no way directed at Charlie L. Charlie L (who only comes here when TT is down anyway and who claims to be ignoring Stone) then without provocation posted #52, which was the first punch thrown. 14267. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:08:05 PM I feel like Clint in Unforgiven and Wabbit and Christin are playing the Morgan Freeman role. 14268. wabbit - 6/15/2001 5:09:06 PM CharlieL, 14269. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 5:10:27 PM Then shoot them both. 14270. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:11:17 PM Indy 14271. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 5:11:32 PM 14269 was to 14267. 14272. RosettaStone - 6/15/2001 5:12:04 PM If you suspend me, please change the rules on mote privacy. Especially, since you don't follow them anyway. 14273. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:12:33 PM I'm warning you. 14274. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 5:13:29 PM Francis: It's not for the turd. It's for the principle. 14275. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 5:13:40 PM Oh please shut up. 14276. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 5:13:58 PM That was to Rose. 14277. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:16:03 PM Indy 14278. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 5:18:47 PM Francis: I think he was suspended over the Nostradamus affair. 14279. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 5:23:08 PM This is one of the most boring, or perhaps the most boring, arguments in the history of the Mote. I'm surprised that it attracts any attention. Let little DumbStone whine on ... and on ... and on. A little bandwidth wasted - no big deal. 14280. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:30:12 PM 14281. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:32:32 PM Wabbit, 14282. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:34:53 PM Either stop making final warnings, followed by full retreats, or follow-up. 14283. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:36:14 PM Ace 14284. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:37:01 PM 14285. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:38:35 PM Charlie is a recidivist. I'll grant Ace that much. If he cannot shuck off his grasping impishness with Stone's name, he has violated parole. 14286. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:38:49 PM 14287. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:39:13 PM 14288. CalGal - 6/15/2001 5:40:22 PM Tell us why you published my name, address and daughter's phone number in TT, CharlieL. 14289. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:41:28 PM Ace 14290. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:41:57 PM 14291. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:42:09 PM Ace 14292. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:42:58 PM 14293. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 5:44:19 PM Well, screaming for a resignation is absurd if you're not willing to take the reigns. 14294. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:44:57 PM 14295. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:47:06 PM 14296. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:50:55 PM 14297. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 5:52:56 PM 14298. CalGal - 6/15/2001 5:59:08 PM Ace, 14299. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 6:02:52 PM Suspending or banning one without the other rewards bad behavior. 14300. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 6:03:24 PM Rosetta repeated the CharlieL refrain in other threads, Ace...everytime Charlie posted anywhere, Rosie showed up with his serenade. 14301. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:11:27 PM 14302. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:13:36 PM 14303. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:20:05 PM 14304. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:22:42 PM 14305. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 6:27:15 PM Just for my information. Is CharlieL what some posters would call "a liberal"? 14306. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:30:18 PM 14307. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 6:30:30 PM Probably...look how his very existance has triggered a "spell" in Ace... 14308. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:31:05 PM 14309. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:32:23 PM 14310. CalGal - 6/15/2001 6:32:42 PM It is LUDICROUS to suggest that Rosetta cannot respond. 14311. CalGal - 6/15/2001 6:33:35 PM Although I still think Charlie's violation is abuse, not privacy. Stone's name is well known by his own efforts. 14312. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:34:24 PM 14313. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 6:34:45 PM Oh please...aren't you above this conspiracy theory type thinking? Get a grip. 14314. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:35:48 PM Cal, 14315. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 6:36:48 PM Pelle: That's irrelevant. The last time this subject came up, the moderators didn't appreciate the insinuation that Charlie L was restored because he was friends with one or more of you. 14316. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 6:37:02 PM My own stance... I find RS's tenacity to be highly annoying and tedious 14317. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:37:49 PM 14318. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 6:38:54 PM Xpost 14319. CalGal - 6/15/2001 6:39:07 PM Sez you. I certainly don't think so. Stone's bitching is well beyond occasional--and again, it's not like this isn't about information that he himself made available all the time. It was only when he realized he could use it to get people banned that he decided he wanted to be a virgin again. We all know that. So yes, I expect him to shut the fuck up and ignore baiting once he's been warned some fifty times. 14320. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:40:23 PM 14321. wabbit - 6/15/2001 6:44:17 PM Both CharlieL and RosettaStone have been suspended for the next two weeks. 14322. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 6:44:35 PM Concurring with iiibbb's post, the letter of the law is Charlie L should be banned. 14323. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:44:37 PM 14324. CalGal - 6/15/2001 6:44:53 PM iiibbb, 14325. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 6:45:30 PM Xpost, yet again. 14326. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:45:31 PM 14327. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 6:45:59 PM You got your way...why not relax now? 14328. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 6:46:32 PM I have never communicated with CharlieL privately by E-mail or by any other means. I don't think I have communicated with him here in the Mote either, but I could be wrong. 14329. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 6:49:14 PM Like I said... Stone's whining annoys the shit out of me... but if Charlie L recently said the name in the TT thread here, then he fucked up. 14330. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 6:49:33 PM Evidently he's less easily tolerated than Rose, which just mystifies me no end. 14331. wabbit - 6/15/2001 6:49:54 PM Ace, 9597. wabbit - 3/9/01 6:07:12 PM CharlieL, 9598. wabbit - 3/9/01 6:19:34 PM Rosie, 44304. CharlieL - 5/17/01 12:53:50 PM Good afternoon, all. 44305. RosettaStone - 5/17/01 12:55:25 PM Aren't you banned? 14332. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:50:57 PM 14333. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2001 6:51:55 PM Pelle: He doesn't get me upset. But it is true what Ace says about him harassing (conservative) people at TableTalk. 14334. CalGal - 6/15/2001 6:51:56 PM Pelle, 14335. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:52:26 PM 14336. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 6:53:48 PM So ban Rosie too... I don't care. But Charlie L has got to go. It is unacceptable to me that he broke the rules. 14337. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 6:55:33 PM \"44304. CharlieL - 5/17/01 12:53:50 PM 14338. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 6:55:39 PM They are both out, in case you missed it. For 2 weeks, each. 14339. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 6:56:15 PM Ace 14340. CalGal - 6/15/2001 6:57:04 PM At that point it's off limits whether he was an idiot for revealing it or not. 14341. wabbit - 6/15/2001 6:57:40 PM Ace, 14342. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 7:00:17 PM Cal... am I mistaken that he revealed his info on Talble Talk, and not The Mote itself? Everything should be in the context of what happens in The Mote... I don't care what happens on TableTalk. 14343. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:01:36 PM 14344. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:03:30 PM 14345. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:03:44 PM Well, you can ask that of them both in 2 weeks, Ace. 14346. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:08:37 PM 14347. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:10:30 PM 14348. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:10:37 PM Well, you seem to be the only one applying the word "victim" to Rose...sorry but I can't stretch credulity that far. 14349. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:12:46 PM 14350. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 7:14:08 PM I'm not whining about abuse. I'm amused. But you are not as inventive and amusing as you used to be Ace. That's what's makes you tiring, even boring. 14351. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:14:38 PM 14352. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:14:39 PM Yeah, Ace...if it were a question of him being gone because "I don't like him" we'd have heard nothing from him for weeks... 14353. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:15:39 PM 14354. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:17:34 PM 14355. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:18:21 PM Ace: 14356. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:19:20 PM 14357. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:20:14 PM 14358. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:21:38 PM 14359. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:21:46 PM Ace: 14360. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:22:37 PM 14361. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:24:26 PM 14362. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:25:52 PM 14363. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:29:14 PM 14364. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:30:26 PM I have no stake in Charlie being here or not. I just think you are like a dog with a bone..you gnaw at it over and over and you get no satisfaction from it and when you do manage to break off a piece of it, you swallow it and it rips your intestines open. 14365. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:33:36 PM Evidently you missed the info that I am a slow typist... 14366. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:40:18 PM If you aren't enjoying what you're doing, do something else. 14367. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:42:08 PM 14368. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 7:46:53 PM Okay, yes, I like Charlie better than Rose. He doesn't call me vile names nor does he give out MY real name nor does he post private e-mails of mine...all things Rose has done. And to top it off, Charlie isn't clueless enough to ask me just minutes ago to copy a post of his from World Crossing into this thread...after having done all those things to me. 14369. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:52:27 PM 14370. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:59:42 PM 14371. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 7:59:54 PM 14372. JudithAtHome - 6/15/2001 8:04:48 PM Have a nice weekend, Ace... 14373. wabbit - 6/15/2001 8:05:15 PM Ace, 14374. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:07:54 PM 14375. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:11:03 PM 14376. wabbit - 6/15/2001 8:14:06 PM Will you agree that if Charlie violates again he should be banned permanently -- no excuses, no parole, no repreive? 14377. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:14:09 PM 14378. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:17:06 PM 14379. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:18:11 PM 14380. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:19:26 PM 14381. wabbit - 6/15/2001 8:20:32 PM Ace, 14382. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:26:20 PM I see Ace is on a tear--again. Wabbit should not, Please, nor should Pelle and MsNo, step down. They're doing a great job under circumstances that are occasionally too straining to be voluntary. Maybe we ought to use the Mote fund to pay each of them a stipend when a dustup like this comes up. 14383. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:26:34 PM 14384. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:29:35 PM 14385. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:31:24 PM 14386. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:31:29 PM And Wabbit is absolutely right about Rose. He will evidently do anything, even to the point of being very mean to people who've done nothing to him, trying to technically stay one hairsbreadth this side of the line, in order to make other people cause a stir then sit back and watch--which may be why Cal says he's like the arsonist in that movie (I haven't seen it). That's why he was banned from TT but not here. He's the one reason an ENUF button would be a great thing here, because he's the only one who will go out of his way to try to make reasonable people do unreasonable things. It's what he lives for, for some strange and tragic reason. 14387. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:33:10 PM 14388. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:35:08 PM 14389. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:35:52 PM Fortunately, this place doesn't exist simply for what you need. They enforce the rules plenty well enough. Fwiw, no one's posted Rose's full name or done anything but allude to what only people who knew already would know was his first name, and he's been picking at people for weeks now trying to provoke them. 14390. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:40:06 PM I agree, and for the most part if I weren't someone with a very demented sense of humor, which makes me occasionally worry about my mental stability, I wouldn't read Rose at all. I agree that everyone should ignore him. People like that are persistent, and this is like a large room. One like that who does enough in enough places is eventually going to get enough of a reaction from someone to get the reward he's seeking--a big todo resulting in other people getting in trouble. Believe me, I've seen the best at this game, and Rose is right up there. 14391. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:40:56 PM 14392. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:45:31 PM More has been tolerated from Rose in this forum than from any other person, including Cazart and Jon, if for no other reason than that they were summarily banned and haven't been here nearly as much. I personally don't advocate banning Rose, but anyone who suggests he hasn't been more trouble more consistently to more people than anyone else in this forum is delusional. 14393. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:49:32 PM 14394. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:52:53 PM He annoys on purpose. That's harrassment, especially when it becomes unrelenting. 14395. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:56:18 PM 14396. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 8:57:36 PM "abusive" is a broad term. I think that covers Rose well enough. If you wanted to add "excessively provoking" "consistent troublemaking" or something it would fit better, but I still think it's abusive--sort of like Chinese water torture. 14397. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 8:57:50 PM 14398. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:03:16 PM 14399. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 9:06:16 PM No, you're not being a pest. Really. 14400. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 9:11:05 PM And you can claim he's being a "pest" by making arguments you don't like, but that's a bunch of bullshit. 14401. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:27:30 PM 14402. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:27:38 PM If the reason that Jexster should not be banned is because *I* am a prick, fine: But are you asking me to believe that CharlieL, who I know for an absolute fact enjoys stalking (he stalked me), is one of the "polite people" like Diva who are not to be fucked with? 14403. Deep Thoughts - 6/15/2001 9:28:09 PM As a child you wanted to destroy your dolls by bashing in their heads? Very interesting. 14404. CalGal - 6/15/2001 9:30:32 PM You know, Arky made a point that I always think is obvious, but maybe it needs stating more: I, too, think that all our moderators do a great job, and they get handed way too much shit. 14405. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:34:40 PM 14406. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:37:31 PM 14407. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:38:02 PM 14408. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:39:48 PM 14409. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:46:33 PM Hey! Just curious... how long has Deep Thoughts been a member of the Mote? 14410. Cellar Door - 6/15/2001 9:46:41 PM OOoooo, is this another session of Kick the Cripple? Let me go first! 14411. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:48:53 PM 14412. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 9:50:38 PM Ace, 14413. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:53:32 PM 14414. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:54:15 PM 14415. Cellar Door - 6/15/2001 9:54:36 PM Wait in line? Not with these razor-tipped Pradas! 14416. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 9:55:31 PM You really think I could still get money for that? With my looks and at my age? blush! 14417. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:55:36 PM You know it's sad... I'm so much younger and, err, fairer-skinned and I could get soooo much COCK if I wanted it... and yet I don't want any. 14418. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 9:55:55 PM Haha. Charlie Rose. That's kinda neat. 14419. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:56:07 PM 14420. Cellar Door - 6/15/2001 9:56:11 PM Actually that's a thread topic. 14421. Cellar Door - 6/15/2001 9:58:32 PM "You know it's sad... I'm so much younger and, err, fairer-skinned and I could get soooo much COCK if I wanted it... and yet I don't want any." 14422. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 9:59:17 PM 14423. angel-five - 6/15/2001 9:59:24 PM Well, I guess someone forgot their medicine today. 14424. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:01:13 PM 14425. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:06:37 PM 14426. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:07:11 PM 14427. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 10:07:55 PM Actually pretty good. Ever seen pictures of a nudist camp? 14428. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:09:18 PM 14429. joezan - 6/15/2001 10:09:33 PM Ummm.... 14430. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 10:11:06 PM Well, uh, I...on TV. That's it. I saw a tv show about it. 14431. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:11:09 PM 14432. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:12:54 PM 14433. joezan - 6/15/2001 10:13:23 PM Oh, ok. 14434. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 10:13:35 PM Hahaha. I've never seen that show but I've heard it's really something. Don't think I want to see it. The general description was more than enough. 14435. joezan - 6/15/2001 10:14:21 PM I don't get HBO. 14436. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 10:15:09 PM Of course, add to that general description Ace's posts and I don't need to see it now. 14437. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:18:36 PM Real Sex 24. Segments include: 14438. joezan - 6/15/2001 10:20:18 PM ...so disgusting, in fact, that one is moved to travel all the way to the south of France, just to verify that such filth does actually exist. 14439. arkymalarky - 6/15/2001 10:20:21 PM Oh my, look at the time. I've got to go wash my hair. 14440. joezan - 6/15/2001 10:21:36 PM Europeans don't need to be naked to give off pungent odors. 14441. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:23:39 PM 14442. Cellar Door - 6/15/2001 10:25:11 PM "You take insults well. Obviously you've had practice." 14443. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:27:38 PM 14444. joezan - 6/15/2001 10:28:07 PM Professional Homosexual 14445. CalGal - 6/15/2001 10:33:32 PM You really have to stop asserting points I agree with. 14446. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:37:47 PM 14447. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 10:52:00 PM 14448. CalGal - 6/15/2001 10:55:48 PM A few whiny comments? Right. 14449. CalGal - 6/15/2001 10:56:35 PM As annoying as Rosie was when he campaigned, quixotically, for Caz, Jon, and Dr. XTC, are we claiming that expressing an unpopular opinion, repeatedly, is a rules violation? 14450. CalGal - 6/15/2001 10:59:33 PM One other thing: didn't Stone say what his pseuds were at one point? I could have sworn he said Deep Thoughts was his. 14451. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 11:02:45 PM Stone's primary goal here is to get people banned or cause some sort of trouble. 14452. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 11:06:03 PM Hell, his whole obsession with "taking back" his name came about because he realized he could aggravate people into using his name. 14453. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 11:07:36 PM 14454. AceofSpades - 6/15/2001 11:11:17 PM In any event, the Fray was long ago and far away. This is not the Fray. This is not TT. THis is not WorldCrossing. 14455. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 11:55:13 PM Like I said in a different post, if someone outed themself in a different forum, then they should not be considered outted here. The Mote should only be concerned with affairs within it's realm. Anything that happens on other boards is irrelevant and not an excuse for improper behavior here. 14456. Francis Urquhart - 6/15/2001 11:57:32 PM Ace 14457. joezan - 6/15/2001 11:57:58 PM Spud's name was the only thing in his book that was printed in a readable font size. 14458. Stumbo - 6/16/2001 12:55:06 AM CG: 14459. angel-five - 6/16/2001 2:10:34 AM Good gravy. Note that Ace has apparently forgotten to take his medicine and in return he will call you fat, ugly, gay, and Wiccan. He's 0 for 4 tonight but you really do have to admire the tenacity with which he swings at the ball, don't you, Pat? Yes, Don. Those rational disorders of his sure do make him an exciting player to watch, because you just never know what the crazy fucker is going to do next. Except hit the ball. Yes, Don, I suppose that's true. He sure does give the crowd something to talk about though. Those Ace Spit-n-Froth face shields are selling like hotcakes down there behind Home Plate too. Ok, next up at the plate is... 14460. arkymalarky - 6/16/2001 2:15:43 AM Stumbo, 14461. angel-five - 6/16/2001 2:27:49 AM I agree. Stone is a loathsome little insect and the thing which makes him such a pain is that he is a) annoyingly predictable and b) is not ever held up by the worry that he'll demean himself. If rock bottom isn't deep enough to cause trouble, Slippery will start digging. Most people like him eventually change their name after a short while and go undetected but whenever Stone changes his name, he will unwittingly give himself away with his very first post. He can't hide his nature at all. I used to call for his permanent sitebanning and I still would clap if it happened but the fact of the matter is that all this crap is so important to him for some reason that banning him is probably an exercise in futility. He'll spend whatever amount of time he has to in order to get back in here for five minutes and then get banned again. And then spend another however long it takes to get an ID finally accepted, and then he will open his mouth and within five minutes someone will kick his ass to the curb again. Banning him might be even more annoying and be much more work than just leaving him in. 14462. angel-five - 6/16/2001 2:29:37 AM Ah, hell, site-ban him anyway. Deep down inside you know it's a moral imperative. 14463. arkymalarky - 6/16/2001 2:39:17 AM The reason he's so easy to spot is that he can't resist being spotted. He can only go a very short time before he just has to let people know who he is. It's no fun to him if people don't realize he's there and responsible for mayhem he causes. 14464. CalGal - 6/16/2001 2:40:52 AM Again, I know your name, thanks to Seguine. 14465. CalGal - 6/16/2001 2:49:46 AM It's not that Stone isn't allowed to reclaim his name. He is. He fucking has, and is supported in it. The issue is that he continually hints at it, baits people, gives out far more information, then comes pissing and moaning and demanding justice as if he didn't sit up and beg for it. No other person who has "reclaimed" their name has done anything other than be appreciative of the support. 14466. CalGal - 6/16/2001 2:56:06 AM How does one do that? 14467. CalGal - 6/16/2001 3:06:04 AM I am ashamed to say I share in this interest. 14468. CalGal - 6/16/2001 3:08:04 AM Incidentally, Seguine didn't really make my name public, she put it in code. Although it did make it easy to figure out. 14469. vargasgirl - 6/16/2001 7:56:49 AM How about a thread that has no topic. This would enable thought to flow freely regardless of content. Anyone wishing to go off topic could take advantage of the no topic forum. 14470. vargasgirl - 6/16/2001 8:13:19 AM A topic about nothing. 14471. iiibbb - 6/16/2001 8:16:38 AM OK Cal...if Charlie L. broke rule 3 then... ban him... period. 14472. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 9:21:30 AM CharlieL is clearly either incapable of any restraint or he's working his vendetta. Either way, he deserves permanent banishment. While I'm a law-and-order conservative, I realize the triumvirate is more Ginsberg-Souter-Breyer, so I'm pleased at his suspension and especially pleased at wabbit's declaration that upon his return, he will be banned permanently if he commits another violation. Because I know that Charlie L won't come back in two weeks. And when he does come back, he'll use Rosetta Stone's name, because he is either that stupid or that petty. And that will be that. 14473. iiibbb - 6/16/2001 9:27:26 AM Message # 14472 14474. JudithAtHome - 6/16/2001 11:07:34 AM Vargasgirl: 14475. Wombat - 6/16/2001 12:25:26 PM I very strongly disagree with RIPing Rosie's thread. I am sure that there are others who will contribute in his absence. The thread also cut down on his idiocies in other threads, since it kept him somewhat gainfully employed in an area he has some knowledge/enthusiasm. 14476. CalGal - 6/16/2001 12:35:44 PM In fact, our behavior is clearly worse, in terms of abuse (Ace/jexster) or technical incompetence/extremist thread hosting(me), repetition (Cellar) and baiting (all) than Rosetta's. 14477. CalGal - 6/16/2001 12:36:58 PM Also, why is mention of his difficulties in another forum considered "outing" him? 14478. vonKreedon - 6/16/2001 12:47:03 PM 14479. CalGal - 6/16/2001 12:48:25 PM As near as I've been able to garner since I weighed in, RS was stupid enough to reveal his hame on another website. 14480. CalGal - 6/16/2001 12:48:48 PM He's a useless little fuck. But despite the fact that he himself violates his own privacy more often than anyone he's complained about, the offenses he whines about are treated as RoE violations--and Charlie's two suspensions are more than anyone else in this forum has ever received for privacy violations. So why the complaints of favoritism? 14481. JudithAtHome - 6/16/2001 12:57:22 PM I think Wombat might have a point...we could leave the thread up for a few days and if others post web info in it, remove the RIP. It does have some good links. 14482. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 1:07:26 PM Cal 14483. rubberducky - 6/16/2001 1:16:04 PM if Rosetta Slide is to be suspended, so should his alternates. the ones i know of are: 14484. iiibbb - 6/16/2001 1:39:23 PM I would depend on the expectation and level of effort. I've been on-again, off-again here the past year... more on, than off lately. But occasionally my life catches up with me, and this is the type of thing I would neglect first. 14485. CalGal - 6/16/2001 1:40:17 PM You are free to keep pounding those blocks into round holes. I'm just the moke telling you how it is (from my veranda at Bushwood, hey, chop chop, man, chop chop). 14486. rubberducky - 6/16/2001 1:44:48 PM iiibbb: 14487. khaval alazman - 6/16/2001 2:18:24 PM How do you create sub-threads? 14488. CalGal - 6/16/2001 2:42:34 PM I believe that the thread still has to be created by the moderators. 14489. khaval alazman - 6/16/2001 2:45:56 PM Really? Wow. That's wuite complicated, no? 14490. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:09:38 PM 14491. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:11:33 PM 14492. wabbit - 6/16/2001 3:12:23 PM Oh, for christs sake, Ace, get a clue. I didn't say the bannings would be linked, I said that if I was going to ban CharlieL for using Rosie's name, then I would be just as likely to ban Rosie for chasing him around bitching about CharlieL talking about his band. One has nothing to do with the other except in your mind. 14493. wabbit - 6/16/2001 3:14:17 PM iiibbb, 14494. wabbit - 6/16/2001 3:19:11 PM khaval, 14495. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:19:25 PM 14496. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:21:47 PM 14497. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:22:26 PM 14498. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:27:07 PM You offered a "trade," Wabbit. You offered to "trade" what you should have done ALREADY in exchange for an agreement to ban RS just for shits and giggles. 14499. wabbit - 6/16/2001 3:27:25 PM 14376. wabbit - 6/15/01 8:14:06 PM Will you agree that if Charlie violates again he should be banned permanently -- no excuses, no parole, no repreive? 14500. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 3:28:50 PM 14501. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 5:30:28 PM Ace 14502. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 5:36:26 PM This is not to impugn wabbit and Christin and Pelle as political hacks. I'm in awe of them, for they balance the formalistic and the political pretty damn good. 14503. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 5:50:17 PM Speaking of "I'm in awe of you," a friend of mine sat next to Steven Schirripa, the actor who plays Uncle Junior's soldier in The Sopranos, on a flight from Las Vegas, and he got Schirripa to write for me, "To Nicodemus[not my real name - God knows I don't want to start a problem there], Best Wishes, Bacala - I'm in awe of you." 14504. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 5:51:47 PM I once deleted a million posts. No kidding. Like a million posts. 14505. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 5:52:49 PM And the guy who occasionally asks us to suck down his viral load, he's perfectly within the rules. 14506. Cellar Door - 6/16/2001 6:05:28 PM What rules? 14507. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:10:45 PM Cellar 14508. CalGal - 6/16/2001 6:15:52 PM but surely you realize that you are cut slack because 14509. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:16:40 PM 14510. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:17:39 PM 14511. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:20:01 PM Good point. I'm stumped. 14512. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:21:40 PM 14513. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:21:53 PM Ace 14514. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:23:35 PM "I've hoped for your years that I could posit arguments similar to your evergreens. " 14515. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:25:44 PM 14516. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:26:03 PM Ace 14517. CalGal - 6/16/2001 6:27:59 PM Actually, Ace is pretty scrupulous about following rules--he's just unimaginably rude. I would say the rule he comes closest to breaking is the threat rule, and he almost always backs down when he realizes he's threatened someone. 14518. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:29:21 PM evergreen 14519. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:29:22 PM Francis doesn't get "cut slack" because he's never broken any rules 14520. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:29:54 PM 14521. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:30:11 PM 14522. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:31:36 PM your 14523. CalGal - 6/16/2001 6:31:52 PM Ace, 14524. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:33:06 PM Ace 14525. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:33:15 PM 14526. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:34:20 PM And Ace "almost always backs down". 14527. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:34:31 PM 14528. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:35:08 PM 14529. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:35:59 PM Ace 14530. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:37:22 PM 1950s era radar? 14531. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:37:26 PM 14532. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:39:05 PM Boba 14533. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:39:23 PM Fag 14534. CalGal - 6/16/2001 6:39:47 PM Oh, lord. Like Francis has any standing to taunt someone about playing it safe. 14535. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:40:13 PM Fag Bat 14536. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:42:23 PM Phew. This room just got too hot for me. 14537. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:43:26 PM 14538. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:45:20 PM I used Galligan two days ago. 14539. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:45:42 PM 14540. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:46:14 PM 14541. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:46:31 PM You should be banned for theft. 14542. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:47:22 PM 14543. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:47:31 PM "that weird synchronicity" 14544. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:48:25 PM 14545. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:50:04 PM Eh. Go have Cal tell you how scrupulous you are for two hours. 14546. CalGal - 6/16/2001 6:52:31 PM Oh, stop pouting. You, too, can be scrupulous if ever you get the nerve up. 14547. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:53:03 PM 14548. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:54:11 PM 14549. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:54:34 PM It just gets worse and worse. A clear shot and then . . . 14550. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:55:58 PM Oh, Boba, forget fucking me. 14551. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 6:56:17 PM 14552. Francis Urquhart - 6/16/2001 6:58:37 PM Ace 14553. AceofSpades - 6/16/2001 7:00:37 PM 14554. Indiana Jones - 6/16/2001 8:06:19 PM I agree with posts 14448 and 14466 (except for Stone being the most effective baiter I've ever seen--can't give him that kind of superlative credit) by CalGal. We don't seem to agree that much, so I wanted to point out an occasion when we do. 14555. Raskolnikov - 6/16/2001 9:35:55 PM I'll agree that Ace isn't the master baiter that Stone is. 14556. vargasgirl - 6/17/2001 6:43:32 AM 555:lol 14557. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 11:00:49 AM Could any or all of the moderators please get get in touch with Wiz regarding the design change he has spend time on, and submitted? It's outstanding, and should be processed into implementation, but I get the feeling that he's feeling quite ignored about this matter. 14558. rubberducky - 6/18/2001 11:03:34 AM well, i really do like Wiz's submission, but wasn't there gonna be, i dunno, a vote? 14559. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 11:06:01 AM Ducky, 14560. marjoribanks - 6/18/2001 11:06:47 AM I vote for Wiz. 14561. sakonige - 6/18/2001 12:07:54 PM 14562. sakonige - 6/18/2001 12:20:19 PM 14563. sakonige - 6/18/2001 12:24:31 PM 14564. bubbaette - 6/18/2001 12:43:23 PM Stone, OTOH, repeatedly goes near the line re personal violations himself (ask bubbaette, for starters) and then wishes those same rules to protect him. 14565. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 1:03:14 PM I will decline the offer of hosting the web thread. It doesn't get any traffic. 14566. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 1:11:58 PM Will anyone volunteer to cull the links from the Web thread and create a link page for them? 14567. rubberducky - 6/18/2001 1:14:00 PM why would you bother? 14568. rubberducky - 6/18/2001 1:42:24 PM whilst i am in the mood ... 14569. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 1:52:22 PM He didn't say that he wanted to step down as host of anything other than Quizzes and I haven't seen anything from him indicating that he was leaving the Mote. 14570. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 2:03:38 PM Rosetta has hosted three threads: The Balkans, The Inauguration and Exploring the Internet. Each of them were potentially quite interesting; all of them failed for the same reasons: (1) Rosetta is a bad host, and (2) most people don't like him and don't want to post in his threads. 14571. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 2:14:58 PM Well... my vision for exploring the web would be similar to the multi-link 'articles' done in memepool. 14572. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 2:15:51 PM But I don't want to do it if the thread isn't that interesting to people. 14573. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 2:21:22 PM Here are the posts I was talking about Message # 17985 in thread 33 and Message # 17998 in thread 33 14574. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 2:26:52 PM I also copied the style in a reply to pelle Message # 9514 in thread 14. 14575. Wombat - 6/18/2001 2:41:07 PM iiibbb: 14576. JudithAtHome - 6/18/2001 2:46:00 PM i3b3: 14577. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 2:49:47 PM I will consider it if people are interested in the format... 14578. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 2:54:54 PM Thanks J@H... The nuclear power one would be better example if some of the links hadn't died... there were some pretty neat links in that. It's the nature of the beast of course. I liked my endagers species act one, but the CNN article all the links revolved around died. 14580. JudithAtHome - 6/18/2001 2:58:50 PM It seems to have endless possibilities and looks as though it would be fun and creative for you as well as the readers...I say go for it! 14581. ElliottRW - 6/18/2001 2:59:34 PM Oh crap! How did that happen? I swear it looked good on the preview page. Sorry. 14582. JudithAtHome - 6/18/2001 3:00:39 PM My last post was to i3b3... 14584. PsychProf - 6/18/2001 3:01:19 PM toys 14585. PsychProf - 6/18/2001 3:01:38 PM toys 14586. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 3:02:26 PM 14579 deleted for strange margin corruption. 14588. ElliottRW - 6/18/2001 3:02:44 PM I somehow forgot to open my table tag; I must have accidentally edited it out. Please delete that post, Alistair. Thanks. 14589. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 3:03:13 PM Okay, well it's something else besides just that single post. 14590. alistairconnor - 6/18/2001 3:03:25 PM Damn. Please delete 14583 and 14587 too! 14591. alistairconnor - 6/18/2001 3:04:44 PM ... 14583 and 14587 were my attempts to correct elliot's problem... the second one might have worked, but you got it first, so it created a new problem. 14592. ElliottRW - 6/18/2001 3:08:05 PM Thanks, Ms. No. Here's my next try. I would like to see a brief version of the thread index for people who refresh frequently. No graphics, no links other than the threads themselves, a minimum of detail. Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm looking for: The recent column shows how many posts occurred in say, the last hour, 20 minutes, whatever. Thought that might be a nice feature. The benefit of this page is that it would make it easier for me to see what's going on at the Mote. I also thought it might save a small amount of server bandwidth. Anyway, it's an idea I hope you'll consider if it's not too much effort. 14593. CalGal - 6/18/2001 3:08:12 PM Eeeeek! 14594. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 3:12:39 PM whew! 14595. ElliottRW - 6/18/2001 3:12:52 PM 14593 CalGal 14596. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 3:13:25 PM hahahaha 14597. CalGal - 6/18/2001 3:22:50 PM That's an interesting idea. 14598. Ms. No - 6/18/2001 3:25:19 PM Alistair, 14599. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 4:00:24 PM Message # 14580 14600. Indiana Jones - 6/18/2001 6:57:03 PM bubbaette (14564): I thought all that was likely. But see, it was something you revealed in the Fray that he has since used to harass you. Now you may have not subsequently asked to "reclaim" that information (as Cal puts it), but it's real life stuff that he keeps throwing out on the table. 14601. Indiana Jones - 6/18/2001 6:57:32 PM *relative* newcomer 14602. wabbit - 6/18/2001 8:01:07 PM iiibbb, 14603. iiibbb - 6/18/2001 8:44:31 PM ok, I'll try it... what email address did you say again? 14604. wabbit - 6/18/2001 10:29:54 PM moderator@themote.com will get to me. 14605. CalGal - 6/21/2001 9:28:29 PM Can you imagine? Salon has apparently banned AOL auto-id creations all because of Stone and some guy named Andy. 14606. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 10:55:24 PM Andy was here, too....he was Rosies biggest fan in our politics thread. 14607. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/22/2001 12:33:37 AM My guess: Stone and Andy are one and the same. 14608. joezan - 6/22/2001 12:45:10 AM Irv: 14609. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/22/2001 12:51:38 AM Now, Joe... you know me well enough to know I would never say that. 14610. joezan - 6/22/2001 1:13:07 AM Well, that's why I said it for you, Irv. 14611. CalGal - 6/22/2001 1:25:57 AM But still. Isn't that weird? They have to figure this will cut down on participation. 14612. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 1:34:01 AM To come up with a fool-proof way to eliminate the many Faces of Rose, I guess part of the price will be a reduction in posts. It will surely mean a reduction in the number of created threads. They must really want to be rid of him. 14613. CalGal - 6/22/2001 1:37:13 AM That's what I mean, though. Here Salon needs any increase in participation to keep what advertising they have. They have a problem that is completely insignificant from a business perspective and they solve it by locking out forum participation from the largest ISP? 14614. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 1:42:19 AM Maybe they're burning the building to get rid of the roaches. 14615. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/22/2001 1:48:33 AM Gee, it almost sounds like another on-line magazine I could think of. 14616. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 1:51:02 AM The main difference, I guess, is that Slate has a pretty nice money funnel in Bill Gates to keep them afloat. You know more than I do, but I can't imagine they'd have lasted long trying to fund themselves like Salon is doing. 14617. don s. - 6/22/2001 2:05:27 AM CalGall (or Miss Information, as I like to call her) has mispoken here. TableTalk is not barring participation by anyone with an AOL account. AOL subscribers can write to the TT moderators' e-mail account to register. (Actually, CG got this right in the "Tabled Talk" thread. But I guess the truncated version made for better conversation fodder in this thread.) 14618. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:13:43 AM Don't be an ass. 14619. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:21:03 AM Of course, I've said many times I monitor TT's Salon Premium thread and periodically read MWT. But in this case, it was actually Stone's post in Worldcrossing that caused me to look up the info. 14620. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:24:33 AM The other possibility is that they haven't had a single new AOL entrant other than andy and Rosie's fakes, so there was no downside? 14621. joezan - 6/22/2001 6:50:03 AM Well, in any case it's the ultimate victory for Rosie. There will be no living with him when he returns. 14622. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2001 8:37:49 AM Will post in Tabled Talk. 14623. don s. - 6/22/2001 10:34:54 AM The other possibility is that they haven't had a single new AOL entrant other than andy and Rosie's fakes, so there was no downside? 14624. Stumbo - 6/26/2001 11:28:43 AM If it's not too much trouble, could someone make a front-page link saying "Name That Tune contest" and pointing here? Thanks. 14625. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2001 11:29:21 AM Will do. 14626. Stumbo - 6/26/2001 11:43:54 AM Much obliged. 14627. AceofSpades - 6/26/2001 11:45:25 AM 14628. rubberducky - 6/26/2001 1:09:48 PM general note: 14629. wabbit - 6/26/2001 2:21:06 PM FYI- 14630. arkymalarky - 6/26/2001 2:31:46 PM "See" you when you get back. 14631. seadate - 6/26/2001 2:42:52 PM Ducks wrote: i have thoroughly enjoyed a Rosetta Slide-less week and look forward to more. 14632. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 2:45:14 PM It was the usual...Rosetta pushed too far this time, though. 14633. seadate - 6/26/2001 2:49:36 PM The Cretan. 14634. rubberducky - 6/27/2001 10:40:50 AM the bad past, seadate, is that it was only a 2 week 'suspension'. 14635. rubberducky - 6/27/2001 10:41:18 AM past = part 14636. JudithAtHome - 7/2/2001 4:04:58 PM I'd like to point out that Rosetta has already started with the same old line in his own thread...first rattle out of the box. Lest anyone wonder why he is "suddenly" making a ass of himself.... 14637. RosettaStone - 7/2/2001 5:18:58 PM My God, do you realize the year's half over? 14638. JudithAtHome - 7/2/2001 5:47:26 PM Is that addressed to the room? Because I'd bet almost everyone here realizes the year is half over, what with the time stamp showing month 7 and all.... 14639. RosettaStone - 7/2/2001 5:53:06 PM (sighing) My God, she is so high-maintenance. 14640. JudithAtHome - 7/2/2001 6:11:23 PM Look, if I misunderstood the question, I wear it as a badge of honor. You are not the most lucid ice cube in the freezer... 14641. RosettaStone - 7/4/2001 2:56:31 PM Wabbit: I got your e-mail. Thanks for agreeing that the discussion of privacy violations can be discussed in this thread. 14642. Ms. No - 7/4/2001 3:03:50 PM I got her email too, Rosie, and it specifically states that your incessant complaint belongs in the Policy Thread. 14643. RosettaStone - 7/4/2001 3:05:15 PM Isn't this the Policy thread? 14644. Ms. No - 7/4/2001 3:06:31 PM No. 14645. RosettaStone - 7/4/2001 3:06:56 PM or, is that Inferno? 14646. iiibbb - 7/5/2001 8:18:54 AM Ms No... Policy question... see 14647. iiibbb - 7/5/2001 8:52:16 AM see the policy thread that is... 14648. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 8:57:32 AM Actually, it's a subthread created to keep people from actually reading the discussion. It's very "hush, hush" in there. 14649. iiibbb - 7/5/2001 9:05:12 AM Rosie refer to the complaints link I provided for you. 14650. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 9:08:04 AM No, I'm referring to the Policies subthread where privacy policy stuff is buried in mote. 14651. AceofSpades - 7/5/2001 2:07:42 PM 14652. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 2:27:57 PM Take it to the POLICY thread, Ace. 14653. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 2:29:58 PM ooops. I meant the POLICY subthread. 14654. PelleNilsson - 7/5/2001 4:36:52 PM I agree with Ace on this issue. 14655. CalGal - 7/5/2001 8:19:40 PM A recent post in Health Care: 14656. arkymalarky - 7/5/2001 11:08:32 PM It's not nearly as bad as the slap you gave Judith in your own thread for daring not to think Ewan McGregor was good looking. 14657. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 11:11:56 PM ...or what you did to Cazart to get him banned months ago. 14658. JJBiener - 7/5/2001 11:14:19 PM Cal - You are wrong as usual. If you don't like how msgreer runs the Health thread, don't read it. Your whining about it is tiresome. 14659. don s. - 7/5/2001 11:39:34 PM CalGall is, of course, completely objective on the subject of msgreer. 14660. CalGal - 7/6/2001 12:30:35 AM Don't be a dolt, Arky. Judith was the one applying a universal standard. I was the one wondering how she'd reached her advanced age without realizing that we all aren't attracted to the same sorts. In short, quite the opposite of your retelling. 14661. Jenerator - 7/6/2001 12:55:28 AM CalGal, 14662. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2001 6:03:30 AM For the most part it is easy to separate the roles of host and general participant but sometimes there are problems. Now and then I have considered creating a separate ID to use when pontificating about the thread itself. 14663. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/6/2001 7:43:28 AM I sort of like the Rants thread. The problem is, you can rant in any thread, and it fits. 14664. JudithAtHome - 7/6/2001 8:06:16 AM Judith was the one applying a universal standard. I was the one wondering how she'd reached her advanced age without realizing that we all aren't attracted to the same sorts. In short, quite the opposite of your retelling. 14665. CharlieL - 7/6/2001 9:07:52 AM "The problem is, you can rant in any thread, and it fits." 14666. Indiana Jones - 7/6/2001 9:23:09 AM I have put a R.I.P. on Education and Rants which share the characteristics of no posts and absent hosts. 14667. arkymalarky - 7/6/2001 9:35:35 AM Cal, 14668. Ms. No - 7/6/2001 12:10:17 PM CalGal, 14669. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2001 12:27:31 PM I think it is perfectly acceptable to complain about hosting standards in this thread. After all hosts are appointed by (implicit) consensus and can be removed by the same. In the case of MsGreer no such consensus has manifested itself. 14670. Ms. No - 7/6/2001 12:46:41 PM Pelle, 14671. CalGal - 7/7/2001 1:17:01 PM I got the feeling I was being attacked by you for having an opinion about MacGregor. 14672. CalGal - 7/7/2001 1:23:36 PM MsNo, 14673. CalGal - 7/7/2001 1:26:43 PM Thread host issue Pt II: 14674. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 1:45:56 PM Yes, I know you "got the feeling". I'm waiting for you to have a thought. (thanks, vw) 14675. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 1:49:21 PM For anyone interested in the exchange in question, it goes from post # 20942 through 20952 in Movies. 14676. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 1:54:13 PM Thanks, Arky...Cal has been giving her version so much, it was worth it for me to go back and see just exactly what I did say. 14677. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 1:57:35 PM From above, to clarify the original complaint wrt the Health thread. 14678. CalGal - 7/7/2001 2:17:34 PM Arky neglects to quote the next paragraph, in which I point out the thread topic. 14679. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 2:30:25 PM Had you just said, "Christ, Cal, I didn't really mean that I don't see how he could be a romantic lead, even though yeah, that's what I said", you would have demonstrated comprehension and all would be well. 14680. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 2:33:17 PM 14681. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 2:46:19 PM 14682. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 2:49:02 PM Have you read the thread posts in question or are you just ranting over what's been posted in here? 14683. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 2:49:57 PM 14684. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 2:50:17 PM I ask that out of curiosity, btw. I've never complained about anything of that sort, even from you as thread host. 14685. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 2:52:05 PM 14686. CalGal - 7/7/2001 2:54:47 PM Well, yeah, I guess had I just written what you wanted to see 14687. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 2:55:20 PM If you've really read all the posts in question, Ace, you wouldn't be claiming JJ and MsG called Cal a bitch. 14688. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 3:02:58 PM Cal....I have comprehended you from day 1. Get over yourself, for once. You were doing the same thing to me that you claim MsG did to you. I let it slide and you came in here like a wet hen carping about it. 14689. labwabbit - 7/7/2001 3:04:36 PM Get over yourself, for once. 14690. CalGal - 7/7/2001 3:09:55 PM Incidentally, I have expressed two recent complaints about the Health Policies thread. The first one is on the near censorship practiced by MsG (and, to a lesser extent, JJ). That is a more nebulous complaint, and one that I document here not because I demand action instantly, but because I feel it is problematic and want a record (for my own reference, if no one else's). 14691. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 3:14:54 PM What is "near censorship?" It either is or isn't. I haven't seen a post removed from there recently. 14692. CalGal - 7/7/2001 3:32:11 PM Arky, 14693. JJBiener - 7/7/2001 4:17:50 PM Ace - For the record, I did not call Cal a bitch. You are welcome to read the post in question yourself. As for Cal, your defense of her does not speak well of you. She consistently levels personal attacks against people who disagree with her then she whines like a baby whenever a thread host has the temerity to respond to her in a way she doesn't like. Her claims of censorship and threats of censorship are beyond absurd. They would be funny if they weren't so obvious and mean spirited. 14694. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 4:46:24 PM This, from Cal, to me in Movies, her thread: 14695. Ms. No - 7/7/2001 4:47:14 PM We've been through this before folks. In order to refresh your memories on my position let me be very clear: 14696. Ms. No - 7/7/2001 4:55:21 PM Judith, 14697. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:11:47 PM Oh, okay, I'll start taking a page from her book and make sure I word things such that they are on topic AND insulting at the same time...I assume that will work? 14698. PelleNilsson - 7/7/2001 5:22:24 PM Way to go, Judith. 14699. JJBiener - 7/7/2001 5:28:10 PM Ms No - I beg to differ with you. The tone in the Health thread is almost always civil and supportive. It is rare that discussions become heated let alone abusive. The few times it has occurred is when a certain individual posts her opinions and then, as she does in other threads, attacks anyone who disagrees with her. When one of the thread hosts gets fed up with her attacks and responds in kind, she comes crying to the Suggestions thread to complain. 14700. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 5:29:45 PM 14701. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:31:41 PM Why do you hate to say it, Ace? It's true, on topic, and likely not to change. So we'll just deal with it or leave. 14702. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 5:32:58 PM I really don't "hate to say it." It's just an expression. 14703. CalGal - 7/7/2001 5:35:57 PM Including, I hate to say, CalGal, who also demands a civil tone, but who occasionally lapses into incivility in Movies. 14704. CalGal - 7/7/2001 5:36:45 PM I really don't "hate to say it." It's just an expression. 14705. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:37:19 PM In some threads, you'd be chided for not comprehending....then you could suggest rudely that someone place something in an inconvenient place of their anatomy while watching Casablanca and all would be hunky dory. 14706. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 5:37:40 PM 14707. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:39:25 PM Uh, yeah, Judith. That's always been the case. 14708. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:42:03 PM But according to Cal, it is far worse to be off-topic than to be rude. So I guess all this chiding about incivility is for naught...we can be as rude as we wish so long as we're on topic. 14709. CalGal - 7/7/2001 5:43:00 PM then you could suggest rudely that someone place something in an inconvenient place of their anatomy while watching Casablanca and all would be hunky dory. 14710. JJBiener - 7/7/2001 5:43:42 PM Ace - I think you should keep your thread civil. But that means you have to be 100% civil yourself. 14711. labwabbit - 7/7/2001 5:44:57 PM ...off topic...off topic... 14712. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:47:19 PM As is a retort telling you that you're a jackass for assuming everyone has to meet your standards 14713. Ms. No - 7/7/2001 5:48:06 PM JJ, 14714. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 5:49:30 PM Lab, the suggestions running through my mind right now are severely off-topic. 14715. Ms. No - 7/7/2001 5:54:28 PM JJ, 14716. Ms. No - 7/7/2001 5:56:10 PM Labwabbit does have a point. Once things have slowed here a bit I will move all the pertinent posts to the Policy Thread where they belong. 14717. Ms. No - 7/7/2001 5:56:49 PM After I return from the movies, that is. 14718. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:11:26 PM Nothing was deleted and the post quoted by Cal from MsG to Ran was on topic and contained no threat of censorship, unlike the posts in her own thread that were on actors--their attractiveness/unattractiveness has certainly been addressed in the Movies thread more than once--in which she very clearly discouraged a poster from expressing a contrary opinion. Because of its beginnings and the two points addressed (censorship and rudeness), I'm having a difficult time seeing the relevance of this exchange. 14719. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:14:02 PM Am I asking that she change? No, I don't think she's capable, and of course she'd say she had no interest in changing, everyone can live with it, rudeness is within the ROE, blahblahblah. Fine with me. Am I asking that she be banned or suspended or her thread hosting taken away? No. I'm not asking anything except that both the people who are provoked by her and the moderators note what is occurring. It's not good for the forum. 14720. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:20:09 PM Ace is right that the host can't descend to personal spats with posters and have much success maintaining the desired tone. Maintain a tone that you like and promptly remove ones that violate the spirit of the thread with a short explanation. I say that because I've seen it work very well in both H&G and the Slow thread, especially--and JJ's A&M thread, for that matter. It's easier said than done for most people, but it makes things a lot cleaner. 14721. CalGal - 7/7/2001 6:28:56 PM The main point, in case people are losing sight of it, is that Cal's original complaint, as evidenced in the quote she posted from Health above, exactly mirrors the attitude and intent of her own posts to Judith. 14722. CalGal - 7/7/2001 6:35:28 PM in which she very clearly discouraged a poster from expressing a contrary opinion. 14723. Francis Urquhart - 7/7/2001 6:37:08 PM The issue appears two-fold. 14724. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:37:40 PM No, actually I agree with Christin's post that she pasted into the Health thread. 14725. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:39:07 PM Sorry, '24 was to '21. 14726. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:40:22 PM Francis, 14727. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 6:42:27 PM 14728. Francis Urquhart - 7/7/2001 6:43:04 PM arky 14729. Francis Urquhart - 7/7/2001 6:44:43 PM No doubt, JJ was Rudy Tomjonovich to Christin's Kermit Washington. 14730. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:45:23 PM We've had a conflict, yes, but it hasn't disrupted any threads or prevented relevant discussions between us. 14731. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 6:46:21 PM In fact, I've posted very little on any of this, including in the Health thread. 14732. Francis Urquhart - 7/7/2001 6:46:22 PM arky 14733. CalGal - 7/7/2001 6:46:23 PM Francis and Ace are correct in that Christin's rebuttal was as good a slamdunk as I've ever seen here. 14734. JudithAtHome - 7/7/2001 6:48:02 PM Amazing how she came up with those quotes so quickly, too...impressive. 14735. Francis Urquhart - 7/7/2001 6:52:09 PM JJ led with his chin, and it took Christin 5 minutes to dispatch him. A little slow, I thought. 14736. Indiana Jones - 7/7/2001 6:55:13 PM Given posts 14669 and 14670, it would appear to me this discussion should stay where it is. 14737. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 6:55:29 PM 14738. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 6:57:54 PM 14739. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 7:02:15 PM 14740. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:03:32 PM No, Ace, it was not posted as a defense of anything--do you understand the difference between a defense of something and an analysis of it? Kick in your comprehension skills and attempt to understand what I said above about Christin's post on thread hosting. 14741. labwabbit - 7/7/2001 7:04:05 PM Fat Bitch in a Thong 14742. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:05:25 PM I also agreed with her very first post to Cal on the subject, btw, and I think it was applied to your shortlived thread that had more deletions than remaining posts. 14743. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 7:11:20 PM Ahem. The only serious deletions in that thread were justified deletions of spamming by Rosie and Jade. 14744. labwabbit - 7/7/2001 7:13:52 PM 14745. don s. - 7/7/2001 7:23:20 PM Will someone please take away Francis' "DennisMillerism-A-Day" calendar please? 14746. don s. - 7/7/2001 7:24:27 PM Please? 14747. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:24:54 PM Okay, okay. And then I deleted Rosie for a while in an attempt to execute a single-thread ban. 14748. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 7:27:29 PM 14749. Indiana Jones - 7/7/2001 7:30:08 PM A proposal for changing the office of host: 14750. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 7:34:03 PM 14751. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:40:25 PM Ace, 14752. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:40:47 PM Sorry, make that two rants. 14753. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:41:43 PM So what? There is the constant threat of such. 14754. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:43:34 PM Indy, 14755. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 7:45:10 PM -ly 14756. AceofSpades - 7/7/2001 7:50:26 PM 14757. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 8:05:16 PM I meant to address this remark by Cal and got distracted: 14758. CalGal - 7/7/2001 8:31:52 PM For the most part that's true, but only if you don't intensely dislike the poster 14759. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 8:49:50 PM I've backpedaled not at all. Your words speak for themselves, and I have no intention of getting into a parse-fest, fond as you are of them. Stone made me laugh as inexplicably as Judith makes you catty, but I always said and thought that people shouldn't let his behavior affect their own. In that vein, I haven't changed my policy on provocations, and in fact I don't think I've stated one at any point. My main paragraph regarding provocations was an observation with no policy suggestion. 14760. CalGal - 7/7/2001 8:51:19 PM I disagree with Indy's proposal. I don't always make observations about hosts--or posters--because I demand action, and I know that's true of others as well. I also don't think that complaining about a host--even if it results in a warning--means they should lose their thread. 14761. CalGal - 7/7/2001 8:59:10 PM If you could care less as to who I dislike intensely, Arky, then don't make assertions about it. Surely that's simple enough. 14762. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 9:06:48 PM I can make an assertion just as you can, and it certainly doesn't require that I care about the subject. Heaven knows you've about elevated drive-by assertions to a fine art. I did establish your attack, and that it was based on an opinion. You just didn't acknowledge it. Your denial is fine, and I'm more than willing to drop it, since I no more distrust my reading of your posts than I trust your own reading of them. 14763. arkymalarky - 7/7/2001 9:08:31 PM And the rest of it could continue in the Inferno, as my last post should have, unless you are as disinterested in continuing this discussion as I am. 14764. Indiana Jones - 7/7/2001 9:43:27 PM arky (14754): I don't think there will be much to keep up with, as I assume it won't happen all that often. Besides, the person bringing the initial complaint should keep up with it. 14765. Indiana Jones - 7/7/2001 9:52:12 PM I disagree with Indy's proposal. 14766. PsychProf - 7/8/2001 11:14:24 AM A question for the hosts of this thread...I want to know if your reactions/decisions are your own, at the time you make them, or if you are fed responses/positions by e-mail, which you then use. I, for one, have never e-mailed a host here to convince them to support my view. Never. All positions of personal support must be made by the individual, and posted here for all to see. It is important for Moteheads to know that your independence is w/o question. 14767. PelleNilsson - 7/8/2001 11:30:24 AM I have not received any e-mails of that nature. Your position is sound. E-mails intended to influence the moderators should be published here. 14768. Indiana Jones - 7/8/2001 11:34:34 AM PP's post is another reason why I would think moderators would like having more specificity to the rules. The clearer things are spelled out and adhered to, the less able anyone is able to manipulate the PTB and the less the PTB will have to defend themselves continually against charges of same. 14769. Indiana Jones - 7/8/2001 11:35:43 AM Strike the repetitive "able." 14770. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 11:52:35 AM Indy 14771. marjoribanks - 7/8/2001 12:00:45 PM Sage words from Urquhart, sage and even. 14772. PelleNilsson - 7/8/2001 12:07:28 PM Francis 14773. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/8/2001 12:19:17 PM The dour Swede scores... I'm too jaded to laugh at posts often, but that one got to me... 14774. CalGal - 7/8/2001 12:22:19 PM The fact that Arky et al are all atwitter about me now is only relevant in that they are doing the "equivalency waltz" that Ace has pointed out in the past. I make an objection about MsG that seems to be about her being meeeeean, well, hey! Cal is rude, so we must find an equal objection about her. 14775. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:24:37 PM Word up, fet hynda. 14776. CalGal - 7/8/2001 12:24:55 PM Not too long ago, the factions were arguing about what was said in private emails, an imbroglio started by Rosetta. 14777. Indiana Jones - 7/8/2001 12:27:11 PM Francis: My proposal is actually quite simple but the fact that the nattering classes around cannot do with simple makes it more complex. There's always an infernal "what if"? However, I think that a group able to pull up posts from March to prove a point ought to find my proposal a waltz, polka and lambada all rolled into one. (And arky wonders, "Who will keep up with all that?" People here obviously have nothing but time.) 14778. Indiana Jones - 7/8/2001 12:29:50 PM Simple proposal: Any proposal that can be described within one post (2,000 characters). 14779. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:29:58 PM 14775 was to 14772. 14780. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 12:30:53 PM Cal: 14781. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:32:41 PM Indiana 14782. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 12:36:05 PM And lest you guys think I am going to continue this little mud wrestlin', I'm not...I don't think anyone here would appreciate being called a liar repeatedly. 14783. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:41:31 PM Indiana 14784. PelleNilsson - 7/8/2001 12:43:08 PM Ragata? It is old-fashioned Swedish for "old heckling woman" but how did you know? Pillow-talk? 14785. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 12:43:49 PM FU: 14786. arkymalarky - 7/8/2001 12:44:20 PM I have posted on specifically what I had points to make about. How Cal perceives it is irrelevant. I have not been and will not be a part of the Cal buzz. I have no interest. It does not mean, however, that I never have an opinion or that I won't post when I do. She and anyone else are, of course, free to disagree. 14787. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:45:39 PM Juditha 14788. PelleNilsson - 7/8/2001 12:46:39 PM I thinks this argument has run its course. Further bickering can take place in the Inferno. 14789. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:48:14 PM The ragata speaks truth. To The Inferno where everyone can speak as to what I like to call "The New Harmony" (The Age of Urquhart). 14790. arkymalarky - 7/8/2001 12:48:15 PM Arky's distortion has been consistent from the beginning: she insists that I have objected to MsG because she is a rude host to people she disagrees with. 14791. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 12:49:09 PM Agggggggggh! 14792. arkymalarky - 7/8/2001 12:51:26 PM Sorry, Pelle. I'm done anyway. 14793. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/8/2001 12:52:19 PM Pelle: 14794. arkymalarky - 7/8/2001 12:53:39 PM Indy, 14795. arkymalarky - 7/8/2001 12:55:20 PM IOW, the current system isn't perfect, but I don't think it's been a major problem as pertains to hosting. 14796. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 12:55:53 PM I'm certain all the guys would show up to see what was taking place if the change were made...and probably stick around so long as us wimmen folk keep our mouths shut. 14797. CalGal - 7/8/2001 1:49:50 PM I am largely done, but since arky's post is about hosting. 14798. arkymalarky - 7/8/2001 2:05:14 PM Since Cal's post is about my post about hosting... 14799. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 2:56:54 PM Cal & Arky, 14800. PelleNilsson - 7/8/2001 3:07:51 PM We must parse parsimoniously. 14801. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 3:10:35 PM Indy, 14802. CalGal - 7/8/2001 3:11:47 PM I can't even figure out what action either one of you is asking for at this point. 14803. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 3:25:03 PM PP, Banks & Others, 14804. AceofSpades - 7/8/2001 3:35:28 PM 14805. marjoribanks - 7/8/2001 3:35:30 PM Ms. No, 14806. PsychProf - 7/8/2001 3:38:59 PM Ms No...I think you know quite well that I am not curious about your personal e-mails. I am concerned, however, that you separate such from your role as Mote Moderator. You have known me long enough to know my liking and respect for you, so to call for resignation is not my style or wish. I just want you to say that you refuse to, and did not, discuss Mote matters/policy at the personal and secret level, WITH ANYONE, when they pertain to your position and the decisions thereof. Can you not really see the issue here? 14807. marjoribanks - 7/8/2001 3:40:55 PM I also have sent no e-mails. I don't do e-mail as a rule within the membership of this forum, though I have corresponded very sporadically outside with a few people over the years. 14808. AceofSpades - 7/8/2001 3:43:41 PM 14809. PsychProf - 7/8/2001 3:44:55 PM haha..ace...who are ya talkin to. 14810. marjoribanks - 7/8/2001 3:45:50 PM Oooh-oooh, aaaah-aaaaah,Spades. 14811. AceofSpades - 7/8/2001 3:47:28 PM 14812. CalGal - 7/8/2001 3:55:02 PM In this case, it is more than clear that one party has griped to the well-meaning moderator, and the moderator has taken that griping on board. 14813. PsychProf - 7/8/2001 3:57:52 PM MsG's name is no longer listed as thread host...I assumed she was not fired. 14814. CalGal - 7/8/2001 4:00:50 PM So did I. Hence my comment that she must have emailed. Perhaps Marj was referring to MsG when he was referring to "one party" who "griped" to the moderator. 14815. marjoribanks - 7/8/2001 4:01:57 PM Fine, 812 makes it clear, I withdraw my allegation and apologize to both parties. 14816. marjoribanks - 7/8/2001 4:04:03 PM In any case, I've both gotten the point and had enough screen-staring for my Sunday. See ya, Spades. Enjoy your banana. 14817. Indiana Jones - 7/8/2001 4:15:20 PM I have no intention of running this place like a police state and keeping a calendar of each poster's offenses. 14818. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 4:18:48 PM PP, 14819. PsychProf - 7/8/2001 4:24:15 PM Well, then, I guess you refuse to answer my question. A personal attack on me does not qualify. So be it. 14820. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 4:33:30 PM Indy, 14821. PsychProf - 7/8/2001 4:37:00 PM Ms No...please stop. I asked a reasonable question(s) of a moderator. 14822. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 4:40:41 PM PP, 14823. Ms. No - 7/8/2001 4:47:45 PM I really don't have any more to say about this. I think I've been very clear about my posistion and further debate will accomplish nothing but offense. Besides, the beautiful California weather calls. 14824. khaval alazman - 7/8/2001 5:00:31 PM Some of you are fucked in the head. There is no other explanation for what I've been reading here. 14825. Indiana Jones - 7/8/2001 5:18:54 PM I wondered where you had gone off to. 14826. khaval alazman - 7/8/2001 5:36:50 PM LOL 14827. Jenerator - 7/8/2001 6:38:08 PM CalGal, 14828. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 6:56:12 PM Jenerator 14829. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 7:00:22 PM FU: 14830. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 7:01:33 PM I entreat all combatants, villains and knaves, heroes and warriors alike, put aside this rancor. Look into your hearts, and where acid forms on the tongue, replace with lilac. Where retribution stirs in the heart, supplant mercy. Where violence roils in the loins, stir discipline. Where vengeance directs the hand, teach diplomacy. 14831. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 7:04:08 PM There is but blood and dishonor on your present course, the misery of remembrance at deeds done poorly. 14832. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 7:07:49 PM Where hath this feud led you thus far? 14833. Jenerator - 7/8/2001 7:23:06 PM Francis, 14834. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 7:36:15 PM The blood tells you that your hand is steady. This is the euphoria of violence, the comfort of malevolent thoughts. You feel yourself a reasoned soul, in command of all faculties. But the dogs of war sit behind your teeth, at the ready, though all seems so fine. 14835. Jenerator - 7/8/2001 7:39:55 PM poignant, yet mercifully concise. 14836. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 7:43:37 PM Aye, look to he who reasons thus, that ladies should retire and ponder...silent in that bower where they keep yon fancys thought. Pray tell what he wishes next, that ladies kiss and whisper no more of manly things like blustering pomp? Oh would he love us thus, quiet as a forrest glen and empty as an addled poppet? 14837. Francis Urquhart - 7/8/2001 7:48:58 PM The lady speaks with a wisdom that befits her status. I speak only of the judgment of a lady, which, in its finest form, mottles the rage of man. But I plea to all combatants for peace, be they JJ or the fair coquettes who presently wield cudgels. 14838. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 7:59:43 PM Kind sir, your swaining arrogance is exceeded only by the turgid pomposity of your speech and yet, it cannot mask the wafting soul of a maker of peace...remember thus these pearls of wisdoms brow when once again you take up the politicians glove, to swat your enemy with velvet touch and steely wit. 14839. Erinys - 7/8/2001 8:20:24 PM Verily, I came here to suggest another orifice for us to stuff words and wit into, but I have indeed tripped into the Inferno's secret pit: full of dogtooth spar, it is. 14840. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 8:25:49 PM (This stuff is fun once you get the hang of it...) 14841. Erinys - 7/8/2001 8:27:53 PM I'm trying mightily, gentle skirt. 14842. JudithAtHome - 7/8/2001 8:29:23 PM And doing finely, I must confess... 14843. Erinys - 7/8/2001 8:39:52 PM I've changed my mind. 14844. Erinys - 7/8/2001 9:41:17 PM The House of Urquhart recommends - 14845. Erinys - 7/9/2001 1:24:58 AM Pardon me, I spoke as a childe. But I want to go back to going crazy, believing every word I was told. 14846. khaval alazman - 7/9/2001 1:33:25 AM OK - this qualifies as chitchat, but I beg lenience: 14847. Ms. No - 7/9/2001 2:23:48 AM Erinys, 14848. don s. - 7/9/2001 2:46:45 AM I LOVE THIS PLACE! 14849. JudithAtHome - 7/9/2001 10:37:27 AM The Wild Bunch... 14850. PelleNilsson - 7/9/2001 1:16:12 PM Good job, Francis. 14851. PelleNilsson - 7/9/2001 1:50:10 PM Post by Khaval Alazman copied from Travel: 14852. fuzzbox - 7/10/2001 5:07:08 AM Okay, so rename the thread "Trotsky, Engels, Class & Young (Neil)", relieve Khaval, and let me 14853. arkymalarky - 7/10/2001 10:38:53 PM Well, Fuzz, you got in at an exciting point. Glad you made it, anyway. 14854. fuzzbox - 7/10/2001 11:31:47 PM Thanks, arky... and thanks again to you and Mitch for the help in getting in. 14855. arkymalarky - 7/10/2001 11:42:25 PM You're welcome, and have at it. I've been disagreed with by the best of 'em. ;-> 14856. don s. - 7/10/2001 11:55:43 PM That's not really true. 14857. arkymalarky - 7/10/2001 11:57:08 PM You mean we've never had a disagreement? 14858. joezan - 7/10/2001 11:59:30 PM ...Musta meant me. 14859. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 1:48:18 AM I can't recall ever disagreeing with you, Arky... You'd better amend that to "some of the best" or "some of the second tier"... 14860. Erinys - 7/11/2001 3:16:55 AM Ms.No - If you really want to know I'll be glad to put the whole thing together for you, but only if you really really want to hear it all. 14862. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 4:13:46 AM Erinys: 14863. Erinys - 7/11/2001 4:15:56 AM Aaargh, you called me Erin, you with the earlobes! Stop it! Stop it immediately, please! 14864. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 4:17:24 AM I fixed it, Erinys... just sloppy typing. 14865. Erinys - 7/11/2001 4:17:35 AM Woops. I did see that on my screen as Erin. 14866. Erinys - 7/11/2001 4:19:39 AM How did you fix it, you bastard? 14867. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 4:24:20 AM Secret special powers. Not that secret, really. And I only use my powers for good. 14868. Erinys - 7/11/2001 4:28:41 AM No, no, silver or white gold is wrong for your skin tone. 14869. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 4:35:58 AM Well, the gold hoop will take care of that problem. 14870. Erinys - 7/11/2001 4:48:49 AM Really? 14871. theDiva - 7/11/2001 7:50:40 AM Erinys 14872. Indiana Jones - 7/11/2001 10:30:04 AM Don't believe her, Erinys. I've been mailing for months asking that she change my moniker to "Diva's Escort for this Evening." 14873. Francis Urquhart - 7/11/2001 10:33:53 AM The Ten Declarations of the Age of Urquhart 14874. theDiva - 7/11/2001 10:35:39 AM Indy 14875. marjoribanks - 7/11/2001 10:36:24 AM Fuck you, pussy-boy Urquhart. Don't pansy up my space. 14876. Francis Urquhart - 7/11/2001 10:39:26 AM marj 14877. marjoribanks - 7/11/2001 10:43:17 AM I don't have a sister. My relationships with women around my age are confrontational, edgy, laden with sexual overtones and power struggles. 14878. rubberducky - 7/11/2001 10:45:54 AM there is a Sex thread for this sorta thing... 14879. rubberducky - 7/11/2001 10:45:57 AM there is a Sex thread for this sorta thing... 14880. rubberducky - 7/11/2001 10:46:26 AM that is much less amusing the 2nd time 14881. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 11:53:45 AM I dunno. It usually takes me two readings to get a joke anyway. 14882. CalGal - 7/11/2001 12:01:37 PM Arky, 14883. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 12:10:54 PM Arky: 14884. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2001 12:14:00 PM Irv uses emoticon. Standards are slipping. 14885. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 12:17:06 PM I've always used an occasional well-placed wink. You can look it up. 14886. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 12:20:23 PM Irv, 14887. PelleNilsson - 7/11/2001 12:23:16 PM :) 14888. mgleason - 7/11/2001 12:27:39 PM Alright, Snirv. I have come in search of you since you have callously disregarded my announcement of the new Darkover novel. Twice! 14889. JudithAtHome - 7/11/2001 12:30:19 PM Welcome back, MG.... 14890. Indiana Jones - 7/11/2001 12:30:31 PM That name is verboten in the Age of Urquhart. 14891. PsychProf - 7/11/2001 12:31:06 PM "Glee"son returneth. 14892. mgleason - 7/11/2001 12:33:15 PM Thanks, Indy and Judith. 14893. theDiva - 7/11/2001 12:35:53 PM hello, darlin'! 14894. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 12:37:40 PM MG! YEAH! 14895. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 1:06:52 PM Maria: 14896. mgleason - 7/11/2001 1:09:29 PM Where have I got mail, O Grand Poobah??? 14897. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 1:11:03 PM So now you're giving me a hint, eh? ;-) 14898. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 1:11:27 PM Well, it's on the way... from the other side of the world... 14899. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 1:13:53 PM I know, Arky. No, not a hint... just scrambling for excuses, and once again failing to disagree with you. I do owe you a letter, and you will get it. 14900. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 1:23:05 PM Please don't worry about that. I'm just gigging you. I'm so glad to see you back and hope you'll stick around. 14901. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 2:40:07 PM WoW mentioned it in the Cafe, but does anyone have a notion when his design will be implemented? 14902. CalGal - 7/11/2001 2:49:57 PM Ha. He "mentioned" it in the Cafe. Is that what you call it? 14903. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 3:16:16 PM Queries are certainly appropriate. 14904. vw - 7/11/2001 3:24:46 PM Oh, furcrissakes... now let’s post 250 differing opinions in four different threads bickering about when queries are appropriate and when they aren't. Then some pompous moron can suggest writing up a Query Appropriateness Index matrix and ask that we all ratify it. Then three people can have a temper tantrum and leave in a huff because they don’t like the matrix, and it’s social implications. And then we can start all over again. 14905. vw - 7/11/2001 3:25:24 PM it’s = its 14906. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 3:32:53 PM I'd be careful suggesting that if I were you, VW. It just might happen. And of course, when it's all over nothing will be adopted. It's why I love group projects. 14907. theDiva - 7/11/2001 3:35:01 PM whaddya mean, might? 14908. vw - 7/11/2001 3:38:53 PM Sheeeit, then somebody shoot me now. 14909. christipeters - 7/11/2001 3:55:18 PM ....new Darkover novel.... 14910. mgleason - 7/11/2001 3:58:24 PM The Fall of Neskaya. It's set during the time of the Hundred Kingdoms, Deborah J. Ross is listed as co-author, there's plans for at least two more, and it's great so far! 14911. christipeters - 7/11/2001 4:08:56 PM Great! I have done my best to get, read, reread, and treasure every Darkover book. 14912. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 8:33:54 AM Pelle and MsNo, 14913. CalGal - 7/12/2001 10:56:05 AM Christ, Indy, you are a monumental fucking pain in the ass. 14914. CalGal - 7/12/2001 11:04:24 AM Besides, you're acting as if I was gloating about it, and that pisses me off even more. 14915. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 11:13:17 AM Cal: I am not implying that they removed msgreer. In fact I'm virtually certain they did not. 14916. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 11:22:58 AM You're acting as if I was gloating about it, and that pisses me off even more. 14917. CalGal - 7/12/2001 11:42:58 AM I am not complaining about you stopping the discussion in N&Q; I thought your whole "sympathy card" notion was bullshit and intended purely to cause trouble. Which it did. 14918. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 11:45:54 AM Okay, I've found the post in Health. But the second post you cite was here and was in fact addressed only to JJ. Frankly, I find it a little nitpickish to take one post by JJ from four months ago that (indirectly) called you a bitch and then juxtapose it with a post by msgreer four months later calling for civility and use that to demonstrate a contradiction. If Jen slyly calls you a name in Religion, I don't notice it, and four months later I ask for civility when another fight breaks out, would you call for my removal too? (Nevermind, I think I know the answer to that.) 14919. rubberducky - 7/12/2001 11:52:55 AM If Jen slyly calls you a name in Religion, I don't notice it, and four months later I ask for civility when another fight breaks out, would you call for my removal too? 14920. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 11:59:26 AM You are correct, ducky, no one did that I recall either. But mine was a hypothetical statement. Nevertheless, I'll rephrase it as "would you say I was abusing my authority as host" as well. 14921. labwabbit - 7/12/2001 12:09:18 PM One question... 14922. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:10:18 PM Indy, 14923. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:13:18 PM The closest language to that--as long as we're being careful and precise--is Christin saying "There is a difference, however, between being a bad host and being a host who abuses his authority." 14924. labwabbit - 7/12/2001 12:13:55 PM Th' Rosie Syndrome... 14925. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 12:16:56 PM Cal: I'll await the moderators' response, if you don't mind. 14926. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:17:35 PM If Jen slyly calls you a name in Religion, I don't notice it, and four months later I ask for civility when another fight breaks out, would you call for my removal too? 14927. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:19:19 PM Indy, 14928. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 12:21:23 PM BTW, Cal, I really don't like to get into all this mind-reading stuff about what my motives are and what I'm thinking, and how I secretly keep posts back to spring on people. You can keep accusing me of that all you want, but I won't be returning serve. 14929. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:24:23 PM It's rather funny--you got every single fact wrong, either deliberately or because you can't read, you didn't even bother looking up the actual posts where MsNo posted and Pelle supported. But by golly, you hang onto your question. 14930. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:28:46 PM Indy, 14931. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 12:28:54 PM Cal: 14932. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 12:32:43 PM I must leave the field for today, but remain hopeful that the moderators can respond at some point for themselves. 14933. labwabbit - 7/12/2001 12:36:19 PM Some folk tend to bring out the worst in good people. 14934. CalGal - 7/12/2001 12:38:12 PM No, it wasn't one long incident. I linked MsG's post to ranheim as further evidence of her own recent incivility, not because it had to do with my original complaint. There were two separate issues I raised. One in which I said I was documenting concerns, the other in which I said was specifically complaining about. I also made it clear that they were two issues later on. The fact that MsG was also rude to ranheim is possible without bringing in the second issue. 14935. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 1:14:50 PM Cal: I really must go, but you are correct that the last post by JJ does have a later time stamp. It doesn't change the fact that to demonstrate "inconsistency" posts from four months apart and by two different posters were put side by side. (Inidentally, I could pull posts about msgreer and thread hosting by Christin that were scarcely 24 hours apart that sure look like they contradict each other if we don't look at the posts that occurred between.) 14936. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2001 2:51:55 PM Indy 14937. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2001 2:53:01 PM (continued) 14938. Ms. No - 7/12/2001 3:05:39 PM Indy, 14939. Ms. No - 7/12/2001 3:11:06 PM Pelle, 14940. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 3:12:46 PM Pelle: 14941. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 3:16:48 PM Ms No: When wabbit decided she needed help and the "PTB" were casting about for someone to assist her, it was I who suggested your name. 14942. Indiana Jones - 7/12/2001 3:21:17 PM I have a minor league baseball game to attend, so I'll leave the mutual admiration society to indulge in more backpatting. 14943. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 3:32:07 PM I don't understand what was so bad about Indy asking for clarification about this, frankly. 14944. Ms. No - 7/12/2001 3:40:47 PM Indy, 14945. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 3:46:23 PM . I understand how embarassing it must be for you to publicly air the meager state of your reading comprehension skills, but there's certainly no reason to blame others for your disability. 14946. PelleNilsson - 7/12/2001 3:55:00 PM Please don't make me upset. Judith. Clarification about what? The question of msgreer's suitability or otherwise as host was never an issue for me at the time. Now she has resigned in a one-sentence mail to the moderators, no reason given. Her fawning admirer JJ has since infomed us it was due to her commitments at law school and so on. 14947. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 4:02:07 PM Pelle, I'm not trying to make anyone upset. I just don't understand the withering responses to someone who's asked a question, that's all. 14948. Absensia - 7/12/2001 4:08:11 PM I know I'm a newbie...I just came back from being away for quite a while, but it seems all the questions have been answered. Each day the questions come back, with new twists, but the are still the same. Those posing them don't like the answers so they keep asking. Isn't it time to get on with things? It seems to me Pelle and Ms. No have been clear,and civil inspite of some rather nasty and uncalled shots taken at them. 14949. mgleason - 7/12/2001 4:18:28 PM That's very good advice, Absensia. C'mon, you guys; surely we can manage to rub along better than this! 14950. marjoribanks - 7/12/2001 4:24:50 PM Hmm. 14951. Wombat - 7/12/2001 4:26:26 PM I love ya, man! (Big embrace, pats on the back.) 14952. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 4:28:16 PM I desise group hugs, but I promise to be better if not good. 14953. marjoribanks - 7/12/2001 4:33:26 PM Well, boyos, this will give us all a chance to let go of the burden, of suspicions and paranoia and hostilities, and start anew. 14954. AceofSpades - 7/12/2001 4:42:07 PM 14955. AceofSpades - 7/12/2001 5:01:43 PM 14956. marjoribanks - 7/12/2001 5:06:24 PM Spades, 14957. AceofSpades - 7/12/2001 5:42:58 PM 14958. Ms. No - 7/12/2001 5:49:19 PM Ace, 14959. mgleason - 7/12/2001 5:56:17 PM Aren't you people Pink Panther fans? It's 'minkey.' 14960. Ms. No - 7/12/2001 6:05:10 PM Do minkeys use the feyuhn? 14961. mgleason - 7/12/2001 6:11:46 PM Mais oui! 14962. Ms. No - 7/12/2001 6:17:20 PM I'm having a strong video store urge. Thanks Maria! 14963. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 7:02:09 PM No, it's got to be about who likes who more and who should be allowed to bend the rules because he's more popular and how do we know you're not just acting on what somebody else told you to do since you couldn't possibly make a decision that I dislike if you weren't being controlled by my evil nemesis and so on and so on. 14964. mgleason - 7/12/2001 7:21:09 PM Where is Arky, and what have you done with her, you impostor? 14965. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 7:26:14 PM Hahaha. That's about so. First Francis, now me. Remember the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers? ;-) 14966. ycmeehan - 7/12/2001 7:33:27 PM mgleason, 14967. mgleason - 7/12/2001 7:37:23 PM Merci, Alter-Arky! 14968. mgleason - 7/12/2001 7:40:22 PM It was amazing, YCM! I popped in because I'd written to that scoundrel Irv about a book I wanted him to read, he hadn't responded, and since I knew he'd resumed posting, I looked for his name so that I could chastise him. Then I saw your post, and the others, which made me nostalgic. I did miss you, as it turns out. 14969. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 7:43:39 PM It looks as though there's plenty of suspicion to go around, and that's what's got to be dispelled. It's quite possible that all 'sides,' even the unaligned, feel the we vs. they dynamic at work. 14970. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 7:45:39 PM even the unaligned, feel the we vs. they dynamic at work. 14971. ycmeehan - 7/12/2001 7:48:48 PM Oh, thanks so much, mgleason. I thrive on civility and acceptance from the Moties, you know. Not for me the name-calling. Inadvertently, I insulted JJ once and I was sick for weeks about it. 14972. mgleason - 7/12/2001 7:50:02 PM I read some posts which suggested that there may have been nefarious dealings afoot, and that's straight out of Rosetta's playbook. I know nature is said to abhor a vacuum, but jeez! 14973. ycmeehan - 7/12/2001 7:50:24 PM ...about it 'IN' Good Life, that is. 14974. mgleason - 7/12/2001 7:51:39 PM You bet, YCM, once the frustration ebbs. ;-) 14975. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 7:53:04 PM Inadvertently, I insulted JJ once and I was sick for weeks about it. 14976. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 7:56:14 PM Have a nice evening, ladies! 14977. ycmeehan - 7/12/2001 8:00:38 PM I am not made of the same stern stuff you are, Arky. I am sweet, naive, and wholesome, your regular dumb blond of folklore. I believe everything everyone says to me, especially when I am told how wonderful I am. 14978. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 8:04:48 PM Hahaha. I've read enough of your posts to know better than that! You didn't just fall off the turnip truck. ;-) 14979. AceofSpades - 7/12/2001 8:28:15 PM MsNo, 14980. Erinys - 7/12/2001 8:47:01 PM I'm trying to keep up with perhaps 8-10 discussions here, but sporadically I am taken to the first post when I log in. I have the bookmarks turned on. That periodically gets turned off; mainly I notice it when my time adjustment stops working, as well, and I go to my profile and bookmarks are no longer checked. 14981. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 9:03:45 PM I personally haven't been able to get my bookmarks to work like I like. I think I recall someone posting that only a limited number of threads can be bookmarked, so maybe that's the problem. 14982. Erinys - 7/12/2001 9:24:59 PM Oh dear. I was hoping pen/paper wouldn't be mentioned. There are far too many little scraps of paper floating around here already. But that's how you keep track, arkymalarky? 14983. don s. - 7/12/2001 9:32:40 PM Gott in Himmel. It is, as the same girly-boys are fond of pointing out, "just a frigging website." 14984. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 9:59:48 PM I don't really have to keep track any more, Erinys. All that was back when I was defending Bill Clinton against the Fray Forces of Evil. ;-) I rarely post to the two or three fast-moving threads here, and when I want to see what's up everywhere (I check out every thread almost daily and have since the Mote's inception) I just pop in on the last page (I have 30 posts per) and the rest are slow enough to be easy to keep up with. 14985. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 10:01:15 PM Don't give your cholesterol-laden heart to Ace, Don. He'll only break it and add it to the chain of others. 14986. Indiana Jones - 7/13/2001 12:43:46 AM In the interest of "community harmony" and not to contribute further to what I already see as the declining morale of the Mote, I will let this issue drop in that I don't intend to post on it anymore. 14987. Stumbo - 7/13/2001 1:54:25 AM FWIW, I agree that the second sentence of #14944 was way out of line. Moderators ought to be polite -- at worst, icily so -- when specifically acting in their capacity as moderators (as opposed to, say, debating some random topic in some random thread). 14988. mgleason - 7/13/2001 2:10:12 AM This is what we are reduced to in these degenerate days when dueling is no longer practiced. Let us bring back the Code Duello! 14989. Stumbo - 7/13/2001 3:28:48 AM Us programmers are notoriously competitive folk. We have coding duels all the time. 14990. Ms. No - 7/13/2001 1:57:25 PM Arky & Stumbo, 14991. Ms. No - 7/13/2001 2:02:33 PM IndianaJones, 14992. Francis Urquhart - 7/13/2001 2:08:16 PM The Age of Urquhart! 14993. labwabbit - 7/13/2001 2:09:08 PM provocation is no excuse for bad behavior on my part. 14994. Indiana Jones - 7/13/2001 2:46:37 PM Ms. No: I will reply to you more extensively in private to not reignite any flames. This part I'll put here... 14995. labwabbit - 7/13/2001 2:50:18 PM I also retract 14942 for the same lack of relevance and for exhibiting childish pique. 14996. PelleNilsson - 7/13/2001 3:11:12 PM Indy 14997. CalGal - 7/13/2001 3:14:24 PM Transparency is clearly overrated. 14998. CalGal - 7/13/2001 3:14:43 PM But to hell with that... 14999. CalGal - 7/13/2001 3:14:53 PM it's time for the... 15000. CalGal - 7/13/2001 3:15:05 PM millennial? 15001. PelleNilsson - 7/13/2001 3:23:28 PM Oh shit, I didn't see that. That's what a bit of agitation does for you: loss of priorities. 15002. janjon - 7/13/2001 3:24:39 PM sigh. 15003. Greystoke - 7/13/2001 9:51:55 PM Francis 15004. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 9:55:33 PM Hahaha. Too high. 15005. Greystoke - 7/13/2001 10:02:20 PM Arky 15006. CalGal - 7/14/2001 12:44:20 PM Man, I wish I'd said that. Good one, Grey. 15007. Greystoke - 7/15/2001 8:08:30 AM Thanks, CalGal. If only Francis were here to defend himself, I'm sure he could send me running for cover. 15008. Francis Urquhart - 7/15/2001 10:01:48 AM Grey 15009. arkymalarky - 7/15/2001 11:36:58 AM In the Age of Urquhart people must get beaten up a lot. 15010. JudithAtHome - 7/15/2001 12:48:15 PM No, thrown off the roof. 15011. Greystoke - 7/15/2001 2:24:11 PM Francis 15012. rubberducky - 7/17/2001 11:51:47 AM i request that my thread, The Great GIF Debate, be retired until such time as the development server is brought up to the modified WoW's redesign submission. 15013. CalGal - 7/17/2001 11:58:17 AM I agree. I worked on it some over the weekend, but it will be a while until I get it done. 15014. Ms. No - 7/17/2001 12:30:39 PM Ducky, 15015. rubberducky - 7/23/2001 11:04:17 AM the 'Looking at the Future' & 'Sex' threads should be axed due to inactivity 15016. mgleason - 7/23/2001 11:10:01 AM That's a sad commentary, RD. Do you think it a symptom of major depression? 15017. PsychProf - 7/23/2001 11:11:56 AM Chrissakes...it's one thing to be sexually quiet in the acute sense, but having no hope for the future... 15018. mgleason - 7/23/2001 11:13:38 AM You should invite those threads onto your virtual couch, Prof. 15019. rubberducky - 7/23/2001 11:18:06 AM MG: 15020. Wombat - 7/23/2001 11:28:02 AM Maybe people are too busy having sex to waste time on the thread. 15021. PelleNilsson - 7/23/2001 12:53:31 PM RD 15022. alistairconnor - 7/24/2001 5:29:05 AM Message # 15013 . The problem is that you can't just mock up an html page 15023. CalGal - 7/24/2001 11:48:45 AM Alistair, don't be an ass. The mockup is done. 15024. CalGal - 7/24/2001 12:01:09 PM Oh, and Ducky, I tried to email you but it keeps on coming back "Service unavailable". 15025. don s. - 7/25/2001 12:25:31 AM Alistair, don't be an ass. 15026. MizPhys - 7/25/2001 2:12:02 PM What? No Test Thread anymore? Then I shall use this thread as such. 15027. MizPhys - 7/25/2001 2:13:11 PM Yippee. 15028. bubbaette - 7/25/2001 2:21:51 PM She's so damned talented. 15029. Ms. No - 7/25/2001 2:49:16 PM Hiya MsPhys, 15030. rubberducky - 7/25/2001 3:36:03 PM loathe as i am to want another thread, HTML Scratchpad should be thrown back into the thread list. 15031. Ms. No - 7/25/2001 4:26:41 PM Ducky, 15032. Ms. No - 7/25/2001 4:27:49 PM oh, duh, Banks is host of it now. 15033. rubberducky - 7/26/2001 3:08:43 PM seeing as how we'll get some traffic from TT and we need to strike while the iron is hot ... i say remove the gatekeeper out of the registration equation, for the time being, and open theMote up to new registrants unfettered. we're not gonna have a better opportunity in the next few weeks for new members. 15034. JudithAtHome - 7/26/2001 3:14:14 PM Yep, they are going everywhere looking for new places to light...of course, the guys I invited last time probably won't be back but I suggest we just let the new people come in and discover the place for themselves rather than what we did last time...sent conflicting signals as far as I could tell. 15035. CalGal - 7/26/2001 3:22:42 PM I agree, especially since worldcrossing is down a lot. Given that TT and WC both have acted as hosts for us when we were down, I think it would be a nice gesture if we told them they could congregate over here if their regular haunt is down. Even if we don't create a special thread for it, we could make it clear they are welcome. 15036. PsychProf - 7/26/2001 3:24:17 PM Exactly. 15037. CalGal - 7/26/2001 3:27:50 PM How about we ask newbies who didn't get in to email Diva directly, so she can get them set up? And put a link on our front page mentioning the problem in the short term? I don't know that we can do anything about this without Alistair, can we? Or is the id gate something that a moderator can turn off? 15038. PsychProf - 7/26/2001 3:33:51 PM Cal...I have an e-mail for Alistair...write me here at the College or ozzienelson@hotmail.com and I will send it back. 15039. CalGal - 7/26/2001 3:36:30 PM Thanks, Prof, I sent it to hotmail--don't have your college email address at work, either. 15040. JudithAtHome - 7/26/2001 3:44:56 PM Jeez, WC is down again. 15041. CalGal - 7/26/2001 3:46:56 PM It's not down, it just is overloaded. You get some 15 "can't connects" for every one click that goes through. 15042. JudithAtHome - 7/26/2001 3:47:43 PM toys, sorry. 15043. CalGal - 7/26/2001 3:47:55 PM 15044. glendajean - 7/26/2001 4:13:01 PM One way to override the registration lock is to do what Cal suggested and email the Mote Gatekeeper directly at motegatekeeper@themote.com 15045. PsychProf - 7/26/2001 4:18:32 PM GJ...do you know that that gets through? 15046. CalGal - 7/26/2001 4:19:15 PM The problem is that the motegatekeeper id isn't working. So for now it would need to go to a different address. 15047. glendajean - 7/26/2001 4:20:37 PM Well, there is a different address that the gatekeeper uses to pick up all communciation from that address, but I am not sure we've ever given it out. 15048. marjoribanks - 7/26/2001 4:22:57 PM Re: the message several posts ago 15049. alistairconnor - 7/26/2001 4:43:44 PM Message # 15023 15050. CalGal - 7/26/2001 4:48:46 PM Alistair, I'm not going to argue with you about this online anymore. Oh wait, I'm not going to argue with you about it offline, either. Fuck off. 15051. CalGal - 7/26/2001 4:49:56 PM And, rather than try and get into a pissing match with me, why not pay attention to the other discussion and please enable id creation without gatekeeper intervention? 15052. alistairconnor - 7/26/2001 4:57:04 PM The email adress is actually gatekeeper@themote.com and it works OK for receiving mail. 15053. Erinys - 7/26/2001 4:58:57 PM I realize this isn't a democracy, but I vote for letting new people in easily, too. 15054. alistairconnor - 7/26/2001 4:59:26 PM Cal, I don't think either of us ever understood how to work together. I honestly don't understand why you want to do the programming yourself, it's only an HTML facelift. 15055. glendajean - 7/26/2001 6:02:33 PM Since Diva is gone for the day, (and I help her out on the weekends), I just went in to process lots of backed-up requests. 15056. Ms. No - 7/26/2001 6:05:29 PM RE: Newbie Registration 15057. theDiva - 7/27/2001 9:23:12 AM well, I see all the suggestions I made via e-mail and in the tech thread this morning were already discussed here. D'oh! 15058. don s. - 7/27/2001 9:34:44 AM CalGal: Alistair, I'm not going to argue with you about this online anymore. Oh wait, I'm not going to argue with you about it offline, either. Fuck off. 15059. ScottLoar - 7/27/2001 9:38:57 AM If you people worked for me I'd have you in my office in no time. The principle is real simple folks, let whomever is most willing and competent get the job done and the rest of you support him. 15060. rubberducky - 7/27/2001 9:43:16 AM or her 15061. don s. - 7/27/2001 9:45:14 AM or it 15062. RustlerPike - 7/27/2001 12:06:30 PM 1. Can someone explain why it is taking months to give the Mote its facelift? Could this have anything to do with the fact that the person who is supposed to carry out the technical aspect of the facelift is also the person who designed the present ugly face? 15063. JudithAtHome - 7/27/2001 12:08:32 PM Hi, RP...welcome back! 15064. RustlerPike - 7/27/2001 12:10:52 PM Whoops!!! Did I say 'respectable'? By that I meant, 'not totally ludicrous and humiliating'. 15065. Erinys - 7/27/2001 12:21:48 PM Rustler Pike, I don't think you and I had any conversations amongst ourselves, but I do enjoy your posts. Glad to see you're back. 15066. RustlerPike - 7/27/2001 12:32:08 PM Hi Erin. I've wondered what the 'ys' stood for, assuming the 'erin' is your first name. 15067. RustlerPike - 7/27/2001 12:38:46 PM Not to pry, of course. Just wondering if those were initials. 15068. JudithAtHome - 7/27/2001 12:39:00 PM ..assuming wrongly, RP... 15069. Erinys - 7/27/2001 12:40:12 PM Erinys is a Greek fury. Erinyes = plural Greek furies. 15070. JudithAtHome - 7/27/2001 12:44:39 PM Erinys: 15071. Erinys - 7/27/2001 12:49:29 PM I didn't expect it to be recognized as Greek, I just didn't anticipate being called Erin as a nickname. Which for some reason, bugs me. Must be a past negative association to an Erin in grade school o something. 15072. Erinys - 7/27/2001 12:50:05 PM Kaliope rolls of the tongue nicely. 15073. CalGal - 7/27/2001 12:58:58 PM Alistair 15074. CalGal - 7/27/2001 1:02:26 PM Scott, 15075. sakonige - 7/27/2001 1:32:44 PM 15076. rubberducky - 7/27/2001 1:36:26 PM i wanna host a thread about injuns 15077. alistairconnor - 7/27/2001 4:55:47 PM Message # 15073 Cal, if that's really your memory of what happened, I can understand you would be pissed off. 15078. alistairconnor - 7/27/2001 4:57:08 PM Loar - You couldn't pay me to do this job. You're not rich enough. 15079. ScottLoar - 7/27/2001 6:15:06 PM Alistair, I'm not rich, and although appreciative of your efforts on behalf of this community I don't particularly enjoy your narrow perspectives. 15080. alistairconnor - 7/27/2001 6:25:23 PM Lordy Loar. My perspectives are not all that narrow. But they are rather different from yours, and you're not very tolerant of difference, as we have had occasion to observe many times. 15081. glendajean - 7/27/2001 6:48:55 PM To all people trying to register: 15082. khaval alazman - 7/27/2001 8:39:45 PM I originally posted this in the Future Thread: 15083. PelleNilsson - 7/28/2001 3:43:55 AM khaval 15084. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/28/2001 5:53:38 AM I agree with Khaval: her thread serves a purpose, and is at times extremely interesting. We're hoping to attract new members to this forum -- new members that we desperately need -- and the more threads we have to attract them, the better. We should try and accommodate as many different opinions and ways of thinking as we can. A thread which doesn't get constant activity is of no harm. So why not keep it? 15085. JudithAtHome - 7/28/2001 8:36:57 AM I've never understood this drive to keep threads at a minimum...if a thread isn't constantly at the top of the list, the theory is "off with its head!" 15086. PelleNilsson - 7/28/2001 10:58:53 AM I propose a thread on archeology. Somebody who is interested may pass by, who knows? Iconography could also be a subject to consider. 15087. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/28/2001 11:04:42 AM Archaeology would be a fascinating subject for a thread. Especially with recent developments which relate archaeological discoveries to biological and linguistic research. Obviously, these things fall under the scope of the History thread... but if there is interest, why not? 15088. ScottLoar - 7/28/2001 11:53:02 AM Message # 15080: Nonsense AlistairConnor, as I prove by tolerating many of your posts without comment. 15089. khaval alazman - 7/28/2001 1:09:38 PM What rubbish, Pelle. I implied no such thing (that I was not asked about RIPing the thread)! WHy even level such a ridiculouus accusation? 15090. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2001 2:32:00 PM Alistair: Have you considered doing the site in PHP? It might make coordinating the HTML and database elements easier than with Perl. 15091. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 1:19:45 AM Alistair: have you considered trying to do this without CalGal, as she obviously has no shame wrt stalling us all for months? 15092. PelleNilsson - 7/29/2001 3:50:10 AM I unRIPed Future. Let's see what happens. 15093. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 5:38:19 AM Pelle: 15094. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 5:42:18 AM To quote Irving: 15095. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 5:44:20 AM Could you be so insecure as to refuse me? Is PC-dom that frail? 15096. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/29/2001 8:25:57 AM Since my view has been quoted above, I'd like to add a comment or two about Rustler's thread suggestion... 15097. PelleNilsson - 7/29/2001 12:39:22 PM Rustler 15098. JudithAtHome - 7/29/2001 12:43:17 PM If that is to be, could pictures like those be linked to? I'm not trying to deny the horror of it but please.... 15099. CalGal - 7/29/2001 1:59:44 PM have you really forgotten this? 15100. CalGal - 7/29/2001 2:28:02 PM For that matter, your ownership of the code and how you produce the final production is equally besides the point--why on earth would I care how you maintain your code? We're talking development, not implementation. And of course it is your code--something else that's never been in dispute. 15101. JudithAtHome - 7/29/2001 2:38:46 PM Speaking of which, do you think they will maintain the bannings at TT or will they overlook them if the people banned are willing to pay? 15102. CalGal - 7/29/2001 2:43:41 PM As for a thread on Israel and Palestine, I think it would be a great idea. But I do think he should put his family pictures in the Cafe thread, and the gory pictures really should be linked to. 15103. CalGal - 7/29/2001 2:46:44 PM Judith, 15104. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 3:28:29 PM I did link to the pictures twice and asked for comments, but nobody said a word. So the third time I put the picture in. Still no one has anything to say about them, other than that they should have been linked. I was expecting something on a more human/moral plane. Where was I wrong? Why are there no reactions to the pictures themselves? Don't you people have emotions? 15105. JudithAtHome - 7/29/2001 3:34:31 PM Do you not read others posts...I did say 15106. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 3:49:37 PM But I do think he should put his family pictures in the Cafe thread 15107. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 3:50:53 PM Judith - you're nice, you know I've always liked you. Never think I am criticizing you when I rant at people here. 15108. Erinys - 7/29/2001 5:02:21 PM I linked to them twice and nobody responded 15109. AceofSpades - 7/29/2001 6:04:16 PM 15110. Cellar Door - 7/29/2001 6:17:20 PM "Blah blah blah blah moon, 15111. Erinys - 7/29/2001 6:17:48 PM Well, now that seems gaspingly dismissive of the war you're living through, RustlerPike. 15112. sakonige - 7/29/2001 6:20:35 PM 15113. Erinys - 7/29/2001 6:54:51 PM Really? What's the point of wanting to host a discussion thread, then? Wouldn't people stop dropping by, if a host habitually stifled discussion? 15114. CalGal - 7/29/2001 7:09:29 PM I don't think the blah blah blah was directed at you. I wouldn't assume it was without confirmation, at any rate. 15115. ScottLoar - 7/29/2001 7:59:06 PM In answer to RustlerPike's questions in Message # 15104, it seems some of us are just sick and tired of your shit. I detest your constant screed on Israel and Palestine, I detest pictures of you at play posted in International, I detest post after nonsensical post by RustlerPike, and I detest your constant pose as victim and spokesman for Israel. You and Sakonige are of the same ilk, and you deserve each other. 15116. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 9:56:05 PM Erinys: 15117. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 10:57:29 PM >>> 15118. RustlerPike - 7/29/2001 10:59:36 PM Where is Ms. No? True - she was one of the femmies who booted me out of Sex and Social Issues, but on her better days she is a cool lady. I've heard rumors she is even a Skynyrd fan - so she can't really be bad, deep down inside. Where does she stand on this? 15119. AceofSpades - 7/29/2001 11:02:39 PM 15120. Property of Jesus - 7/29/2001 11:04:06 PM Unless you hate your father and mother and wife and brothers and sisters and, yes, even your own life, you can't be my disciple. 15121. AceofSpades - 7/29/2001 11:06:27 PM 15122. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/29/2001 11:06:55 PM Rustler: 15123. AceofSpades - 7/29/2001 11:08:24 PM 15124. Jenerator - 7/29/2001 11:13:50 PM Ace, 15125. Cellar Door - 7/29/2001 11:14:39 PM White man speak with forked tongue. Head look good on pole. 15126. AceofSpades - 7/29/2001 11:17:04 PM Two sentences without an exclamation point, Cellar. Wow. Have you used up this month's allotment? 15127. Jenerator - 7/29/2001 11:18:48 PM I'd like for Rp to have his own thread. I've learned more about the Middle East from him than anyone else, and I appreciate his insider pov. 15128. Jenerator - 7/29/2001 11:23:24 PM POJ, 15129. Cellar Door - 7/29/2001 11:23:34 PM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15130. vw - 7/29/2001 11:54:21 PM 15131. Erinys - 7/30/2001 1:17:09 AM RustlerPike #15116, I clearly saw it was AceofSpades who had the blahs, not you. My return blahs were not directed 'at' you or anyone in particular. It was an add-on to my statement that I visit The Mote mainly for light diversion -"blah blah blah". A euphemism for chatting, that's all. The 'gaspingly dismissive' was me feeling empathy for you that no one wants to look at your painful photos. 15132. Erinys - 7/30/2001 1:18:08 AM Well, how is this handled around here, the request to host a new topic? Pelle wrote A poster suggests a thread. It gets support or it does not.. 15133. PelleNilsson - 7/30/2001 4:32:44 AM Well, there is some support for an Israell/Palestine thread and I guess the only way to find out about the scope of Rustler's hosting ambitions is to create such a thread, which has now been done. 15134. Erinys - 7/30/2001 2:36:29 PM (taking notes on quorum) 15135. JayAckroyd - 7/30/2001 2:44:54 PM We've always worked by consensus, which is time consuming. On putting up threads, there needs to be some broad interest expressed. 15136. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 12:26:11 PM I just ran into an old poster from here who said he'd been trying to get in here for 2 days and couldn't...maybe there's a glitch here we aren't aware of...I advised he try contacting the moderator. 15137. rubberducky - 8/15/2001 12:53:57 PM just so it is seen, i'd appreciate at least a moderator response to my Message # 1485 in thread 39. 15138. wabbit - 8/15/2001 1:01:01 PM J@H, 15139. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 1:01:24 PM Ducky: 15140. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 1:11:20 PM Thanks, wabbit... 15141. theDiva - 8/15/2001 2:34:51 PM well, not for anything, but I check the e-mail twice a day and haven't gotten a request for a new account in about a week. 15142. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 2:37:14 PM The one I was referring to was an old account with a forgotten password, I think. 15143. Absensia - 8/15/2001 2:42:37 PM Wabbit, there should be another email from the person I wrote you about...he got an error message every time he tried the temporary password you sent, and now gets a message that it is expired. He is anxious to post here...grrrr..computers. 15144. Absensia - 8/15/2001 2:46:49 PM Diva...he said he sent this problem to the gatekeeper...it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. He does appreciate that folks are doing this on a volunteer basis and work as well. 15145. theDiva - 8/15/2001 2:46:58 PM Oh, I see. Well, that's not to say it didn't come in. Maybe my cohorts are just wildly efficient and clean out the inbox regularly! 15146. Absensia - 8/15/2001 2:57:34 PM Hmmm, well, he got an error message..but let us not forget....he is MALE! :-) (Just kidding) He hasn't gotten any response yet but does understand. 15147. theDiva - 8/15/2001 3:16:18 PM abs 15148. theDiva - 8/15/2001 3:18:25 PM abs 15149. Absensia - 8/15/2001 3:24:41 PM I'll forward you the info now.. 15150. PsychProf - 8/15/2001 3:25:21 PM Abs...e-mail coming yer way. 15151. wabbit - 8/15/2001 3:25:24 PM Diva, I just emailed you. 15152. PsychProf - 8/15/2001 3:27:28 PM Busy little cyberbeavers, we are. 15153. theDiva - 8/15/2001 3:33:21 PM Geezum crow, how'd that happen? 15154. theDiva - 8/15/2001 3:33:48 PM wabbit 15155. rubberducky - 8/15/2001 3:36:30 PM Diva: i hope you don't think i was criticizing you or GJ 15156. theDiva - 8/15/2001 3:39:48 PM never. 15157. wabbit - 8/15/2001 3:41:48 PM Diva, yahoo and mote, but not work. 15158. Absensia - 8/15/2001 3:44:20 PM Diva...just sent you at e at gatekeeper@themote.com with all the info 15159. theDiva - 8/15/2001 3:44:28 PM kewl. 15160. Absensia - 8/15/2001 3:47:35 PM Thanks P.P. 15161. Property of Jesus - 8/15/2001 5:16:16 PM So that's the reason why so few Table Talkers joined mote after the semi-shutdown? 15162. Absensia - 8/15/2001 5:20:09 PM Errrr, say what? 15163. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 12:41:14 PM I advertised my company in Israel's leading web portal, beginning last week. The results so far - two potential clients waiting for a price offer and lotsa people hitting on my site: 15164. Property of Jesus - 8/17/2001 1:19:24 PM Curious to find no media criticism folder at mote. 15165. RustlerPike - 8/24/2001 5:21:47 AM Is The Mote dead? Or is it just August? 15166. RustlerPike - 8/24/2001 5:29:26 AM Misheard Lyrics - dedicated to Ms. No this time. 15167. Ms. No - 8/28/2001 12:32:33 AM Thanks, RP! I've been in bed with the flu for the last three days and that was a much needed pick-me-up. 15168. RustlerPike - 8/28/2001 1:10:39 AM Thanks, ChrisO. 15169. don s. - 8/28/2001 1:16:46 AM I have made no secret of my longstanding crush on RustlerPike, dating back to when he was Gil and I was Floyd.... 15170. RustlerPike - 8/28/2001 2:41:13 AM Some more fabulous pecs for Don Floyd: 15171. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2001 10:39:04 PM I was going to post this in Politics in response to comments there, but didn't in deference to Jay, who is attempting to get a political discussion going. 15172. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2001 10:40:39 PM Alternatively, I propose eliminating all threads in the Mote except for the Cafe. Those who wish to continue here out of old time's sake and just hook up with each other in cyberspace a couple of times per day, can use the Cafe for that. 15173. JudithAtHome - 8/29/2001 10:52:21 PM I'll check in tomorrow for the same old arguments about why you are wrong. 15174. CalGal - 8/29/2001 10:53:02 PM So basically, because you're tired of it you want it to die. Or because you think that enough people have gotten tired of it--you've gotten their sworn affadavit, have you?--and it's your determination that it can't stay alive under conditions you're not happy with. 15175. CalGal - 8/29/2001 10:56:40 PM You're the person who said she cancelled her TT subscription because it was so slow. Puts you in a weak place to make snide remarks. 15176. Erinys - 8/29/2001 11:01:36 PM Indiana Jones, where is khaval's site? I lost it. 15177. JudithAtHome - 8/29/2001 11:02:54 PM Why in the fuck are you attacking me over this...I just read Indys pronouncement and said I would check back to read the same old responses to it....that's not snide, cookie, that is FACT. Because indeed, the same old response just came off you keyboard. 15178. joezan - 8/29/2001 11:26:16 PM Can't we even get a good catfight going anymore? 15179. Absensia - 8/29/2001 11:36:04 PM Thwwwwaaaack! I do hate the term "cat fight." It's so sexist. And you know it, joezan. : - ) 15180. joezan - 8/30/2001 6:30:21 AM My apologies. 15181. PsychProf - 8/30/2001 7:28:29 AM Well...I like it here and enjoy posting with almost everyone who frequents. I would miss the place if we close down, and indeed, see nothing gained by such. 15182. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 9:32:21 AM Erinys: I'd rather not post it. She has posted it herself at least two and perhaps three times here herself and I don't wish to be perceived as trying to draw Motiers from here to another site. Many others here are already posting at khaval's (not me) and perhaps one of them will link it for you. 15183. Erinys - 8/30/2001 9:54:18 AM Indiana Jones, thanks, I understand, and I hadn't thought of the perception angle. You're right, khaval did post it (in the Cafe I think - apparently I didn't bookmark) and I'll get off my lazy bones and find it. 15184. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 9:58:21 AM Everything has its ups and downs. There is nothing wrong with waiting to post when something attracts your interest, even if that something takes a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. As for Politics, we've all known for some time that jexster is a tolerated Traficant. Such is tenure. Moreover, there is nothing particularly difficult in skipping his multi-post jeremiads. 15185. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/30/2001 10:37:59 AM Khaval's site (Random International) is very nice. It is specifically oriented to International issues, and I've spent a good bit of time there. It doesn't detract from the Mote one bit... in fact some of us (including Khaval) have actively promoted the Mote there. 15186. AceofSpades - 8/30/2001 10:38:05 AM 15187. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 10:44:45 AM Perhaps I'm tolerating Traficant more because I have moved from "skim" mode to a blanket "don't read". 15188. rubberducky - 8/30/2001 10:46:53 AM well, i asked in Policies, but will repeat here: 15189. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 10:47:18 AM Is it closed? 15190. rubberducky - 8/30/2001 10:51:24 AM Fran: 15191. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/30/2001 10:52:09 AM RD means making it so that new registrants don't have to go through the gatekeeper, a system which doesn't seem to be working well. 15192. wabbit - 8/30/2001 10:54:01 AM Ducky, 15193. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 10:54:48 AM duck 15194. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 11:02:38 AM I'm going to be bold here and state why I think the Mote is slowing down. 15195. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 11:10:42 AM Jen 15196. JudithAtHome - 8/30/2001 11:14:58 AM FU: 15197. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 11:15:54 AM Thanks Francis, I knew you'd understand.;-) 15198. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 11:17:44 AM I have continued to be a gentleman. I do enjoy the catfights, with my mental images of two scantily clad women going at it in full fury, only to, at the point of exhaustion, kiss passionately. 15199. RustlerPike - 8/30/2001 11:20:42 AM Yes, I agree with Jen. CalGal must be kept to a quota of 50,000 characters per day, max. 15200. rubberducky - 8/30/2001 11:21:48 AM eh, i don't find that particularly bold (or true) but it is certainly a ... popular sentiment. 15201. RustlerPike - 8/30/2001 11:23:54 AM And the fact that she has singlehandedly prevented the Mote from getting a facelift is very annoying. 15202. RustlerPike - 8/30/2001 11:26:30 AM I also don't understand why the corpse of khaval's thread has been allowed to attract flies for the past three weeks just because she asked to un-RIP it. 15203. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 11:27:20 AM Oh please. 15204. RustlerPike - 8/30/2001 11:28:49 AM Jexster has made good - if annoying, shallow and predictable - contributions to my thread. I don't know about the other threads. 15205. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 11:30:17 AM Speaking of Stone. Where is he? 15206. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 11:31:17 AM I think complaints run with expectations. My expectations of this place are low. They are often met, but sometimes exceeded. I don't expect it to entertain me daily, nor do I expect it to supplant things that matter a great deal more. 15207. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 11:32:37 AM Francis has made that speech many times in his life. 15208. Wombat - 8/30/2001 11:32:52 AM I suspect him of appearing under a different alias: "Jesus saves" or something like that. 15209. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 11:32:57 AM For example, I expected a dull day. I checked in once, and Ace made me laugh with "Cock in the Mouth Jay." Then, Jen hissed at Cal. 15210. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 11:34:53 AM I, OTOH, remember the JFK admonition. 15211. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 11:35:53 AM The Mote must live up to the "Carter" standard: "Why not the best?" 15212. AceofSpades - 8/30/2001 11:39:26 AM 15213. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 11:40:48 AM Indy 15214. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 11:47:00 AM Well, I thought my recruitment of Teri and Murrell was along that line, Francis. 15215. JudithAtHome - 8/30/2001 11:55:24 AM Go with Fords advice: Bite the bullet. 15216. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 11:58:52 AM I was just joshin' old Francis, Judith. 15217. JudithAtHome - 8/30/2001 12:01:08 PM Jeez...he has some nerve! I guess next he will be asking us to act civilly! 15218. don s. - 8/30/2001 12:04:15 PM Please don't shut down the Mote! We haven't even seen the Wizard's new design implemented yet! Get the new design up and running, and then shut down the site. 15219. Francis Urquhart - 8/30/2001 12:08:52 PM Reaper no understand. 15220. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 12:42:46 PM Let's face it, Francis. A social climber and professional schmoozer like you knows that people want to hang around with only a) people who are at least as cool as they are or b) (men only) women with brickhouse bods. 15221. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 2:20:22 PM Well, as the wise poet Ozzy Bourne once said, "Just remember, the ass you kick on the way up is the ass you kiss on the way down." 15222. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 2:21:02 PM Or is it, the ass you kiss on the way up is the ass who kicks you on when you're down. 15223. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 2:21:34 PM Or is it, kissing the down on an ass is the way up. 15224. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 2:22:27 PM Some people refer to Ozzy Bourne by his stage name, Ozzy Osbourne, but not me. I knew him when. 15225. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 2:23:44 PM I knew the very down on his ass. 15226. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 2:31:30 PM And here I was thinking Ozzy Burne was some Scottish-American poet from the 1950s. 15227. don s. - 8/30/2001 4:02:06 PM The fact is there are plenty of political message boards on the Web. What the Mote had was a certain level of discussion because of the posters here and because of the generally hands off moderation, which allowed for a pretty good balance between right and left debate. 15228. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 4:11:59 PM "A certain level." I keep reading comments to this effect. 15229. JudithAtHome - 8/30/2001 4:19:40 PM Some of the best things are.... 15230. don s. - 8/30/2001 4:26:20 PM 1. I don't consider myself witty. 15231. RustlerPike - 8/30/2001 4:27:25 PM France is located in France. 15232. don s. - 8/30/2001 4:27:59 PM Yes? Well, then I'm never going. 15233. arkymalarky - 8/30/2001 5:19:57 PM But Paris is in Arkansas and Texas. 15234. Erinys - 8/30/2001 5:31:51 PM IrvingSnodgrass, my lazy bones thank you. 15235. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 5:33:53 PM No comment. 15236. Erinys - 8/30/2001 6:45:02 PM Oh, you lived in GB, didn't you Jenerator? I think poofter means homosexual there. 15237. Jenerator - 8/30/2001 6:54:30 PM Hi Erin, 15238. AceofSpades - 8/30/2001 6:58:03 PM 15240. joezan - 8/30/2001 7:26:18 PM Oh, I don't know about that. 15241. JudithAtHome - 8/30/2001 7:30:33 PM In some circles, it means the fluffy tail of a rabbit. 15242. Indiana Jones - 8/30/2001 9:03:28 PM Erinys: So what if you rent? The IMPORTANT question is... 15243. wabbit - 8/30/2001 10:45:04 PM Looking at the Future has been RIP'd and will be retired Sunday. No word yet on re-automating registration. 15244. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/31/2001 4:18:35 AM I dunno about the UK, but "poofter" is the disparaging term of choice for gays among Australians. 15245. mgleason - 8/31/2001 12:04:21 PM Ah. This brings back memories of BullE. Remember, Irv? ;-) 15246. Wombat - 8/31/2001 2:52:00 PM Poofter variation: "Woofter" 15247. Jenerator - 8/31/2001 3:49:53 PM Or poo-puncher. 15248. uzmakk - 8/31/2001 4:03:20 PM "poofter"= queer 15249. Erinys - 8/31/2001 9:37:06 PM Brown hatter? 15250. Erinys - 8/31/2001 9:54:58 PM OK, 'brown hatter' just explained itself to me. 15251. Erinys - 8/31/2001 10:39:55 PM It would have to be white to start with. Doh! 15252. Jenerator - 8/31/2001 10:48:20 PM Erin, 15253. Erinys - 8/31/2001 10:58:49 PM But Jenerator, I didn't want you to 'deserve' anything. I wasn't looking for an apology. It was all on me, how I took it. If people leave this forum it is their decision. 15254. Jenerator - 8/31/2001 11:28:52 PM The evil one about her choosing to stay in an abusive marriage? 15255. Erinys - 9/1/2001 12:13:09 AM Jenerator, it was the "No comment" I cried about, and I don't even know if I could adequately explain the twisted logic that I got out of it that hurt my feelings. I'll try if you want to know, but....like I said, I later decided you can't have meant that I was low-rent material and didn't belong here. 15256. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/1/2001 12:26:43 AM MG: 15257. mgleason - 9/1/2001 1:55:18 AM But Irv, we had some very good times with him. He inspired my tales of his unrequited love for Stan Gorsian and the Diary of BullE. I haven't been nearly as productive since he left us. 15258. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/1/2001 2:24:44 AM OMG, I'd forgotten all about the diary of BullE. That was a masterpiece. I don't suppose you saved it anywhere, did you? 15259. mgleason - 9/1/2001 2:28:21 AM No, more's the pity. I do have some very fond memories, though! 15260. mgleason - 9/1/2001 2:30:10 AM And remember Stan's denouncing Bull as a poofter stalker, and Bull's vehement denials? 15261. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/1/2001 2:37:29 AM What a shame the diary is lost. I'd trade half the archives for a glimpse of it ("What?" I hear you say, "Only half???"). I think you, Stan, and Hashke were the only ones who ever had old BullE running scared. 15262. mgleason - 9/1/2001 2:43:23 AM Half! 15263. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/1/2001 2:45:58 AM Hmmm.. maybe I have his e-mail address around here somewhere... 15264. mgleason - 9/1/2001 2:49:32 AM I could always use a few old masters on black velvet, too. 15265. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/1/2001 2:52:13 AM LOL... I'd forgotten all about that... too bad we didn't run into him on one of those NY street corners back in '98. 15266. mgleason - 9/1/2001 10:39:06 AM Over in 'Motish Moments' in the Mote Annex on WorldCrossing, a would-be poster reported that he can't sign in and that his e-mails aren't being answered. 15267. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/1/2001 10:48:37 AM That, of course, is the pressing question. The same complaint appeared at Khaval's forum when I was extolling the virtues of The Mote. Let's let everyone in, and sort 'em out later. 15268. JudithAtHome - 9/1/2001 10:57:06 AM Yes, I've had e-mails from two different people telling me the same thing. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not getting this taken care of...who is in charge of opening it up, anyhow? 15269. CalGal - 9/1/2001 2:55:20 PM I think it is a technical problem; I emailed Jay about it a while back but didn't hear from him. My understanding is that outbound email isn't working, or something. 15270. Jenerator - 9/1/2001 5:58:21 PM Erin, 15271. wabbit - 9/3/2001 11:13:51 AM I heard back from Jay and he says the registration should be working now. If not, we'll need to let him know, but I'll email him and point him at these last few posts. 15272. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/3/2001 11:17:30 AM Wabbit: 15273. Property of Jesus - 9/3/2001 1:09:53 PM Before we went on vacation in mid-August, I offered a suggestion for a news media criticism folder here at Mote. I don't have time to backwash all the posts since then, but I don't see running. No interest? 15274. Property of Jesus - 9/3/2001 1:13:59 PM Before we went on vacation in mid-August, I offered a suggestion for a news media criticism folder here at Mote. I don't have time to backwash all the posts since then, but I don't see it running. No interest? 15275. Property of Jesus - 9/3/2001 1:16:57 PM My bad. Why can't I delete posts? Sorry. Please erase the top two 15276. robertjayb - 9/3/2001 1:38:06 PM wabbit, 15277. wabbit - 9/3/2001 1:42:22 PM rjb, gotcha. 15278. theDiva - 9/4/2001 8:12:33 AM I haven't gotten any requests for registration since the 15th of August. 15279. theDiva - 9/4/2001 8:13:29 AM and if you hear in other fora that people want to register, just tell them to send the requests (with desired moniker) to motegatekeeper@yahoo.com. On weekdays I check that account three times a day and process the requests immediately. 15280. IrvingSnodgrass - 9/4/2001 8:21:48 AM I think a Media thread would be a good idea. We need new threads. 15281. JudithAtHome - 9/4/2001 11:10:02 AM Irv: 15282. mgleason - 9/4/2001 11:31:17 AM Perhaps it's time to loosen up on thread creation as well as registrations -delete 'em if they don't work out. If there's a concern about too many current threads, I'd say that 'Tabled Talk' has run its course. 15283. Property of Jesus - 9/4/2001 11:45:58 AM Yes, axe *Tabled Talk* since it did was it was designed to do by keeping TTers from subscribing. 15284. marjoribanks - 9/4/2001 11:58:46 AM This character is, of course, Jon Ferguson. 15285. theDiva - 9/4/2001 11:59:06 AM WRT new subscribers. 15286. msgreer - 9/4/2001 1:20:33 PM It has been brought to my attention some folks believe I left the Mote because of Law School. That is not true. I did not leave theMote because of Law School and anyone who entertains that thought should know that is sheer fantasy. 15287. rubberducky - 9/4/2001 1:21:44 PM hmm 15288. Jenerator - 9/4/2001 1:24:32 PM MsGreer!!!!! 15289. Francis Urquhart - 9/4/2001 1:36:37 PM I thought you left The Mote because of the outbreak of cholera. 15290. Property of Jesus - 9/4/2001 2:03:42 PM Nothing ever goes away. 15291. JudithAtHome - 9/4/2001 4:10:43 PM So, is that all the discussion of a Media thread, then? 15292. Wombat - 9/4/2001 4:28:43 PM Didn't there used to be a media thread, which was broken out into discrete categories at the request of Motiers? 15293. JudithAtHome - 9/4/2001 4:30:13 PM Woms: 15294. Absensia - 9/4/2001 4:35:47 PM I think a media threat would be a great idea! 15295. Absensia - 9/4/2001 4:36:31 PM errr...thread! hahah 15296. wabbit - 9/4/2001 4:37:56 PM And who will be hosting the Media Thread? 15297. JudithAtHome - 9/4/2001 4:40:59 PM I don't know...surely someone would want it. 15298. JudithAtHome - 9/4/2001 4:42:29 PM Cal and Mgleason were talking about it at one time. Maybe Wombat might want it; he reads Harpers.:-) 15299. JudithAtHome - 9/4/2001 4:43:06 PM (I meant to imply any of those three...) 15300. rubberducky - 9/4/2001 9:42:01 PM i think MG, Ms. No, or Abs would be great as a host 15301. Property of Jesus - 9/4/2001 11:42:22 PM Who are these people? I suggested the folder in mid-August and again yesterday. So I accept the responsibility of thead host. 15302. Absensia - 9/4/2001 11:58:54 PM Hahahahahahahahahahah. 15303. Absensia - 9/5/2001 12:02:58 AM Gee, POJ, for someone relatively new here, y ou seem to know a lot about the mote and its history. 15304. Property of Jesus - 9/5/2001 12:09:36 AM In my religion, Absensia, everyone has the chance to be reborn. 15305. Absensia - 9/5/2001 12:12:27 AM Hmmm, didn't know the jesuits were into that now-a-days. You get points for trying though. : ) 15306. rubberducky - 9/5/2001 8:23:28 AM and, wabbit, not that it needs to be said, but please do NOT give a thread, any thread, to Property of PinHead. 15307. theDiva - 9/5/2001 8:27:04 AM Stone 15308. arkymalarky - 9/5/2001 5:50:00 PM I'm depressed. I had no idea it was him, and I've considered myself a proud Stone-recognizer for years. 15309. Indiana Jones - 9/6/2001 9:34:27 AM Pretty scary...Stone has developed... 15310. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2001 9:52:13 AM The Stealth Rosetta...a mighty weapon which screams out for SDI. 15311. rubberducky - 9/6/2001 9:58:28 AM ... or a defense shield 15312. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2001 10:01:18 AM ...or Depends, for him. 15313. RustlerPike - 9/6/2001 12:32:46 PM MsNo, Pelle, wabbit: 15314. wabbit - 9/6/2001 12:36:59 PM Pike, 15315. rustlerpike - 9/10/2001 4:47:57 PM wabbit: 15316. CalGal - 9/10/2001 4:51:55 PM As I mentioned over at worldcrossing--if Alistair is tied up, I'll try and free up some time for it soon. As we discussed earlier, it's his "job", but since I do know how to get it done I should have some time later on this month. Assuming I get my laptop working again. 15317. CalGal - 9/10/2001 4:53:32 PM I don't know why I wrote "tied up"; I remember Wabbit saying that Alistair was having computer glitches or something--but whatever the case is, if he can't get to it I'll try and do it later in the month. 15318. judithathome - 9/10/2001 4:57:15 PM I think there are only 2 people bitching and they will find something else to carp about once the other is done...probably the way it looks once it's finished. 15319. CalGal - 9/10/2001 4:59:37 PM You're right; I make it sound more global than it is. And I really don't mind people asking periodically hey, what's up with the redesign? It's the constant yapping, coupled with the "it is all a conspiracy or bad leadership" that gets old. 15320. Property of Jesus - 9/10/2001 5:00:37 PM Gambling is a sin, Judith. I suggest you spend more time with your son and his extremely young girlfriend. 15321. judithathome - 9/10/2001 5:00:49 PM Well, little minds and all that...they have nothing else to fret over. 15322. judithathome - 9/10/2001 5:02:46 PM POJ: 15323. Property of Jesus - 9/10/2001 5:02:46 PM What a thing to say about your kid, Judith!!! 15324. judithathome - 9/10/2001 5:04:13 PM Oh that's rich...I always knew that "sees all, knows all" crap was a farce. 15325. rustlerpike - 9/10/2001 5:07:04 PM What is it about people that makes them so loath (sp.?) to join a just cause? CalGal is obviously a mean minded person - the kind who joins a club just so she can pick on as many people as possible, befriends people just to make them miserable, etc. 15326. rustlerpike - 9/10/2001 5:10:39 PM I mean, really - how can anyone be so full of herself? How can anyone who posts so regularly here fail to appreciate the beauty of the international-democratic-community spirit inherent in The Mote, and betray it so callously? It's gross. 15327. Ms. No - 9/10/2001 5:16:48 PM Take the personal crap to the Inferno. 15328. judithathome - 9/10/2001 5:16:59 PM Good god, man, what part of VOLUNTEER EFFORT don't you understand? 15329. judithathome - 9/10/2001 5:18:17 PM None of the people doing this stuff on the Mote owes any of us one thing...they are doing it of their own free will. VOLUNTARILY. 15330. arkymalarky - 9/10/2001 6:24:14 PM Starting at Message # 15022 in this thread and interspersed with other discussions for a number of posts following are Alistair's posts and discussion regarding the new design. My understanding from it at the time and in relooking at his posts is that Alistair explained he would take care of it, and I really appreciate his efforts and attitude about the great things he's done up to this point. This site has been consistently the most bug-free and the team the most responsive of any of the forums I've seen. 15331. arkymalarky - 9/10/2001 6:27:00 PM The whole conversation starts on Message # 15012, and the other was Alistair's first post on it. 15332. judithathome - 9/10/2001 6:44:07 PM Regardless of when the change comes, I'm confident it is going to happen and I, like others, appreciate the time and effort everyone puts in here. 15333. mgleason - 9/10/2001 6:50:03 PM I'd like to thank Jay and everyone else who devotes time and effort to this site. Are there any tasks that could be parceled out among us to ease some of the burden? 15334. arkymalarky - 9/10/2001 6:54:20 PM I agree with Judith and Maria. I'm much less busy this year than I have been in a long while, so I would be able to do some things if I'm able or it's needed. 15335. arkymalarky - 9/10/2001 6:56:09 PM I mean if I it's within my ability. Redundancy, anyone? 15336. Ms. No - 9/10/2001 6:57:19 PM Thanks, Maria. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but maybe Wabbit or Pelle has some ideas. 15337. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 12:38:54 AM Ms. No: 15338. Stumbo - 9/11/2001 1:45:13 AM "I mean, [switching to the Wiz's garish design] is something that a large number of Moties want done..." 15339. concerned - 9/11/2001 1:52:33 AM What does the Wiz's 'garish design' look like? Does it have fuschia flames shooting out? 15340. Absensia - 9/11/2001 2:12:47 AM Hey!! I've always been partial to fuschia, myself. 15341. Stumbo - 9/11/2001 2:14:50 AM 15342. concerned - 9/11/2001 2:23:20 AM Ooops. Fuchsia... 15343. Stumbo - 9/11/2001 2:26:19 AM The only change I would support is getting rid of the "An Online Community" bit -- it sounds too, well, communitarian. 15344. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 2:44:18 AM Stumbo: 15345. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 2:46:21 AM Stumbo: 15346. Stumbo - 9/11/2001 3:05:40 AM People who want it done are more likely to post in such a thread, y'know. Others are more likely not to bother doing so, unless and until it becomes a real possibility. 15347. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 5:29:54 AM Stumbo: 15348. rubberducky - 9/11/2001 9:35:49 AM People who want it done are more likely to post in such a thread, y'know. Others are more likely not to bother doing so, unless and until it becomes a real possibility. 15349. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 2:01:06 PM Ducky, 15350. Property of Jesus - 9/11/2001 2:06:36 PM When morale is low, anticipate Ms. No to come in to make it worse. 15351. Slackjaw - 9/11/2001 5:53:31 PM Could someone please post or email me the URL of the thread host administration page? 15352. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 5:53:59 PM www.themote.com/maintain 15353. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 9:26:42 AM i think a thread to discuss this national tragedy is in order. i'll host if need be, although i will retain my mostly hands off posture. 15354. judithathome - 9/12/2001 9:32:14 AM Good idea...American Tragedy (with apologies to Theodore Dreiser) 15355. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 9:38:07 AM It has been done. Ducky, you know the ropes so change the title and the blurb to something you are happy with. Also please fill in your e-mail. I entered a dummy one. 15356. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 9:53:54 AM thanks Pelle 15357. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2001 2:36:28 PM ducky (I assume): Thanks for changing your thread's title. 15358. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 2:49:37 PM your welcome. 15359. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 2:49:55 PM or, better yet, you're welcome. 15360. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 2:55:03 PM btw, wabbit, you know i love ya, but i would like to say i disagree with your suspending that bitch Sakonige over her vile crap. 15361. Seamus - 9/13/2001 3:03:55 PM The point, ducky, is that she is breaking the ROE in wabbit's humble opinion, and per rule 3, that's sufficient. 15362. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 3:07:29 PM i know that, Seamus. it is that 'humble opinion' with which i disagree. that she can suspend anyone for it is without question. 15363. Seamus - 9/13/2001 3:23:55 PM Point taken, ducky. 15364. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2001 3:28:43 PM sakonige's conduct falls under the heading of shouting "fire" in a crowded fireworks factory. 15365. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 3:46:30 PM Wabbit, 15366. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 3:47:48 PM Seamus, 15367. Seamus - 9/13/2001 3:51:25 PM Ms. No, 15368. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 4:08:09 PM I only ever had to deal with one really scary nun. Most of the others that I knew were quite progressive. 15369. Absensia - 9/13/2001 4:09:26 PM Hmmm, that's a lovely leather outfit I see you wearing Ms. No. 15370. mgleason - 9/13/2001 4:11:12 PM Seamus and Ms No: 15371. Seamus - 9/13/2001 4:22:47 PM m and Ms No, 15372. Seamus - 9/13/2001 4:24:36 PM That was needlessly abusive of me. 15373. mgleason - 9/13/2001 4:28:20 PM I, on the other hand, was the token mischievous kid who could do no wrong. It all balances out, Seamus. 15374. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 4:33:06 PM "Becoming a Hegelian". That's a serious case of self abuse. 15375. Seamus - 9/13/2001 4:41:06 PM Indeed, Pelle. 15376. mgleason - 9/13/2001 4:48:42 PM Exactly, Seamus; being, non-being, and synthesis. And here we are, participating in the concrete universal! 15377. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 4:54:04 PM What did Sakonige do, or say, that got her suspended for 30 days? 15378. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 5:08:38 PM Ms. No: 15379. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 5:17:20 PM Our moderators are following the Clinton model. "Never apologize. Never explain." 15380. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 6:00:03 PM RosettaStone/PoJ, 15381. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 6:03:29 PM RP, 15382. judithathome - 9/13/2001 6:03:31 PM Cyberia...excellent coinage, MsNO! 15383. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 6:06:50 PM Notice no answer to the questions posed, RustlePike. Just disinformation. 15384. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 6:32:40 PM Ms.: 15385. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 6:51:17 PM RP, 15386. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 6:52:34 PM Uh, really don't think I can explain. Not really don't miss Hashke. 15387. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 6:54:49 PM Do you know any people who are missing or would you rather not talk about it? 15388. Ms. No - 9/13/2001 7:00:11 PM Not anyone immediate, but I really would rather not talk about it, sorry. 15389. wabbit - 9/13/2001 8:03:54 PM I can't please all the people all the time. What a surprise. Thirty days it is and thirty days it shall remain. 15390. PelleNilsson - 9/14/2001 2:54:29 AM For the record: I completely support wabbit in the Sakonige case. Anyone who watched the latter's antics in the old Fray and, more recently, in TT knows that it would happen sooner or later. 15391. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 8:29:05 AM FYI, I sent email yesterday to moderator@themote.com and it bounced. 15392. Wombat - 9/14/2001 10:33:54 AM I agree with the decision on Sakonige. 15393. Seamus - 9/14/2001 10:44:49 AM wombat, and reversing course somewhat here, since I've also posted my agreement on the decision... 15394. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:46:20 AM I disagree, Wombat. Whatever Ace is saying, he is in New York City and is entitled to a wider berth. 15395. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:53:16 AM Ace is entitled to a wider berth because he is a legacy. 15396. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 11:01:16 AM sakonige was able to reach into people's real lives by exploiting a real-life tragedy to hurt them. The entire essence of the RoE to me is that we separate real-life from what occurs at the Mote, with the former being protected, the latter being much more wide open. No matter how much some may be disturbed by the views Ace is expressing, they don't IMO violate the RoE. Even the personal attacks are responsive and on-topic. 15397. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:04:41 AM Er. 15398. Seamus - 9/14/2001 11:05:03 AM I imagined that was what I was saying in a less well-fashioned fashion, IJ 15399. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:05:09 AM But I think it is easier to just say, "Ace is da' man!" and leave it that. 15400. Wombat - 9/14/2001 11:05:41 AM Indy: 15401. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 11:05:56 AM Francis, don't get jealous. 15402. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 11:08:09 AM Wombat: No need for either you or Ace to exhibit your credentials. But different people have different ways of handling things. 15403. Wombat - 9/14/2001 11:08:53 AM I suggest that the moderators review Ace's postings, and decide for themselves. 15404. Seamus - 9/14/2001 11:12:47 AM Indy, 15405. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:17:12 AM IJ: 15406. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:21:17 AM I mean, most of us agree that Sak needs help, right? 15407. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 11:25:52 AM Seamus: No need for an apology. Just taking the wind out of my own sails a little. 15408. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 11:27:27 AM "It" being Ace's abuse, not this mumbo-jumbo about us providing help for someone's pain. 15409. Stumbo - 9/14/2001 11:29:25 AM I'm with Ducky on this one. I don't think Sakonige should've been suspended. 15410. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:30:54 AM And you can handle all this crap from Ace but fail to grasp the sarcasm in my posts...it's typical. And yes, I can handle it. Looks like I'll have to, right? 15411. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:32:29 AM I find it amusing that shitheads like Wombat are suggesting that I be suspended for going "over the top" and suggesting, for example, that Pelle and his family should be the victims of a tragedy similar to the one that occurred in New York, and yet Cellar has told ME that I should die two or three dozen times (under far less emotional circumstances) and no one ONCE has uttered a peep. 15412. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:33:57 AM Oh don't even bother...you're safe and you know it. 15413. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:35:06 AM 15414. Wombat - 9/14/2001 11:35:46 AM Unlike you, Cellar gets suspended fairly often. 15415. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:37:56 AM 15416. ScottLoar - 9/14/2001 11:38:24 AM Sakonige should be suspended - she's sick beyond relief whereas Ace is but chronically hysterical. 15417. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:40:26 AM 15418. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:44:25 AM Ace, if you could calm yourself, you'd be able to read with comprehension...maybe. 15419. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:48:13 AM 15420. Wombat - 9/14/2001 11:48:53 AM Most of Ace's posts on the Attack on America thread I would consider spam. They are nothing but "kill all sand niggers" repeated well beyond nauseam. Perhaps some really strong tranqilizers would help. 15421. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:51:52 AM 15422. Wombat - 9/14/2001 11:58:27 AM Generalizer Bunny: 15423. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 12:02:01 PM 15424. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 12:04:02 PM Ace, 15425. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 12:04:31 PM Take the personal crap to the Inferno. 15426. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 12:09:10 PM 15427. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 12:10:18 PM 15428. judithathome - 9/14/2001 12:23:11 PM But YOU TOLD ME Judith -- YOU, personally, told me -- that it was all just jake and kosher to tell someone you wished them dead, to die of an epileptic fit, etc. 15429. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 12:23:55 PM Ace, 15430. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 12:25:11 PM Ace & Judith, 15431. pellenilsson - 9/14/2001 12:54:42 PM Memo for the record: I have not lodged any complaint about Ace, nor do I intend to. 15432. rubberducky - 9/14/2001 1:07:48 PM see? 15434. judithathome - 9/14/2001 1:34:29 PM My husband just called from work and said he'd typed in "Mote" on Google and found this: 15437. judithathome - 9/14/2001 1:44:51 PM I did go ahead and change it at Google. 15439. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 1:48:11 PM Thanks for the heads up Judith. I'll send an email to wabbit, jay and alistair just in case they don't see your post 15440. judithathome - 9/14/2001 1:48:50 PM * 15441. wabbit - 9/14/2001 1:49:26 PM Judith, 15442. PsychProf - 9/14/2001 1:49:42 PM Property of Jesus...here I thought that Rosetta Stone's Mote departure would free us from his aggravation and banality, and you come along...I would not have guessed that another person of Stone's vapid cognition was alive and able to keyboard, but you have convinced me. 15443. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 1:52:00 PM Missing posts moved to Inferno. 15444. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 1:53:39 PM ahem, no fair posting while I'm moving! 15445. Seamus - 9/14/2001 1:54:35 PM Multiple alert? 15446. PsychProf - 9/14/2001 1:55:09 PM My post was meant to visually establish for myself that humor still exists in my psyche. Sorry to put it inappropriately here. 15447. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 1:56:11 PM It was pointed out last week that Property of Jesus is the Motie formerly known as RosettaStone and others. 15448. Ms. No - 9/14/2001 1:59:01 PM PP, 15449. Property of Jesus - 9/14/2001 2:00:10 PM Pointed out by whom? 15450. judithathome - 9/14/2001 2:00:57 PM MsNo: 15451. PsychProf - 9/14/2001 2:01:48 PM Ms No, old friend...I am honestly struggling...and...I hereby declare that the action of transfering all crap from this thread to the Inferno will now be called a "Bowel Movement". 15452. wabbit - 9/14/2001 2:02:40 PM Ducky, 15453. MaxMacks - 9/14/2001 2:02:50 PM Oh Mrs. No. 15454. judithathome - 9/14/2001 2:03:00 PM How appropos...the * in my post to POJ meany "asshole"! 15455. judithathome - 9/14/2001 2:03:29 PM meant 15456. Seamus - 9/14/2001 2:03:55 PM Indeed, PP, that some humour slipped through is an indication that we will get through this thing. 15457. rubberducky - 9/14/2001 3:18:18 PM wabbit: 15458. Property of Jesus - 9/14/2001 3:21:34 PM Nor is anyone offering it to you, rubberducky. 15459. CalGal - 9/14/2001 3:36:02 PM You know, the next time we ban PoJ and he comes back trying not to be noticed, couldn't we just continue to pretend not to know who he is? When he's trying to be sly he can't be as much of an asshole. 15460. Property of Jesus - 9/14/2001 4:27:57 PM You know, CalGal, the next time you, rubberducky and the other "we" who decides what threads happen start a contest thread on a redesign of mote's interface/logo...and encourage people to contribute, and then promise to help make the changes in June, or the latest in July. 15461. CalGal - 9/14/2001 4:36:08 PM Gosh, I think he must have hunted around for five posts to copy that from. 15462. Property of Jesus - 9/14/2001 6:14:01 PM Okay, since VOLUNTEER CalGal won't--or can't (she's too busy fighting WWIII in the "Attack on America" thread). Someone in authority explain to me (think of moi as being WoW's advocate), what is happening with the proposed graphic changes to mote. 15463. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 11:25:52 PM I support Wabbit, and whatever she and the other moderators decide wrt suspensions. If Ace disappeared for a few weeks I wouldn't miss him, but he's easy to scroll by right now, and unlike some, when the moon's not full he can be cogent and witty. 15464. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 12:59:55 PM Has Sakonige always been an Indian, or is she just trying to be fashionable? Did the fact that she's a native American have anything to do with stiff, 30-day suspension? 15465. Jenerator - 9/15/2001 1:05:22 PM POJ, 15466. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:13:25 PM Actually Indians are still being punished by the government, Jenerator. For example, all the natural resources under their "land" is controlled by the federal government. 15467. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:14:33 PM is=are 15468. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:14:43 PM is=are 15469. PelleNilsson - 9/15/2001 1:19:45 PM She was not suspended for taking the side of the terrorists but for mocking the victims. 15470. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:23:29 PM I read lots of mocking in that thread, PelleNilsson. 15471. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:26:29 PM I think the moderators look for reasons to ban or suspend some posters who criticise them. 15472. Indiana Jones - 9/15/2001 1:42:20 PM I think Rosetta in all of his guises should not be protected by the RoE as he refuses to obey them himself. 15473. PelleNilsson - 9/15/2001 1:45:16 PM Wise words, Indy. I agree. 15474. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:46:08 PM Let the coverup begin.... 15475. PelleNilsson - 9/15/2001 1:47:47 PM Let the rule extend to Rosetta.... 15476. Jenerator - 9/15/2001 1:48:56 PM Property of Jesus, 15477. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:53:41 PM I still don't know what she said that got her punished. What wabbit linked didn't seem that bad. 15478. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 1:54:41 PM quickest 15479. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 2:25:10 PM So let's see what topics we can't ask the moderators about in mote. 15480. AceofSpades - 9/15/2001 2:33:23 PM 15481. Property of Jesus - 9/15/2001 2:36:49 PM Isn't RickNelson the poet here? 15482. don s. - 9/16/2001 6:29:22 AM I have some property of Jesus: a pair of socks I've kept lo these many years as a souvenir of our passionate lovemaking session. That Mexican was one hot little fuck. 15483. RustlerPike - 9/16/2001 8:16:13 AM Ms No: 15484. PelleNilsson - 9/16/2001 1:20:39 PM Since 11 September the following posts have been deleted in the Religion thread: 15485. judithathome - 9/16/2001 1:38:57 PM They're in the Inferno, Pelle...not deleted. 15486. arkymalarky - 9/16/2001 1:41:26 PM It could all be covered under plain old spam. IJ really didn't need to qualify it, imo. 15487. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 2:27:58 PM Let the coverup continue... 15488. judithathome - 9/16/2001 2:30:06 PM You are the only thing being deleted. 15489. judithathome - 9/16/2001 2:30:48 PM And the fact you are defending those two speaks volumes about your beliefs. 15490. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 2:45:04 PM Of course I defend the Baptists' right to express their views (40 million little innocent babies being aborted and what that has done to our country), judith. 15491. arkymalarky - 9/16/2001 2:48:26 PM Point of No Return (heretoforward known as PONR), 15492. judithathome - 9/16/2001 2:52:50 PM Thirty days suspension. Isn't that a record? 15493. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 3:07:26 PM Like many of my posts, yours will be erased from that anti-Christian thread, Arky. 15494. judithathome - 9/16/2001 3:10:20 PM So you are saying God is on the side of the terrorists, aren't you? 15495. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 3:23:20 PM No, I'm saying that when I brought up on Wednesday morning that schoolchildren weren't allowed to pray publicly in schools for the victims and their families, while congresspeople were allowed to do so in the House and Senate, that something is wrong with America. 15496. arkymalarky - 9/16/2001 3:23:22 PM PONR, 15497. arkymalarky - 9/16/2001 3:24:37 PM To '93, not '95, which I haven't been keeping up with. 15498. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 3:25:09 PM Because of Judith, my posts get erased from that thread, Arky. 15499. arkymalarky - 9/16/2001 3:28:45 PM Don't worry. I'll protect you. 15500. PelleNilsson - 9/16/2001 3:29:14 PM If the posts were moved rather than deleted I retract my earleer post. 15501. PelleNilsson - 9/16/2001 3:29:33 PM earlier 15502. judithathome - 9/16/2001 3:35:30 PM I have nothing to do with the removal of your screeds, Rosetta. If that were so, why were mine removed, also? 15503. judithathome - 9/16/2001 3:38:58 PM Pelle: 15504. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 3:42:11 PM You had everything to do it because you demanded that the hosts do it, Judith. 15505. judithathome - 9/16/2001 3:47:44 PM Idiot...if you will ask Indiana Jones, he will assure you that he doesn't listen to me and I am well aware of that. He and Jenerator run that thread...why would they even consider what I desire in that thread, you feebe...I'm an agnostic! 15506. judithathome - 9/16/2001 3:51:51 PM And unlike your usual LIES, this one is there for all to see...starts at #10263 in the Inferno. IJ had already warned you he would delete what you were saying when you did it again and then I said "Please do..." It was nowhere near what you describe. But then, that's your style, isn't it? 15507. Absensia - 9/16/2001 3:56:51 PM Judith? You don't have these awesome powers? Oh no, I am so saddened. I love the idea of you being able to get rid of particularly stupid posts with just a wave of your magic wand. 15508. judithathome - 9/16/2001 3:59:37 PM Ssshhhhh....we can't let Rosetta know about the WAND!! 15509. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 4:00:49 PM Those posts moved to the Hell thread aren't necessarily in order, Judith. 15510. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 4:01:55 PM viewers=views 15511. Absensia - 9/16/2001 4:02:32 PM Ohhhh, sorry Judith. Not another word from me or he'll want the ruby heeled slippers. 15512. Al D - 9/16/2001 4:06:20 PM So, you are saying that Stone is back with a new moniker? Why, what makes him so audacious that he thinks he can fool moties with a simple change of name. My dear boy, fooling moties takes great skill, and a warped personality, both of which I possess in abundance. Now if I could only spell. 15513. judithathome - 9/16/2001 4:07:10 PM Rosetta: 15514. PelleNilsson - 9/16/2001 4:16:08 PM Oh shit, the loose-lipped ladies have revealed The Wand. Luckily, the secret of The Ring is still safe. 15515. Al D - 9/16/2001 4:24:50 PM On a bit of a serious not. I do not believe that anyone should be banned unless they made a credible threat, and then they should be referred to proper authorities. Freedom of speach encludes the right to be obnoxious, disgusting, stupid, unAmerican, anti anything, pro-anything. We need not worry that children will see posts on the Mote as their lives are too full of meaningful activity, mostly playing grab ass. 15516. Property of Jesus - 9/16/2001 4:33:44 PM Al: Lots of critics get banned from mote. Out of the fifteen posters, four are banned/suspended 15517. mgleason - 9/16/2001 4:39:48 PM Hm. Dead man posting, then, apparently. 15518. judithathome - 9/16/2001 4:43:56 PM Rosie loves suspending people when they are on his list but is crying now to sound like he's a champion of free speech and that he is against banning. Hypocritic posturing... 15519. uzmakk - 9/16/2001 4:44:56 PM One rutting hog with adequate spare time can completely ruin a forum. I have seen it done. The sysop is powerless... free speech, you know. We are all equal, all speech is equal, a rutting hog is a man, free speech is all about being obnoxious, disgusting, and stupid. Bring us your obnoxious, disgusting and stupid, and we shall give them refuge and a playground here at The Mote. 15520. Indiana Jones - 9/16/2001 4:45:21 PM Pelle (15484): The policy I described says "are subject to deletion." 15521. Indiana Jones - 9/16/2001 4:46:35 PM Addendum: I note that you have retracted your question, Pelle, but I still felt it needed answering. 15522. PelleNilsson - 9/16/2001 4:48:38 PM Indy 15523. Al D - 9/16/2001 5:05:39 PM uzmakk 15524. Indiana Jones - 9/16/2001 5:10:40 PM Pelle: Yes, I understood that, but thought your question was justifiable under the circumstances (and your position as moderator), and wanted to explain my actions to someone who deserved an explanation. 15525. PelleNilsson - 9/16/2001 5:23:31 PM Indy 15526. uzmakk - 9/16/2001 5:50:58 PM Al D: 15527. Absensia - 9/16/2001 5:53:11 PM Indy, 15528. Indiana Jones - 9/16/2001 6:40:38 PM Thanks, Absensia. 15529. rubberducky - 9/17/2001 8:40:17 AM i do question why multiples are allowed while we know Every RinTin Grain of Rosetta's Property Slide has several multiples. 15530. RustlerPike - 9/17/2001 9:27:26 AM Where is sto? 15531. Jenerator - 9/18/2001 1:08:03 PM Locked up in my closet. Why, do you need him for something? 15532. Property of Jesus - 9/18/2001 1:43:22 PM The nose knows. Tell him to come out of the closet then, Jenerator. 15533. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 1:47:06 PM From someome who tried to register today..."Yo, Prof, the automatic sign-up at the Mote is disabled and the email address of the gatekeeper is invalid." Any suggestions? This has been going on for weeks. 15534. Property of Jesus - 9/20/2001 2:02:03 PM Months, manybe longer. 15535. Property of Jesus - 9/20/2001 2:03:03 PM maybe 15536. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 2:40:31 PM I am unable to get into the "thread changer" for The SportsBar...I wanted to link LabWabbits Story to the front page(post # 16653 at PP's). If there is a new url for the Changer, I need it...plese send it to my college address, which you all have. 15537. rubberducky - 9/20/2001 2:46:59 PM 15538. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 2:48:16 PM Thanks Scott, I really appreciate that. 15539. wabbit - 9/20/2001 3:08:55 PM Prof, 15540. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 3:10:42 PM Thanks Wabbit...If I know that address, I can personally send it to wannabes. 15541. theDiva - 9/20/2001 3:47:03 PM motegatekeeper@yahoo.com 15542. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 3:47:53 PM Thanks Deev. 15543. wabbit - 9/20/2001 3:52:08 PM Ok, the alternate email address for the Gatekeeper, as Diva just posted, is now in the butter bar of this thread and the tech thread, as well as in the Mote links section of the front page. 15544. Property of Jesus - 9/20/2001 3:54:43 PM Keep the infidels out, wabbit. 15545. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 3:56:18 PM Good...Thanks Wabbit and AC. 15546. theDiva - 9/20/2001 4:10:32 PM Prof 15547. PsychProf - 9/20/2001 4:12:23 PM Parse that. 15548. Property of Jesus - 9/23/2001 9:05:32 PM Another week goes by and no Mote redesign. Do you think there's a message there? 15549. wabbit - 9/23/2001 9:19:02 PM POJ, 15550. seadate - 9/24/2001 9:04:37 AM I think Khaval should host a $3.99/minute thread. 15551. Property of Jesus - 9/24/2001 11:55:09 AM I bring it up, wabbit, because both CalGal and rubberducky joked about how they were going to slow down the graphic changes in late June when it was discussed in detail in the Mote Annex's worldcrossing folder. 15552. Property of Jesus - 9/24/2001 11:55:13 AM I bring it up, wabbit, because both CalGal and rubberducky joked about how they were going to slow down the graphic changes in late June when it was discussed in detail in the Mote Annex's worldcrossing folder. 15553. judithathome - 9/24/2001 12:19:10 PM As usual, you lie and doubly so...you are tedious in the extreme. 15554. seadate - 9/24/2001 12:22:39 PM POJ, please honor your moniker with dignified, intelligent posts. 15555. seadate - 9/24/2001 12:23:12 PM POJ is Stone, right? 15556. labwabbit - 9/24/2001 12:24:18 PM Hey sea-dude 15557. seadate - 9/24/2001 12:26:08 PM she noticed how cool us lower case types are. 15558. labwabbit - 9/24/2001 12:38:43 PM ahhh... 15559. judithathome - 9/24/2001 12:40:30 PM Answer in the Cafe...this place is for serious stuff. 15560. rubberducky - 9/24/2001 2:05:35 PM Property of PinHead: 15561. Property of Jesus - 9/24/2001 3:14:08 PM It all happened, as stated. What was sarcasm and negative putdowns in June has turned into a coverup in late September. 15562. judithathome - 9/24/2001 3:21:30 PM No it isn't...those who are liars...you...have no credibility and those who don't lie...all the rest...do. 15563. glendajean - 9/24/2001 3:41:52 PM Rosie lies about little things. He lies about big things. Perhaps he thinks it is entertaining, but it pathetic. And it gets him the attention he craves. 15564. judithathome - 9/24/2001 3:47:11 PM Yes, and isn't it pathetic that as a grown man he does this...what a role model he must be. Not. 15565. don s. - 9/24/2001 3:49:00 PM And you have to take the bitter with the sour. 15566. Jenerator - 9/24/2001 3:50:25 PM It's an Amy Grant lyric, except for one word. 15567. judithathome - 9/24/2001 3:51:38 PM Lame attempt at humor, I presume...he thinks we'll be amused at his CaseyStengalism. 15568. judithathome - 9/24/2001 3:52:22 PM Oh, and would that word be SWEET, Jen? 15569. don s. - 9/24/2001 3:59:49 PM Lame attempt at humor, I presume...he thinks we'll be amused at his CaseyStengalism. 15570. alistairconnor - 9/24/2001 4:08:20 PM Well, Poverty of Geezers, (pauvre type!) I'm almost sorry to take the wind out of your sails when you had such a nice little conspiracy cooking... but it's my fault. It's up to me to drop the facelift into place, and I haven't got around to it yet. 15571. PsychProf - 9/24/2001 4:11:05 PM AC...we'll take crumbs. I fear this place is dying. 15572. judithathome - 9/24/2001 4:11:37 PM It could also be from a Yogi Berra quote book, I suppose. 15573. judithathome - 9/24/2001 4:12:36 PM liked 15574. seadate - 9/24/2001 5:41:07 PM AC, 15575. Property of Jesus - 9/24/2001 5:43:43 PM What efforts? 15576. judithathome - 9/24/2001 5:47:04 PM The only CRIME here is that you never receive PUNISHMENT. 15577. seadate - 9/24/2001 5:53:45 PM True, Judith. But the constant whizzing sound of arrows flying over his/her head must be torture. 15579. seadate - 9/24/2001 5:56:42 PM hehe, whizzing ..... maybe it's that wet feeling *on* his/her head. 15580. alistairconnor - 9/25/2001 3:04:02 AM Well, I was just thinking, maybe Podge is right, it would just be so much easier to turn the switch off. 15581. ycmeehan - 9/25/2001 5:25:54 AM Alistair, 15582. seadate - 9/25/2001 7:38:48 AM The previous two posts provide an explanation of why I like this place so much. 15583. Absensia - 9/25/2001 8:08:15 AM yeah, what seadate said! 15584. alistairconnor - 9/25/2001 8:29:36 AM Yeah, but the problem, YC, is that you don't post much. Meaning that in practice, we are being intimidated, and driven off our turf, by a small number of punks. I go for option two. How do we do this? I miss 15586. seadate - 9/25/2001 9:07:53 AM AC, 15587. seadate - 9/25/2001 9:14:56 AM Unless the little cretan's blunt little impotent barbs are directed toward Judith ;) 15588. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 9:34:02 AM What drives people away is discouragement, being unable to overcome the reams of nonsensical and mean posts that disrupt any flow in conversation and forever being tagged and sniped at by anyone who dislikes you for any reason. Ignoring it is almost impossible: the tenacity of JadeGold, AceOfSpades, Sakonige, and RosettaStone are as superglue once they've fixed themselves to a mark. I see this more as a divide between the kids and the adults; nothing has made this plainer here than 9-11. I see no solution but having chronic offenders removed. 15589. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 9:38:16 AM It seems I've only said what AlistairConnor wrote in Message # 15580. 15590. labwabbit - 9/25/2001 9:42:45 AM Intimadated? 15591. labwabbit - 9/25/2001 9:47:08 AM The solution is as elusive as terrorism. 15592. Property of Jesus - 9/25/2001 9:48:05 AM Right, lab. Everyone is feeling sorry for themselves because we don't have WoW's new redesign of mote. 15593. seadate - 9/25/2001 9:48:15 AM Idiots Unite! 15594. seadate - 9/25/2001 9:48:53 AM ROF! X-post 15595. judithathome - 9/25/2001 9:50:52 AM Wait til you're the target, Lab.... 15596. wabbit - 9/25/2001 9:53:36 AM Alright POJ, while I'm against banning you just for being an asshole, I am perfectly willing to suspend your sorry ass if you don't stop whining. You aren't contributing a damn thing by continuing to bitch about the new look, so either knock it off or take a break from the forum. 15597. seadate - 9/25/2001 9:59:07 AM Scott, 15598. labwabbit - 9/25/2001 10:17:53 AM I see Scotty....I see sea... 15599. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 11:16:45 AM The judge is the thread host who can see the consequences when post after post after post is dedicated to ridiculing one or a few persons, contributing nothing to understanding. Address the remarks, not the person; everyone can see that even if none of are constantly able to abide by it, but we all know when the constant attacks clearly become detrimental to the thread. 15600. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 11:20:03 AM Surely we can discriminate between those we dislike (we just have to put up with them; one here is universally lauded by all but I can't stand him) and those who have proven chronically ruinous to any correspondence? 15601. seadate - 9/25/2001 11:23:08 AM Scott, yes. 15602. rubberducky - 9/25/2001 11:34:12 AM Loar: 15603. labwabbit - 9/25/2001 11:34:56 AM Wait til you're the target, Lab.... 15604. labwabbit - 9/25/2001 11:35:34 AM ...or choose to NOT...sheesh. Coffeeee time. 15605. marjoribanks - 9/25/2001 11:43:34 AM Loar, 15606. alistairconnor - 9/25/2001 11:55:54 AM Duck: i just want those that think we should drive out combative people just don’t understand online forum dynamics. 15607. Indiana Jones - 9/25/2001 12:25:11 PM I think ducky has done a bang-up job with the Attack on America thread. 15608. Indiana Jones - 9/25/2001 12:32:05 PM Incidentally, anyone know what's up with CalGal? 15609. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 12:49:04 PM Message # 15606 directly and eloquently addresses Rubberducky's comments, I didn't even note the thread host for the Attack on America thread, my comments were not restricted to that thread alone and, no, I sure was not and am not now criticizing directly or obliquely the work of any thread host which hosts, I am now labouring to emphasize, includes one Rubberducky. Now, that's not vague, is it? 15610. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 12:50:31 PM Again, Message # 15606 shows some wonderful good sense (and rare for that poster, too). 15611. rubberducky - 9/25/2001 12:58:42 PM AC, Loar 15612. glendajean - 9/25/2001 1:02:14 PM Three forms of posting that trash the joint: 15613. Indiana Jones - 9/25/2001 1:13:30 PM I do think moving personal attacks to the Inferno (as long as its done in an even-handed way) is viable. The problem is, few recognize their own personal attacks. 15614. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2001 1:31:48 PM The problem with Rosetta, in my view, is not that he attacks other posters. He doesn't have the wit or the inventiveness to come out on top of any such encounter. The problem is his relentless attacks on the Mote itself, his eagerness to sow discontent and to find conspiracies where none exists. If I or anyone else tries to defend or explain matters, that in and of itself becomes further evidence of the conspiracy his little mind has cooked up. 15615. Property of Jesus - 9/25/2001 3:00:45 PM Never forget that the most powerful force on earth is love. 15616. PsychProf - 9/25/2001 3:04:34 PM "Couldn't find his butt with two hands" 15617. seadate - 9/25/2001 3:12:17 PM BAN OZZIE! 15618. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 3:13:20 PM Message # 15612 is dead on, and the chronic trashing fights is what we've witnessed in several threads later deserted save for the mad, the lost or the novice hoping to express an opinion. 15619. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2001 3:14:28 PM Bad posters drive out good posters - Gresham's Law (adapted). 15620. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 3:14:42 PM I can write better than that: omit "fights", now read again, please. 15621. judithathome - 9/25/2001 3:16:31 PM 15622. glendajean - 9/25/2001 3:17:37 PM toys? 15623. judithathome - 9/25/2001 3:19:09 PM Ah, the question mark must have done the trick... 15624. ScottLoar - 9/25/2001 3:19:20 PM But that's exactly the problem. The disrupters only want to play with toys. 15625. judithathome - 9/25/2001 3:20:23 PM Well, take care of your own, then, and we won't have to... 15626. glendajean - 9/25/2001 3:32:29 PM Actually, I think the boldface came from seadate's "ban Ozzie." 15627. judithathome - 9/25/2001 3:33:22 PM I know, I was just being snippy. Or disruptive. 15628. Property of Jesus - 9/25/2001 3:36:27 PM Whistling past the graveyard... 15629. PsychProf - 9/25/2001 3:38:16 PM Rose...send them here... motegatekeeper@yahoo.com 15630. glendajean - 9/25/2001 3:39:24 PM Of course you know someone who wants to join the mote. You are a multitude of personalities. 15631. PsychProf - 9/25/2001 3:47:59 PM I was suspect at the claim that he knew someone. 15632. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 3:48:56 PM Me? I find a generous use of the @f= 15633. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 3:50:10 PM that was supposed to be @f='ignore' 15634. Wombat - 9/25/2001 3:51:37 PM Thoughtful: 15635. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 3:51:52 PM Pelle, I first described the gresham's law effect back on the fray after the first meltdown. Seems unfortunately to have been most prescient. 15636. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 3:53:37 PM wombat, unfortunately I don't have time to wade through the 90% hysteria to find the 10% gems any more...so my random stops usually yield the former and I leave. 15637. Property of Jesus - 9/25/2001 4:03:33 PM Pelle: You're a good example of why some animals eat their young. 15638. Al D - 9/25/2001 4:04:33 PM As a multitude of personalities myself, if two can be called a multitude, I fall back on my previous comments. Banning a poster for being an obnoxious asshole, and I am not directing this at Stone, might leave few posters on the Mote. I might be the first to go, if a few old timers had their way. 15639. judithathome - 9/25/2001 4:09:20 PM some of the opposition to Ace is because he is very skilled in pointing out absurd positions, 15640. Property of Jesus - 9/25/2001 4:14:28 PM Al: As the number of moter mouths who depart this forum grows (for whatever reason), the list of topics that can't be discussed grows longer and longer. 15641. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 4:31:54 PM poj, I disagree....it has nothing to do with the topics. It has to do with the deterioration of topic after topic into nothing more than name calling and insult trading which can be found in any playground full of 7-year-olds. 15642. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 4:34:55 PM Using Ace as a case in point, many months back he and I were having a rather interesting discussion, but he could restrain himself no longer and let out a string of four-letter words and invectives at me at which point the discussion ended. It had nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. 15643. Al D - 9/25/2001 4:44:46 PM thoughtful 15644. ycmeehan - 9/25/2001 4:48:42 PM I see this more as a divide between the kids and the adults; 15645. alistairconnor - 9/25/2001 5:02:41 PM Message # 15643 Al, in terms of this forum, that would mean : ban the sucker for 24/48/72 hours. Not that it would prevent him from doing it again another time; but at least it would restore calm in the interim, and break the continuity of the psychological dominion he attempts to exercise. 15646. Indiana Jones - 9/25/2001 5:09:13 PM and break the continuity of the psychological dominion he attempts to exercise. 15647. seadate - 9/25/2001 5:11:47 PM Gee, who might you be referring to, YC? ;) 15648. judithathome - 9/25/2001 5:17:59 PM Are some here so weak-minded that others are able to exercise "psychological dominion" over them via posts? 15649. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 5:18:52 PM alistair, my response was to call him on it, end the discussion. I have no individual power to alter ace's or anyone else's behavior, but I can control my response to him which in this forum means cease to engage. Expecting a thread moderator to step in and create even a temporary ban wouldn't work in my case as my expectations of engagement are different than the norm in most of these threads. I recognize that. 15650. wabbit - 9/25/2001 5:21:15 PM Thoughtful, that has been my hope for the past two years. Silly me. 15651. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 5:22:18 PM Yes, wabbit, count me among the ever-hopeful naive. 15652. janjon - 9/25/2001 5:25:57 PM well, that is a different approach. 15653. thoughtful - 9/25/2001 5:26:20 PM Of course, ostracism only works if practiced by the vast majority in the community. And there is always the possibility of a poster terrorizing a thread in order to get the craved attention while being ostracized. 15654. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2001 5:28:36 PM thoughtful Message # 15635 15655. Jenerator - 9/25/2001 5:39:28 PM I like Ace very much and I'm glad he's on the Mote. 15656. Indiana Jones - 9/25/2001 5:42:03 PM the boredom that settles in after the thousandth post saying the same thing...embellished with name calling and ridicule...sometimes holds dominion over a thread. 15657. Al D - 9/25/2001 5:45:43 PM Perhaps it would be helpful if we all re-read Jackson't The Lottery. 15658. judithathome - 9/25/2001 5:46:01 PM I know that I've engaged in name calling and I agree with you that most of the time "those who always engage the idea rather than the person will find that such behavior is reciprocated." However, that's not always the case and it is at those times things tend to go from bad to worse. 15659. judithathome - 9/25/2001 5:46:45 PM 15660. judithathome - 9/25/2001 5:47:35 PM Well? 15661. glendajean - 9/25/2001 5:56:10 PM Indy -- you are right about name calling. One person isn't the only person to do it. 15662. Ms. No - 9/25/2001 5:57:38 PM We're developing quite a list of posters exercising their right not to engage. Lucky for them they can take their input and enrich other forums while we get left patting ourselves on the back for our staunch devotion to protecting the right of people to be assholes. 15663. Jenerator - 9/25/2001 6:02:07 PM But there are assholes in every forum, you can't escape them. 15664. ycmeehan - 9/25/2001 6:02:29 PM Bravo, Ms. No! 15665. Al D - 9/25/2001 6:02:50 PM Ms. No 15666. glendajean - 9/25/2001 6:03:00 PM I have greatly benefited from hearing opinions here that challenge my own. I don't want to be in a community where everybody thinks alike and pats each other on the back for correct thinking. 15667. Jenerator - 9/25/2001 6:08:19 PM I feel the same way GlendaJean. That's why I was so quick to hop on Banks for insulting my friend who may be executed. 15668. arkymalarky - 9/25/2001 6:10:14 PM If it's a question of like and dislike, I can barely tolerate Ace lately. He's hateful and his personal attacks and endless rants have gone beyond adolescent-funny long ago. JanJon's right--once he gets started he feeds off himself and it doesn't matter what anyone else tries to say. There is no engaging him in a discussion. Is he the only one? No, but he's the main offender at the moment. 15669. Ms. No - 9/25/2001 6:32:42 PM AlD, 15670. arkymalarky - 9/25/2001 6:37:54 PM I agree, MsNo. 15671. arkymalarky - 9/25/2001 6:38:35 PM With the second part, that is. The first part is between you and Al's granny. 15672. Ms. No - 9/25/2001 6:39:01 PM That's what I pay you for. 15673. Al D - 9/25/2001 6:39:13 PM Ms. No 15674. Ms. No - 9/25/2001 6:39:29 PM Just illustrating a point. 15675. Indiana Jones - 9/25/2001 6:44:08 PM One other observation. I don't know about the other participants here, but my nerves have been frayed over the past couple of weeks. That's my own problem -- I don't need the cyber equivalent of a group hug. But I imagine others here are little jumpy/cranky right now. 15676. Property of Jesus - 9/25/2001 9:20:29 PM To keep this place small town, it was a stroke of genius to have email problems all summer long while TTers were looking for a new home. 15677. AceofSpades - 9/25/2001 9:39:10 PM 15678. Jenerator - 9/25/2001 10:19:49 PM As an aside, in college, there was a girl in one of my classes from another country (can't remember which onee), but she thought that "medium ocra" meant mediocre. 15679. joezan - 9/25/2001 11:38:36 PM Here we go again. 15680. AceofSpades - 9/25/2001 11:49:28 PM 15681. joezan - 9/25/2001 11:54:22 PM Yeah. Funny - it's always the same people doing the whining. But they never whine when someone not of their ideological bent leaves. Maybe posters are weighted - you know what I mean? 15682. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 12:11:18 AM 15683. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 12:13:14 AM 15684. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 12:16:04 AM 15685. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 12:18:31 AM 15686. joezan - 9/26/2001 12:26:21 AM Ace: 15687. concerned - 9/26/2001 12:37:42 AM 15683. AceofSpades - 9/26/01 5:13:14 AM 15688. concerned - 9/26/2001 12:59:58 AM I'm glad to see Cellar's back. He, Jexster and WoW form a worthwhile and sometimes amusing little troika. Despite the fact that I usually disagree with their political sentiments, they at least bring something to the party & don't usually hold obvious grudges. 15689. Erinys - 9/26/2001 1:30:31 AM the perpetual ham-sandwich arguers ? What is this, ycmeehan? 15690. Al D - 9/26/2001 2:07:16 AM Never give an inch! 15691. Erinys - 9/26/2001 2:23:50 AM No, I just really like that story and I was reminded of it. Sometime's it's a great notion to blame problems on a certain scapegoat, but after the goat is evicted, the problem remains. 15692. theDiva - 9/26/2001 8:21:57 AM "For example, suppose Diva becomes abusive of Ace." 15693. Toenails - 9/26/2001 8:31:27 AM To me, the only posters who are worth the powder to blow them to Hell are the ones whose comments can't be predicted, right down to the degree of fervor, before they press the "Post" button. 15694. Indiana Jones - 9/26/2001 8:31:59 AM I can't count the number of people you've physically threatened, Diva. 15695. bubbaette - 9/26/2001 8:33:52 AM That Diva's a powder keg once you get her riled up. 15696. theDiva - 9/26/2001 8:35:39 AM Yah, I suppose the buttwaxings would count. 15697. judithathome - 9/26/2001 8:38:49 AM That post doesn't mean Cellar is back...he only posted that Sontag piece; that hardly means he's coming back. 15698. bubbaette - 9/26/2001 8:39:59 AM But then who would we go to for our daily dose of abusive bombast, now that Irving's gone? 15699. Indiana Jones - 9/26/2001 8:48:03 AM judith: Do you think Cellar is one of the mild, unobtrusive posters here? 15700. Property of Jesus - 9/26/2001 8:59:36 AM To me, the interesting thing to the recent "discussion" on the delays to the redesign is that it has smoked out this AC fellow, an engineer who claims he has the switch to turn mote on or off. 15701. wabbit - 9/26/2001 9:04:10 AM PoJ will be taking a week off. 15702. theDiva - 9/26/2001 9:07:56 AM well, let's hope he gets the rest he needs. 15703. PsychProf - 9/26/2001 9:13:42 AM hahahaha....sent to his room. 15704. Wombat - 9/26/2001 9:15:32 AM A "timeout," I believe it is called. 15705. ScottLoar - 9/26/2001 9:48:48 AM The "quality posters" do very little besides parrot the confortable, convetional liberal wisdom. Their idea of "debate" is to parrot back the same trite pieties back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all day like some obscenely tedious tennis match. 15706. janjon - 9/26/2001 11:52:42 AM Ace's posts above are the epitome of chutzpah. He churned out what for him were black letter law pieties one after the other for days and days and days in the Attack thread - delivered with what I hope is the extreme limit of his unique brand of bile, condescencion and obfuscation (yes - he no doubt was one a debating team in his youth, from whence he's retained most of the bad techniques and very little of the good). And, of course, extreme heat. Not just the normal efforts to put down people with what he thinks are witty insults. Nah - cowards and, of course, fags (which, to his ultimate credit, he now says he regrets and will not use again.) 15707. Al D - 9/26/2001 1:29:02 PM It is odd to me that Ace gets named for his rantings, but the one on the left is left alone. Oh yes, once in a while he is asked not to spam a Thread, but his technique is not much different than Ace's 15708. thoughtful - 9/26/2001 1:33:32 PM Ms No, #15669, What is the purpose of the Mote? Is it to ensure that every crackpot, heckler and bully on the internet has a place to grandstand? Or do we truly wish to promote intelligent discussion? There is a choice to be made. 15709. janjon - 9/26/2001 1:34:05 PM Al D. No. Both. Ace's NUKE 'EM mentality is unsubtle, naive and foolish, just to use a few words that fit. His way of stating his views and promoting/defending his positions also is unsubtle, naive and foolish, as well as being disgusting. 15710. Ms. No - 9/26/2001 2:03:19 PM AlD, 15711. labwabbit - 9/26/2001 2:06:27 PM What would you classify me as if I were to be suspended MsNo? 15712. Ms. No - 9/26/2001 2:07:07 PM Although it may not be fair to call Sakonige a liberal. I'm not sure what her political affiliation would be but it is certainly not conservative. 15713. Ms. No - 9/26/2001 2:09:01 PM Hossenfeffer. 15714. labwabbit - 9/26/2001 2:12:00 PM Hahaha... 15715. theDiva - 9/26/2001 2:12:58 PM that was funny as hell. 15716. JayAckroyd - 9/26/2001 2:31:42 PM Like yc, I've pretty much stopped posting because the signal to noise ratio has gotten so low in the threads I follow. After it became clear in a discussion with Ace that he absolutely did not care whether what he said was true or not, I stopped responding to any of his posts. That had a somewhat amusing side effect--he started putting my putative responses into his posts and then "refuting" those responses. 15717. thoughtful - 9/26/2001 2:37:32 PM There ought to be a way of calculating an objective test on post sensibility.....like take a post and delete all the words banned by the FCC. If what remains is less than 50% of the original, delete the entire post. 15718. thoughtful - 9/26/2001 2:39:44 PM Jay, I like that....signal to noise ratio....perfect description. 15719. ycmeehan - 9/26/2001 4:44:33 PM the perpetual ham-sandwich arguers ? What is this, ycmeehan? 15720. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 4:59:30 PM 15721. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:02:53 PM 15722. alistairconnor - 9/26/2001 5:09:07 PM Message # 15685 15723. PsychProf - 9/26/2001 5:10:36 PM Ace...I want noone banned...period. However, our three overseers/moderators are excellent at what they do, probably burned out and performing duty out of goodness, and would geuinely(I bet) like to shove the position. Are you willing to step in and be responsible for their duties? 15724. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:14:54 PM 15725. PsychProf - 9/26/2001 5:22:58 PM Why not? 15726. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:23:08 PM 15727. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:25:37 PM 15728. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:27:47 PM 15729. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:34:13 PM 15730. janjon - 9/26/2001 5:36:48 PM nice to know that he has feelings, no matter how hidden. 15731. AceofSpades - 9/26/2001 5:40:38 PM 15732. mgleason - 9/26/2001 5:51:35 PM Ace is apparently a devoted follower of Comintern strategy: destabilize from within by becoming ever more outrageous, daring the effete 'liberal' establishment to go against their own principles and actually do something about him. 15733. janjon - 9/26/2001 5:53:01 PM but, gee, gleason, don't you feel the pull on your heartstrings. He's a muddle, don't you know. 15734. Indiana Jones - 9/26/2001 5:55:26 PM Maria: I don't recall Ace asking for Ferguson to be banned. Possible, but you may be thinking of Francis. 15735. mgleason - 9/26/2001 5:57:44 PM A sturdy woodchipper can cure a multitude of muddles, Janjon. 15736. mgleason - 9/26/2001 5:58:53 PM I seem to remember that he did, Indy. I'll look when time permits. 15737. Indiana Jones - 9/26/2001 5:59:43 PM As for the difference between the two, Ace has never created a fake CalGal log in and then pretended to be her. 15738. Indiana Jones - 9/26/2001 6:13:41 PM Well, I've been good and burnt out on this place for maybe two months (I think that's approximately when I said we should shut down). On 911 and immediately thereafter it showed some life, but then gradually sank right back into banality. 15739. janjon - 9/26/2001 6:16:07 PM for the record, I'm certainly not in favor of banning him. Banning for anything other than offenses like revealing personal info (and, no, that damned tel.no. of that phone that the daughter happens to use doesn't count in that particular context) is anathema to me and, in my opinion, to the good of this forum. 15740. mgleason - 9/26/2001 6:17:02 PM Ferguson was booted out before he ever did that; if I recall correctly, the fake log-in was a retaliatory strike. The major difference in their posting styles is that Ferguson rants less and is a better speller. 15741. janjon - 9/26/2001 6:20:30 PM well, yes, Indiana's contemplated solution is there too. 15742. Indiana Jones - 9/26/2001 6:20:57 PM I think your're right, Maria, but he was only suspended before that, rather than banned. 15743. concerned - 9/26/2001 8:12:15 PM 15710. Ms. No - 9/26/01 7:03:19 PM 15744. joezan - 9/26/2001 11:29:01 PM janjon: 15745. wabbit - 9/27/2001 12:11:59 AM I don't believe I've ever suspended Cellar or Jade, but the other four, yes. 15746. alistairconnor - 9/27/2001 5:00:26 AM Wabbit : I suppose it was me, sort of. In Message # 15645 I developed the idea that short suspensions could be a useful way of dealing with anti-social behaviour, using Thoughtful's account of a conversation with Ace as an example. 15747. alistairconnor - 9/27/2001 6:15:32 AM Message # 15726 It's funny, Ace frames this as a provocation : he wants "us" (the "liberals", the evil bin Laden proxies of his fevered imagination) to ban him, in order to demonstrate how illiberal "we" really are. Of course, he is confident we will not, because he despises our tolerance, which he sees as weakness. 15748. marjoribanks - 9/27/2001 8:28:26 AM I am not in favor of banning Ace. Rather, he should simply we watched, and people should be pointed to him, and small children encouraged to learn a lesson. He's just a staggering example of what has gone wrong with us, as a society, as a city (I live near him), as an education system, as a country. He's a useful microcosm of shabbiness. 15749. Jenerator - 9/27/2001 9:19:49 AM In fact, the most important factor in my deciding to move here - precisely here, was the fact that this is the most conservative, law-and-order, Republican district in the entire country. 15750. ScottLoar - 9/27/2001 9:49:35 AM This discussion has nothing to do with a person's politics, nothing, but everything to do with a person's conduct. No, not a person's attitude nor vocabulary, but how a person addresses comments and contributes to or impedes the general exchange. 15751. thoughtful - 9/27/2001 10:59:59 AM Jay is trying to police politics, but the problem is he won't be posting, just policing, yet usually the thread host is one with the most interest in the topic and can keep the discussion moving. Maybe we need a thread host...like a bartender...and a bouncer. 15752. janjon - 9/27/2001 11:20:34 AM absolutely correct, loar. absolutely. 15753. glendajean - 9/27/2001 11:52:11 AM Indiana -- I hope that your message means you are taking time off and that you will return. 15754. Ms. No - 9/27/2001 11:52:46 AM Wabbbit, 15755. concerned - 9/27/2001 11:55:06 AM What brought on Marg's ignorant slur on Ann Coulter? 15756. judithathome - 9/27/2001 11:55:49 AM The truth. 15757. concerned - 9/27/2001 11:56:19 AM Re. 15754 - 15758. concerned - 9/27/2001 12:01:56 PM Re. 15756 - 15759. Ms. No - 9/27/2001 12:02:57 PM Making a threat that could be conceivably carried out in real life. It was stupid and it was rude and it was abusive but most importantly it concerned the child of another poster. There was no actual belief that she would carry through on the threat but she was out of line so she took a mandatory vacation. 15760. Indiana Jones - 9/27/2001 12:05:22 PM gj: I've been posting today! Thanks for your words, BTW. 15761. concerned - 9/27/2001 12:06:40 PM Re. 15759 - 15762. Ms. No - 9/27/2001 12:06:40 PM The discussion about Ann Coulter needs to remove to another thread. 15763. Ms. No - 9/27/2001 12:08:14 PM If, of course, such a discussion was going to continue. ;-> 15764. glendajean - 9/27/2001 12:17:48 PM IJ -- I'm getting on a plane in the morning to Texas. Can't say that I am looking forward to it. 15765. concerned - 9/28/2001 1:46:47 AM Re. 15716 - 15766. bubbaette - 9/28/2001 10:19:17 AM This statement of Ann Coulter's tells me that she is an idiot: "all muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" 15767. bubbaette - 9/28/2001 10:19:54 AM oops. Sorry Ms. No. 15768. theDiva - 9/28/2001 10:23:34 AM what? She didn't say that, did she? Did she forget a little patch of grass called Northern Ireland? 15769. bubbaette - 9/28/2001 10:28:13 AM Diva 15770. theDiva - 9/28/2001 10:32:54 AM There's got to be more to this. 15771. judithathome - 9/28/2001 10:39:12 AM There's not...she's an idiot. All that anorexia has gone to her brain. 15772. theDiva - 9/28/2001 10:44:17 AM Where's the piece so I can read it? 15773. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2001 10:48:36 AM Actually, that's not all she said: 15774. theDiva - 9/28/2001 10:52:36 AM thanks, Indy. 15775. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2001 10:58:29 AM You're welcome, Diva. 15776. vw - 9/28/2001 11:01:51 AM I've emailed Cal a couple times and haven't heard from her (so has a few other folks) so I'm starting to get a bit concerned for her. 15777. vw - 9/28/2001 11:02:26 AM has=have 15778. theDiva - 9/28/2001 11:05:46 AM I have no RL contact info for her, vw. Sorry, wish I could help. It is rather odd that she hasn't been around. 15779. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2001 11:06:57 AM Thanks, vw. There are several Motiers who know her real life ID, and maybe one of them knows something. (I know her name, but not any more than that.) 15780. vw - 9/28/2001 11:19:25 AM Thanks Diva. I'm in the same boat IJ is, I know her name and her "real" email address (and she has mine) but I don't have any other way to contact her. 15781. ScottLoar - 9/28/2001 11:20:55 AM In the mid-1970's the CIA station chief was murdered in Greece. To this day successive Greek governments have not cooperated in the slightest instance with US authorities charged with this investigation and indentifying those responsible. Basque separatists have exploded car bombs indiscriminately killing civilians and assassinated bureaucrats in northern Spain. But, these facts deflect from the present purpose, don't they? 15782. pellenilsson - 9/28/2001 1:44:10 PM I e-mailed CalGal more than a week ago without response. I have the feeling that something is wrong. I don't remember her being involved in any brawls here (not more than usual, that is). In any case she is not the quitting type. 15783. Laura C - 9/28/2001 1:50:35 PM Someone on the Rant mentioned that she might be moving apartments last week. Her absence does seem prolonged, though. 15784. Ms. No - 9/28/2001 1:53:41 PM I went and looked and her last posts were around 6pm on Sept 17th. Nothing heated at all. 15785. Ms. No - 9/28/2001 1:54:18 PM Laura, 15786. Laura C - 9/28/2001 1:59:16 PM MsNo, she was posting a lot on the Rant (www.rantforum.com) through about 9/17. I haven't seen her since. 15787. Ms. No - 9/28/2001 2:14:45 PM Damn. I don't want to be alarmist, but it does look like something's wrong. 15788. judithathome - 9/28/2001 2:34:42 PM She's never been away from here for this long...she even posts on vacation. Even when her computer was in the shop, she found a way to post. 15789. labwabbit - 9/28/2001 2:36:46 PM Probably in some line at some airport... 15790. judithathome - 9/28/2001 2:38:31 PM ...challenging the person who's rifling through her bag. 15791. AceofSpades - 9/28/2001 2:39:16 PM 15792. AceofSpades - 9/28/2001 2:39:52 PM 15793. janjon - 9/28/2001 2:41:02 PM maybe they're both commandos. they've been disappearing too. 15794. AceofSpades - 9/28/2001 2:42:09 PM 15795. Al D - 9/28/2001 2:45:09 PM I returned to the Mote on the 17th, but I think Ace is more probably right, as usual. 15796. Ms. No - 9/28/2001 2:45:34 PM I don't think she ever worked in Saudi Arabia. She lived there as a kid. Her step-mom is from there I believe and she did mention that her step-mother and her sister have had some problems recently being harassed for their ethnicity. 15797. janjon - 9/28/2001 2:46:04 PM I wasn't responding to your comment, dipshit. 15798. Ms. No - 9/28/2001 2:46:47 PM uh...sorry, too earnest once again. 15799. judithathome - 9/28/2001 2:51:31 PM I think that wasn't meant for you, MsNo... 15800. janjon - 9/28/2001 2:56:13 PM the dipshit one? addressed to Ms. No? 15801. Ms. No - 9/28/2001 3:00:41 PM No worries, I didn't think it was. Unfortunate crosspost. I was actually referring to my own post as being too literal a response to the idea that CalGal has been mysteriously recruited by Uncle Sam in such a manner that she'd not be allowed to leave word with the folks that are apt to note her absence. 15802. thoughtful - 9/28/2001 3:15:37 PM Has no one missed the obvious link? Calgal and Francis run off together! Yikes! 15803. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:18:14 PM oh God, don't even. It was bad enough when Niner got run through the woodchipper. 15804. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2001 3:21:22 PM If Cal and Francis are doing something cool in the war on terrorism and didn't include me, I'm as pissed as hell. 15805. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:23:37 PM Indy 15806. Indiana Jones - 9/28/2001 3:26:46 PM You name it, Diva. 15807. janjon - 9/28/2001 3:26:58 PM I thought frankie had a lock on the shorter categories. 15808. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:27:47 PM youse just underestimate mi Latino hombre. 15809. janjon - 9/28/2001 3:30:07 PM it is impossible to underestimate him. 15810. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:32:46 PM nononono Jan 15811. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:34:02 PM I will tell you this: in a confrontation between Cal and some dude strapped with God knows what, my money is on Cal. 15812. janjon - 9/28/2001 3:36:06 PM you wouldn't say the same thing about la passionata one. 15813. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:39:44 PM (whoosh) 15814. janjon - 9/28/2001 3:41:19 PM I thought so. 15815. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:43:01 PM smartass. I getcha now, it was the use of the feminine article which confused me. 15816. janjon - 9/28/2001 3:47:57 PM I thought the context was obvious. 15817. theDiva - 9/28/2001 3:55:15 PM you're a pip. 15818. judithathome - 10/3/2001 4:28:09 PM How do I start a subthread in my thread? 15819. Property of Jesus - 10/3/2001 5:14:15 PM Does anyone else think it's odd that PincherMartin, CalGal's old boyfriend (alleged), returns to tell us that he's married at the same time that CalGal's disappears without a trace. 15820. Ms. No - 10/3/2001 5:44:56 PM I can set it up for you Judith. Just let me know what you want to call it. 15821. judithathome - 10/3/2001 5:47:09 PM I think I'll wait a bit to see if anyone is even going to watch the show...might help, don't you think? 15822. Property of Jesus - 10/3/2001 5:51:44 PM Oh, do it. Judith. Even if no one posts, you'll have learned a new skill. 15823. judithathome - 10/3/2001 5:56:11 PM I'd managed to forget what a crashing boor you are, Rose...and yes, I spelled it correctly. 15824. Ms. No - 10/3/2001 6:13:47 PM Judith, 15825. Property of Jesus - 10/3/2001 11:27:44 PM Well, Privacy Nyet, how about a thread looking back at all the interesting people who've departed the mote. 15826. Ms. No - 10/4/2001 12:14:30 PM Just a heads up: 15827. Ms. No - 10/4/2001 12:19:36 PM PoJ, 15829. Ms. No - 10/4/2001 3:35:21 PM PoJ, 15830. Property of Jesus - 10/4/2001 3:44:59 PM How about that media thread that everyone was so excited about a month? 15831. Ms. No - 10/4/2001 4:05:50 PM PoJ, 15832. Property of Jesus - 10/4/2001 5:58:03 PM Have to agree with you that there are a lot of folders here. Sometimes I think there are more threads than participants. 15833. judithathome - 10/4/2001 6:06:10 PM Yes. 15834. Ms. No - 10/5/2001 2:17:55 PM PoJ, 15835. Property of Jesus - 10/7/2001 10:27:33 PM There are lots and lots and lots of threads here without active hosts, Ms. No. It's as if there was a purge here, or something. 15836. Ms. No - 10/8/2001 3:12:27 PM PoJ, 15837. Property of Jesus - 10/8/2001 4:04:33 PM Then I recommend you cut in half the number of folders because the people aren't here to staff them. 15838. Property of Jesus - 10/8/2001 4:09:13 PM And the reason people aren't here is because your 15839. Ms. No - 10/8/2001 4:30:38 PM PoJ, 15840. Property of Jesus - 10/8/2001 5:34:47 PM Any news why the treasurer of Mote, JJBeiner, has been missing for all these months? 15841. don s. - 10/8/2001 5:37:15 PM but might have been to [sic] freightened [sic] to post. 15842. arkymalarky - 10/8/2001 9:03:00 PM That's code for "he took a train." I can't tell where though. Maybe Rose will drop another clue in his next post. 15843. judithathome - 10/9/2001 10:07:21 AM How can he do that? He's clueless... 15844. Property of Jesus - 10/11/2001 5:17:15 PM JJBeiner, a former prolific poster and one of the founders of mote, is the host of three threads including HEALTH, MUSIC and TRAVEL--and the treasurer of mote. 15845. janjon - 10/11/2001 5:42:39 PM I hesitate to do this because it is obvious that it is attention - any kind of attention - that you crave, but.... 15846. Absensia - 10/11/2001 6:03:05 PM He doesn't have anything else to play with, Janjon. 15847. don s. - 10/11/2001 6:04:04 PM Oh don't mind him, janjon. He'd obviously been browsing his dogeared copy of Bartlett's Quotations again and came across that "worry" line. Any excuse for a quick bit of faux erudition. 15848. judithathome - 10/11/2001 6:09:25 PM Now he has to look up "faux", don...good job! Oooh, and "erudition", too! Double bagger! 15849. Ms. No - 10/11/2001 6:52:19 PM Take it to the Inferno, kids. 15850. judithathome - 10/13/2001 11:58:25 AM I am making a formal complaint about Rosetta based on these 2 posts: 15851. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:04:11 PM Those remarks came from Rubberduckys thread. 15852. PincherMartin - 10/13/2001 12:06:10 PM I agree -- that's a threat. Toss him. 15853. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:09:38 PM Toss him on general principles. By-the-way, I suppose that RD is attempting to be evenhanded, but chastising Judith for her contentless responses to Pathetic Ovoid Juicehound's contentless bait seems lopsided unless the Juicehound is similarly chastised for starting it. 15854. don s. - 10/13/2001 12:14:48 PM from the NYTIMES "Maureen Dowd" thread: 15855. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 12:16:58 PM Toss him. Immediately. When he returns in another guise, toss him again. If he returns yet again, toss him and those who harbor and support him. 15856. don s. - 10/13/2001 12:21:42 PM Especially those who harbor him. 15857. Property of Jesus - 10/13/2001 12:23:36 PM "This is not America. This is Kafkaesque."--Clarence Thomas 15858. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:26:28 PM Smoke him out. Cough him up. His time is up. 15859. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 12:26:49 PM Through my connections as a powerful Washington, D.C. lawyer, in concert with what I hope to be swift and decisive action by the Mote administration, I announce that I have frozen Rosetta's assets by charging things up on his country club number, 145631. 15860. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:27:28 PM Calling them "evil-doers" is a good move. 15861. don s. - 10/13/2001 12:28:15 PM I've also managed to tap into his daughter's phone line and called as many sex lines as I could think of. 15862. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:29:08 PM Good move, Francis. Turn the assets of the evil doer to good use. He's had ample warning; now is the time for swift and decisive action. 15863. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:30:47 PM Bubba, 15864. Absensia - 10/13/2001 12:30:50 PM Where ARE the three wise sages? 15865. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 12:30:54 PM To date, I have had several steak and club sandwiches, 12 orders of fries, countless soft drinks, and a few Snickers bars in my effort to dry up his funding and smoke him out. 15866. Absensia - 10/13/2001 12:31:59 PM That should have done it, Francis, but be a sport and spring for lunch for everyone in the room. 15867. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:32:17 PM Waiter, I'd like a bloody mary and a steak sandwich. And a steak sandwich. 15868. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:33:08 PM Jen: 15869. Absensia - 10/13/2001 12:33:47 PM I'll have a steak sandwich, rare, and a extra hot bloody mary, no salt. 15870. don s. - 10/13/2001 12:33:59 PM 1-976-CHIX 15871. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:35:17 PM I am very serious about this threat business...I know it's the weekend but as soon as someone in charge shows up, I want a resolution to this. 15872. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 12:35:33 PM Variant pronunciations of Saddam Hussein 15873. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:36:27 PM I'll have the chicken seizure salad and a mineral water. Dressing on the side. 15874. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:36:40 PM Judith, 15875. mgleason - 10/13/2001 12:36:59 PM Francis, 15876. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:38:08 PM Jen 15877. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 12:38:14 PM Francis is also doing his part to restore the national economy. 15878. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:38:17 PM If we're serious about charging up his CC account, howz about a round of golf for everyone? With carts and lessons from the club pro... 15879. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:38:48 PM IJ, 15880. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:39:05 PM On second thought, I like Marias idea better... 15881. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:39:46 PM I like a chick who smokes a cigar. Order me up a Romeo y Julietta. 15882. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 12:41:05 PM Jenerator: And Who-sane means in Arabic "Fat Man." 15883. Property of Jesus - 10/13/2001 12:41:28 PM Get a grip. How in the world did I threaten you, Judith. It bothers you that the FBI is monitoring all the New York Times forums because of threats to their correspondents? 15884. Property of Jesus - 10/13/2001 12:42:05 PM Get a grip. How in the world did I threaten you, Judith. It bothers you that the FBI is monitoring all the New York Times forums because of threats to their correspondents? 15885. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 12:42:44 PM Let's stone the interloper. 15886. Property of Jesus - 10/13/2001 12:43:07 PM toys 15887. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:44:22 PM 15888. Jenerator - 10/13/2001 12:44:43 PM Message # 15882 15889. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 12:45:25 PM Maria 15890. Absensia - 10/13/2001 12:45:54 PM Francis, could I have a set of clubs and pro lessons? 15891. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 12:49:50 PM Paranoids always have contigency plans. 15892. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 12:50:10 PM And contingency plans, too. 15893. don s. - 10/13/2001 12:50:26 PM Some possible future Mote Monikers™ for Josetta Stone: 15894. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:50:40 PM And your post is a threat to them? How? 15895. bubbaette - 10/13/2001 12:51:36 PM Anyhow, my laundry's dry and it's time for me to demonstrate that I will not live in fear, but will resume my normal life. But as far as Rosie Stone is concerned, I ask you all to remember that our cause is just and right and that we will not rest until he is brought to justice. 15896. Property of Jesus - 10/13/2001 12:51:58 PM In your dreams, judy. 15897. don s. - 10/13/2001 12:52:49 PM I'll probably get slapped for 15893, but it's worth it to see Josetta in full-on martyr mode. 15898. judithathome - 10/13/2001 12:53:32 PM Not in my dreams...in this forum. 15899. Property of Jesus - 10/13/2001 1:00:27 PM No threat. You just don't like the fact that I've mentioned your preference for laugh-track TV comedies. 15900. Absensia - 10/13/2001 1:05:29 PM * 15901. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 1:31:24 PM The headlines on the front aren't working correctly for me. W H Auden and Yahweh don't point to the correct posts as far as I can tell. 15902. don s. - 10/13/2001 2:22:24 PM A humanitarian argument for banning Rosetta Stone for life 15903. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 2:53:55 PM There are times when extolling a principle is inappropriate and even dangerous, even if the principle is otherwise worthy. For example, the ACLU will now litigate against a public school in California for its banner, "God Bless America." To many, the separation of church and religion is critical. But at these times, to make such an objection, especially to such a minor infringement, is wrong. 15904. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 2:54:47 PM "separation of church and religion" should read "separation of school and religion". 15905. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 2:55:38 PM But I will not withdraw "proular" 15906. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 2:56:57 PM There have been two charges against Rosetta. 15907. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 3:03:29 PM I agree with Pelle as to point 1. 15908. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 3:03:41 PM Pelle 15909. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 3:04:32 PM "deteriment"="detriment" 15910. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:13:32 PM Pelle: 15911. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 3:17:38 PM Spinelessness? FYI it was I using my Ring of Power, who banned Ferguson the last time he was in our midst. I used a secret script of Alistair's to cut him off in mid-conversation. Cazart was long ago but I don't recall that I advocated lenience. You must confuse me with somebody else (who was not on the team of Moderators). 15912. Francis Urquhart - 10/13/2001 3:23:15 PM By then, it was too late, Neville. 15913. Absensia - 10/13/2001 3:27:29 PM Are you saying we should just "ignore" him and let him hassle anyone he pleases and says anything he wants? 15914. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:29:25 PM 15915. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 3:31:11 PM By then, it was too late, Neville. 15916. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:31:32 PM 15917. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:32:55 PM 15918. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:36:05 PM 15919. Absensia - 10/13/2001 3:38:18 PM Yes, who wouldn't want to join a site that banned him! Good taste is timeless, and wise. 15920. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:40:06 PM Maybe those 18 people I contacted would feel better about returning, too. 15921. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 3:41:06 PM Rosetta is sure to enjoy this. 15922. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:41:21 PM 15923. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:43:26 PM Rosetta is sure to enjoy this. 15924. Absensia - 10/13/2001 3:45:35 PM Pelle, you say: "I advocate ostracism." So you agree to ban him, if the other moderators do as well? 15925. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 3:48:41 PM judith: Would banning Stone stop his ability to copy your posts and even email them to the FBI? 15926. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:56:28 PM IJ: 15927. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 4:03:13 PM I don't think he should just be allowed to get away with it, either. 15928. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:08:53 PM There's nothing to stop him from doing it. How would you know that he did it? 15929. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 4:11:01 PM Judith 15930. Absensia - 10/13/2001 4:12:35 PM So, do people think it's just fine to have someone copy another motie's comments and post them somewhere else? That would, I think, violate the ROEs? He leaves me alone, but irritates me and mostly targets women. He's a bully. Why put up with him. 15931. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 4:15:49 PM Absensia 15932. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:16:18 PM I never said I wanted him BANNED, just as a point of reference. 15933. Absensia - 10/13/2001 4:18:58 PM Yes, but usually the person's name in the other forum is not given. And sometimes, when a post is copied, it "stands alone" out of context. In addition, usually the copied posts are for imformative purposes or from someone most here know and laugh (not necessarily a good thing) over. To post it on another forum as it was done by Stone, only to hassle Judith, seems at least tacky to me. 15934. Absensia - 10/13/2001 4:19:45 PM What do you want, then, Judith? 15935. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 4:20:21 PM If we don't want posts copied, we ought to make this a private forum. Sometimes I think that would be a good idea anyway, since we've pretty much decided it's for those already here and not to draw in new folks. Personally, I'd be more forthcoming myself in a forum that wasn't readable by everyone in the world. 15936. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:20:30 PM And I wasn't complaining about him copying my post but rather the threatening tone in which he alluded to the reason for doing so. 15937. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:23:00 PM Abs...I'd have settled for censure. 15938. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:23:43 PM Sorry...that last reamrk should have been to IJ. 15939. Absensia - 10/13/2001 4:27:32 PM But what does a censure do? Seriously. I don't know if there is some sort of cummulative disciple here or what. 15940. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 4:30:49 PM For Stone, censure would be another trophy for the case. 15941. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 4:30:52 PM Judith 15942. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:31:51 PM Abs...Considering he got CharleyL suspended for "rising to the occassion" not long ago, I thought perhaps this might qualify as a suspension type infraction but it appears I was wrong. 15943. Absensia - 10/13/2001 4:32:11 PM It would seem that #3 of the rules of engagement cover it. And, it appears it's been going on for quite awhile. Indy, I agree. It would just be another trophy for him. 15944. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:32:37 PM Pelle, I poted a retraction right after the remark. 15945. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:33:03 PM poSted 15946. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2001 4:34:44 PM Judith 15947. judithathome - 10/13/2001 4:35:16 PM
Main Entry: anchor
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): an·chored; an·chor·ing /-k(&-)ri[ng]/
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 : to hold in place in the water by an anchor
2 : to secure firmly : FIX
3 : to act or serve as an anchor for
intransitive senses
1 : to cast anchor
2 : to become fixed
More than one definition of the word. This is for the "verb" which is how I think Marj meant it.
Can I make a suggestion?
I don't really like the "Welcome to the Mote" thread always on top.
Perhaps, at the top of the right butterscotch bar, we can have a big "Welcome to the Mote" link (in a big font) which will link newbies to the thread.
The only thing constant is change, remember.
In any event, for now, I would like it backed out and have the requirement stated, rather than an implementation without examination of all the solutions possible.
People who come in here cold don't usually go immediately to the bottom; they flounder around for a bit. What is the big deal with showing a welcoming face to new people right off the bat?
sometime in the (ur, cough, cough) 1950s.
I was born in '43...see, I am a Grande Dame.
I do think Fieldings idea of dropping "Discussion Threads" below the Welcome thread was a good one, though...making the Welcome thread a sort of foyer to main hall.
Existing users are as much or more of my concern as new users. I certainly want to make the place welcoming for them, but I also don't want to distort the front page's purpose. There's no reason to skew the site purely for the comfort of new people.
It's great we have a Welcome thread. I love the idea, and banks will be a great host. We can also take people directly to the thread after creating an id, and put a link on the side that takes them directly to the thread. Both will serve the same purpose and not have the same downsides.
I am seriously old...though I don't feel it.
Well....usually not.
Seems like a bit of a precious concern.
I put the R.I.P notice on the thread a couple days ago and then I assumed that it was you who changed the name to Kill This Thread. When I checked it yesterday and there hadn't been any activity since the day before I took into account that you'd said it was pretty much dead and okay to RIP as well as the new title and just axed it.
Maybe it was VonK who changed the title after I tacked the R.I.P. on it. I'm sorry if it came as a shock to you, I really didn't intend for it to.
not have the same downsides.
See, that's where we disagree. I've never seen it as having a downside. But I guess if everyone else just hates it, I can live with that, too.
Ms.No,
No big deal. But I never saw a RIP, and I was looking for it. Maybe I missed it.
I see no reason to "condition" existing users if I can give new users the same access without.
The requirement, from what I understand, is: Ensure that new users can easily determine what thread is intended to welcome their first nervous posts.
The solution is to ensure that they can see the link for that thread.
There are plenty of implementations for that solution--only one of which is anchored text.
Welcome to The Mote
Seek no further, weary Internet travellers.
Host : marjoribanks
(#16 posted 4/26/01 11:02:05 AM by Dr.XavierTColtrane )
It wasn't you that changed the name of the thread?
It convolutes access for everyone else--to no purpose. Sure, it can be gotten used to. But there's no need for that, and the only way to justify it is to say that new users are more important than existing users.
"It wasn't you that changed the name of the thread?"
Yes, but I didn't see an R.I.P.
i'd rather see it mixed in with the other threads and maybe put in a permanent link at the top of the 'topics of interest'
No one is saying new users are more important than existing users just because a welcome thread is at the top of a list...when someone comes to this site, the eye is drawn to the center, white column and the list thereon. It isn't some outrageous idea to provide a welcome site there where it can be seen.
Must admit, I've tried to think of some, but other than, perhaps, being a bit of a minor nuisance or aesthetic (???) irritation (I really don't see it being more than a mote of a problem) to some regulars, what's the beef.
How often do you read the Logo at the top of the home page? It takes about one day maybe two to get used to looking a half inch lower for the most recently posted in thread. It's not a big hardship it's just a minor change in format and the benefit is that newbies will immediately know where to go without having to search the entire front page.
I understand not wanting to make potential new blood more important than the regular posters, but a constant concern here has been that we want new posters AND that we need to be more welcoming of new posters. I think a minor inconvenience that we'll cease to notice after a couple of days isn't too much to ask from the community.
All post in there presently, save banks', will be deleted.
Maintain a list of current mote members and the "attitude they got" (from "get an attitude"), or self-ascribed titles. For example:
labwabbit: resident absurdum profundit.
calgal: narcisstic cynic extraordinaire.
PP: barkeep/sports prognosticant
let people add a title to themselves...ha, that itself would provoke some sort of 'discussion'
Or each member could, if they wish, write a one to two line paragraph introducing themselves (personnae) to the world at large.
Just ideas guys...
I'm with you there. I imagine that Marjoribanks will deal with that problem post haste. I'll consult with him about how to maintain the thread in the face of hostile parties when the host isn't around to deal with them himself.
At the very least, it would be interesting initial reading to someone who surfed, or fell, in.
But why anchor it? There's simply no need, and it looks ugly.
Quite besides that, though, I don't want a 20 minute hack put into production for something that affects the front page so much. So for the short term, I've requested it be backed out.
thread in the face of hostile parties
Ho ho ho.
so-called "hostile parties" = those not of the strutting jackbooted martinet persuasion = newcomers
Pretty clear to the good doctor that the so-called "new" domicile will be pretty much like all the old domiciles. Once No gets through with her consultation with the "host."
> also, any posting to it will be disallowed except for the moderator
Ahhh...the perfect Mote thread.
By the by, is Das Moat expecting hordes of new members now that creating a login requires approval by the gendarmes?
Put out the welcome mat, then yank it out from under 'em, boys.
The good doctor's prediction remains that the thread shall no longer be anchored at the top but some variation on the solution I proposed in my previous missive shall be adopted.
At which time I shall once more be eviscerated for being such an embarassment whilst happy thoughts of newbie victims dance through strutting jackbooted heads.
Suggested permanent so-called "anchor" post for the welcome domicile.
It isn't ugly and it's been explained why it should be anchored. Do you really think people would look at the bottom? Tell me, when did YOU find the Welcome thread in TableTalk?
It took me over a year to stumble on it, cleverly hidden as it was in Salon Central.
Of course, many of the latest newbies came over at your suggestion and had no need of a welcome thread...why be so opposed to those for whom we might have a little concern who come here without benefit of knowing someone already here?
Just for a minute XC huh?
Chissakes..you had an overbearing mother it would appear didn't you? You're making it too freakin' obvious. We realize that it isn't entirely your fault for such incessant squeaking ...but take control of yourself man...you can make the choice to overcome.
Please. I'm not opposed to the solution. Just to the implementation. There are plenty of methods to provide a link to a welcome thread for newbies. This particular implementation is not necessary.
I dare say if you approved whole heartedly, it would become necessary.
Either the domicile stays at the top with the good doctor's name in lights.
Or it's moved and my suggestion is followed.
Either way I have outwitted the strutting jackboots once again.
In order to get my wholehearted approval, it would have at minimum had to have been put on the test site along with a few other choices and discussed rather than slammed in.
But even had all that happened, I wouldn't like this change because there are equally functional ways of implementing it that aren't obtrusive.
And, given that UI is indeed my bailiwick, your snotty implication that I get more say than you is probably true. But unlike you, I am extremely solicitous of the user community.
My snotty implication notwithstanding, I think everyone on this site realizes the truth of your first statement. And I would beg to differ, as would others, with your second statement.
Uterine Insert?
I would imagine UI is User Interface or some such esoteric computer speak...
And I have an excuse for being an ass, just as you do.
I shall check back later in hopes someone answers my earnest question.
But why anchor it? There's simply no need, and it looks ugly
I like the anchor because it means it's easier to find than letting it languish at the bottom of the page. We want people to come here. Therefore we've put out a Welcome mat. It makes no sense to keep it in the basement or make visitors wander around the house looking for it unless we really just want to discourage them for the sake of not implementing a change.
As for ugly, it's no uglier than any other thread being at the top of the page.
Quite besides that, though, I don't want a 20 minute hack put into production for something that affects the front page so much. So for the short term, I've requested it be backed out.
No one meant to step on your toes about this. I can understand why you'd be upset, but the issue of how the change was made is separate from the change itself.
It's not a monumental change. It's done nothing to the basic look of the front page at all. If it were a new thread that everyone was posting in so it "earned" it's place at the top the page would look no different than it does with the Welcome thread anchored.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
What do you think of the ideas I presented? Do you think it has some merit to a useable degree?
Alas. You have no excuse, then.
All I am saying is that because I am the person responsible for the user interface, I probably have a tad more say than you--just as Alistair has a lot of say in what happens to almost everything technical on the site. But given that I always--but always--consult with as many users as possible before I make changes, and listen to them and try to give them the functionality they request, I am in a better position to point out how badly this was implemented than you are.
If you are saying that I am not solicitous of users within my technical responsibilities then you're just a tad too simple minded to recognize that there is a pattern to my impatience and when I am working with people as users, I am quite polite.
I don't know if you work for a living. But I actually get quite snippy if some one does my job without my consent and then does that job in a way that I consider inept and sloppy--but will have to continue to maintain.
But you can call it what you will. I have requested that it be backed out.
I know you are upset about this going in before you had sufficient say in the matter. I know you have much more say in this than I. I know you are ever solicitous of peoples feelings and take great pride in the work you've done for the Mote.
I also know you have of way of popping off with phrases like "you are a tad too simple minded" to be considered polite by anyone.
See Message # 12802
No, it isn't. But besides that, I am saying that the change itself is wrong. I would not ever have consented to it, given that there are several ways to do it that would have provided the same functionality and not had any of the downside.
There have been sufficient objections that you know perfectly well any work done on the test site would have resulted in the less obtrusive implementation.
So let's not imagine that it would have been "here's the anchor, let's do it". It would have been "here's the anchor" vs. "here's a link on the left" vs "here's a link on the right" and I am quite sure the anchor would have lost that comparison. The lack of development and testing is the issue, because it is only due to it being shoved in that it was done at all.
No. I am upset because it is shoddy and stupid and it offends my eyes.
The fact that procedures here weren't followed is not why I'm upset. The fact that procedures here weren't followed is why I am saying I want it backed out.
I agree about the anchoring.
I also agree that we might benefit from a style change for the Welcome Thread listing---a couple of good suggestions have been made in this thread already.
I think Banks will probably do quite a bit of deletion and moving of the posts currently in the thread but I would prefer to let him make the first move on that rather than jumping in to do so myself.
AS for the Attitudes, it has been suggested several times that we have a "Profiles" section of theMote where people can post things about themselves IF THEY WISH (had to emphasize that so nobody gets their panties in a twist about being required to identify themselves).
Personally, I quite like the idea of a Profiles section but for some reason it always ends up in days of discussion and then nothing gets decided so I'm not sure where we left it last time.
I'm not in favor of disallowing posting. The whole point of the thread is for newbies to be made welcome. It's hard to welcome them if we don't talk to them. Take a look at Bank's thread parameters and I think you'll agree that his guidelines are good. It's okay to post, but you have to be posting within the spirit of the thread rather than just mucking about.
After reading the FAQ, new members could post to one of the discussion threads, or introduce themselves in the Caff, if they so desired.
No, it isn't. But besides that, I am saying that the change itself is wrong.
Why are you saying the change is wrong? Because it's ugly you say. Something you keep claiming and then ignoring all arguments against.
Whether the change is aesthetically pleasing is totally separate from whether or not you got to approve the change and were the one to implement it.
I would not ever have consented to it,
That's really kind of disturbing. You claim that you take consensus view into account and yet you likewise claim you wouldn't implement something you didn't like.
given that there are several ways to do it that would have provided the same functionality and not had any of the downside.
The only downside you have posited is that you think it's ugly to have the Welcome thread at the top of the list. Not much of a downside and also not a given except in your own opinion.
you know perfectly well any work done on the test site would have resulted in the less obtrusive implementation.
No I don't know that and neither does anyone else. The place isn't a democracy, but just for the record there have been more posters in support of the change than posters opposed.
You could format the title to distinguish it from the other threads in a way that would make the stuck in place Welcome thread look less like some kind of glitch.
Even changing the font color would make the non-standard behavior of the thread look more intentional.
Now THAT's a problem that I think is very worth addressing-----the need to police the thread because of the antics of folks like RosettaStone and Dr. Coltrane.
I think such constant surveillance may be beyond the time allowances Banks has to host the thread.
I had hoped that Banks would show up before now to address that, but since he hasn't I probably will.
We all know exactly what effect polite appeals to stop posting have.
Very often, I feel that many people here just pay lip service to that concept.
I will entertain suggestions for deleting the Coltrane identity on the grounds of general obnoxiousness. This would not be a banning of a Motie because he posts under another moniker too.
I don't ignore arguments against it being ugly. There's no need to, because it doesn't matter. Plenty of people have objected to it. Ugly is an opinion--mine, too.
But the functionality is not an opinion, it's a fact--it interferes with the general order of the threads and with the convenience of all users except the ones that happen to be new for a brief moment in time. There is no argument against my objections to functionality and that's all that matters. There are many other ways to meet the requirement without having an anchored thread, therefore the arguments against the specific implementation are entirely relevant.
Don't get hung up on a specific implementation. The functionality is what matters.
The only downside you have posited is that you think it's ugly to have the Welcome thread at the top of the list. Not much of a downside and also not a given except in your own opinion.
No, the downside I have posted is that it is it skews the front page's function towards a very small group--a group that will, like the rest of us, become rapidly tired of seeing one thread at the top all the time, whether it is in use or not. Given that there are other ways of making sure users know about the thread, that argument is a KO. The only response is "well, the other users will grow accustomed to it" and that simply doesn't fly in the face of such a specific and quite valid objection.
No I don't know that and neither does anyone else. The place isn't a democracy, but just for the record there have been more posters in support of the change than posters opposed.
I haven't run requirements sessions for most of my professional life for nothing, Christin. The anchor would not have gone in.
Your count is off, too. More have objected than not. But given that most people don't post opinions one way or the other, any count is irrelevant.
If so, it would help if it were the first thing a 'surfer' should see upon entering.
I have posted a general invitation to The Mote in a couple of places, including the new International Folder set up at worldcrossing.com by TT's Jurgen Huber. I hope we'll be able to showcase this place's advantages soon to lots of visitors.
• After a short time, regulars will learn to look to the second item to find the most active thread.
• If this is not user friendly enough, we could put a line separating hte welcome thread from the rest and/or make the Welcome thread link a different color so that it stands out.
Hence my proposal to allow only the moderators or appointed committee to act in support. I realize what MsNo said is correct and true in refernce to this but there is a need to put on the best face. After all, this just isn't another thread, this is going to be a focal point of sorts to expand contribution...not just in number...but hopefully in quality and permanance.
Administration must not let this opportunity be under-regarded. Appointees should have a very specific(as possible), in-common vision for impressing what this place is all about.
I wish you would stop saying things when you don't have the first foggiest clue what you're talking about. I have not fought with Alistair over this at all; I haven't even discussed it with him other than sending him a note this morning asking him to back it out.
It doesn't surprise me that he just put it in without thinking about it, nor do I view it as any personal slam against me. Lord knows all techies, including me, tend to abuse their ability to slap in a change that appeals to them without remembering who they'll piss off.
I was preparing the coffee remaining in my cup to go out for testing.
LW,
Those goals are just as easily accomplished via a well-designed FAQ.
I agree with Ms. No and dusty.
Everyone should be forced to post there first before moving into the site.
There would be no need for a WELCOME thread if the Cafe was opened 24/7.
BTW, notice how Pelle, the book loser, works his poison in to ban another moterhead who criticises his tactics.
We have a FAQ, btw, and I tried to write various other portions of it but there was always objections to whether or not we should do it in the first place. I'm certainly open to someone else trying--wanna take it on?
I didn't have to add "....without the anchor", did I? Sometimes I'm too subtle in my expression.
(that, btw, is a joke)
(Let's have a FAQ suggestions thread!) [Also a joke.]
Did you check out the FAQ and the Interface links on the left? Those are more practical how-tos, but I've been thinking I should integrate them into the registration process.
If the Welcome thread is allowed to float like all other threads, we can all immediately see when a newbie has posted there -- the thread will rise to the top.
If it's always up there, we'll ignore it, as I'm learning to ignore it now.
It's irritating, I must say.
I arrived as wayfayer in a strange and bootless land. I was given a domicile to call my own after long pleading and begging and ignoring of that pleading and begging.
The locals beset upon the place with disruptive comments, which I deleted. They accused me of being an impostor and a fraud. Nilson continuously--and I mean continuously--posted "unfriendly, unwelcoming" comments in my domicile then took it from me in violation of all your own rules.
Ever since, you heels have demanded I respect those rules and play nice. When did you ever treat Dr. Coltrane nicely?
You shat upon my home and burned it, yet expect me to show reverence to all your pretty little cottages. What did I ever do that all the rest of you don't do?
I have never talked as rudely to any of you as many of you talk to each other. Look at the Inferno and see your own pestulent faces staring back at you. I moved posts. You do that to each other. I deleted posts. You do that to each other. I am boring and repetitious. Guess what?
The only reason you have not tolerated me is because I am new--and even so I was not as you see me now when I first came here. I was the good doctor, returning kindness for kindess. Ask Uzmakk, rubberducky, arkymalarky, and janjon if I have ever said a cross word to them.
So delete your welcome because the best reason for not having it anchored at the top is because it would be an albatross around your neck as it stayed their postless, day after day after day. Better yet, quit rewriting your worthless rules and all the other idiotic policies you debate over and over but find impossible to follow.
Better, disable new accounts entirely so that you sink under the swampy mass of your own vacuum.
But small change regardless, considering Dr. X has given all of us something to think about.
It's almost as powerful as "there's a cancer growing on the presidency" speech from John Dean.
A number of my missives (especially in Politics and especially when quoting gems from one or another of what Ace calls my spin articles) need to be pruned or split, but the preview function always lets me know to the character how many characters I am over.
Say, you seemed uncharacteristically down. I assume that is a charade. Nothing here should have that effect.
Certainly not Pelle's most recent hamhanded comment.
One would laugh if one didn't know that he was being serious.
Swedes. You gotta love 'em for what they are.
Dr. X: Your shtick was pretty tedious before. Now it is oppressively so.
May be you haven't noticed but the correct spelling of my name is in the header of every post of mine.
You have mail.
Despite alleged evidence to the contrary, I am not two eggs short of an omelet.
I will hereforth put the word JOKE after my posts to you that are such.
I guess I should do the same.
Either we are both laughing right now or we truly are humorless!
Ah, if only you were as funny as you look!
Alfred E. Newmann comes to mind.
(I may have misspelled the name. It's been a while since I picked up a copy.)
Sure looks are important but it's what's inside that's crucial to growth.
I've warned you about the skirts before but once a cross dresser, always a cross dresser, I guess.
I thought it was that streaky wildly colored makeup that you thought was too much, though.
And before your collective fertile minds take off on that one, I was in the area looking for a CD/bookstore shop. I couldn't help noticing them all lined up down this narrow, yet busy street just off the main drag. I didn't take a picture of that.
BTW - that assumption is not a very good one in many parts of Paris where fun is sold.
Actually, I noticed two of them at the mouth of the main drag, and my piqued curiosity compelled moi to walk down that street to see what is was all about. It was one of those tiny rues hitting the main drag at an angle, and the one with the blue eye shadow was situated midway. She had to be around 50, by the way.
One actually greeted me with a polite, "Bon jour" as I walked by her. She was possibly the most attractive one of them all, and she had this "dress" which had a slit all the way up to her armpits. Her, I should have taken a picture of!
...Maybe another time. ;-)
Is it legal out there ... I didn't stick around to ask.
Welcome to the Mote was to welcome people to the Mote. With his standard obnoxious take, Stone has mucked the thread up.
Ban him from the thread.
If he posts there again, ban him from the site.
But simply announce here that if he posts in the thread again, he will be banned.
Then ban him if and when he does.
I agree with Frankie: We should have a rule against spamming the Welcome Thread. I would favor warning Rosetta that further spamming will lead to his being banned.
Rosie and Dr. X, if you two continue to violate the stated purpose of that thread, your ID's will be suspended.
You cannot possibly know what "I" have been doing in the Welcome thread by "looking in today" as there is not a single post in that domicile by yours truly.
Hence, despite your account of things, you are relying on hearsay from my myrmidon enemies, most likely the mincing jackbooted Nilson. By the by, prior to their unauthorized and unprecedented removal yesterday which subsequently destroyed any evidence of what you now claim to have seen with your own eyes today, my missives consisted of three: a welcome post as was instructed in the instructions, a note to call Major Banks' attention to the chatter by the incestuous Muck dwellers that needed removing (no more griefous than what others subsequentially did) and an accidental finger slip which I in point of fact meant to promulgate here.
I cannot be held responsible for the Rosey Stoned creature's actions. The good doctor notes that 37 posts have been made to the thread, 12 of which survive. Three deleeted posts were made by yours truly leaving 22 made by others. Did Rosey Stoned make all 22 of those others. Else why has this threat of extinction been leveled soully against the two of us, what, what, hey, hey?
Incidentally, whilst holding forth on what exactly the purpose of that domicile is, I wonder that other so-called "old hands" much older than mine in the figurative if not in the literal sense continue to rot up the compostery.
By the by, I have no interest in discussing this further with the existing poltitrudes that make up this rotting dungheap but shall hardly sit by and endure unmitigated falsities upon my person without response.
So those on my enemy list Beano, the recently banned Von Cretin and of course Nilson himself and his harem of harpies need not utter my name again.
Ho-ho-ho.
To briefly respond to Dr. Poopstain, I am not and have not been banned. I've been busy. I am not in favor of banning people, but I am in favor of ostracism and as such will be putting the Dr. on my list of Motals with whom I do not interact. I suggest that others do the same, if the Judiths of the Mote could restrain themselves from bantering with the Stoners of the Mote then perhaps the Stoners would leave of their own volition.
When you stop attacking the Mote and those who run it, we would be glad to stop taking you to task for it.
Judith - I am sorry that you took offence, I did not mean my use of you as an icon to communicate that you are being offensive. The thing about ostracism, as opposed to banning, is that it allows people to continue to interact if they wish to; that it really requires the community to be nearly unanimous in its rejection of a member. If your wish to banter with Stoner is greater than your wish for Stoner to leave/change then carry on.
As you say, you have done nothing objectionable to me, or at all, and I do not mean to imply that you have. I would prefer if people ignored Electric Stone, but that is all.
And we reserve the right to ban your ass anytime we feel like it.
And after all the goal is to get people to leave hey, hey?
Right now the goal is to get you to leave. You are a hemorrhoid.
I few words of advice, never mention threatening people and welcoming new ones in the same post.
By the by, why the wellspring of complaints? Why not go ye forth to serve and be a light onto us other Moties? Having the prestigious title of doctor gives you a certain moral imperative to set an example.
Blustering forth about "reserving the right to ban your ass anytime we feel like it" and "Right now the goal is to get you to leave" really sets an admirable tone, eh.
Talk about chilling effects. On newbies and old ones (at least those not-there-by-reason-of-circumstances at the outset.)
It is one thing - and admirable - to be concerned about this place and to want it to thrive. It is quite another to put too much weight on the perceived wisdom/rights of those who started it in terms of charting its course.
Unless the goal is to have a nice little chat room for those who now know each other well, with occasional new blood permissible for amusement purposes. As long as it isn't disconcerting new blood.
Thanks for making clear what you meant. I assume you mean we are to shun the offending parishioner? I seem to recall this practice from my church days.
Always struck me as the odder choice over forgiveness but hey, whatever....
> When you stop attacking the Mote and those who run it, we would
be glad to stop taking you to task for it.
Then Beano sez (in response to my simple query of whether the goal is to get people to leave):
> And we reserve the right to ban your ass anytime we feel like it.
> Right now the goal is to get you to leave. You are a hemorrhoid.
Your first missive needs correcting, Beano, to say something like if you will emit pleasureable noises while I abuse you I shall abuse you somewhat more gently.
By the by, Beano, what is this "we" you keep using? Just what power do you have here? Are you the one secretly pulling Nilson's strings?
Your loutish bullying Beano is as stale as the false teeth of a six-pack-a-day smoker. Break wind in someone else's direction.
Ta-ta for now friend. I have endured enough of your insults for today. Go pleasure yourself with the usual suspects for awhile.
My role is a bit more than just being here by circumstance.
Blustering forth about "reserving the right to ban your ass anytime we feel like it" and "Right now the goal is to get you to leave" really sets an admirable tone, eh.
When dealing with someone who has consistently been a negative force, it is an appropriate tone. You will notice that even though you and I seldom agree, I don't use that tone with you. I don't believe it your goal to hurt the Mote. I do believe that it is XTC's goal.
It is quite another to put too much weight on the perceived wisdom/rights of those who started it in terms of charting its course.
The people who are now charting the course of the Mote are not necessarily all of the same people involved at the start. Other people have been brought in when we have felt they were willing and able to contribute.
The issue is how do we allow for free and open discussions while preventing people like X from destroying it?
If you feel like you are being abused, why do you keep coming back? No one is keeping you here.
By the by, Beano, what is this "we" you keep using?
Those of us who make decisions for the Mote.
Ta-ta for now friend (sic). I have endured enough of your insults for today.
Don't let your IP address hit you in ass on the way out.
It's demoralizing seeing it at the top of the column with no one joining.
I encourage you to delete it, or add the WELCOME as a sidebar to the CAFE thread, and keep the CAFE thread "anchored" like a "balloon" to the top of the page. That's where newbies should go first to meet the nice people of mote.
I've always thought that a better place to recruit new members would be at other web sites where moters could promote this site.
I've done it in the past at NPR, C-SPAN, NYTimes, FreeRepublic, TT, etc. with some success.
Anyone who takes most of what Rose posts as more than silliness needs to get some perspective. I don't have any interest in Rose leaving the Mote, or Dr. X, for that matter. If people want Stone to leave because he's an irritant, then there are more than a couple who should walk shoulder to shoulder with him out the door.
I've no idea what posts Marj decided to remove from his thread but the posts that I moved yesterday consisted of several which belonged here in Suggestions rather than the Welcome thread. I moved posts by Labwabbit, Dusty, Pelle and Alistair. Additionally I moved posts by RosettaStone and Dr. X which were antithetical to the purpose of the Welcome thread in that they projected a black-heliocopter picture of what new members should expect here.
While those who know Rosie and Dr. X may find humor in their antics no one who first walks in will be aware that our comic duo slam the forum, the management and their fellow posters out of love and affection. It was inappropriate for the thread so I moved the posts.
C-SPAN is doing a segment every day on that topic and I just learned about SUPPOSEDLY THE NUMBER ONE WEBSITE IN THE WORLD
Or, Matt Drudge's dad's site that Sec. of State Colin Powell says he uses hourly.
HERE
I've been reading Arts & Letters Daily for a few years now, it is an excellent site. I've added Reference Desk to the list of links on the front page, but I like your idea for a thread where we can point out other interesting websites.
Any other takers?
I never questioned the motive for moving posts--I wholeheartedly support them, especially there. In fact, I thought about suggesting that a few trusted souls be given power of deletion only in that thread so that it would be more likely for someone to catch that crap sooner.
I was responding to talk of ostracism and banning posted in here, and my question was meant to point out that others can be just as obnoxious as Rose or Dr X, moreso in fact, yet their names never come up.
I love Arts&Letters too and haven't looked at it in a while.
There was another query earlier about whose posts had been moved from the thread---implying that only Stone and X were being made to follow the rules. I wanted to make sure that I was clear on what my own actions had been. Your post merely reminded me that I hadn't gotten around to responding earlier.
I agree with you that we've got plenty of obnoxiousness to go around but fewer recognized scapegoats for it than perpetrators. I would prefer that people not campaign against interaction with one another but at the same time I heartily approve of ignoring those with whom you cannot have a civil discussion. IOW if you can't keep from being worked into a froth when you interact with certain people then by all means exercise your right not to speak to them but don't expect that everyone else should follow your lead.
Now MasNo comes and freely admits that yes indeedy my missives were not removed by the host of the domicile at all but that she acted preemptorily (doubtlessly at Nilson's urges). In point of fact, Major Banks did not even complain about my missives but appealed only to Rosey Stoned to cease and desist.
By the by Mas No also limply says that Rosey Stoned and I were not singled out because other missives were removed. Ho ho ho. That is precisely what the good doctor expostulated. In point of fact only yours truly and the other were the only ones threated with extinction DESPITE the same behavior by others. There is the rub, people of goodwill.
Peradventure I shall next address the accuracy of the remaining balderash.
> If you have any questions about how things really operate around here
> Ask Dr. Coltrane
> I am currently working on a treatise describing my experiences among
the native motefolken and shall relate it here so that all newcomers
can learn the pratfalls and other bugaboos of this Mote from a
traveller who has journeyed here first. I shall be your Rick Steves and
Sackagawewa, friends.
> Advising you in your motish ruttinations shall be my very pleasure.
> Sit back and enjoy the ride, my people of goodwill.
Prey tell, good friends, how unwelcoming is this post? Nein, nein, but it is the picture of hospitatlity. Face it, the strutting jackbooted martinet and his harem of harpies removed it and threatened me with Moat death because they feared my just criticism. No other reason at all.
Now they change their stories over and over to cover their high-handed atrocities. Mark my words, friends, soon the good doctor shall be martyred because the moneychangers fear he has arrived to cast them out of the temple.
All the while Beano shall be screaming for Barnabas.
This would be a so-called "democracy wall" for airing grievances with everything in general about this Mote, including the egrievious behavior by its more offensive participants.
By the by I see Beano has cluttered up the Notices and Queries domicile with totally off-topic missives demonstrating his particular lack of a sense of humor. Were this sort of thing done by yours truly, no doubt the usual gang of strutting boots would be about threatening to kick my elderly ass.
I should be quite happy to host the new domicile.
Knock it off. Your pettiness and whining are boring at best. Post your distortions wherever you like EXCEPT the Welcome thread and we won't have a problem.
We have a Policy thread which serves the same purpose as your so-called "democracy wall".
He who hold the purse, controls the site.
Criticism is always "boring" to those who don't want to hear it, wabbit.
If "wabbit is wise", she will show balance.
But, in no way, should the clique that controls things, be the host of such thread because many complaints will be erased before they're read by the people.
But, in no way, should the clique that controls things, be the host of such thread because many complaints will be erased before they're read by the people.
But, in no way, should the clique that controls things, be the host of such thread because many complaints will be erased before they're read by the people.
Constructive criticism is always welcome. "Poor me, woe is me, you guys are picking on me" is boring.
I should also like to see corrected one so-called "distortion" I have made.
I shall state the pertinent facts once more and prey that someone shall correct any distortions.
1. I posted to the welcome domicile the post renumerated above.
2. Mas No said she wished the host would delete it. When he did not, she did.
3. Her stated reason was it conjured black helicopter images. I leave it to the reader's judgment as to whether this be the case. I leave it to the reader to judge whether it was so offensive that intervention from on high was necessary rather than wait for Major Banks. I also ask the reader to compare it to missive 22 which yet remains. I ask not that the last be removed but as an example of so-called "acceptable" content as opposed to mine which has been deemed "unacceptable." I ask whether an objective opinion would deem that had I posted the exact same wording as Mr. Door it too would be allowed to stand. No, because it is the poster not the content that matters here.
4. 25 posts in totem were removed by many including the great Nilson himself. Yet I and Rosey Stoned alone were threatened with Motish death.
5. Whilst Beano flaunts the rules by posting equally "at best boring" missives irrespective of the subject and threatens me with an ass-kicking.
By the by, the good doctor notes that the extent dictatorship believes "democracy wall" should be confined to a thread ghetto whilst the censored propaganda domicile is "anchored" at the top.
Of course the irony of ironies in all this in point of fact is the so-called Welcome thread was my idea.
Weasel phrase that lawyers tell their clients to say when they don't want to be convicted of PERJURY.
Now I leave. Two baseball games to help with with my #1 daughter and #5 son.
Confine your remarks to something other than yours truly and I shall be happy not to get into these confrontations. Steal my reputation and I must resist to the utter farthing.
It's easy to call someone a weasel and retreat. If you think I am lying, the thread is there for all to see. It is entirely possible that I may have deleted a duplicate post, and certainly would have deleted any revealing personal information, but I admit I have not committed the entire thread to memory. If you can find an instance where it looks like criticism has been excised, please point it out.
Dr. X,
If JJ's posts were in the Welcome thread, they would have been deleted and he would have received the same warning you and Rose did.
Maybe it wasn't a misspelling. Maybe being aware of the existence of the Mote ranks as a major accomplishment.
If you decide to delete it, you have my support. Your qualification post helps eliminate the problem, but is borderline improper for a thread dedicated to newbies.
This is, I repeat, not a place to engage in discussions of any sort with regulars. It is the Welcome lounge for the Mote, the launching pad.
I will be moving both your post and this one to the appropriate thread.
As the good doctor is fond, of saying,
> A soft voice turneth away anchor.
By the by, a proverbs thread is a capital idea, should any of the local layabouts wish to steal it from yours truly.
There's no need to go to the Mote Cafe thread in TT...no one goes there but regulars from here when there is a technical problem.
It's far better to contact people personally, which is what I'm doing...e-mailing people at their public addresses and issuing a personal invitation to visit the Mote. That way you aren't trying to "steal people away" from TT.
Dusty, kindly take your suggestions as to the propriety of rules in this thread to the appropriate thread.
Kindly stick it in your ear. I was responding where I saw your post. Unless you have a policy that you can discuss rules, but others cannot, in which case we can debate that issue.
Some people can threaten you while others, like JontheCad and Cazart, get banned for criticizing the CalCal.
Unfortunately for you, you are no longer one of the elite, a thread moderator. So you join us, the great unwashed demanding equal justice under the law.
We stop all this repetitive merry-go-round crapola and whining.
I go away for a few weeks or even months, and every time I peek in its the same old thing, over and over ad nauseum.
Stone and the Doctor have been whining non-stop for months, maybe even years, who knows?
Others argue the same policy issues endlessly, and nothing ever changes.
Sheesh, no wonder we can't attract new people, reading this stuff is just downright boring.
I thought for a while you were doing this to be funny. Now I am not sure. Either way your posts are a joke and not to be taken seriously.
JJ, that is the clue you have accidently stumbled on...this is like the Stamper episode; the joke is not the posts but our reactions to them.
Shoo.
By the by, I do not think that when one posts a missive here complimenting another mote dweller and suggesting a new domicile one ought to have to content with passerbys bespattering one's clothes with their churlish hurlings.
Peradventure the It Girl I suspect she is a nom de plume for Nilson so he can attack me from behind a skirt as it were.
By the by, I come to bury no one but to praise another suggestion by yours truly. A humor domicile wherein one could pass along grand jests in the tradition of the old school (Bobby Hope, Milt Berle and "Red" Skeleton), good clean jokes and such. Not any of the pureile mutterances that passes for wit nowadays.
I shall be happy to serve as so-called "host" once this domicile is hoisted, though I suspect in point of fact my time here grows short.
Soon I shall join the list of martyrs for truth a la Socrates, Martin Luther King and Lightfoot of Seteaus Seven.
If hemlock it must be then hemlock do thine worse for it is a far better thing I do today and go to morrow.
"No one could consistently misuse words in so humorous a manner unless it was intentional."
No one but the President, you mean.
sounding like me.
The good doctor shall leave that red meet laying on the table. Ho-ho-ho.
I ask that the usual off-topic discussion between Beano and the homebody be removed from this domicile as disruptive and obscurative to the good doctor's on-topic suggestion above.
The current missive of yours truly shall be considered removeable as well without complaint by yours truly.
To reiterate my major and significant point: a humor thread for reenacting the vaudevillianry of old, my own good person acting as host.
Please direct the natterers to confine discussion hence to this important matter.
That is all.
Are lessons ever learned here?
I am not sure that the President's misstatements are unintentional. I have heard him speak eloquently at length without notes or a speech and he didn't miss a word. I wonder if he does it so others will underestimate him, which they seem to do consistently.
In other words, such speculation is the stuff of hilarious comedy scripts only.
Don't you mean "misunderestimate"?
If it's an ego thing for...banks, let him join the Sisters Who Daycare Their Kids as one of the hosts.
Tragically the heavy hamded snuffed out Major Banks enterprise before it lay aboring in its cradle.
Ahh me.
I'd support a new idea, given that it is necessary (I think) to have a thread serving a similar purpose.
Perhaps the thread could be de-anchored, or again perhaps it could become a thread on Digital Culture which discusses life online, cool websites and Internet services, and the history and development of online forums like this one. Such a thread would keep ticking, and also attract commentary from newcomers wanting to share their experiences online.
I'm always interested in that. We could also deanchor it, leave it as the welcome thread, and put a link on the right side (where the Mote Interface, FAQ, etc. are) that says Welcome to the Mote. It would take people there directly.
Wabbit, my email is RAM3@georgetown.org, and I can start it next Monday.
The embarassment is not due your welcome domicile but the lack of effort in drawing hardy souls hereabout to fill it with vainglorious chatter and the welcome (if my case be any example) they recieve upon their appearance.
Why worry that your outpost be an embarassment if no one be here to see it?
The so-called "anchor" should go, by the by, and linked instead to the welcome words at the top of the home screen as the good doctor has many times suggested.
Then remove all the missives therein til now except the minimum necessary to establish tone and mood. Do the same daily in point of fact--as house-cleaning, not with anger and threats--except for the first post of each new victim you attract.
One post per customer as it were, though 24 hours of otherwise clutter be allowed. By the by the thread shall be a daily record of the virginal offerings of those who arrive at this harbor unshorn.
Also the domicile should be made to function so that one is taken to the start of it when entering rather than its tail. I could click on "Welcome, good Dr. Coltrane" and be transported there now in this hyperopic vision. In such a fasion the new wight can see your instructive directives and perhaps one or two examples of how they can begin themselves.
How they wish to introduce themselves as it were to the rest.
Free Rides Now Passé on Information Highway
Most sites offering news and information are still free, but a few have started to impose fees and more are considering doing the same.
Salon.com, which happily gave away its coverage of the Clinton White House, is charging $30 a year for its flagship column on the current administration, called "Bushed." That fee also buys a weekly celebrity gossip column, an erotic art gallery and regular reports on the "Chains of Love" reality TV show. Paying customers can also turn off the ads. (Salon's voluminous "Survivor" coverage remains free.)
David Talbot, Salon's chairman, says he thinks 2 percent of the site's 3 million users will sign up for the new service. Half of them, he guesses, will want the special articles and half will just want to support the site.
"A lot of our audience pays $300 a year to join National Public Radio and they don't have to pay anything," he said. As early as next year, Mr. Talbot said, Salon hopes to impose a fee of $75 to $150 a year to read any of its site with ads.
Why not just impose the full fee now? "That's jumping off a cliff with no net," Mr. Talbot said. Sites that have imposed fees, like Yahoo Auctions, have experienced declines in volume of as much as 90 percent. And the biggest subscription content site, The Wall Street Journal Online, has 574,000 subscribers at $29 to $59 a year, one-tenth the monthly audience of the largest free financial news sites.
hehehe
When pigs fly...
To the point, Talbot makes $226K a year and all the Salon stock he can steal.
Where? I thought the press was controlled by liberals.
He only reads his own posts.
Certainly not Love Sick in Seadate
I agree that the long term for TT is problematic (although I am seriously thinking of placing an order for Salon stock), but I'm not clear on what you think is going to happen in the short term. What events (or expected events) prompted your Message # 12989 ?
Scott Rosenberg just stated that David Talbot was severely misquoted in the Times article. It'll be interesting to see if the paper issues a retraction...
I would guess that a substantial number of the WSJ subscribers are reimbursed by their employers. Same for Inside.com. I can't imagine many companies will pay for Salon memberships that way.
Maybe he should take the NPR analogy further, and let people underwrite specific folders. Hell, charge them to start a new thread. I'd love to see what that would do to some of the folders.
LOL!
ROF!
Rosie, do ya hear the sound of a point whirring past yer head?
I don't care enough about your style to look up your stupid posts.
Yes, most people attribute the success of WSJ's pay site to the fact that it is a deductible business expense.
Someone else mentioned paying for threads at Salon. That would be fascinating. Presumably they would also provide the owner with full delete and banning authority? It would become "rent a forum"--and that might very well be the way that TT continues.
I hadn't seen that. I can't for the life of me figure out how he was misquoted or out of context.
I suspect that they will say that they have no plans to charge $75 for Salon Premium. Which makes me wonder if in a year or so they will drop Salon Premium and make it all pay.
It really is going to be interesting to see how this pans out, particularly with the demise of so many other free services on the internet. Imagine a world without geocities, for example.
You just said something very stupid over in the SALON PREMIUM thread and people are making fun of you.
Women, what are they good for?
You jealous little twit, you're just upset because when you post there, people turn you in and get you banned.
the 'welcome' thread should follow CG's Message # 12990
and, as if i need to say it, Rosetta Slide should never, but ever, get another thread.
Is the therapy working? Have you stopped molesting children yet?
Considering the devastating effect that the Internet bubble has had on the personal economies of so many of us bystanders, while VCs and dot.com executives have all but used wheelbarrows to cart money home by the millions and millions, the very suggestion that I pay to keep one of "them" alive makes me feel a little like a French pauper being solicited by the Marie Antoinette Legal Defense Fund.
A Guided Tour of Middle Earth
Don't fight the hype, Wabbit...
Coming soon, a thread on "Lord of the Rings."13040. PsychProf -5/2/2001 9:54:38 AM
I took a quick look in the archives, but didn't see it. Hopefully, someone else can help.
We should send some recruiters there to get them to join us.
The Books folders over at TT are generally very good.
I know that Sub-Threads haven't been the most active places here so far, but if TT does disappear what would people think of putting subthreads into the Lit thread for refugees to discuss specific titles/genres?
Sorry. This just made me laugh out loud and lengthily.
Fielding,
Could you point me toward the offending post?
Fielding,
If you mean the post wherein Rosey says JudithatHome = Judithspencer on TT, that is common knowledge.
I mean, come on. You go over to the Mote Cafe and JudithSpencer says, "Hi, Judith here."
Let it go, man.
But I don't think it's a violation.
But he can't be banned for being an asshole, I guess.
As has been pointed out, Judith's handle at TT is common knowledge so Rosie wasn't spilling the beans on it.
I prefer that people refer to one another here by their Mote handles and try to restrain themselves from carrying tales from TT, but it isn't strictly against the RoE.
He singlehandedly killed the Welcome thread this week and now he trying to do the same to my thread. I had planned to start it next week.
Certainly, if I'd been a schoolmate of his I'd have beaten him ferociously and regularly.
Each hour that he does a good job earns him two more.
Each hour that he does not makes it less likely that he will take over permanently.
I hope you all join me in wishing the good fellow the best of luck. He's tanned, rested and ready.
Go Rosie, go rosie, go rosie (etc).
Though I've seen better men minced into hamburger meat trying.
By the way, would searing you make you less sudoriferous?
Jen was asking.
Sorry. I don't know anything about TT, so I didn't realize that it was common knowledge. It was a newbie mistake.
But he is unbannable. Post 13086 was a warning salvo reminding us of that fact.
If he did something really terrible, maybe it would be worth keeping him out, but otherwise a banned Stone would be more annoying than what we currently have.
I agree...and your point about his set-to with CharlieL is very telling; he can't handle having anyone do to him what he so much enjoys doing to others.
I didn't see that I should complain about him using my name since I have told it here and use it there...I felt I could be more mature than Stone. Although now I think about it, I could be wearing Pampers and just learning to crawl and be more mature than Stone.
That is almost unimaginable. But then, I've never had bamboo shoots stuck under my nails so maybe I don't have a reference.
You don't have a nuclear war with someone who likes living waist deep in Love Canal.
First time I notice you. Are you new here?
By the by, I note with some passing chagrinity that you have really bolloxed my capitol suggestion of a so-called "welcome domicile."
Peradventure when yours truly clicks on the "welcome" link I am magically cast hither and yon to a domicile called "Digital Media" and have one additional window added to my screen.
Who is responsible for this latest ghoulash of things?
Here's a good idea.
All new threads should be "anchored like a balloon" to the top of the column for a week to get everyone to read it.
Where is ...banks?
Lab - Rather than all "getting" Stoner, let's all ignore the puling fuck.
"You could hear it talk, you could hear it sing." --Bill Monroe, Uncle Pen
Bureaucratic channels have been followed and correct procedures executed but no answer has been forthcoming from those who care capable of providing an answer to the question as it was asked.
By the by, yours truly has asked that question repeatedly for days on the so-called "policies" thread and drawn no response.
Does Beano hold any office or title here. THE PEOPLE demand an answer?
One yearns for the day when someone was here (i.e., myself) who .
Does anyone remember when the Doctor was interesting?
That is all.
Promise?
He also designed the Mote logo.
Well, I thought I remembered a post in the "Ask DrXavier" thread that was interesting, but I could be wrong.
The recent shtick is beyond boring.
If not, then preadventure keep your gutter-sniping to yourself.
One should be able to go to a so-called policy thread as one was directed and ask a specific question regarding policy and get some sort of response rather than watching so-called moderators exchange insults with others that is to say Daffy Duck whilst your polite question is ignored.
I have been repeatedly threatened by Beano and told he is part of the ruling cabal that "makes decisions for the Moat." He has told me he will "kick my ass out."
When yours truly is threatened in such a manner, the good doctor likes to verify and gauge the verocity of such threats.
Can Beano kick my ass out?
Yes or no.
If no and but an empty boast, can I in turn go around making such empty boasts to newcomers when they show up on the so-called "welcome" domicile?
Hello and welcome, I am Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane. Kiss my skull ring or I shall kick your ass out.
look in the upper corner of the butterscoth bar for the link with the blue font
Until then the good doctor sees no reason to show deference to ruling elites who spit upon a humble champion of the common people.
I shant whistle Dixie whilst toiling on the plantation.
Strange, but I seem to recall my own domicile was pillaged from me for such similar so-called dereliction.
A very "interesting" missive from you, Dustbin. Do you have an answer for my question?
Your question has been answered. If you were seriously interested in answers (which I doubt) you would now be happy. If you are interested in fomenting trouble (as I suspect) you will continue your whining.
If not, then preadventure keep your gutter-sniping to yourself.
You don't get to set the rules on how, and whether I get to respond to you.
One should be able to go to a so-called policy thread as one was directed and ask a specific question regarding policy and get some sort of response rather than watching so-called moderators exchange insults with others that is to say Daffy Duck whilst your polite question is ignored.
I've asked questions in the policy thread that haven't been answered. But I'm not squealing like as stuck pig.
You have to live with your track record. When few people believe you are asking an honest question, few people are interested in going out of their way to provide answers.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Why the namecalling? Is that your idea of being a productive member?
I don't recall that we have ever conversed before, so I don't know that you have any valid rationale for the unwarranted hostilities.
Unless, of course, you posted under another name before. Is that the case? Will you reveal any prior Mote ids?
Rosey Stoned is the official spokesperson for Das Moat.
> If you were seriously interested in answers (which I doubt) you would now be happy.
The good doctor would be happy if it came from someone official and in charge. It seems that four or five administrators (in truth the good doctor has now lost count) could manage a simple question such as this.
> You don't get to set the rules on how, and whether I get to respond to you.
Yours truly was not addressing you. In point of fact, your position is self-deconstructive.
> I've asked questions in the policy thread that haven't been answered. But I'm not squealing like as stuck pig.
Whether you choose to squeal or not when stuck is irrelevant to yours truly.
> You have to live with your track record. When few people believe you are asking an honest question, few people are interested in going out of their way to provide answers.
Evidently I shall be left with dreggish responses such as yours.
No.
Perhaps you should consider your own unwarranted provocatations in missives 13110 through 13111.
If we have truly never conversed before then in point of fact you introduced yourself in what the good doctor would call an hostile way.
Yours truly was not addressing you.
Excuse me for not realizing that "keep your gutter-sniping to yourself" was directed at some other person.
Ya everybody must get Stone...
By the by, as you are unable to answer my question due to lack of being in a position to do so, in point of fact I see little reason in continuing our little teta teta. Peradventure the wight himself has arrived on the scene and shall likely be pouring forth his galls of vitriol he considers "wit" in the direction of yours truly so I must take my leave, good friends.
Ta ta for now.
He did ask for a digital culture thread (IIRC), and the transformation of the Welcome thread to DC didn't make sense. It sure looks odd.
I think you are quite unfair.
The Welcome thread was deader than DC. Did you levy the same complaints at Marj?
Stone explained his timing problems, yet still managed to include several posts. The thread is not exactly hopping, but it has more traffic (even more non Stone traffic!) than some threads. (Yes, I literally mean that a single post by Jones qualifies as more traffic than some threads)
This from the musician (sic) who has had control of one of the most important threads in mote for over an year and it's as dead as Robert Johnson.
The WELCOME thread was the thread that ...banks was to host.
I had planned to premiere START ME UP! next Monday.
The WELCOME thread was the thread that ...banks was to host.
I had planned to premiere START ME UP! next Monday.
Digital Cultures has the possibility of some interesting discussions. It isn't fair to compare it to the original purpose of the thread. It also isn't fair to compare it to an old thread which has had significant traffic in the past but which is now lying dormant. This is a new thread. It should be attracting interest. Instead people are staying away in droves.
Rosie has been claiming for months now about what a great host he would be and how he could breathe life into new threads. Well, his first attempt has fallen flat.
The Welcome thread was meant to be less than hectically busy; Stone has carped at everyone about what a fantastic job he can do if given the chance and he's the problem, not the thread.
His excuses to Marj about his time limitations didn't prevent him from attacking people with his usual verve yesterday nor did it slow him down from linking to any and everything he happened to light on in Drudge.
Rose has alienated almost everyone on this site and no thread he hosts will succeed because he is insufferable.
It is because he is a stupid ninny.
He does have that gaggle of kids, after all.
Even Judithesnitch contributes her infrequent regional gay theatre reviews. The ones the local papers turn down.
But you are the best example of my grandfathering moderators to the evergreen threads is a mistake. You act bored with it and it's obvious.
Look at the difference in numbers between MUSIC with 4K posts over an 18 month period--and MOVIES with 19K.
There is nothing wrong with you giving it up to someone with more energy.
And which you evidently READ, being so consumed with all things gay as you are. You click on all of Cellars links, too, I'll bet.
And why do you think that is?
Even Judithesnitch contributes her infrequent regional gay theatre reviews. The ones the local papers turn down.
And she has my complete support to keep doing so.
Look at the difference in numbers between MUSIC with 4K posts over an 18 month period--and MOVIES with 19K.
Different subjects, different levels of interest. It is a sad fact but far more people are interested in movies/TV that are interested in art and music. I accept that and don't let it bother me.
There is nothing wrong with you giving it up to someone with more energy.
Someone like you? I think not. You have already demonstrated the effect you can have on a thread. No thanks.
Dusty - The Welcome Thread was ill-conceived.
Yes, it was, which leads to a couple of loosely related points.
Rosetta jumped to my defense when "Try the Mote" was Ripped and replaced by the Welcome thread. I had mixed emotions, because it is usually nice to have people defending you, but he did miss that there were emails discussing some aspects of that decision (and for the paranoid, the existence of those emails was discussed openly). Stone should have provided a more honest apology to Ms. No for over-reacting.
Having said that, the argument for Ripping "Try the Mote" apparently was the single-minded mission of someone to cut back on the number of threads. I'm an agnostic on the issue, but it was odd to RIP "Try the Mote" on the basis of thread count cutback, and then immediately create a "Welcome" thread with a different host. A more paranoid person could read something into that.
The creation of a Welcome thread dedicated to new members is bound to fall on its face if there are no new members. Accordingly, a sensible approach would be to create the thread concurrently with a concerted plan to get new members. I know that Marj made some attempts in that direction (and applaud his attempts), but I suspect it was a one-off effort inspired by a burst of enthusiasm, not followed up by a real plan.
I am venturing into policy, so I'll repeat and continue on there.
How about: Sex and History? or The History of Sex?
having said that, it probably reflects an underlying desire to come up with some way(s) to entice and then keep new people. And, thus, this is good, portentous or not.
??
Did someone say it was a big deal?
We try lots of things that don't work out as planned. Then we move on.
I can't tell if you're referring to me or not in the "single minded mission" comment (I'm not annoyed, just not sure). But I always thought that thread was useful. You do realize that it is on the front page, yes? As HTML Scratchpad.
I agree that the title change and the ability to change subjects is problematic. For example, we added the "Welcome" link on the front page to take the user to what was the welcome thread. But now it's the Digital Culture thread.
Yes, and new members will get lost in the shuffle. It's pointless to direct them there.
I didn't realize that Try The Mote had been RIPped. It shouldn't have been. Try The Mote was very valuable for neophytes like me who are just learning HTML. RIPping it makes this a less welcoming community. I strongly favor restoring Try The Mote.
Almost anyone in TT knows the major irritant that is Rosetta; I'm just hoping when they check in, he's on vacation in Ireland.
And he learned it from Ace of Spades.
Judith,
If it pisses off Stone that's just an added gimme.
Could we please change it back to Welcome, in the short term?
i think the whole thing should be deleted and either (a) start over fresh or (b) wait until TT goes under and then launch it again.
either way, reading the thread as a whole shows what a real thread abortion is like.
No, I don't believe that thread hosts should change the name of their threads at their whim. I'll take blame for not putting a foot down when the first spate of this began with Dr. X and Fielding vying for alphabetical supremacy on their threads. I had hoped that no one else would engage in such, but I should have known that after Ace's thread there would be much less hesitation to change titles.
Try the Mote was not RIPed but put in as a subthread to the Welcome thread. I imagine that the Welcome thread will be history by tomorrow and I'll bring Try the Mote back into the regular thread list.
Additionally, thread consolidation to my mind is not about sheer numbers but rather about having too many threads that are too similar to one another. Try the Mote is for a very specific purpose and it is a sound idea to keep the thread.
It was a sound idea to create a Welcome thread and if people respected the parameters of the thread as it was created then it would still be a good idea. Unfortunately there were too many people far more interested in their own swaggering egoes to keep in spirit with a welcoming atmosphere.
...banks is the real bad guy here, having changed the name of the WELCOME thread yesterday to DIGITAL CULTURE. Why you would think he should stay as host is a mystery to me.
I don't know why you don't accept me for who I am. I have a lot to offer the mote.
I know I'm hitting a nerve by calling for some of the original hosts to give us their evergreen threads. I know for a fact that benear would return if CalCal wasn't host of the MOVIES thread.
Jj holds Mote's money so I know I don't have any chance to get him to turn over the MUSIC thread. But it needs fresh blood, especially if we are to encourage TTers from their music threads to come here.
The difference between our MUSIC thread and theirs is night and day. Last night I found Jj talking about T&As in the SEX thread rather than repling to posts in his own backyard.
About five days ago.
I can't tell if you're referring to me or not in the "single minded mission" comment
Not that single-minded mission :)
Seriously, I don't think so. I've seen you chime in that you generally agree with keeping thread counts down, but you aren't rabid about it. I don't recall who was the instigator of the movement.
that's because the 'discussion' was a single post...
... by Rosetta Slide
Bring back that thread ASAP...Unless you really want to kill it.
And I think it's outragious the way ...banks causes the problems and then disappears. He sounds like a real prankster.
Yes, Rosetta asked for such a thread, and no, we hadn't decided to give it to him.
But for someone else to create such a thread is a slap in the face. (I fully recognize that a large majority will say "huzzah" to that.)
Jj holds Mote's money so I know I don't have any chance to get him to turn over the MUSIC thread.
Why do you do this?
I'm defending you, because I think you weren't treated fairly. You aren't making it easy.
Stones tendency to alienate everyone with remarks like that is why his "thread" is foundering.
The Welcome thread was an idea that didn't work. It was an even worse idea for one person to change its purpose midstream, especially when there's been no significant interest in the new topic. In any case, thread creation and the designation of hosts is a job for the moderators.
abuse, however, should be stopped ASAP
if a host misuses his/her thread (say, by changing the topic midstream) then that person should be removed as a host.
why all this drama?
In August it will be two years and "the community" has hardly grown because ower of the clique.
...banks' WELCOME thread here was always a con. The best idea (mine of course) was to make the CAFE the welcome thread and anchor it to the top with hot links so people could practice/test the technology.
If Judithesnitch is telling the truth, hers is the best idea right now to get new members.
She says 18. Let's hope she gets five.
Like the Jesuits, we should be send our people to TT to recruit their best people.
And bring back people like BoomerJeff and benear, who both have major problems with people here.
Someday I'll tell you what Boomer told me about how a fray member from northern CALifornia harrassed him offline.
I don't think anyone has suggested that we take away the ability of a thread host to change the title of a thread merely that such changes should be well thought out and not abused.
You are walking an extremely thin line with personal information. I suggest you back away from it immediately.
You are, apparently, revealing information you learned in an email. Comes a bit close to the line.
Also, you know perfectly well that BoomerJeff was not talking about me, but you word it to make people think so. What a disgusting little fuck you are.
Stone, who do you think people around here believe when it comes to "truth"....I do not lie, you ass.
Name them...
You seem to think I just hide over there...I post quite a bit and even have my own thread. And unlike with you, people respond to me without throwing up.
I've always felt a little guilty that I once volunteered to do some recruiting work, then didn't deliver. I'm happy to hear that others are making efforts.
And in what folders are they from? Some of those folders are pretty racy. What are Judithesnitch's strengths anyway?
If this isn't CalGal, then it is very funny, in an unintentional way. I didn't think Stone could bethis cunning. Usually he's such a dope.
The only woman that has trouble with numbers is Rosie's wife, so you do the math.
I do, however, get a chuckle out of Stone thinking that he could get away with implying that CalGal was a stalker. I mean, come on! How could he think that CalGal woudn't call him on it?
Maybe I am a bit Gonzo today.
(BTW, I don't think his latest is anything close to bannable but let's not get bogged down in details.)
For the next two weeks, Stone's ID will be temporarily disabled for general conduct detrimental to the Mote. Should he return under another of his logins, the ban will be made permanent.
Should any other person mention his name during that time, that person will also be suspended for two weeks. (Some leeway here, of course, for those unaware of the rule, but no griping about him and no allowing the name "Rosetta Stone" to create negative, mind-numbing energy. And no accusing every new poster of being Stone: the Gatekeeper will have to ensure he's kept out.)
After the two weeks, if Stone serves it honestly and truly, he can return to the community with all rights and privileges--including the right to be considered for thread hosting--provided he conducts himself in such a way that no member complain about his conduct.
Should, however, any person lodge a complaint about him here, the moderators will judge whether this complaint is valid. If it is, Stone will again be under the same sentence and will lose any thread he hosts. If not, the person complaining will instead endure a two-week suspension.
Further, any person receiving three such suspensions will suffer the same fate as JF.
My thoughts are
Oh, gosh. Did he? You make that sound like it was a difficult thing to do.
He lied about why BoomerJeff isn't at the Mote, he lied about when he was stalked, and I suspect he lied about the fact that the actual stalker was from Northern California.
He was tossing out a lure--a nearly or completely untrue statement that only a simpleton or a dupe could confuse with a carefully crafted statement of truth intended to implicate someone without actually saying so.
And look! He found one.
IJ - We cannot easily effectively ban the Stoners of the virtual world, only their ids. What we can do is withold the attention that they crave. If we just say no to speaking to Stone he may go elswhere and attempt to antagonize some other group of people. I fail to see how his supposed online energy has been at all useful, unless one believes his press releases.
Don't ban, just don't interact.
What was funny was that Stone thought he could get away with it. CalGal is too caught up in her rich fantasy life to see the obvious.
1) I think the idea of a Digital Culture thread is a good one which could and should include welcoming newcomers. Newcomers, particularly refugees, are likely to be drawn to it more than a simple welcome mat. I have come to realize this.
2) Stone has shown once again that he cannot handle a thread decently as a host. Posting disparate links with zero attempt at context or fostering discussion is sad.
3) I can't be bothered to read through the hundreds of posts on the topic of the thread in question and/or my handling of it. I did act unilaterally, but based on the comments made previously here, and my best judgement. Plus, in order to give my good friend Rosetta the chance to see what thread-management is like and his own skills and suitability for it.
4) I have zero problem with either hosting or not hosting the Welcome thread or the Digital Culture thread whichever it is or is not.
5) I do apologize for not being around for most of the day. Unforseen circumstances. I'd wanted to monitor Rosetta and explain my thread name-switching.
6) There are some people here who simply refused to let the initial Welcome thread idea work or develop. If the exercise is repeated again, I hope they can restrain themselves.
Lighten up about him, and yourselves, and even this neat little forum.
I liken my exercise to something like allowing the simpleton to guide the oxcart for a few hundred yards, done in order to make him realize that he's not up to it, and that he should stick to riding around in the back. Even simpletons can get small messages like that.
I also see little positive result from his online energy. Yet very few people have tried at all to get along with him. I concede that he bites the hands that feed him, though, as Diva's case demonstrates and mine as well. I've gone to bat for him more times than I can count, and yet he insists on poking at the one sore spot I have for no reason but sheer perversity.
Nevertheless, what we can tolerate says a lot about us as a community and as individuals. Perhaps Stone can't change his stripes no matter what, but if he's truly given a clean slate and we're all forced to layoff his past misdeeds for a while, maybe he won't scribble all over it again.
Like you, I'm skeptical. But we have to try something new. A person with a house and a job and friends is less likely to be a mugger.
A liberal like you ought to see that. Heh.
"Civility" is a nice word and a worthy concept, but it also can be used to mask efforts to effect uniformity and to mask less than pure agendae.
This whole place could use a bit of leavening. We are not God's Gift to anyone. Well, maybe one or two.
I think vK's exhortations that everyone ignore him is going to work as well as it ever did in gradeschool--that is to say, not at all. I think Indy's suggestion is completely unworkable and just as much a product of wishful thinking as vK's .
Generally most people ignore him or mock him. Periodically a fuss flares up. Same old, same old.
(BTW, I support a ban, if that's what people want. Or any other approach.)
No one is better than a monkey in the analogy. But it sure makes we monkeys feel good to catch the shit-flinger and beat on him for a while.
Anyway, I posted some specific suggestions back up thread, and that's all the energy I'm devoting to this blackhole discussion.
Point me to a thread that isn't..
...banks showed up for a short while this afternoon, No. Any news about when the DC will reopen for business. I have lots of new web sites to put in.
I assumed Digital Culture would be discussions about digital communications not another tired old "Cool Stuff Links" dumping ground.
Have you been following Salon Premium, their delisting, and the fact that they don't have enough cash to make it through the year?
But my idea was to get readers to contribute interesting web sites that they've discovered.
Wabbit liked the idea
I don't think we need a thread for interesting web sites--we already have N&Q.
Not really. I spend very little time there lately. But I think a lot of us saw the writing on the wall when they started laying off tech staff a while back. A healthy online operation does not lay off tech staff. They might get rid of management or support staff but never tech staff.
It's too bad. TT is the most diverse community I've ever come across online.
Hardly.
Or, at least not in its POLITICS and WHITE HOUSE folders.
But what's truly revolutionary about TT is the ability of posters to create thread titles and subheads.
Well, there's your problem. Anyone with any common sense stops posting in Politics and WH once they figure out that the soul purpose of posting in those locations is to fling dooky at other posters.
You just don't get a lot of diversity among dooky flingers anymore (shrug).
Stone is so one note he was surprised I could contact 18 people there to invite over here. That's because he has no imagination.
But where are they?
You are constantly badgering people about getting people to check us out and then, when someone admits to doing so, you spend your time ridiculing them. You're an odious man, Stone, and it's not surprising to me you are so loathed around here.
At least 5 people have told me they checked the place out and plan on coming back...maybe some of them came here and saw your name and ran screaming into the night; I don't know.
I thought it was right the first time. I just thought you were talking about people who were very serious about their posting :)
Now that you mention it Dusty ... (grin)
But wait, that would assume that TT Politics posters are evolved sufficiently to possess a soul ... which is questionable on a case by case basis.
I'm wondering what's happening to the SHARE INTERNET SITES thread.
And what punishment will be dished out to ...banking for screwing it up.
I've always questioned why Survivor 2 was a thread anyway, rather than a subthread. Normally subthreads are the kiss of death for the topic. Survivor 2 might have changed that.
But you're "comic" post gave me the chance to repeat my question to Ms. No on when she plans to reopen DC.
If your answer is you like being the village idiot and want to retain the title, please say so, and I'll go on despising you like all the others. You have certainly and continually earned it.
If on the other hand, you would like a new beginning and are prepared to act like a halfway decent human being should others grant you that second chance and treat you like a halfway decent human being having some intrinsic worth, then speak now or forever hold your peace.
A better description would be: "Genes, Languages and Peoples: the origins and ethnogenesis of the world's populations"
You'll have a brand spanking clean thread to begin on Monday as was previously discussed unless you're ready to begin it sooner.
I hope Stone will make more of this thread than just links, however. "Digital Culture" sounds more promising than that.
I can hear the excuses already - this child or that child needed us to do this or that and I just didn't have time to get ready/to keep the thread going etc.
What bull shit.
Can he come off as a responsible, perhaps even likeable, guy?
To quote from another thread,
caw caw caw.
The Best Things In Life Are Free....
Our writer coughs up $50 for Salon Premium — and then explains why this service is going to fall on its ass.
Nice little item.
It would benefit us all to turn our thinking around and try to help one another be better posters and hosts rather than constantly looking for a way to needle one another and point out flaws. None of us here is perfect and we all have done things that have detracted from the forum upon occasion.
If you feel that you absolutely must say something snarky then the appropriate threads to make such comment would be the Inferno or Suggestions. Legitimate concerns about the way in which threads are being run will be taken with all due consideration but general carping about how much you dislike someone will be moved to the Inferno.
what's going to happen to all those terrific linking posts I put in the night of the living dead?
Think of me of Nicholas Negroponte.
The thread is still available for you to copy posts out of. It might be a good idea to save it to a word file so that you can re-post those links when the new thread goes live.
Judith,
Thanks! Discussion is certainly a concern for any thread. We'll just have to wait and see how it develops once it goes live.
This so-called community occasionally has bats in its collective belfrey.
What he said.
"Now, Rosie, be a good boy and we'll let you completely fuck up and make an ass of yourself on our time."
Why? We do it because it makes us feel better about ourself, assisting the egregiously disabled.
However, it should not be called "Digital Culture". He clearly wants it to be "My Favorite Links". I suggest it be named properly to alert the unwary.
Done.
I see it as a no lose situation.
It's a chunk of cyberspace; it's not like we are givinh hima car, or even a doughnut.
I wish I could accept that compliment but the credit must go to Wabbit's level-headedness on this. I'm rather embarrassed to admit what my first reaction was, but after hearing Wabbit's reasoning on the matter I'm convinced that she made the right choice and I stand behind the decision 100%.
I'd love to have you host a thread, but that topic seems to duplicate much of Home & Garden. Would you consider hosting a thread on Antiques and wise bargain hunting?
Aromatherapy for the rhinorrhoeal
Turn that dirt into cash: crafts ideas for dust bunnies
Cross-indexing your underpants
I was joking....just a joke!
We had the Collecting thread and I think it didn't exactly burn barns.
I was only making a joke...besides, I can wait for the Holidays. heh heh...
Now what am I going to do with my dust bunny farm and gum-wrapper collection?
With Survivor just finished, I thought we'd maintain the Survivor 2 thread through the weekend and RIP it on Monday.
You are one of the more engaging jackbooted martinets I've encountered. It must be quite a strain. Is there a history of Latin-American dictatorships in the family?
Do you ever read Hints from Heloise? Some of those suggestions are ridiculous!
Dear Heloise,
I do a lot of laundry. I used to get tired of pulling out the lint and throwing it away. In fact, it got to the point where I was having to collect lint during loads and after washing loads. Plus, I had to take out the trash once a day! Only after I noticed how fresh the lint smelled did I realize how useful it could be. Now, I keep it all, and would you like to know the best place to use it? The litterbox! I just take my excess lint and use it as kitty-litter. Now my whole house smells fresh and my cat loves the new texture. I hope your readers have other great uses for lint.
Signed,
A happy camper
I have found that keeping my lint enables me the opportunity to practice my knitting but with scented "thread". My new fall coat is a plethora of blue and it smells clean.
Signed,
Heloise.
I don't know if you're like me, but I go through a lot of Q-tips and hydrogen peroxide. One day I decided to sterilize the old Q-tips by soaking them in the empty peroxide bottles filled with water. They come out sparkling white and sanitary. A must for those hard to reach body cavities that collect lint. Now, I can go to the beach and not worry about that embarassing navel lint AND can buy lunch with all of the money I saved.
Yours truly,
A happy camper
I save all of my used ear buds by tossing them into a pillow case. When the pillow case is full, I simply sew up the remaining side and voila, a pillow that is softer than down.
You're nobody in Hollywood until you've been sued by Tom Cruise.
I'm hoping everyone will be sharing information on the top five web sites they go to every morning. Tease: My first site is WRC-TV's "Weather Bug" because it has weather equipment at Bullis, a private school near my house.
Later we can get into the Digital Culture aspects of the internet. I have not heard from vw yet. Maybe she hasn't seen the mention here on Friday. If Ms No can get me her email, I will write her. She's my first pick because she talked about the subject here. As a courtesy to her I'll wait until tomorrow before asking someone else.
For the time being, wabbit, my name does not have to be the one listed as host.
I am also open to cohosting a thread combining "Travel" with "Food and Wine". I would call it "The Good Life" or something like that. This, of course, would be contingent on JJ's support, which I take as implied based on prior discussions. (JJ please let me know if you are opposed to this).
Personally, I would prefer to keep the two threads separate, so that conversations about unrelated topics do not step on each other. I recognize that people will want to argue about this, as they do about everything.
You know the offer is still open for you to cohost as well.
If you would rather have Food and Wine as a separate thread, I will support that as well, but I do think there would be a lot of overlap. Let's see what the consensus of opinion is here.
Fielding won't be happy until he's hosting or cohosting every thread here.
Where does this guy get off?
Exit 24
"Where does this guy get off?"
Right behind your mom.
Would like to start the EXPLORING THE NET tonight, or tomorrow morning. Leave host name blank for now.
tease post to start it off:
Quest for Solvency Leads to Fees for Once-Free Online Services...Salon has lost $57 million since March 1998
We can't leave the host name blank or you won't be able to get in to moderate the thread. It is the act of listing you as host that enables your ID to access the hosting screens.
You're on EST, correct? Tell me what time you'd like to go live and I can spark up the thread for you, provided I'm not in traffic at that time.
If not, tomorrow is okay. I'm responsible for the kids' homework tonight because mom is going to a meeting.
(Thread hosts, I would like to post this question several times to make sure people consider it. Please don't take this as SPAM. I'll try to be judicious.)
8pm EST it is. If I'm a couple minutes late, don't panic I'm only stuck in traffic.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the original reference to this. What were you asking me RS?
Sorry I'm late. There was a car fire on the 405. It was on the other side of the freeway but of course everyone on our side had to stop and look so the traffice was piled up in both directions.
I see the thead is up and running. Have fun!
I think it's an important thread and I want it to succeed.
I am currently overwhelmed at work (I run my own business so the buck and the unfinished chores stop here) and home (were closing on a new house which also means relocating the home office and weeding through 7 years of crap). Conceivable, once I get settled into the new place, unpack my coffee mug and find my paper clips, I'll be back to my usual daily posting habit. But that could very well be a month and some change away.
If you were looking for immediate input, you might want to ask someone else. If they don't work out long term, I would be pleased to be reconsidered. If you are happy holding the fort down solo for the first 30 to 60 days, slap my name up there and I will contribute in between deciding if I really need to move stuff again that I haven't seen since the last time I moved (grin)
So I'll elave it up to you sir to decide. Whatever you think works best for you is fine by me.
IJ says that Aytchman, who just finished his terrific Survivor II thread, might be interested.
If so, please respond.
And, vw, maybe if the thread becomes an evergreen we can sign you on with him in a month's time.
Because of the blind faith by wabbit and Ms. No, I'm going to try to be very good the next month. But I doubt that my Gollum-type personality can be hidden for more than 3 or 4 weeks.
(grin)
Strength arises from knowledge of one's own limitations. So says the tag on my tea bag.
Now the Politics thread is loaded up with talk about coitus and oral sex....weird.
For now, Good Night.
I notice that this "Francis" prick cut several posts from a thread in which he is listed as a host and pasted those posts into another thread he is not hosting. Does the host of any single thread have access to edit all threads in this forum? In other words, are there any threads here I can post to that the "Francis" prick cannot edit?
I do not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality.
janjon
I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.
Sakonige
Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.
I hope I have addressed all of your objections.
Someone other than myself posted under my login ID in the American Politics thread. Can I get those posts deleted?
Without post numbers, how can anyone tell which are you and which are this "other"?
re: Message # 13334
Do you have editing privileges to delete the posts on the American Politics thread?
Only the thread host or a Moderator can remove posts from a thread. Other hosts may move posts from their own threads into threads they believe are more appropriate.
Please point me to where your ID has been forged so that I can take action.
Message # 13336
Please delete posts #18416 and #18427 which were created under my login ID in the American Politics thread by someone other than myself without my consent.
sakonige is referring, I believe, to posts that she made in Sex that were cut and pasted into American Politics.
Get a grip, wonkers. Azure is just having a hissy fit, and Niner is playing word games.
No one knows anything about the real you, wonkers. Nor do they want to.
No one logged in as Sakonige. She is angry because her posts were moved. Her original claim was inaccurate, so she stated something that is technically true: that her posts were "created" in another thread by a move. This happens any time a thread host moves a post. The text and the userid are the same and no host--or indeed anyone--is able to change a moniker on an existing post, moved or not.
Fielding is completely incorrect in saying that they were cut and pasted. Moves are a system event, initiated by a thread host.
You created those posts under your own ID with your password. They were moved as were the posts of others from the Sex thread. No one has impersonated you or breached the security of your identity or password.
I disagree that the posts should have been moved to the Politics rather than the Inferno, but as the thread host Francis has the right to move conversations that he feels are off topic.
If you don't like the way he runs his thread then appeal to the other host or vote with your feet.
If, on the other hand, he just did it accidentally, then he could say so.
But I also don't understand why anyone feels the need to "discuss" why he moved the posts.
He moved the posts. So what?
Good lord. Get some perspective.
I posted because Judith was upset about it and, since I agreed with her on the basics, I figured support would make her feel better. (I'm nice that way. Really.)
In truth, it's not a big deal except he refused to acknowledge the fact that he did move on topic posts. Thus leaving it an open issue--does Francis really think that oral sex discussions are political and off-topic for his thread? He has now acknowledged he fucked up, so fine.
He moved the posts -- all of them -- because whatever the discussion began as, it ended as a rehash of the Endless Clinton "Affair means Love Affair" Debate.
He didn't want a political discussion in the Sex thread. So he moved everything, to preserve the integrity/flow/sense of the debate.
Who. The Fuck. Cares.
Moreover, then you have a chance for a hundred little quibbles ("why this and not that") rather than one big argument--which is usually resolved by "it's the host's prerogative."
Plus, picking and choosing among posts is hard and requires brains and we all know FU is a lazy imbecile.
The "what is sex" discussion went on for a long time prior to the intro of Clinton. The irony being that it was Francis who introduced it.
Indy,
True enough about the lazy imbecile. I'm assuming that other posts on oral sex won't be moved to Politics.
I wanted to see a "moving" war. Francis moves them to Politics, Jay says bullshit, this is Sex, moves them back, and so on.
No big deal, incidentally.
When I get in contact with the woman, I want to have the goods ready to ease negotiations and not leave her cooling her heels waiting for a way to post.
I'll work out with FU some way of verifying she's the real McColeen.
And, JJ, how do I write checks on the Mote's account to cover both mine and Ms. Weigel's expenses? They may be considerable.
and, there certainly is precedent for having parallel discussions in two threads. after all, we now have a discussion about sex in its own thread and in Politics.
Sorry, she'll have to register herself.
I'd be uncomfortable having a moderator create an ID. Technically, you could create an ID for her, but surely she could create it herself? Think of all the contact time you'd have while, er, helping her.
What about that poet guy they had in poetry? I bet he received special accommodations...
This isn't the Post Office for heaven's sake. I expect to be able to cut through red tape with something less than a machete.
If need be, I'll let her use my login, but knowing FU's recently revealed proclivities, that's living too much on the edge for old Indy.
Indeed, this is an important and momentous question.
Sometimes I wake up nights screaming in nightmare-induced terror at the prospect of a post being moved to the Politics thread.
And if some critical posts are deleted! My god! Don't get me started!
You think she'd be comfortable with someone else having the password to her account? After she left, that means that someone would be able to post as her.
If you get in touch (heh) with her, why not ask her what she feels comfortable with?
We're all writing for posterity here, guys.
Let's keep in mind that it is crucial that our all-important scribblings be preserved precisely as originally written, else generations yet unborn will not have access to the great work and transcendent wisdom contained here.
In the words of several Table Talkers:
We're writing not for each other, but for the MILLIONS of lurkers scanning our Delphic jotting out in "the peanut galleries."
And I agree: FU has done a tremendous diservice to all these benighted lurkers who seek our wisdom.
FU: For shame, man. For shame.
I don't have a problem with parallel discussions. I just find it laughable that folks will post in two threads multiple times about something they claim is "no big deal".
Did I leave my bullwhip with you?
As you frequently do, you missed the point. I don't give a damn about my pithy words being memorialized for posterity's sake. I do care, mildly, about little distortions here and there in terms of the interchanges that go on here.
You more than anyone demonstrated the abuses that those who host threads can effect. (I don't really think frankie was deliberately being abusive, incidentally. I just think he showed bad judgment.)
At any rate, since I've declined in the past and have no interest in the future in hosting any threads, I guess I will shut up about it.
No, we are writing from posterior. IOW, we are all just talking out our ass.
ms. no - you are being uncharacteristically a bit overly touchy on this
I've just reached my quota for complaints for the month already is all. I'll go have some coffee and flirt with the webmasters and rejuvenate.
Just hold on to it, but keep it handy, yes?
You can always come to the Sex thread and flirt with us. I don't know how much that will do for you, but it will do wonders for us. (G)
Why, thank you, kind sir.
This website only exists for a small clique of internet addicts to exercise the power to edit content and sanction participants. That's what it's for. There is no point in joining any of these conversations except to be used as fodder.
Or maybe to say hello or goodbye to an old friend.
Sakonige is beautiful when she puts on that hurt look.
That is pretty much all I am here for. Just a little bit of socialization as I grind my way through the work day.
BTW, I hope I am on your list of old friends.
I've checked all the RIP boxes, etc. on the maintenance page but the thread still shows on the Mote home page. Are thread hosts unable to actually retire threads?
Message # 13395
I've always assumed you didn't like me because of my race, religion and politics.
I dislike your politics, but I don't dislike you.
I find your race and religion fascinating. Even if I didn't, race and religion are not things to dislike someone over. I may not always agree with your politics, but I never allow politics to get in the way of friendship.
Well, that's sensible, Biener. Even you wouldn't like being friends with just nutjobs.
(just joking.)
shouldn't Try the Mote be back in the thread list by now?
How sad for you.
Life is too short to spend it with idiots.
I think you take politics way to seriously.
Not that it is much of an effort, since I really don't know many Republicans beyond casual or strictly "business" connections anyway.
Your loss. Some of the people I care about most in the world are life-long Democrats. I know my life would be much poorer if I had your attitude about friendships and politics.
My God, if I did that I wouldn't be able to talk to any of you geeks.
But - when it comes to so many other things - views about abortion, gay rights, civil liberties, taxation policies, drug policies, the environment, international responsibilties and roles, etc., as I said - life is too short to spend it with idiots.
But a little love and a lot of patience, and you can show them the error of their ways. But first they have to admit that they have a problem.
You are welcome to come to the Arts & Music thread and discuss music, art or architecture. Personally I would like to see a discussion on architecture. We haven't had one in far too long. I would like to see the architecture you enjoy if you have any links to share. My taste in architecture can be rather unconventional.
But - when it comes to so many other things - views about abortion, gay rights, civil liberties, taxation policies, drug policies, the environment, international responsibilties and roles, etc., as I said - life is too short to spend it with idiots.
That is the difference between us. I can disagree with someone about policy issues without believing they are an idiot. I can accept that opinions vary, and I can respect an opinion even if I don't agree with it. It is a shame that you feel the way you do.
the "Welcome!" link needs to be deleted or the link needs to go to something else than the FAQ.
i hate seeing supposedly different links going to the same source.
one more question: is banks still going to host 'try the mote' or will it revert back to Dusty? not that it impacts me, just curious.
By the way, I've received good response from my personal e-mails to people inviting them to come here. One today let me know he is just waiting for a confirmation from the big poohbah to dive right in...others have checked it out by lurking and are planning to register soon.
The evil of two lessers.
in Post 13409
I would write more but several times when trying to post this time of day my posts do not make
it.
so will see if this does
are all idiots but I find it interesting that
on the TV regarding members US congress
so often just seeing them I can tell they
are Republican. Yes, I know this sounds pretty kooky - but Trent Lott, the guy from Florida,
the majority leader of Rep. I better get my list of names before I try to go on with this.
I cant think of the bug exterminator from Texas
who is great power in congress
threads here.
e.g. there is one with peoples e-mail addresses
run by one Diva..but when I emailed her
with my address it bounced back ....so
I gather this is not a current "thread"- discussion or whatever this categories are termed.
Diva rund the Cafe, of which the Mote Addresses are a subcategory. I though they were all up to date but perhaps not.
Diva has been very busy lately with a new baby and has only been here a few times since she gave birth...she will probably be back more full time after June.
Let me be a bit more fulsome.
I have no trouble having a drink or two with people whose views on most things are dramatically at odds with mine. These types of encounters can even be sustained, and they usually relate only to very general topics or particular ones of mutual interest (like, say, music. For instance, I have one acquaintance whom I met at the opera with whom I have glasses of champagne from time to time at intermissions. We usually talk about the opera at hand or operas in general. It was very clear to me early on that our views on most political and social issues are dramatically different.
Hence, there is no effort or desire on my part to become real friends, as in having opportunities to really get to know one another as friends over dinners or whatever.
This is is part, I must admit, I can't really imagine deeply respecting someone whose views - especially on social issues - are widely divergent from mine.
And, as I said, life it too short. I have too many friends who I want to keep as friends and therefore don't want to waste part of the time needed to do so.
different definitions of respect too, I suspect.
If you can't respect someone you disagree with, then perhaps we do have different definitions of the word. I prefer my definition.
Life is too short to spend it with idiots. Life is too short to spend it with people with whom you share little except maybe one or two specialized interests.
And I have spent too much time with you.
see, we can agree on something.
I mean it surely does not take a rocket scientist to know that all Repubicans are idiots.
Star Wars Defense Systems - that's the ticket.
And with that, good weekends all.
I will once again say, JJ, that Demorcrats
are tolerant of any and all who agree with what they agree.
But, JJ, tell me do you sleep better with
less troublesome dreams now that the President
that has been selected for us is working to
get that Star Wars Missal Defense Shield
research re activated?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The lengths I'll go to for a bad joke!
CalGal: please allow us to have a facelift for The Mote... I know it's your baby, private property, whatever, but really, that pimento olive on a black marble background on the homepage is an ugly motherfucker.
Wasn't this one designed with "The Suns Eye" in mind? Mote has always remined me of what you see dancing in the shafts of sunlight...
RustlerPike
I like the Home page graphic. JJ designed and created it; and I think it is a nice touch.
Frankly, if we do a facelift, it is more important to change the ugly graphic at the top of the individual thread pages. I even created a cleaned up version, but it was rejected. If no one else cares, it isn't worth pursuing.
The Mote image on the top of thread page is something that Irv cobbled up from JJ's image back nearly two years ago. It is smeary, and I spent some time myself trying to clean it up way back in the beginning, but I never got anything I liked better than the one that's in. I remember asking JJ for the name of the font so that I could create the image from scratch, but I can't remember if he gave it to me and I couldn't find it, or if he never got me the name. It's been a long time. Certainly I'd forgotten about it when I last redid this page a few months ago or I would have mentioned it and maybe addressed it. Although by now I'm getting almost fond of it.
But that's not a facelift, it's just a fix. JJ, do you know the name of the font and is it one I can find?
It was clean, it was in the exact font used by JJ, so that leaves "forgotten".
I don't have the font on my computer at work—I'll check when I go home, if JJ doesn't respond earlier.
the Mote
Even bold, it isn't as "thick" as the current image. I can create a thicker one using a shadow, but I've forgotten how to publish, so I can't show it. I trust that someone with more graphics expertise can take over, if there is interest.
I'm a big fan of the em dash—where do you see double hyphens?
the Mote
--An Online Community
instead of
the Mote
— An Online Community
Rookie mistake.
...
no comment
Thanks for pointing it out, I was looking for dashes in all the wrong places.
That won't be trivial to fix.
BTW, no space after an em dash. Another rookie mistake.
Should be:
the Mote
—An Online Community
You know what "display type" is, right?
I think that's a great idea! How exactly would it work? Would the host need to maintain a page where the entries could be displayed?
We need someone to step up and take responsibility for this. I will be glad to submit a couple of entries, but I cannot take on the task of organizing it.
i could put such a site together
Lemme know when you're ready to go live with it and I'll crank up the thread.
e-mail (for this: scottanton@homestead.com) or posting here or in the HTML Scratchpad would be appreciated.
here's what i am thinking, just something simple as i detest Homestead's bothersome page creation and import 'tools'.
Obviously I have a smaller screen than you.
Are we talking about a replacement for the first, or the second or both, or did we decide to use a single image in both places?
i thought we'd take one at a time. thread header first, splash image second. of course, this can change if the people would rather do that.
J@H:
what is your screen resolution? it fits well in a 1024 X 748.
Ms. No:
i have a first post ready to go, so give me a few
.
I just got interested in what janjon had written.
I actualy came here to find out why my posts
sometimes did not get posted and I had
asked if it had anthing to do with the time of day.
More folks East of the Mississippi writing in the morning hours.
Thnaks for your response. I had conflicting views. On the one hand, I was happy that we were working on the thread header, as that was the one I didn't like, and I liked the splash image. On the other hand, while liking to have my way, this subject was instigated by a comment about the splash image, so I was puzzled that it wasn't the focus.
Your answer satisfies me, although Don S. makes a good point.
Who ate only cold chicken gumbo
Asked if his repast was a feast or a fast
He said "that's why they don't call me Jumbo."
He had not been making a limerick
yet some Stumbling Stumbo scolded his lack
of the trick
Bob Dylan's 60th Birthday?
After a week, the thread could be archived as a subthread in the arts and music thread. Banks or Bienwer would be logical hosts.
The other possibility is letting me spam one of the threads with lyrics on his birthday.
Let me know what I can do to help.
If you gotta go, go now (or else you got to stay all night)
sorry 'bout that.
Thank you
If he isn't banned, then certainly don't do anything to CharlieL.
CharlieL was banned for revealing personal information about me, including my home address and my daughter's phone number.
He was given a warning when he revealed my name here. Then did it again.
Sort of like you revealing personal information about Calgal.
Sort of like you revealing personal information yourself about your own family.
Sort of like you calling people here by their real names revealed on other sites.
Sort of like you, you mean.
It's really hysterical when you get hoist with your own petard.
hahahaha
Ignore Stone.
Or, for that matter, Cazart.
Stone is just being his Nazi self.
Leave off. CharlieL was suspended and now he's back. If he behaves then he stays. He was suspended rather than banned because of extenuating circumstances regarding your own behavior of which you are very well aware.
Jonathan Ferguson and Cazart will not be allowed to return. Period the end. If you simply cannot control yourself and must ceaselessly whine about this then take it to the Inferno. You have asked and been answered on this multiple times.
And what "extenuating circumstances" are you talking about?
Both JF and cazart (who has at least one other ID anyway) were allowed back in after timeouts the first couple of times their logins were disabled.
Personally, I could care less whether Charlie L posts here or not, but those are the facts.
Of course those are the facts but you have to realize, facts mean less than nothing to Rosetta.
Change the rules about personal information, and I'll shutup.
And I will stop until I hear from Wabbit.
If the rules have changed, I would like to know.
Actually, that is obvious.
So, fine it is.
Carry on.
I have the email from Wabbit that says "disabled for a few weeks". I also know exactly what went down. You provoked as is your habit and CharlieL retaliated. Unfortunately he clearly violated the rules and was suspended for that action. However he did not "reveal" information about you that was unknown as you have revealed that information yourself on previous occasions. You stated that you no longer wanted that information bandied about here and when CharlieL did so he was suspended. His suspension is up and so long as he observes the RoE he is free to post as is everyone else.
I suggest you respect his desire to ignore dealings with you and serve him in kind.
and i'll believe that when i see it
I asked the administrators of TT to help but they refused. Not wanting to reveal the truth of the information, I always ignored the posts.
In Mote, we say we have different rules but he has twice used my name in the past six months. The first time, after I complained, he was warned. The second time he was "disabled." I had thought he was banned.
Clearly you have the right to allow anyone to post in mote. But you should change the rules--since you make exceptions.
Note how Rosetta insists that wabbit said "banned". Also note the lack of comment when proved wrong by Indy. Always into rewriting history, Gollum is. And completely without intellectual honesty. Sad really.
If you expect to traipse around flicking people on the ear with impunity or believe that you deserve some kind of sympathy when somebody turns around and smacks you back you're destined for disappointment.
CharlieL was punished for continuing to post your real name (which was public knowledge) after you requested that it no longer be referred to in this forum. He did not "reveal" private information about you----it was already known.
If you have a problem with another forum then you must seek redress with that forum's administrators.
My name was only "public knowledge" two or three weeks in fray back in 1998.
I have never used my name in Mote or in TT for that matter.
Just admit that you have different rules for different people.
Like it or not, the exception in this case is not CharlieL, but you. Your real name is widely known through your own doing. You regularly post information about your family. You are not careful about safeguarding your own privacy, and I cannot erase history. CharlieL has been asked not to use your real name here, and he was suspended for doing so. He has said he will ignore you and I believe he will, if you will do the same. You have a bad habit of chasing after people and baiting them for no reason. If you continue that behavior, you will find your ID suspended.
(yeah, I know I usually come out very strongly against anybody being forced, formally or informally, to leave. Or perhaps more relevantly, to conform to "accepted" modes of communication/style/behavior. But, every rule has its exception.)
The rules apply to everyone here. If you don't believe that then there's nothing I can do to help you. You've taken more than your fair share of administrative time with these sorts of antics and my patience with you is reaching its limit. I've answered your questions whether or not they were the answers you wanted or expected. No amount of repetition on your part will change those answers.
Shaken or stirred, dear?
But on the 'net, I can indulge.
Please don't ban Rosella.
CharlieL was punished for continuing to post your real name (which was public knowledge) after you requested that it no longer be referred to in this forum. He did not "reveal" private information about you----it was already known.
If you have a problem with another forum then you must seek redress with that forum's administrators.
This is bullshit. I know CalGal's name due to Seguine's and Angel-Five's outing of her, but I don't think I can reveal that name without being permanently banned.
Or can I?
Tell me -- how long would I be suspended for revealing such information? As long as CharlieL? Or longer?
Fucking bullshit.
The Mote
Come for the snakepit backbiting. Stay for the malicious revelation of real-life information, with the full support and encouragement of the Management.
Well, I guess I have two options... resign or simply dedicate myself to destroying this rathole.
I think I'll choose the latter.
Actually I've ignored CharlieL for years until he--as a political weapon--published my name, home address and daughter's telephone number in TableTalk. He did it more than five times. Since then, others have done so.
The Mote
Don't fuck with CharlieL or he'll publish your daughter's phone number in Table Talk, with The Management's support and encouragement.
Hmmmmm... I wonder if that means I can publish CharleyL's family-members' addresses and phone numbers here or in Table Talk?
As MsNo says, "The rules apply to everybody." If that's true, that means that I can engage in such cyberstalking and suffer only a two-month suspension.
I can live with that. Hell, I'm going to be on vacation for two weeks soon, anyway.
Please let me know what information I'm allowed to reveal. I know CharlieL's real name from Table Talk, and (first time I've ever done this) I've located an address and phone number for a person with what appears to be a similar name.
Tell me, am I allowed to post it here? How about in TT? How about on Free Republic?
Do let me know. The rules seem to be so changeable and malleable with you two idiots. I'm so unsure about what might, or might not, constitute an offense resulting in a brief suspension.
The fun thing about revealing RL information here is the suspension is so ludicrously short... but the sense of insecurity on the part of the victim --and the implied threat to his/her safety -- is PERMANENT! That's a wonderful tradeoff to make. Especially when the Dipshit Management is so wonderfully understanding when it comes to some people's RoE violations.
And the best thing is-- once RL information is outed, everyone else can keep repeating it forever, while Wabbit and MsNo wink at the violators!
There are a lot of lunatics on Free Republic... maybe I should just start posting personal information (and selected quotes) about people they probably wouldn't like.
MsNo/Wabbit:
Resign immediately, you pieces of dogshit.
What happens if you break the rules?
Personal information
For revealing private information, we ban your id. Or assume we will--while we allow an out for clearly inadvertent revelations of non-critical information, it's best not to count on the mercy of the judge.
Do not mess around with this rule. Public information
Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent
Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity
Don't try to push the envelope.
Don't ask, "What if...?"
Don't try to be cute.
Just don't go near the line. This is the most damaging RoE violation, and the one we take the most seriously.
Time to rewrite the RoE, eh?
I will be informing every new poster here that they do so at their own extreme risk.
Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent
Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity
If it is a serious threat, you will be banned. Definition of "serious" is left up to the Mote administrators.
Odd... if I THREATEN to reveal RL information in order to intimidate someone, then I will be banned.
If I actually reveal that information to intimidate someone/make them feel insecure, then I'll only be suspended for six weeks.
Or less, if Wabbit "likes" me.
Douchebags. You're turning this site into TT, where people routinely threaten to discover and reveal RL information, and actually DO so, all with the approval of The Management (well, "favored parties" can engage in such cyberstalking without penalty, at least).
The Mote -- a gathering place for Cyberstalkers and Nazi Snitches.
Wonderful. Fucking wonderful.
All because our spineless muddle-headed FEMALE management has a soft-spot for CharlieL.
Gee, we'd just never be able to function without a guy who actually LOOKS UP THE ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF POSTERS HE DOESN'T LIKE AND THEN POSTS THEM ON-LINE, WITH THE IMPLIED THREAT OF "MORE TO COME."
Yeah. We really need that. Just so we can fucking hear some more about that loser band he's in.
I can't wait for morning.
What will happen in the morning?
Well, it's pretty predictable. The ever thin-skinned Wabbit ("Don't challenge my decisions or I'll threat to ban you") will issue me a "warning." For what? Who knows. Because I'm pissing her off or something, and that's against the RoE. Or because I made "threats."
(Again, we should note that Wabbit will take the curious position that THREATENING to reveal RL information is an offense, whereas actually revealing it isn't.)
MsNo will make similar threats, and will try to smooth my feathers by private email (don't bother; respond here or not at all).
In the end, the people who complain about RoE violations will be the ones threatened with suspensions and bannigns, while the people who actually break The Mote's "most serious rule" are welcomed back with open arms.
For revealing private information, we ban your id. Or assume we will--while we allow an out for clearly inadvertent revelations of non-critical information, it's best not to count on the mercy of the judge.
Do not mess around with this rule.
Don't try to push the envelope.
Don't ask, "What if...?"
Don't try to be cute.
Just don't go near the line. This is the most damaging RoE violation, and the one we take the most seriously.
I have to say it's difficult to conclude anything other than CharlieL's id should be banned. I can't read the rules any other way, given that what Rosetta says - that CharlieL repeatedly has posted private information about Rosie against his express will - is true. And I havent' seen that disputed, only noted that Rosie once gave that information himself.
So, it seems to me if CharlieL isn't banned, it is indeed amounting to a change of the RoE.
Gee, I never thought I'd come out to support RosettaStone on anything. And I happen to have known CharlieL as a very funny contributor in the Fray days.
But if we go by the rules, we go by the rules.
Second, we never resolved the business about outing someone at another place than the Mote. I don't know how you enforce that, but I'm with you on the idea that our rules should be enforced locally if they are violated elsewhere.
Third, as far as I'm concerned Charlie L and his actions aren't worth my time defending, so had management decided on a permanent ban, it would be okay by me. That's not what they did, however. I agree with you that this type of damage is permanent and so it probably ought to result in a permanent ban, but in Stone's case it wasn't virgin information, so it's not as though Charlie L "deflowered" him.
Don't let yourself be manipulated by Stone. You know by now this is the stuff he lives for. I agree with you and sto in principle, but Stone does this with his personal info and then cries about it.
When CharlieL did it over and over again in TT I was shocked that he would go to that level to punish my family over silly political reasons.
The first time he published my nname at Mote, I complained to management and nothing happened. When he did it a second time a few weeks later, I again reacted immediately.
He either got the number/address from the phone book (although the name listed is different), or, since he performs there, from his checking my country club address records to find out whether or not we're really members.)
Either way, the rules are different here now.
A few weeks ago, Ace gave bbb my real name, saying I had already told everyone here what it was and that I used it on TT. He didn't know at the time if that was okay with me...but he did it anyhow. I didn't threaten to destroy Ace over it; I said it was no big deal and it's over. You, on the other hand, make such a BIG deal about it that no one can forget it, which is what they would do if you'd just shut up.
I used my real name for less than a month in the fray, more than 3 years ago. I stopped once I realized it was being used as a weapon, especially against my wife.
I have never used it in mote and in TT.
Okay, how did you know whether or not I cared if bbb knew my name at TT? I didn't give you permission to tell him...and I might not have, by the way, because he has hassled me before over there. But you just went ahead and told him, easy as you please. (I said I didn't care if he knew and would have probably told him had he asked me himself...that's the truth but it was also after the fact of you already telling him.)
I didn't raise a stink because I HAD told everyone here about my TT name and have even argued for using real names online. But of course, doing that depends on whether or not you infuriate people enough to cause them to want to retaliate....you do and I don't.
And, at TT, I had accepted the fact that former fray people were using my name to embarrasse me. It was the address and phone number from CharlieL that made it a privacy issue for me.
I can't do anything about it there. But here I can. And will.
What Charlie L did to you at TableTalk is indefensible IMO, but your behavior at TableTalk is indefensible too. As far as what he did at the Mote, all things considered I think the punishment was probably appropriate (though I'd also have been comfortable with a permanent ban).
As long as we're discussing the rules, how about whether you would obey the rules if they were enforced on you? If you were banned, would you stay away from the Mote?
If not, then I hardly think you can invoke the same rules to protect you.
You do all these things and have an exaggerated opinion of your importance...no one cares about your name or what school your kids attend, though you mention such things enough.
For the same reason that RosettaStone wasn’t banned when he continued to use Spudboy’s real name.
Some people in the Mote have revealed more private information than others. Once you reveal information there is no way to make it totally private again HOWEVER people’s wishes regarding the use of their private information should be respected. RosettaStone is among those who willingly revealed his own private information including his real name. Nobody else did it for him. When he stated that he no longer wanted his real name bandied about it became a punishable offense to do so. CharlieL was punished. His ID was disabled and he’s been gone from the Mote for over two months. Had RosettaStone not been the one to publicly reveal his real name then Charlie’s use of it would have resulted in banning. Just as Rosie’s use of Spudboy’s real name would have.
Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent. Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity
RosettaStone, you made your name public. That you now regret that decision is unfortunate. You requested that certain of your public revelations no longer be referred to and we agreed to respect your wishes on that as we have with others. CharlieL disrespected that request and he was dealt with accordingly but he did not reveal private information about you here which would have been a bannable offense.
The Mote does not have a policy regarding infractions outside this forum and is not obligated to act on accusations of such particularly not based solely upon the word of an hysteric which you cannot with any truthfulness deny that you are.
You are asking that a member be banned for an offense against you in a forum from which you have repeatedly been barred and yet whose rules you continue to flaunt on an almost daily basis by entering under multiple identities for the sole purpose of causing a fracas.
I cannot and will not take such a request seriously unless you agree that you should also be banned from the Mote for breaking the rules of Table Talk.
Judith,
1) If I outed your name, I'm sorry. I don't think I did. I think all I did was say that someone else's mention of your name wasn't a violation, because it was common knowledge what your TT name was. Everytime we go over to TT, you identify yourself by that moniker.
2) Further, I can distinguish between accidental and malicious outings (and if I outed anyone at all -- which I didn't, as you later confirmed -- it was accidental). Four days ago Cellar linked to a web-page giving everyone Niner's photo and real name, and he identified him as Niner. I told Cellar to delete the link immediately, but I did not ask for a punishment, because it was clear that Cellar hadn't meant this in a malicious way. It was a thoughtless act, but he wasn't trying to hurt Niner; he just didn't think very long about Niner's privacy.
CharlieL revealed RS's name after a previous warning. Unlike Cellar, who can claim friendship with Niner (and hence that the outing of private information was non-malicious), CharlieL hates RS and revealed RS's name only as a tactic to cause intimidation.
Just like he's done on TT. Just as his TT buddies do with some frequency.
MsNo:
Niner's revealed his real name, too. Accidentally, but he's revealed it. It is common knowledge.
Can we start openly referring to Niner by his real name?
Can we publish his address and phone number?
And it remains true -- and it will ALWAYS remain true, no matter how Wabbit/MsNo spin it -- that RS never revealed his real name HERE.
I find it amusing that MsNo can claim that the "name wasn't revealed HERE" rule can protect Spudboy but not, alas, Rosetta.
I apologized for saying it was you who used my name; I understand what happened in that instance and just made a mistake about who told bbb...sorry again for confusing you with Rosetta.
No you may not reveal Niner's information because he did not willingly and knowingly make it public nor has he given permission for anyone else to do so. Don't be coy.
I have no idea what you mean be your last statement because it bears no relation to anything that I said. My exact words were:
CharlieL disrespected that request and he was dealt with accordingly but he did not reveal private information about you(meaning RosettaStone) here which would have been a bannable offense.
Rosetta alleges that CharlieL revealed Rosie's home address and phone number in Table Talk. That is private information to the best of my knowledge but it was not revealed in this forum by either party.
MsNo:
And Rosetta Stone did not reveal private information about himself IN THIS FORUM.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim simultaneously that CharlieL's outing of RS's phone number and address "doesn't count" because it was revealed in another forum but that RS's use of his own real name -- IN ANOTHER FORUM -- DOES count for purposes of "outing yourself."
Either "other forums" count or they don't, MsNo.
Shit or get off the pot.
It is time for you to resign.
MsNo:
Simple question: Do "other forums" count?
If they count, then RS revealed his name, true, but then Charlie revealed his DAUGHTER'S phone number and address, and should be banned.
If other forums DON'T COUNT, then RS never revealed his name HERE. Only CharlieL did. ANd for that he should be banned.
Do they count or not? Commit yourself to a position and stop spinning.
I made a mistake; I wanted to be sure Ace knew I realized that. If you don't like my posts, skip 'em.
Since the forum Rosetta revealed his name in was the very same forum as this one, why are you picking on this technicality? Or do you think the entire body of the Fray evolving into the Mote equals two seperate forums?
"Or do you think the entire body of the Fray evolving into the Mote equals two seperate forums?"
It's two separate forums.
If it's not two forums, then why isn't the Mote Cafe at TT also an extension of this forum?
And if it is, then CharlieL revealed Rosetta's daughter's phone number and address in "an extension of this forum."
Jesus Christ! What the fuck is wrong with you people?
my guess is that we are all on our meds
I don't think the old Fray is seperate from this one...is it still there in old form? No. Are we all here? Yes.
However, if Rosetta will agree to a banishment along with Charlie L., then I'll support banning both of them.
Good riddance.
Hahaha! Works for me...of course, I'm just trying to run my total posts up, you know.
The Fray is only "another forum" since we left it. The Fray community moved here en masse and the only reason we changed our name was to avoid possible law suits from Slate/Microsoft. To expect everyone to completely forget three years of interaction and behave as if they know nothing about one another and have no history is ridiculous and it is impossible to make rules based on such an expectation. It would require that every member be banned for mentioning anything at all of a personal nature to other posters since that information was aquired before we moved to the Mote.
Also:
There is no reason for you to be abusive. I have not been to you. I have tried to be respectful of your opinion and answer your questions but if you cannot express yourself to me without egregious insult then expect to find yourself ignored. You have publicly stated that it is your intent to destroy this forum. If you decide to pursue that course of action let me remind you that it is a bannable offense
Fucking GIGGLE.
Ohhhhh... it's a "bannable offense." But then, so is revealing RL information.
It all depends on the "context" -- which is a way for corrupt people to justify favoring those people they like while punishing those they don't.
The original Mote Beach-head at Table Talk was RIPed by the management there who didn't like us using their forum to promote ourselves.
Later Jonathan Ferguson created a new Table Talk thread because the Mote was experiencing an outtage. It was not created as an offical home away from home unlike the first thread and has since then become the chief residence of the malcontent Cazart. It isn't Moderated by us nor is it generally supervised by us. We occasionally use it as a message board to note that we're having technical difficulties here.
Funny how I'm only "corrupt" when I don't behave as you would have me behave.
I do my best to make decisions for the good of the forum using the RoE as a guide. There are a million and one things that come up here on a near constant basis that are not specifically addressed in the RoE. Any time that happens and I or Wabbit or Pelle makes a decision that you disagree with you come in spewing filth and abuse and trying to bully everyone, ranting about how this place sucks and you're going to burn it down.
We saw with your recent thread hosting endeavor, however, that you were not a wildly popular thread host because of your decisions either. Not only that but you tended to abuse your powers as thread host simply because you feel that you're entitled to step outside the bounds because you're you.
You've been cut miles of slack for your abusive behavior because you're also considered to be a valuable poster. Within the strict RoE you could reasonably have been banned a hundred times. That's obviously a "loose" interpretation of the RoE that you have no problem accepting since it allows you to behave as you wish without punishment.
Contrary to some opinion the Moderators here do not wear jackboots or brown shirts. We like to allow as much stretch and leeway as possible otherwise we'd be kicking people out every other day over silliness.
Filth?
" and abuse and trying to bully everyone, ranting about how this place sucks and you're going to burn it down.
"
Eh, why shouldn't I? "Context" will keep my banning to a brief six week suspension.
"We saw with your recent thread hosting endeavor, however, that you were not a wildly popular thread host because of your decisions either."
What "decisions"? How idiotic.
"Not only that but you tended to abuse your powers as thread host simply because you feel that you're entitled to step outside the bounds because you're you."
What "bounds"? The only time I "stepped outside the bounds" was to make the thread, briefly, an alternate political thread.
"You've been cut miles of slack for your abusive behavior because you're also considered to be a valuable poster. Within the strict RoE you could reasonably have been banned a hundred times."
Gee, that's funny. I haven't even been WARNED. Not even once.
You want to warn me/suspend me/ban me? Do it. I don't know how many times I have to tell you: "JUST DO IT, AND STOP WHINING ABOUT IT."
Waaaah. We weeally, weeeally want to ban Acey but we're afwaid.
Wrong. If I step out of line, warn me.
Furthermore, you're going to have a tough time enforcing "civility" when you won't even punish someone for violating the Mote's "most serious rule." If you don't take that seriously, I'm not sure how you can ban someone for calling you a corrupt piece of dogshit.
"We like to allow as much stretch and leeway as possible otherwise we'd be kicking people out every other day over silliness. "
Bullshit. You are corrupt and you allow people to violate "the Mote's most serious rule" because you wiiiiiiike them.
If you can't discharge your duties objectively -- and it is clear that you cannot -- then you owe it to all of us to resign.
Notice it didn't take terribly long for my prediction to come true --once Atilla the Hen's ruling had been challenged, she began threatening to ban the persons complaining.
I also find it amusing that the Troika who makes decisions without consulting ANYONE -- and threatens to ban those who complain about those decisions -- then cry about being "bullied" by people with no official power whatsoever.
Awwwww. The Tyrants are being "bullied." Waaaah. You want a shoulder to cry on?
Making decisions, without consulting anyone, which violate the Mote's explicit RoE: Not "bullying," because the Troika can do what it likes and no one has any power to gainsay them -- and, further, because anyone who complains will be issued missives which threaten a banning if the complaints continue
Complaining about such decisions: "Bullying"
So let me get this straight: Stalin wasn't a "bully"; but the guy standing on the soapbox calling him a "corrupt piece of dogshit" IS
I get it.
The percentage of people banned or harrassed by management is quite small, certainly not comparable to the righteous indignation questioning any action that is taken.
GJ,
The passive-aggressive act gets old. It is ugly in a woman; it is ludicrous in a man.
GJ, MsNo,
You've suggested I "go somewhere else if I don't like it."
Let me turn that around:
If you don't like hearing complaints about your corrupt decisions, you can go somewhere else.
At the very least, MsNo, you can spare yourself the indignity of being questioned and resign yourself from the management.
But on the 'net, I can indulge.
Please don't ban Ace.
Don S,
thank you for your support. You've always been there for me.
that's a funny line. And it may be one of those that aren't made unfunny by being repeated, but rather turn into a classic.
Please don't ban don s.
I might even have some spare change handy …
Lighten up, man. This isn't the fucking Supreme Court, and the loose ROE aren't the Constitution.
Anything to help a brother out.
I think MsNo, Wabbit, and Pelle need a vacation. A permanent one.
I do so enjoy the fact that CharlieL and one of these morons have been emailing each other privately, and that these private emails served as the basis for undoing The Mote's "most serious rule."
I'd love to see the friendly chit-chat between these buddies... but, of course, we're not allowed to see these emails.
Idiots. Corrupt idiots.
Why aren't we examining the context of Rosetta telling lies about other members of this forum IN this forum?
If lying about a poster is a bannable offense, ban him too. But I don't remember anything in the RoE about that.
The RoE speaks of REAL information, not false information.
By the way, I distinctly remember the Spudboy incident. And Spudboy did not reveal his name directly in the Fray. He plugged his book which meant that anyone could go to Amazon and find it there. His request that his name not be used was the origin of the gentlemen's agreement that such requests should be honoured. I would say that even unspoken requests should be so honoured. Everybody knows Cellar's RL name but nobody uses it because it would be bad form.
I'm tired of the legalistic, hair-splitting mumbo-jumbo. As a member of the Mote I expect others to use their judgement. If someone shows bad judgement, as CharlieL did back then, he or she gets suspendended, or, in serious cases banned.
And if I were not such an easy-going fellow I would be seriously incensed by being called "corrupt" by a two-bit NY lawyer.
Your charge of corruption is silly.
I agree with your points, if that's worth anything. Some things are frustrating around here.
And Spudboy did not reveal his name directly in the Fray.
Riiiiight... he just hosted a thread discussing his book, with a link to his book, in which he said "I wrote this book."
Uh-huh.
Jen,
Well, you just have to understand that the rules don't apply equally to everybody. It all depends on how many friendly emails pass between you and the Management.
His crime was akin to a father shooting the man on trial -but not yet convicted - for the murder of his child.
I'm where I was in law school when some guy said better 99 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man dies.
When you're making an omelette, you break a few Rosies.
JJ:
Ace - You and I have know each other for a long time. I say this to you with all due respect. Shut the fuck up already. You look like an idiot.
And I say this with all due respect: I've known you for a long time and in all that time I have never liked or respect you whatsoever. Shut the fuck up, asshole.
I do enjoy the Mote's Civility Prig telling me to "shut the fuck up" though.
Seriously, JJ. Eat me.
Jen, don’t you base your whole life on the notion that if you “send e-mails” to the “Management,” you’ll receive preferential treatment?
Why should The Moat be any different?
You must have me confused with someone else. For starters I'm not clear on who the management is in here, secondly, I don't e-mail "them" with any concerns. Thirdly, I haven't sought any preferential treatment with the management - whoever they are-.
I just kind of float by in here and pop in when I can.
Pelle, Wabbit, MsNo:
If CharlieL ever reveals RL information again, YOU should be banned from here, permanently.
Can you agree with that?
You want to put your decision-making on the line?
We are all risking out RL information with the TT Nazi Charlie here. Why don't you assume a little risk yourselves?
State plainly that you will resign permanently from this site, and never come back, and that you will not accept dispensation from your friends here, should CharlieL ever reveal RL information again.
Okay? Sound fair?
JJ,
You're a buffoon, and always have been.
In fact, when I was little and my mom would tell me to behave, I would be quiet and ask if I was being have.
But, kiss my ass anyway Don. Have a nice day getting your hair done at the salon.
Uh, good one. I guess.
Ace: You're going into battle for a worthy principle with a loser of a client.
But I'll stand with you. If any one of the three moderators will accept your proposal, will you consider that a tolerable compromise?
I didn't mean to make you feel bad, if I did.
I really have to go now. This is my last Friday for the semester!;-)
Why should the three moderators be a guarantor of someone's behavior?
If Charlie L knew that by doing something he would cause both he and one of his friends to be kicked out, perhaps he'd be less likely to do it.
Personally, I don't think this game is worth the candle, or however that proverb goes. I say ask Stone if he's willing to abide a banishment when he next breaks the rules or just say since he won't observe the rules then he's outside them.
Mostly I'm trying to back Ace up because I do think that outing is a bannable violation. What Ace said about the relative durations of being outed versus being banned is valid. I'd quit posting here permanently myself if I thought there was a danger of that. Plus I have seen what Stone has been subjected to at TT, which Charlie L seemed to relish IMO.
OTOH, it is Stone, who everyone knows brings it on himself. So, if he's not willing to abide a ban, then why should others be banned to protect him? But I don't want to see the principle fall by the wayside because of Stone.
Oh. Well. That would convince me, too.
To the best of my knowledge, what CharlieL did here was abusive,not a privacy violation. "Abusive" in that even people who have made their names known in the past can request that they not be used.
I have real issues with the fact that someone can go over to TT and post information that would get them banned here. I have even more problems with the idea that TT doesn't consider posting names and numbers a bannable offense (but call someone a menopausal hyena and whammo). And it bothers the hell out of me that someone here has done that.
But I can't come up with any way that we can ban someone for what they do at another forum. If we did, then by rights we could ban you, too, as you've noted. Certainly I don't see how we can make it a rule in any absolute sense.
CharlieL was suspended for a long time. I expect he'll follow the rules here now. If he doesn't, he can get his ass kicked out again. Frankly, I find his behavior sickening, and he has long since ceased to become anything other than a Stone equivalent in my mind.
Keep in mind, too, that at TT Cazart posts some version of private information about me regularly, and did so long before he was banned here. More than most, I'm at risk for that sort of thing--and while I am fairly free with my name and such behind the scenes, it is quite important to me that it not be posted online. So it's not like I don't have a stake in this policy.
Eh? I've not revealed any real-life info about a Motier on another forum.
To what do you refer?
I don't see why it has to be a Moter to be a violation. All someone would have to do is join the Mote and then complain about it.
The fact that Stone won't agree to the social contract here (i.e., he won't abide by a banning) to me makes it arguable that he's not protected by it--the same way a non-Motier isn't protected by it either.
No, the moment he linked to it in this forum, it was a violation. Likewise, if Charlie linked to what he posted, I would expect him to be banned. The irony being that anyone who linked to what Charlie posted would be banned (at least as I see the rules) whereas Charlie would not be.
"Social contract" seems off. While I do think we are a community, the fact is that almost anyone can join. For example, what if someone who you posted about in TT happened to have been a Fray member, or joined the Mote before you did and now was complaining about it--even if they only posted once, or maybe even not at all? So far as I know, the only thing you need to be a member is a moniker. So anyone can come and join and then complain about what someone did in another forum and expect that person to be banned, if it was serious enough?
That said, I find publishing phone numbers to be simply awful. To use TT as a way to "get" at someone here is certainly not something that should be used as a loophole.
I simply don't understand why so many hitch on to Ace's tantrums. We've seen them before, ad nauseam. So Charlie did something stupid. He was suspended. Now he's back. What's the big deal?
What if I post personal information on my website and slyly hint at its existance? I have not revealed it here have I? So it's not a bannable offence is it? What if... what if... what if...? Enough already, I say.
So Charlie did something stupid. He was suspended. Now he's back. What's the big deal?
The big deal is that he will do it again. If you don't think he will, simply promise to exit this site, never to come back, EVER, upon his next violation.
You can do what you like. I'll be informing every new moter here about the risks they're taking, and how management coddles cocksuckers who violate "the most serious rule we have."
See, it sounds cazy, doesn't it?
We know that you have set yourself the target of destroying this forum.
Telling the truth may be "destroying the forum" in your estimation.
People should be warned. You claim that outing RL information is a bannable offense. This is a lie.
I'll warn any newcomers of the truth.
Pelle, Wabbit, MsNo:
Just try to stay out of my way. I'm so delighted to see how flexible and contextual the "rules" here are, and I intend to do some experimentation.
Ooops. Was that a threat?
So fucking what?
You have to examine the "context."
Fuck off, faggit.
Ooops! Needlessly abusive. Ah, well. Again, we must examine the "context" of the remark. And the "context" is that I felt like calling a faggit a faggit.
Bear in mind, threats and "needlessly abusive" posts aren't even the "most serious rule."
And yet my warning is on the way.
JJ,
If I were XTC, I wouldn't have posted five long posts begging him to please drop the act.
You're taking this way too far. Step away from the computer, go outside and have a beer.
In one of your posts in the wee hours of the morning you stated your intent to destroy the forum. Maybe you don't remember, but I do. Let everybody note this fact as you embark on your "experiments", which I hope you won't do.
GJ:
I spell it "faggit" deliberately. It's the sixth-grade spelling, and sixth graders use the term as I intend it to be used.
A "Faggot" is a bundle of sticks. You are not a bundle of sticks. You are a passive-aggressive homosexual.
"You're taking this way too far. Step away from the computer, go outside and have a beer."
A beer will not change my feelings much.
I'll step away when I've been banned for violating rules which are NOT the "most serious rule."
"Ace - Sure you would have. It is the best way to throw off suspicion."
Honestly, JJ -- I'm not. I've never done a multiple. Well, I did one once, but people figured it out in about five minutes.
"Now why don't you drop this act and stop acting like a child."
I don't want to. I want to banned for violating rules which are NOT "the most serious rule we have."
You know I love you Ace, but you can be quite trying at times.
In any case I'm going to bed now.
In PelleSpeak:
"I'm doing 'something stupid.' What's the big deal?"
If you're sure CharlieL will never violate again, then simply promise to NEVER COME BACK HERE AGAIN --ever-- and accept a permanent ban if he does.
After all-- he's not going to. He's done it four or five times before, but he's not going to do it again.
You are a governor who is releasing a convicted criminal, promising us he will not break the rules again. Well, if he won't, they I'm sure you won't mind agreeing to a permanent exile if he does.
You know I love you Ace
The feeling is not mutual and, in fact, never has been.
Why do they have to be sure that he will never break the rules again? It certainly didn't apply for Ferguson. Charlie was not banned for privacy violation, so it's not "the most serious rule we have".
Why do they have to be sure that he will never break the rules again?
If they're not, they shouldn't be allowing him to come back.
Actually, they shouldn't allow him to come back EVEN IF they're sure he won't violate again -- the fact that a criminal won't commit a crime again doesn't mean he is freed from serving his sentence. But I will accept the "Permanent Exile Guarantee" if these spineless assholes are willing to make it.
It certainly didn't apply for Ferguson.
No duh. That's the fucking point. There's a rule in physics: Anything that does not happen, can't happen. Anything that DOES happen, must happen, and will continue happening.
There are alot of people who don't out RL information. In all likelihood, they never will. OTOH, there are people who have outed private information not once but multiple times. The odds are strong they will violate again.
" (In other woCharlie was not banned for privacy violation, so it's not "the most serious rule we have"."
Bullshit. He was banned for revealing RS's name.
The feeling is not mutual and, in fact, never has been.
I'm devasted. Sleep will not come easy. But now I'm gone.
No. He was suspended for using Stone's name after continued requests that he not do so, even though Stone's name was public knowledge.
Wow. I "devasted" Pelle.
even though Stone's name was public knowledge.
Your name is "public knowledge," dearie, thanks to Seguine. I would hazard a guess that almost no long-time posters don't know it.
Niner's name is "public knowledge" as well.
No, my name is not public knowledge. It was not posted with my knowledge and explicit consent. Ditto Niner's.
Further, while RS first used a moniker which turned out to be a real name, no one knew it was his real name until JadeCunt looked his children's names up in a school roster.
This is not true. He said it was his real name. I was around the very first time he posted. Also, he gave out the information as to where his son went to school. Just as he later announced that his son had changed schools, and said which one. All in the hope that someone would eventually mention it and he could then complain about the violation.
I could come in here with the moniker "Guy_Thompson." Is it a my real name? Could be.
You can't tell until a JadeCunt looks up the name and compares it to other information I may have divulged.
Cal, you OUTED yourself just as RS did. You never told Seguine your name; you simply told her information which, with a bit of digging, could be used to determine your real name.
If RS outed himself, so did you.
Cal,
Gee, how did Seguine know YOUR real name?
Just a lucky guess, perhaps?
RS never complained about it until JadeCunt threatened to have her myriad retarded cousins beat the kid up, Dopey.
But Ace, your expectation of consistency is bizarre. You know it have never been that way, and it cannot. The place is run by volunteers having fun, not the Borg.
Yet, every now and then, you are shocked! yes shocked! that there is gambling here.
So you run a test as to the consistency of a fluid, flawed and ultimately trivial sidelight.
And I'll beat you to the draw.
Blow me, Sunny.
As for the other, I did not tell her that information. I linked in a site that later added my name to it--as well as a bunch of other names. Because Irv knew all the other names, he figured out who I was. I don't know how Seguine got the information, but I imagine it was through the grapevine.
This is certainly not with my explicit consent, since at the time I linked it in I didn't even know for sure my name--or anyone else's--would be added. You would only have been able to know it was me if you combined it with other privately known info (such as other people's names). It was simply impossible to figure out who I was based solely on the link. Consequently, posting my name would have been a privacy violation.
This is also true of Niner.
To compare that with Stone, who used his own name for some weeks and in fact regularly posted his AOL address for a long time afterwards, is simply absurd.
I was sending emails to people for years inadvertently giving my real name - Thorne Buckwood.
He did that in the hopes that Jade would get banned. It was successful.
FU,
I'm not going to tell you to "blow me."
But it's always the same with you. Always. Doesn't matter what the question is, you support the Management.
Will there be inconsistency? Yes. Should we strive for consistency? Yes.
You are the idiot (ooops, there's an insult) who is constantly saying we have to ban more people. Well, here's a situation in which a multiple violater of "our most serious rule" -- and someone who behaved DISGUSTINGLY in another forum, actually posting someone's ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER in order to intimidate and harass that person -- has been un-banned because, well, MsNo fwelt sowwy fow pooow Chawwie.
Now, what does Mr. More Bannings say?
He says: "Eh, live with it. What are bannings, anyway?"
I know. That still isn't public information. You can give your name out to anyone you like offline.
"
This is certainly not with my explicit consent, since at the time I linked it in I didn't even know for sure my name--or anyone else's--would be added. You would only have been able to know it was me if you combined it with other privately known info (such as other people's names). It was simply impossible to figure out who I was based solely on the link. Consequently, posting my name would have been a privacy violation."
You told people where you scored, approximately. Since there weren't many women on the list, it wasn't actually Sherlock-Holmes-level detective-work.
Stone did not EXPLICITLY post his name HERE.
I agree and I don't want to come of as "la di da, get over it." But, ultimately, we are talking about 30 regulars, and 60 irregulars, and people have different deals. So, yeah, if someone is going nuts, I say slap 'em down and let them sit on the bench. And if they are consistently mental, I say make it a long stretch or permanent.
CharlieL is just a parolee and you thought his parole should have been denied.
Given that his crime was against another inmate, I can live with the determination of the parole board.
Its crime rate is astronomical.
No, I didn't. I only said that I had made the list, said nothing of what score. You could not have known who it was unless you knew the names of others who were added to the list--also private information.
And for that matter, if you're obsessing about it being HERE, it definitely doesn't qualify, since it was at the Fray. I myself don't much care, since I count them both. But by your standard, Seguine violated privacy no matter what.
FU,
That's my message. That's it.
FU.
period.
PS:
You statist ring-kissing criminal-coddling poofter.
I'm grateful you did not ask me to "blow you."
You know, a little more sugar, you'd get more flies.
Adios.
But by your standard, Seguine violated privacy no matter what
I agree Seguine violated our privacy rules. I am merely attempting to show that I can play the same game as you -- I can come up with ludicrous reasonings to show that someone actually "outed themselves" and therefore is not protected by the privacy rules.
Incidentally, "Rosetta Stone" NEVER POSTED AT THE FRAY. This is a new moniker. The old moniker hasn't been used in years.
CharlieSnitch linked Rosetta Stone's moniker to the real name "*** ******."
That is a violation, pure and simple.
The name "***** ******" should no longer have any revelance. There is no one who posts under that moniker, and there never was in this forum.
There IS a guy named Rosetta Stone. Now, we all might know that Rosetta Stone was someone else and someone else before that, and that his real name is "__ _____," but ROSETTA STONE never explicitly connected the moniker "Rosetta Stone" with the name "____ ______."
Only CharlieDouchebag did that.
Now, Charlie used some fairly simple deductive skills to figure out that Rosie was "_____ ______." I fail to see how that is qualitatively different from your own bragging about scoring at the x percentile on a test whose results were posted on-line, and included your real name.
You really ought to make sure you know what you're talking about. Rosetta Stone most assuredly was a moniker used at the Fray. The cheap little fuck kept switching monikers because he was using the 30 day free subscription over and over again. Stone was the one he had when Slate told him to knock it off.
There is absolutely no similarity between using your real name online as a moniker--a clear case of making information public explicitly and willingly--and what happened to me, or Niner's techno-goober mistake.
Yes, he did.
Yeah, right. When he complained to the Management about JadeCunt's threats to his children?
You can claim whatever you like. You have no proof.
You told everyone ON LINE that you had scored in the X percentile on a test whose results were posted on-line, and which included your real name.
It did not take a genius to figure out who you were, given the fact that there were about eight female names on a list of 50 or 60 names and only a couple of female names in the vicinity of the score you bragged about.
In short, you outed yourself IN ANOTHER FORUM, the same as Rosie did.
If Rosie is to be denied privacy protection, so should you be.
Your monomania is quite terrifying. Go do something worthwhile in real life for a few hours, have a nice nap, come back and see what a decrepid equine corpse you've been flogging so mercilessly for the last god knows how many hours.
Banks,
Go eat an eclaire, Fat-Ass.
No, I didn't. I said nothing of X percentile. At the time I made the link, it did not include my real name and I did not know that it would. Also, I didn't know that someone would figure out my name and tell others. Not that I mind, provided that it was left offline. But you really should at least get your facts straight.
I did not mention my score, the percentile, only that I scored high enough to get on the list. No one could have figured out who I was without using other information--not public. It's not the same. I did not out myself.
I note that you still haven't acknowledged the many, many facts you've gotten wrong.
And it's not like you yourself haven't mocked Stone for telling all and then whining about it.
Bless you, poor sweet Ace, bless you.
Eclair-Sucker,
Since real-life threats and real-life privacy violations are the only way one poster can REALLY hurt another, I would think we'd take such things seriously.
The RoE says we do, for example.
But I guess not.
CharlieL has a lot of history here, is popular and has been grandfathered into the site.
Lots of disinformation from CalCal. I did finally pay the $20 to join Slate. I remember because they sent me an umbrellla. I did use my real name the first month, then changed to envision/BonJour. Finally to RS.
JadeGold, in her own way, apologized to me for her cyber threats against my son. I was proud that he had gotten into the same school that 109109 went to and was bragging.
I do give out information about my family. Others do as well.
I appreciate that wabbit has let me have an evergreen thread and I will deal with CharlieL in my own way--when and if he leaves the cafe.
And that contradicts me how? I said as much. They made you pay up. And you know full well that you switched ids constantly to get free 30 days. So how is that disinformation?
You also confirm that you posted as Stone at the Fray.
In short, you've confirmed all my statements and demonstrated that Ace is blathering without the first foggiest clue of what he is talking about. It's a sad day, Ace, when even Stone has a better grasp of the facts than you do.
Will the PTB make this change? Thanks.
It is "The Future" thread - a place for speculation, debate and imagination about what the future will be like.
It would encompass such areas as political systems, bio-tech, tech in general, the environment, poverty and wealth, social structures, language....
Shit: this sounds like a cultural studies class; but my intention is not for pompous analysis of what will be based on a po-mo interpretation of what is - but an imagining based on logic, humour, history and the vast tracts of knowledge which so many of the posters on this forum seem to have.
I have many imaginings about future structures and issues, and I cannot think in which existing thread to place them without utterly derailing the original thread topic.
Personally, I would simply love to read about the visions of the future on a number of levels of the various Moties. To me, a place for such ideas is an exciting proposition.
Bob and I refused to play into the stereotype of the American love of Hype and MeTooism. My daughter and her b/f did that and went to see PH today. Bob and I did something truly patriotic--spent about two hours in the Wal-Mart Superstore.
And it's the social hangout of every community in a 50 mile radius. Just talking to everyone we know takes up about an hour.
And lest anyone think this is off-topic--Khaval, I see this as the future of American society, and you know that as America goes...
so goes what Americans think everyone else will be doing.
Considering the people you elect governor, I would say it is damn near impossible.
I know what you mean. Mike Huckabee is a real embarrassment.
we have 30 threads now, including the future one. i really rather think that's plenty.
ergo, some suggestions:
since the GIF thread will be going away this month (i hope), this will put the count to below 30 which i honestly think that’s the upper limit theMote needs.
As you know I'm all for a reduction of the number of threads, but I always get a lot of shit when I propose something along that line. It may be a host ego thing. In any case, this time you will have to take it.
All
The idea has come up of a dedicated Israeli/Palestinian thread. The reason is that the conflict will probably become a mix of US foreign and domestic policy which could attract poster who don't normally post in International. One must ask oneself how long the Bush administration can sit on the sidelines as the bloodletting continues. Rustler just reported another car bomb in Netanya. It also has an impact on US Iraq policy and on the wider question of how much influence the US wants to have or should have in the Middle East.
RustlerPike has agreed to host if it comes about.
Finances and Careers and Parenting have both been slow; I'm not sure how they could be combined. Parenting could be split in the same way as Health Policy--part moved to Cafe and part to Social Issues. Future of Education can be moved to Social Issues as well.
And if we're talking about removing threads again I still don't see why we need a separate Quiz thread--people can put quizzes in the relevant subject thread and then announce them in the news section. Exploring the Web has run its course, although I think we should keep a page of all the links provided.
well, i think the 'Parenting & Social Issues' mix is the best fit, so i guess it is up to vw & Erin. i think Erin should give up Parenting due to the fact that she has anther thread already and that thread has had little activity this month.
Erin?
there's no reason we can't start up another parenting or education thread in 6 months if it's wanted.
CG: very good suggestions
I do agree that such a thread may have the advantage of involving people who don't normally post in International. I'd even be fully for the idea if the hosts promise to make a concerted effort to lure TT'ers here who are interested in the issue (I'm thinking of that old Californian, and some others).
But as it stands, International isn't exactly brimming full of posts. The regulars are mostly argued-out and use the thread for musings, some limited news updates, and socializing.
International needs traffic to stay interesting and viable. The Israel/Palestine stuff is currently its mainstay. I think carving that bit out of the thread would be a bit counterproductive at this point.
I did think that was what I just said. If it wasn't, this is what I meant.
I'm not sure of this, and I don't have a strong opinion either way. It's just a chicken/egg possibility.
to keep it out of ... 'respect' for IrvingSnodgrass is... well, stupid, imo.
threads should live or die on their own - not out of some misguided reverence for someone who doesn't even post here anymore.
Why has Wolf (from TT) not been asked to defect and (co-?)host it? Or Ilya, who lurks here but almost never posts. They'd both be excellent.
the way you pine for them, i'm embarrassed for you.
As was promulgated when wabbit was sole moderator, if a formal request is made that a thread be axed by one or more Motiers, one of the moderators should email the thread host and ask whether it's okay to RIP it. After a week if the host doesn't respond, then kill it.
Jay has posted space isn't a problem. This is a small community, and if it doesn't exist to serve the few people who make it up (even be they smaller minorities), then what's the point of it?
I think some of the threads would be willingly consolidated by the appropriate hosts, but I'm totally against invoking Pelle's chainsaw as a tool for one-upmanship (or one-upwomanship, as the case may be).
Language shouldn't be treated differently
Pelle, I like Westerner. He's two-note, so what. His rousing paeans to America always make even me want to get out of my chair, salute, embrace him in a manly manner, and go eat some apple pie for my sari-clad Indian mom.
I have been (and will continue to be for another week or so) absent due to illness and am here now only momentarily. Since thread consolidation has come up again, what about something like this:
Society at Large
Health, wealth, education, parenting, and the general fabric of society.
Host: tba
Get well soon, wabbit.
Maybe Life at Large. (g)
As host of the Traveling thread, I would not object seeing it combined with another thread. I am open to suggestions on what we can do with it. I liked the suggestion of combining it with Home & Garden, Food & Drink and calling it The Good Life.
You probably did say it; I just responded to something I read before your post...jumping the gun, as ususal.
I think the Travel thread could be combined with the other, I like The Good Life. I do think a place where people could discuss any issue with career, parenting, health, or some other such issue is an idea--or it can be kept in the Cafe.
Whoever said that we shouldn't delete threads without consulting the hosts--absolutely. I thought this was just a discussion.
It's comforting, in a way.
Get well soon, wise wabbit.
And I reckon the merger of Languages and International is a fantastic idea. It would certainly liven things up in International, and Languages is anyway practically moribund.
Also, many of the international posters are also language heads and it is a natural seague to go from politics to culture to languages of the world.
It's obvious that I am no delicate flower to whom conflict is anathema. But a very large reason I came over to the Mote (from TT) is because of the monotony of certain posters who hijack threads.
These posters tend to gravitate like flies to shit to anything relating to Israel, Palestine, Jews or Muslims.. Then they proceed to repeat themselves ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
They are not merely tedious: they make proper discussion impossible.
For example, recently, a very interesting thread on Islam was begun on TT. As soon as some of the more rabid Zionists saw it, it became a forum for the usual, basic Islam-slamming-fest, and quite boring.
Basically, what I am saying is this: Marji, it may be ostensibly a seductive idea to bring over certain posters who will write prolifically and passionately. But such volume and intensity can also be insidious: soon, as in the similar threads in TT, these extremists on both sides of the debate will be talking to themselves... only this time on a Mote thread.
Yes, bad posters drive out good posters. 
I don't get the joke. I wasn't slamming khaval. I agree with everything she says.
I was not distinguishing between "good" and "bad" posters - or even between obnoxious and pleasant posters. It is not my place to make such a distinction.
Personally, I like the nasty posters and the bad posters (highly subjective designations, you'd agree). Without them, what impetus would there be for some of the most creative Motiere output?
My point about thread hijackers related quite specifically to a certain type of poster and the manner in which they destroy threads. These are the people whom Marji would like to import from TT.
I am very interested in all issues pertaining to Israel/Palestine and also to Islam. But on TT, I almost never venture into those threads anymore for the following reasons: everything posted is simply a repetition of previous posts; the level of vitriol is not funny - it's sad and it's scary; anyone new who attempts to post in these threads is either chased out by the psychotic cabal of regulars, or else leaves after realising that nothing interesting, original, enlightening or thought provoking is likely ever to be discussed.
I thought CalGal's idea of a New Yorker thread was a good one.
Oh well, I'll post it in the Literature thread, even though it is about a chess teacher.
Yes, Literature or Current Events would be appropriate.
Or try here.
(The above link has changed since I linked it originally in the thread, but apparently still has chess.)
I haven't played in years.
Thread Proposal
I would suggest leaving Social Issues alone, since it is pretty big. The "health policy" aspects can go to that thread, but not the health questions that msg and others answer. Education would also be replaced with SI.
Then "This Modern World" can then become "This Modern World and Our Problems" (g) and can have MsG and Erin as cohosts--health, finance, careers, any other daily strife or feedback questions of that sort. Parenting issues could go there or to Mote Cafe.
Nice layout.
snerk!
Yeah, I thought about that. Good idea to keep Social Issues separate.
Pelle,
It's true that the Language and International crowds tend to overlap greatly, but there are lots of language conversations that have nothing at all to do with International. I'm thinking particularly of the pun-fests and wordplay that go on. I think it would be better to keep all of the word play in one thread and it might also introduce people to other posters they don't generally encounter if they participate in more than a single thread. Increased interaction is one of my main aims.
Soon we'll be calling it "The Party No One Attended"
1) No thread should have more than two hosts.
2) No host should have more than one thread (especially if we continue to limit threads in this manner). This includes moderators.
3) Any thread to be RIP'd should have the thread host's blessing before doing so.
2) I'd say no more than two, but point out that this doesn't work well for Moderators since our duties obligate us to intervene in other threads upon occasion as well as adopt threads when there's no one else to host them even though Moties want a thread opened.
3) Sometimes threads are closed for good reason even though the host vehemently disagrees. No thread should be R.I.P.ed without the host's foreknowledge and a sufficient time for arguments aimed at keeping the thread open, but to insist that no thread should ever be closed without the host's blessing is not good policy.
3a) Hosts already can be removed for cause.
I admittedly have been remiss in my duties as thread host of late. I am, as of yesterday, living between houses as we close on one and vacate the other. Seeing as that I also work out of the house, it has been a bit hectic.
I will make a better effort to spend some additional time on the watering and feeding of the thread. Thanks.
You're welcome to bring in a co-host to help you during your transition as well.
Thread Proposal
Christin: What is the point except to have multiple names up there? If the complaint is "too much hosting," why do we need three or more people managing threads that on most days are lucky to have three posters? It's just ego aggrandizement because I don't believe that many people are necessary to do the job.
Anyway, that's the least important of the three, and I don't really care about it except as bad form. It just reminds me of a four-page research paper in which every faculty member and grad student in a huge department feels a necessity to sign off on as having "contributed" to it.
2) I'd say no more than two, but point out that this doesn't work well for Moderators since our duties obligate us to intervene in other threads upon occasion as well as adopt threads when there's no one else to host them even though Moties want a thread opened.
If we're going to limit threads to 20 or fewer and continue to give hosts so much power, then it's a bad idea for hosts to have multiple threads. The idea that people can vote with their feet becomes untenable when other threads offer more of same. Moderators already have tremendous power, so there's especially no need for them to host more than one thread, too. It's all about decentralization and giving other people responsibility and authority.
3. I disagree. Remove the host if he's doing a bad job (i.e, for cause) and then RIP the thread. But it's not defensible to say a host is doing an acceptable job, he/she doesn't want his thread RIP'd, yet the thread needs to be RIP'd anyway. Why? Support the counter argument. Because we have to scroll past the thread? Because it takes up server space? RIP'd threads take up just as much server space as a dead thread.
Ask other Moties if they feel Health should be touched.No one is saying traffic there is overwhelming. But I bet you will find the majority of Moties enjoy knowing they have a place to post. It is a civil thread. The suggestions on the table re Health need to be put out there for everyone's
opinion. Thank you for listening.
No, it won't work...as I said I am doing what I can to turn the reins of host of Health to JJ and Rick. I would be very grateful if you would let Rick and JJ have a say before you change anything.
Thanks.
I think the actual problem is that there are two entirely seperate spheres of language discission in this forum.
On the one hand, there are those issues which relate to English: grammar, puns literature-overlap.
On the other, there is polyglot arcana. This is the language sub-stratum about which International posters tend to get excited.
So what if in Literature, there were - as Ms. No has already proposed - a "language" component, for those whose passion is English language (grammar, puns etc.)?
And incorporated in International is a "languages of the world" component included in the title?
That way, when the crazies get all excited about ethnogenesis, polyglottaria, and language families, there will be no hijacking or conflict with the lovers of English.
(BTW, I am being only moderately insulting because I include myself in the "crazies" cabal)
In general I don't see the need to combine threads just to combine threads. Given the choice I would rather have more threads to choose from rather than fewer. The Mote isn't broken. There is no need to fix it.
Hosts cannot edit posts.
I think this is similar to the situation in Movies & Television....sometimes a movie discussion can go on for hours and any television post either gets lost in the shuffle or simply isn't made because no one wants to interrupt a fascinating discussion that is in progress. I have long thought Movies and TV should be split but that idea has been met with resistance. I just think it's funny that Cal is using this argument now to keep Social Issues singular.
toys...my bad.
?????
As I've mentioned before, it is important to be accurate if you wish to be snide. I have supported the idea of a television thread, and specifically suggested to Doc Brown that he take it on.
I wasn't trying to be snide. I honestly don't recall you supporting the idea. I do recall you telling me I whined about feeling picked on the last time I brought it up.
At the same time I did that, I think I said that it was fine with me if there was a separate TV thread, but that your complaint was bullshit.
I do not now have my head up my ass though you seem to think that is a good way to get my attention, by insulting my intelligence and everything else about me. I suggest you look inward and ask yourself why you are so unpleasant much of the time to so many.
She already knows why she is unpleasant most of the time. She doesn't care enough to change. And its only going to get worse.
:>
So you remember inaccurately, complain about it inaccurately, and then whine that it's all my fault without even acknowledging your error?
Please. If you are going to complain and whine, be accurate. Or get smacked for being inaccurate, and whine some more. Makes no matter to me.
You have appointed yourself the arbiter of smacking and you do it really well, I must admit.
I don't see anyone stepping up and saying THEY remember you suggesting we have a seperate thread because I suspect if you had done so, like Jean-Luc Picard, someone would've made it so.
And your last sentence is belied by your not letting it drop....which is what I fully expect to come of this.
And I have said openly on more than one occasion that a TV thread is fine with me. I have no desire to be rid of the TV section of my thread; I merely don't object if someone wants to host it. I offered it explicitly to Doc Brown, who said no.
Anyway, it's a good idea. CalGal would be an appropriate host. If she is unwilling, perhaps Judith could do it.
Her point in making this post was not to propose a Television thread, but to bitch about what she saw as my supposed inconsistency.
Now, can we move on?
You have no idea how much men like to read this sort of stuff.
No, it's not.
I don't think he believes me, even though I later forwarded the letter complete with mistake, to his alternate address.
I'd like to see Television as a separate thread from Movies, myself.
One, because CalGal cannot abide the thought;
and Two, because they are entirely different media. I wish to talk about one but not the other. I hate seeing television-spam -- about the Sopranos, West Wing, etc. -- in the thread; it chokes off interesting movie-conversations.
There is no need to lump them both togther; either alone generates a sufficient number of posts to be a vibrant thread.
Separate them.
CalCal has had control of MOVIES/TV for almost two years. But, at least, her baby is active and fun to read.
JJ, Mote's money man, has had control of the MUSIC thread for the same period of time and it's dead as a doorknob. Recently no one posted in it for five days. And he hardly posts it in himself, other than to promote his band.
I guess Ace doesn't want it...
Don't you have a thread of your own to attend to?
I thought that too. :)
As I recall DocBrown didn't feel that he had enough time to serve as a host. This was one of the reasons he didn't host the Car Thread.
I think you'd make a fine host. I can get the thread set up and ready to go live within a couple of hours if you're ready to begin today or I can wait until later this weekend. Just let me know.
The vagaries of posting....ahhhhhhhh.
Although I'm guessing it was the Ace remark that got you!
A couple of hours would be fine...
Can you rename the Movie/Television thread to indicate the change?
Judith,
What title do you want me to put on the Television thread? Is "The Glass Teat" to risque?
Tony awards in the TV thread?
Television...The Small Screen
TV: the Message Medium. But I might be sued by the heirs of Newton Minow.
If ever there were a natural affinity it would be between movies and tv (and theater for that matter).
Ah well, so it goes.
I did mention that bit aobut threads, you know. But you all can't have it both ways. Either the Mote is my playground, or the thread has to be broken up to appease the masses.
If any thread needs a split up, it's the MUSIC and ARTS thread. All the host (sic) wants to talk about the last few weeks is his band's summer schedule. Nothing else interests him.
Blow me.
JJB may be a talented musician, a terrific mote treasurer who spends the members' money wisely on archive services--but he doesn't make his MUSIC thread sing. His blues is obvious
When I point this out, I'm ask by him to put his penis in my mouth and suck.
I will not.
And I will not be silented.
The Rebel Without A Clue.
Indy suggested I co-host Religion with him. I'd be honored, what do I do next?
My public e-mail is
bratdogsadie@yahoo.com
Pray?
One reason was that there would be so many inactive threads at the bottom. If that happens, RIP the dead threads. One reason given for limiting threads was that maybe people would interact more if some subjects were combined; I think this is dead wrong. Some people are comfortable in their own little balliwick and if they wanted to interact more, they would...forcing other subjects on them won't make then interact.
I don't see a problem with more threads; it's not like we get a bonus if we conserve the total number.
The first is that, obviously, moderators already have wideranging power over the Mote and therefore it's pointless to try to limit them by limiting their ability to host threads.
(Agree with what you posted otherwise.) From one direction--top-down--it limits moderator power by the fact that threads are supposed to be "states" that the moderators keeps their hands off of unless the host abuses hosting authority. But it's not really this negative reason that I'm getting at--with one or two historical exceptions, the moderators haven't intervened in anyone else's thread, and they certainly haven't abused their hosting power within their own threads that I've observed.
The more important reason I see for limiting their ability to host multiple threads comes from the other direction: bottom up. More Motiers are empowered to host threads and thus have some "ownership" of the Mote if everyone is limited to one thread per customer.
Finally, if there is a problem with too many threads, then limiting one thread to each host is an equitable way of addressing the situation. There will never be more threads than there are people willing to host them, and that seems much more preferable to me than taking away threads from people who do want to host, while leaving the reins of the remainder in fewer and fewer hands.
It is to us obsessive compulsive types.
I don't care about more or less threads to a point; I'd just hate to see things get unwieldy for moderators to keep up with and for people to navigate.
I don't much care if we weed out threads or not; the push was originally made by either Francis or Ace, I forget which. Their suggestions for weeding were far too drastic, so a few people began suggesting obvious merges. But at this point it goes back and forth so often that the whole thing gets funny--at the same time there is a push to reduce threads, someone suggests a new one and there it is.
You're not around as much anymore so you've managed to miss it, but it crops up quite frequenly in little fits and starts although it's been a couple months since the last days long discourse over thread consolidation.
It's an ongoing concern that flares up every once in a while but to my mind has been beaten to death consequently nobody has much energy for it anymore. Whenever it does come up as a large discussion we discover that it's next to impossible to get anyone to give up a thread around here so it's pretty pointless hence the exasperated sighs when rubberducky brought it up again the other day. It's almost always someone different who brings it up rather than one or two individuals just reposting the same mantra which lends itself to talking about "people" in the consensus as opposed to some two or three memeber faction.
As I've stated plenty of times I don't care one way or the other about any specific number of threads but rather that there not be so many threads that it diminishes interaction between posters. That's all relative to how many posters are here, how active they are and what they're discussing not to some specified thread count.
If you are curious, the thread's nearly 14000 posts await your perusal. I suggest starting in the 10000s.
Otherwise, you can take Christin's word for it. There has been varied support for it, as well as people who agree with you that any number of threads is fine. There are also those who say well, whatever, but if you're going to merge, I suggest this way or that way, as opposed to whatever the other suggestions are.
In any event, the one thing that is certain is that there is no way to determine the will of a majority of posters. We can't ever really determine what the consensus opinion is from people who post in here. Were we ever to merge the threads as proposed, some 10 or 20 people would instantly post here in complaint. It always works that way.
A5,
You're so annoying it's painful.
Francis and I both pushed the "fewer-threads" idea. We had about seven or eight supporters of varying passion, ranging from "Let's try it and see how it works" to "Good idea, let's do it."
Whether or not we should have fewer threads is sort of irrelevant to the question of whether we should have an unlimited number of threads, which I understand is your suggestion. I doubt there'd be many people who'd support that.
For god's sake, stop whining about it. What the fuck does it matter, ultimately, how many people supported the idea? Why the fuck are you demanding proof and names and citations for something so ridiculously trivial?
A5, I will make you a deal: When and if you provide me a list (with citations) of any and all people here who have ever written the words "douche" or "douchebag," I will supply you with the list of all persons supporting the "fewer threads" initiative.
But not until then.
Now, start digging up those douchebags, douchebag!
You presumably either confused one poster, Francis or Ace you're not sure which, with being a plural entity, or you have others in mind.
No, I did not confuse them, and I certainly didn't think it was only one of them. I wasn't sure which one originally made the suggestion. Francis was the one who then regularly reintroduced the topic.
But enough. What Ace said.
I thought of it first, and suggested it.
FU, the penny-ante McCaniac prima donna that he is, took virtual ownership of the idea, taking it to ludicrous extremes (first he proposed the "Metric" Mote -- Ten threads --then he pared that down to the "Sexa" mote -- Six threads -- before proposing the Binary Mote (Two) and ultimately the Grand Unified Mote (one thread only)).
FU gets more "credit" for the idea than I do, because I realized before he did that it was an idea which would never be effected and, perhaps, shouldn't be effected. He, however, continued flogging it.
Who else supported it? I dunno. AlistairConnor thought maybe it was a good idea. Indy and maybe stumbo thought we should give it a go.
I can't really remember, to tell you the truth, because it was incredibly trivial and doesn't deserve much remembering.
Why you're so obsessed with the Minutes of the Discussion is beyond me.
Here was my plann:
Ace's Plan:
Politics
Where Jexster will tell you all about his Runny Shit, and Ace will call you a homo moron
Housewives' Hilton
Where you can jabber your pie-holes all the live-long fucking day
Pussy-Shit
Discuss Gardening, Muffins, your fucking Periods... whatever the fuck you women talk about when you're not chewing my ear
Foreign Fucks
Whine from your stinking backwaters, talk about how superior you are to Americans, and plot how to scam the American Government into giving you your thirtieth Student Visa, you forty-year-old fuck
Shit-for-Brains
Jerk off about the latest boring PBS documentary, and cream about Charles Fucking Mingus, whoever that is
Gay Shit
How many fucking times can you discuss Musicals? Well, Sweethearts, here's your chance to find out
Angel-Five, of course, would be a frequenter of Pussy-Shit and Gay Shit.
Which is fine by me. As long as his dreary caterwauling is kept as far from me as possible.
Why don't you go to post 9758 and read the discussion, douchebag, instead of demanding that I re-type it for your convenience?
I gave you the fucking post number. Shall I cut and paste the entire discussion here, to save you the trouble of paging back?
And quite frankly, dipshit, I don't need to provide any arguments against an overproliferation of threads, because the management Troika makes such decisions without consulting anybody and they've decided against an overproliferation of threads.
You want to argue? Talk to them.
Yeah, that's it. I don't like to count past six.
Nice one, Shecky. Zing-pow-bang.
I just didn't follow your leap in the rest of the post. It just seemed like a slam. After reading your explanation, I withdraw my request. Carry on.
Stumbo,
My bad. It was AytchMan I was thinking of.
JJ,
I don't really think it makes a lot of sense to reduce the number of threads, either. OTOH, I don't see the need to create new ones willy-nilly. Specialty threads should pretty much only be created as old specialty threads are RIPped.
Although I fully support a Wicca thread, hosted by Dissonance.
JoeZan and Angelfive:
consider this fair warning that the use of RosettaStone's real name is grounds for suspension.
Don S. and RosettaStone:
I could have and would have acted faster had either of you seen fit to get my immediate attention and point out the offending posts.
I have never wanted my name used in this forum. I've said that many, many times.
I didn't make a big deal about it when JoeZan used it since I saw what reactions I got from complaining about CharlieL publishing it here.
If you're serious about what JoeZan and Angelfive did, you should suspend them for two weeks.
I have never wanted my name used in this forum. I've said that many, many times.
I didn't make a big deal about it when JoeZan used it since I saw what reactions I got from complaining about CharlieL publishing it here.
If you're serious about what JoeZan and Angelfive did, you should suspend them for two weeks.
CharlieL was suspended for over six weeks because of his refusal to quit using your name. The fact that you wanted him banned instead is a disappointment that you'll have to live with.
JoeZan and Angelfive were unaware of the prohibition against using your real name which you used to post under when they knew you and we were many of us still at the Fray. I'm not going to suspend them for making an honest mistake and even the RoE make explicit allowance for revealing private information by accident.
The posts have been deleted and JoeZan and Angel have been cautioned. That's as serious an action as I feel is warranted at this time.
2. f3,Qh4
Checkmate!
That said, Rosie's had so many IDs around here (and the Fray), I truly didn't know that I was talking about him when I mentioned the unmentionable.
That said, I do not apologize for using it.
Uh-huh.
Well, it's official: you really need to get out more.
The subject shall be a treatise upon this all-encompassing issue of yesterday, today and tomorrow, which affects us all so utterly.
No doubt the strutting jackbooted martinet Nilson has done away with it as punchiment for the Major befriending yours truly.
"To defeat a strong enemy: Deploy forces to defend the strategic points; exercise vigilance in preparation, do not be indolent. Deeply investigate the true situation, secretly await their laxity. Wait until they leave their strongholds, then seize what they love."
--Sun Tzu
why didn't he post it here?
will the Cafe's thread title be changed to reflect this?
Pelle:
what do you mean?
Dunno. He sent me his request to resign as host of The Quiz Thread so I made the announcement.
Rather than search for another host for a thread that only really gets folks worked up when it gets ready to retire I figured I'd R.I.P. it for now and see how we do posting quizes other places for awhile. If it looks like we need a dedicated thread for quizzes then it can certainly be brought out of retirement.
The Cafe will not be renamed. It's a pleasant chat and banter thread as the intro describes, I don't think we need to list every topic or type of conversation that can take place there. Current Quizes can be linked in the News Links bar on the front page without problem.
I bashed Coltrane when he first appeared, to. I questioned why he got an "Ask Dr. Coltrane" when I had requested an "Ask Ace" thread a year ago.
And yet after my "bashing" Coltrane stuck around for six months.
And who can forget VonKreep masturbating in his Dublin hotel room while he handled co-host chores.
Bad memories are lasting ones.
How about a thread entitled WHERE ARE THE TABLETALK 17?
TT has been down for six days and still no Judithepromoter clones.
Topic First Post Date Post Count Literature 10/6/99 2,570 Technical Issues 9/14/99 3,212 Poetry 9/13/99 3,374 Slow Thread 9/14/99 3,821 Arts & Music 8/24/99 4,255 Language 9/11/99 6,820 The Quiz Thread 9/11/99 8,466
Or is this "we need fewer threads" discussion du jour?
but then, i think Rants & Quiz should be axed.
ducky: If you contend that such statistics would present a different picture, then please post them.
Jay has said server space is not a problem. The thread is not offensive and appears (barring rebuttal evidence) to have greater traffic than several other threads.
It now also has a would-be willing host (though if some reasonable alternative will step forward, I'll gladly move aside).
Hence, what are the grounds for its axing?
Plus, I dislike the title, which looks as though it has a typo. Until now, I've restrained my comments out of consideration for Fielding, but if he's retiring from the Mote, that's the thread that ought to go.
i think you are forgetting that i'm hardly in favor of keeping any of those threads and have been a vocal advocate of constant thread turnover. most of the threads in your Message # 13971 could go or be combined, but it won't happen, so it is a moot point - believe me.
Hence, what are the grounds for its axing?
for me, 30+ threads. quizzes can go in other threads. it's not like Cafe is buzzing these days. it can always be unripped, so i don't see the problem in retiring it, to be honest.
ducky: Okay, but assuming we're not going to RIP any of those threads, then on the basis of activity alone, it's difficult to justify RIP'ing the Quiz Thread.
for me, 30+ threads.
If thread count is a reason to cull, then let's cull with some kind of valid rationale.
I think the slow activity argument and "what's the problem with retiring it?" can be extended to ultimately RIP'ing the Mote. BTW, barring something new and unforeseen, I'm expecting the Mote will be down to fewer than a dozen regular posters by the end of the year. TT's apparent demise may be that unexpected factor, but we're hardly poised to take advantage of it--even if we wanted to.
imo, it should have been culled when the 'hosts' Ace & Irv stepped down and Fielding took it. it always goes like this. when a host steps down, the decision is made to keep it or not. not was chosen. as stated, i see no reason to keep it. the content is suited for other threads.
btw, theMote's demise has been predicted many, many times. am i concerend that we haven't picked up much due to TT being down 'temporarily'? most certainly. but theMote isn't going anywhere due to there being no costs involved.
(cue Rosetta Slide carping about the fees paid to archive threads)
Ducky: Not really. A quiz plunked down in most other threads would be disruptive to any ongoing conversation and would prevent such a conversation from occurring while the quiz went on. Plus, if you've followed the Quiz thread at all, you know that once the answers start being posted there's a lot of scrolling back to find the quiz itself. Any other discussion at the time would make this even more of a chore.
The suggestion is the Cafe, but that's because anything can be plugged into the Cafe. Any topic you name, we could RIP it and say, "Well, you can still discuss it in the Cafe."
Otherwise, I'm not strictly predicting the demise of the Mote because as you say, it can go on indefinitely on a free basis. One person could just keep posting here and say the Mote still exists. (Actually, I even tried to get cazart to wager with me whether the Mote would be around after TT, but he refused. Too bad because it looks like I would be about to collect.)
Still, I'm estimating around 12 regulars by New Year's. How many do you think we have now? To qualify as a regular, let's say 24 out of the last 26 weeks at least one post, and at least 30 posts a month during that time.
Nominees for who will comprise the last 12 posters off Mote Island: Myself, Ace, CalGal, RosettaStone, jexster, Pelle, Judith, PP...others?
World crossing is a collection of forums (fora?), including Online Journal, Ferguson's haunt, Bare Knuckle Politics and many others. I see some regular names at Online Journal. Do you know if this is where most gravitated, some other place, or all over?
i find your argument specious. yes, anything can go into Cafe. so what?
the point is, lately, there has been next to no activity in Quiz for a couple months.
retire it and bring it back later. what's the harm? the content may be disruptive, but I tend to doubt it. it has worked okay for movies, for example. the worst case scenario is someone holds off posting a quiz til the thread dies down some – i can live with that.
PS you don't think i'll be here by year's end? i'm ... hurt. you know something i don't?
Insist on white font for answers, so quizzes aren't spoiled for others, then collect quizzes and answers in separate web page for newcomers to try later.
I'm still hoping to do this with the old posts in the thread, but my ability to create web pages has regressed, and I haven't had the inclination.
Pro: The thread will be RIP'd because of low activity.
Con: The thread has much more activity over the long haul than several other threads.
Pro: Not recent activity. Besides, those threads should be RIP'd too.
Con: Prove your assertion re recent activity. Those other threads aren't going to be RIP'd.
Pro: Well, the content can be put in other threads like the Cafe.
Con: Content for any thread can be put in the Cafe.
Pro: That's specious. Besides, the thread hasn't had a lot of recent activity.
Fair summation?
I think we might get a few new posters in the next few days and maybe they will even want to stick around. I know several people who have gone to World Crossing....
I've noticed at least a couple of newcomers post that something they wanted to comment on passed by before they got in. One was recently in the TV thread re all-time greatest TV shows.
No reflection on gj; just not possible for a human to perform the function as fast as a computer (as well as be on 24 x 7).
Pro: there is no harm in ripping it for a time, it can easily be brought back. at worst, someone holds off posting a quiz for a week or less.
Pro: ripping knocks the thread count down some to below 30 when i retire my own thread soon. (yes, this is a subjective value.)
PS you have yet to say why, exactly, it should be kept given the lack of posts and the infrequent usage. now, if you had a vision for the thread, like Dusty, that's one thing. to just take it over to maintain the status quo is unattractive to me.
I still think we'll get people from TT...many are in the denial stage about it going belly up, after all...once they reach acceptance, we'll see them coming in.
Of course, we'll also see Rosetta pouncing with his usual warnings to all the new people, too, as he's done in the past.
Back up 1000 posts, and check the date:
This wasn't a scientific sample, I didn't check some with high activity, but Quiz doesn't stand out in terms of low recent activity.
If dusty is interested in hosting it, then fine with me because I prefer no one multiple host anyway.
So far, dusty, Aytch (in the thread itself), Judith (somewhat), and myself have said that there's no "harm" in keeping it around. If the Mote exists to serve old hands, then I think that's sufficient clientele to keep an "inoffensive" thread around--even if it means 31 instead of 30. Or RIP the Rant Thread.
(If the Mote exists for some other purpose then for serving the old hands, then I'm still waiting to hear what that purpose is.)
And count me as opposed to having the quizzes posted in the various threads...for all the reasons Dusty cited.
i think it is 'harmful' to keep threads around past the time they are used with any regular degree and have said as much several times. dead threads makes the place look just that - dead.
it is why i am for culling and combining threads.
but, again, ain't gonna happen - so i'll take what small victory i can. that small victory is keeping the thread count to < 30.
However, it does appear that there are lots of new registrants and that it is likely even more are lurking thanks to TT being down.
My advice on a method to attract and keep these much-needed lurkers is to put up a (perhaps temporary) thread on TT itself. Something like 'Can we learn from TT?' This would be a thread to discuss online forums and the good moves and mistakes made by TT and others. Thus, people who have lost their Internet home have a place to talk about it, meet each other anew here, and also quite a bit can be learned about what people want out of Internet forums and how they really percieve the Mote.
As host, I nominate a new Motard, any new Motard, most preferably one who spent a lot of time in TT.
Alternatively, a good host could be someone committed to this forum who also spent a lot of time in TT and liked both places and is familiar with both.
Marji, I think your thread isea is fantastic. Almost everyone here has an opinion on TT and I am sure it would serve the dual purposes of making TTefugees feel at home, and giving old-fart Motieres a place to emote on their vast superiority.
But in all seriousness, it really is a clever idea.
See, an outpost for TT'ers to gripe about their forum is guaranteed to bring them in here to post. I figure they may stay, but the key is to get a lurker to post. Once they do, they generally stick around.
Triad council, kindly consider this request hastily. I'd say implementation should take place sooner rather than later. Strike while TT is still down.
Also, if you set it up, everyone who has TT contacts could email them and tell them that if they don't have a place to go, come on here. It's our way of returning the favor, given the times we've used TT as a gathering point.
What happened with that?
I second (or third, or whatever # we are up to) your idea.
Timely.
It's the perfect entree thread.
What threads are intimidating? I'm both amused and bemused by the thought.
I like PP's name for the suggested thread.
Getting rid of threads here reminds me of government programs: it's very easy to add new ones, but almost impossible to eliminate those already existing. Maybe we need a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.
It's just a nice outpost for those who either are a little homesick, for those who want to catch up, and for those who want to practice eMoting with familiar, er, faces before venturing out.
I bet you'll get several hundred posts in a couple of days if you put the thread up immediately.
So, who will be hosting "Tabled Talk"?
And while we're at it, how about combining Parenting and Education into a Family thread? I think JJ said he'd be willing to have Travel rolled into Home/Food and banks' suggested name of The Good Life might work there. Finally, while Rick is away, we could put Poetry in with Literature. I believe Uzmakk has already given that combo his blessing.
Well, the proviso isn't really a proviso, I just wanted to mention the concept again.
Alternatively, any TT refugee would be good too, especially one who knows a lot of the people there.
And open up the doors to new registrants. Stop this closed door policy because you can't stand criticism from JontheCad or Cazart.
And where are the 17 that Judithepromoter promised?
No word yet on why it's down? Has the magazine itself been updated lately?
All are welcome at the Mote. (she says piously)
I feel sure, however, that our rather rambunctious nature will discourage some people from staying. But the more the merrier, within reason.
chickchickchickchickchick
Scare her off with your big, hairy man-balls.
I don't like Indiana Jones as a thread host. He meddles with posts in the threads he controls far too much.
I think JudithAtHome would make a pretty good welcome host. She's very friendly and lacks the aggressiveness that leads to thread butchery some of the others here fall into when they have authority to delete and move posts.
One or more of our banned and damned might sneak in. It's da rules!
It's disappointing that more of the international issues folks from TT aren't sampling the Mote. Some of them were very bright and well-informed conversationalists. This place could use a few more international wankers.
Stop by the Guardian's messageboard in the interem, if you wanna. PE's been doing his anti-communist routine on a genuine Marxist. I've been tempted to join in their ongoing intefadah. The pro-Palestinians outnumber the pro-Israelis over there.
'their' intefadah being the Guardian's intefadah, not PE's and the Marxist's.
Intemuddah
I am here at
Camp Rumallah ...
What was I thinking?!
Re the TT refugee thread: Don't think I would be a good host for it as most TTers don't particularly like me (a few do, but many more don't). My suggestion would be to make Michael Mele host with Judith co-host since it will take a while to contact MM.
Then someone email MM (he is a Motier in good standing) about what we've done and see his reaction. If he doesn't want to host, that's fine but until he declines put his name up there so TT folks will immediately see a familiar "face."
No good reason has been given for its demise (at least not before certain other threads get the ax). I hope this will not be a case of sticking with a bad decision just out of a desire not to change one's mind.
If Indy doesn't want to do it - fine. Please set up the thread anyway with any temporary host. The TT'rs will come. One will become the natural host before long. You can even make the sub-headline an open invitation to potentia hosts.
The important thing is to get the thread up, fast.
And I won't refuse to do the job, but I think there are much better alternatives.
Let's just act, dammit!
In addition, I do think it would be absolutely stupid not not take up Wiz's magnanimous and exciting offer to redesign the site. Can this process be expedited at all? I'd hate to see a really good chance like this pass by simply due to inertia.
I thought we were going to give people through this month to submit designs? If not, implementing WoW's design is no problem, I can write the html from his mockup.
btw, Pike, I don't see any problem with the splash page being largish kb-wise, because once people have seen it they will bookmark the following page anyway. It's the image at the top of the page that has to be kept fairly small.
What interests does Michael Mele have other than censorship? Other than the once he appeared in International issues to join in an assault on some Arab, I've never seen him post anywhere except the Salon Central sysops censorship thread, where he seemed to have made hundreds if not thousands of posts. He is one of the dozen or so creepy posters in TT who appear to spend hours every day discussing the enforcement of community standards.
Thanks for the quick action on the thread.
On the redesign, the only other person who showed interest is Spike. And his submissions are in. If it needs to be put to a vote, let's vote.
I think the two concepts are not contradictory. The Wiz design is clearly excellent and meant to provide a look-and-feel. The Spike contributions can be retained for variety on the inner pages. Or not, as the case may be.
If implementation is no problem, and Wiz only has a small window to work with you, please can that window be used? I realize this is yet another demand from you, and from Wiz for that matter. But what he's offered is so very much more contemporary and dynamic than what exists, and it will (I am 100% sure) help in attracting people to this forum at this crucial time when it is finally being checked out by more than a straggling of disenchanted Internet refugees.
It would be helpful if those were linked in the yellow sidebar under "Subthreads" or "Related Links." This topic has 14K+ posts, after all. A bit daunting to sift through.
Thanks for the suggestion, Majoribanks. I'm sorry it's taken so long to get to it.
I put the R.I.P. on the Quiz Thread at the request of the host.
full stop.
I repeat THE HOST emailed me that he was stepping down without having found a replacement and it was fine to R.I.P. the thread. If there is now a new host and folks are desperate to keep it then by all means leave it up and running. I don't have a personal stake in deleting or creating threads.
I'm going to start puting Paxil in the water system here to combat the rampant paranoia. Folks need to pay attention to what is actually said rather than getting their panties in a bunch and running off on the first conspiracy theory that comes to mind.
One RosettaStone is enough thank you. If I'd imagined he was contagious I might've pushed for innoculations sooner.
Good questions.
I agree that in some cases Fielding's request would/should carry a lot of weight, but this thread existed long before he hosted it.
I could be wrong, of course.
Since you let him back in, how about a general amnesty for others, including JontheCad and Cazart?
Cazart may or may not be JadeGold (I never actually agreed with IJ's thinking that they are one and the same person) but Jon, with the broken heart, needs another chance at redemption.
Oh, Canada, and all that jazz.
Is there more than one submission?
Or, is it just a yes/no vote on WizardofWhimsy's idea?
Hmm, I just started here and had been meaning to get to further into the house and garden area.
I think The Good Life isn't as descriptive - to me, the good life would mean something along spiritual lines, getting what you want out of life. Entirely different than the recipes and garden tips I believe I read in the first few messages.
But, it's changed, so I'll keep it in mind.
all the submissions are here.
to vote or follow the discussion, vote, etc. you can always check out my thread, The Great GIF Debate
oh, and welcome! it is really great to see all of the new monikers here in all the threads
Erinyes -- I hope you join us in "Good Life" to talk about gardening and food.
IrvingSnodgrass has never been suspended or banned and you are well aware of that fact. Spreading such a pernicious rumor is totally out of line.
Don't do it again.
i'd be willing to help or maybe someone else could if i'm not desirable.
reason i bring this up is Message # 2109 in thread 66
Plus, there is (currently) only one gatekeeper but three moderators--meaning one person whose job it is to let people in and three to throw them out.
i like that idea better than mine
(is a third degree pink belly and a prolonged
twirley)
jeesh.
Thinking back to my jr high days, we had none of that. We girls were all about mental twists, no belly smacking or twirlies.
I don't know about people's jr high personalities here yet, but I've just had a lesson.
Oh, good. The perplexed follow-ups to that thar post tells me that I wasn't the only one who led a sheltered junior high school life.
...I bet the Christmas parties were a sight to behold. ;-)
I think we might have been a little hasty in putting up this thread for the TT people...
They are also unimpressed with someone called The Reaper who has been spamming them all over the alternate sites. They said he/she is giving them the creeps.
Without knowing, I know.
If you think I am going to link to that site so you can go shit on their carpet, you are much dumber than I know you to be.
sustain, no.
Gimme a link, Judith. I'll go and ruffle their feathers some more.
read them again.
Never me.
"Reaper find it not funny at all. Mote need much funds to subsidize sensitive tracking information of participants for dissemination to enemies.
Mote is cross between Scientologists and SPECTRE."
We can forget any new people from TT, guys...he's spamming every thead with "TT" in the name and everyone is very turned off by the entire idea. And they are calling him Joe, by the way....
As for them being peeved by the comments, I got some of that feedback, too. But why would someone think that any one of us speak for the whole group? You'd think long time TTers would know enough about forums to figure out that much.
Oh cool. I meant those comments to be provocative.
I think you may have underestimated how these comments would be received...add to your remarks the actions of this Reaper asshole and the welcome mat has been tattered, to say the least.
Psychic links.
Socialization.
Mass Hysteria.
Frank Herbert's space craft has been spewing Scientology.......
I don't know but it has. And these are people that actually like me...I was on that site because they wrote me specifically and invited me to join them there. It wasn't a spammed invite; it was personal.
And I think some of them might get it that the Reaper isn't "us"...I was even thanked for the "nice letters" I sent them weeks ago.
I mean this kindly, but even the last sentence of 14110 could be misconstrued by people whose antennae are especially receptive at this point.
So Judith's reporting about what "they" say is representative of oh, let's say 5% of TT. And I bet even so that a percentage of them will check it out--in fact, they did so or they wouldn't have seen Marj's posts to get out of whack about. Nothing to get all drama queeny about, for sure.
The fact is, we could never get a lot of TT folks because our forums are just too different. We'll pick up some of them, just as we have up to now, and most of them will come over, go "ick" and leave. This will happen regardless of marj's posts and regardless of whether the puling fuck runs around libelling our little world in every thread there is. Plenty of people know about the Mote at TT, and almost all of them know that Stone is the same little pest here that he is there.
There will also be people posturing loudly about what a dreadful place it is because there is ego involved. If TT really is dead, a lot of that crowd will take it as a sign of personal weakness to show up over here.
So don't fuss. Although it would be nice if we could avoid making comparisons that involve "having a life". (at least you all could point to me and say, "Look, we have one of those too!" )
I am not the reaper. I wouldn't badmouth the mote over religious issues.
please give me links so I can read for myself.
worldcrossing.com
Table Talk Refugee Center
Join the Mote
We're getting to know each other in a very tongue-in-cheek way.
Stone, it pains me to have to exonerate you, but there it is.
I am The Reaper, and the closest I've come to "reflecting badly" on The Mote is not using first person pronouns.
Whether or not any of those things is actually true isn't the real issue. It's how we are perceived by a large number of TTers. Additionally where do our banned and disatisfied members go? To Table Talk, of course, where they paint us in less than glowing terms.
If we truly want to woo refugees then we need to actually woo them. Not just assume that we'll now benefit from the loss of their forum.
I know that no one intends to be smug about this, but that's because I live here not at Table Talk. I can see how they would resent the offer and be hostile to our overtures if we don't put them forward diplomatically.
Furthermore, we have the added disadvantage of RosettaStone as a member. They've kicked him out repeatedly from their forum. The fact that he posts here, that he is spamming them and making a nuisance of himself is not likely to endear the Mote to any of them.
Just some things to think about when approaching this issue.
He's like the Abominable Snowman.
You overstate.
But in general, anyone who comes over here, sees one post about the "high quality" we have in comparison to TT and gets upset and leaves is just being a tad too sensitive. Were TT up, I could point to a good thousand posts exalting certain posters as "valuable", certain topics as "finer than anything on the Web" and certainly better than the "trashpile known as Politics", and any number of posts deriding the Mote, NYTimes, Rabbit Hole, and a host of other forums.
In comparison, many Motefolk hang out at TT (or would if they hadn't been banned), speak kindly of the forum, and at no point will you see any Motefolk trashing TT the way that quite a few TTers denigrate the Mote.
So to any people who are fussed by the posts, all I can tell them is that they have a bit of tunnel vision and they're feeling the shock of loss. It happens. Those people will either like the Mote or they won't, but if they decide that one post is the beginning and end of their judgment of the forum then they are denying their own experience of forums (surely they didn't approve of every post at TT?), and they are possibly denying themselves an opportunity to find a new place to hang out. Should they need it.
I've done the refugee thing twice myself now, and IMO the mechanics of registration, interface, and things like that are the things we have control over. Interesting discussion is another big factor in deciding whether we keep people or not. We can't do much about what kind of PR we're getting on other forums, but any kind of word of mouth is better than none.
I'm not convinced the Reaper is Stone, but don't know one way or the other.
You're an idiot. And they just deleted your little project.
Nothing to get all drama queeny about, for sure.
If you are referring to me, as I'm sure you are, I'd just like to say I sent out invitations to over 50 people and sure, that's a small percentage but I did it because I foolishly believed we really wanted to have new people check us out. Now I see we really are what everyone is feeling we are...smug. So yeah, I'm a little upset that things came off as they did and if that is making me a drama queen, well so fucking what?
Exactly as I said.
As for the third group, surely they are slumming Motefolk.
They did? I'm still posting on my Reaper site.
I think The Reaper is catching on.
Wait, wait. You're not the only person here who was upset. CalGal's comment was not specifically or exclusively made to you. Several people have made similar statements and her post was to the general feeling of disappointment. It's important to note that she does have a point. Refugees will either come or they won't come. While we would certainly love to have them it is not the death of the Mote if they do not.
Catch it, baby!
1) Stone is not the Reaper.
and
2) There is no perceptable outrage over my comments that I can detect.
What is happening is not very different from what happened when the Fray went down. But people will, assuredly, keep checking in here out of curiosity at the least.
Actually, I wasn't. I was referring to the entire tone of the conversation and reminding people to get some perspective. But if you wish to claim the crown, you are welcome to it.
As for the rest, I don't think we are smug. In a perfect world, I would have rather banks not made that comment. But had he not made the comment, someone would have found something to be fussed about.
If the 50 people you emailed all came over, saw that post, and left in a huff, then I suggest you ask them if they are claiming that no such posts of that nature were ever made at TT. If they say no, then they are beyond help. If they say "yes, but..." then go from there.
Oh well, I guess if you all are happy with it, who am I to intrude? I probably don't grasp the full import, anyhow.
And, yes, I am the reaper.
I just made the Reaper George of the Jungle. I don't know how it happened, but it was like potato chips.
And Juditha must be talking about someplace else where the TT folk are burning effigies and otherwise denouncing banks. It was never in my thread or in either of my two franchise thread (in TT/TV and Mother Who Think/TT).
I think not...I'm not going to try and win hearts and minds by arguing them to death.
I'm not giving you the link to their site; they asked me not to.
Arguing is very effective. But you could use charm.
Or you could pout. Take your pick.
But truly, try and keep some perspective.
Let's not get into that again, Immoral Beloved.
That was probably me.
First Christin and now Francis. It must be time for me to retire.
Coordinates?
And you side with foreigners over your own flesh and blood?
Actually, I certainly don't want to spook anyone. If they feel safe from The Reaper now, I am pleased.
I was just thinking the same thing. We have lost her to the Others.
worldcrossing.com
Table Talk Refugee Central
Join the Mote
Why? What have we done that is "smug"?
Get out.
The Reaper is gentle as a lamb and he doesn't use first person pronouns.
The kids love him.
People like Judith who have a number of acquaintances and email contacts might be able to keep communications open and at least those people will have a contact for questions if they do decide later to participate.
As far as any one individual being a deterrent to new people coming in, oh well. We can't hide the crazy uncle in the attic or apply a straight-jacket and muzzle.
But Niner can be funny in a Chinese cookie sorta way. Nice of him to actually do something positive to recruit new people.
And much as it pains me, I apologize for saying that the reaper was you. Had I been to the site I would have known it was Francis: the only "voice" he knows how to do is MrMoto.
Whatever their software "experts" were doing failed. They sounded very depressed.
BTW, what are they doing anyway?
Or in the immortal words of Popeye, "I yam what I yam."
Checked out FU's MrMoto act, very funny, but man, those posters are in a bad place. Very unhappy people, and snippy.
Ah well, I remember the angst of the final Fray days. We were all in deep denial.
D E N S A
But really, it's not too easy to find one's way around the site. Enter the site, go to public forums, and then #39 on the list.
Table Talk Refugee Central.
Then hit Join the Mote.
I don't know if the forum list is static..the listings change according to amount of activity, I think. It's hard to get back to where you've already read on a thread...I'll say this: it's not as easy to move around there as here OR on TT, either.
Of course, a lot of stuff irritated me today. But this beer sure isn't...Dos Equis, a good Latin beer.
I still couldn't see where people got all upset about Marj's post however. It seems those that were dismissive of the Mote were already predisposed to be upset and disparaging about it.
Although I did think FU handled it all very well. I'm thinking he should be our greeter, you know, like those cute guys in front of WalMart. The ones that deceive you into thinking there are actually salespeople inside to help as well.
Yikes, I meant Judith.
Just who was I channeling there??
I don't know why you're even bothering. There's a reason we come here rather than Table Talk.
Namely, the fucking freaks on Table Talk.
Personally, I don't think we need an invasion of paranoid conspiracy-theorist Marxist homosexual shut-ins.
Such as Michael Mele.
Obviously, Satan....
Strangely enough, there are some really nice and interesting people over there; people you've never run into, Ace.
I think we ought to have a thread where the TT idiots can ratfink on each other and tattle-tale to the Thread Manager, get each other banned, publish each other's personal information on-line, and spam each other's conversations until all actual conversation comes to a grinding halt.
You know: Just so they'll all feel "at home."
You know better than that. I'm a xenophobe.
But seriously, I find those people pretty dispicable. If enough of the bad sort of TT posters come here, this forum is going to have some serious problems.
The powers who control us should move these posts to the TABLED TALK thread. (great name, btw).
Over at TT, I have witnessed:
-- Posters threatening darkly to use some sort of computer legardemain to discover someone's private information and publish it on line (actually, I was subject to just this sort of threat; I saw others likewise threatened, as well)
-- Douchebags like "Sam Snead" (or something like that) ratting to "Elizabeth" Every third post
-- Douchebags like "Cincinnatus C" spamming threads with dozens and dozens of long, off-topic posts (usually fag-rock lyrics or an adolescent attempt at a "shocking string of profanities) just because they didn't like the topic
etc.
Look, I just think we don't want too many people like that.
More women will come because of CalCal and Judith's reputations.
CD will invite his homosexula hordes but they don't take criticism well and soon will be gone.
Actually the political types are at CNN now. (with Andy/bbb on their cases).
I don't think you want any other people, period.
Well, obviously, they're not ALL bad.
Just 75% of the ones that I've encountered.
I don't think you want any other people, period.
Why should I? I pretty much have the run of the joing now.
I said joing, I meant joing.
Joing.
Jo-fucking-ing.
I think everyone's aware of my quals on this subject.
And a typist.
Boy, I wish I knew where those types of bars were located when I was young, single and a stud.
I think that there have been gay threads in the past. Thread topics come and go -- with the exception of "Politics" "Cafe" and "Home and Garden". It's been a while since we had a "Gay Culture" thread, and I would support the creation of another if there's interest.
Look for one that has Francis Urquhart hosting it.
That's because real men don't talk about sex, they just do it.
"Boy, I wish I knew where those types of bars were located when I was young, single and a stud."
You'll note that the "tone of voice" in the Mote is a bit edgier than TT. Insulting comments are made by and to just about everyone and the expectation is that the posters here are adult enough to either ignore them or dish out the same.
You might consider spending a couple of days reading and watching people interact here before you begin making assumptions about things and being critical.
Who hit BoyBlue with the fag-bat?
boyblue: Some threads are gayer than others.
Look for one that has Francis Urquhart hosting it.
Or posting in.
Or even considering posting in.
theMote is very open to anyone.
the only people i've seen that are consistently treated badly are people who are dumb. but then, not funny dumb like Ace, but really unfunny dumb like Rosetta Slide.
Please don't infer from the fact that RosettaStone hasn't been banned, that his remarks reflect the beliefs of others here.
Great. Now Dusty and Rubberducky have both been smashed in the head with the fag-bat.
Waaaah, don't think ill of us BlueBoy, we want you to liiiiike us.
I'm gonna go put on my Anti-Fag-Bat Helmet.
You'll note that the "tone of voice" in the Mote is a bit edgier than TT.
Geeze. There's an epidemic of fag-battings.
Who'll be next?
Why, indeed.
But I do think the hypersolicitous and "needy" attitude is a turn-off. No one wants to be a member of a club whose current members beg and plead for newcomers.
If you aren't capable of telling someone to fuck off, then you won't last. Anyhow, why not just lock horns with someone who takes a tact you don't like? If you think someone is anti-gay, take them to task, punch holes in their statements...
but forget the passive aggresive snipes...
Here, I'll respond seriously.
14201. boyblue - 6/14/01 1:56:31 PM
Why is there not a single thread in The Mote devoted to gay topics of any sort?
We at The Mote believe that all topics are "gay topics." That's how inclusive we are. In the words of Kurt Cobain: "What else can I say?/Everyone is gay."
I have seen the insulting remarks by some toward gays participating in some threads.
I have a great deal of trouble believing this. Do you care to cite these alleged "insulting remarks"?
There ought to be a thread where gay politics and culture could be discussed on a consistent basis.
All politics and culture are gay, as stated above.
The fact that you dispute this paints you as a homophobe of some sort.
The absence of one raises a serious question about the inclusiveness of The Mote. Is The Mote inclusive in the manner in which Dubya is "inclusive?"
Precisely in that manner, yes. Thank you for noticing.
what i said was true, and don't act like it wasn't
as a general rule, it is good for people to know that we are an inclusive bunch.
that said, when have you ever taken off the 'Anti-Fag-Bat Helmet'? heh
We at The Mote pride ourselves on our ability to embrace and celebrate diversity of all sorts. And by "embrace," we mean "ignore," and by "celebrate," we mean "demean."
We also don't like gooks.
No one is begging and pleading for newcomers. They were invited to come for a look. They weren't invited to come for insults. I'm guessing you don't get many repeat guests at the parties you throw, Ace.
Ken Starr pretty much killed it off -- and the Bush twins administered the coup de grace.
Crafty, cunning gooks... scheming against us...
My only gripe lately is that some people seem to be more interested in cultivating support for their side of some personal difference they have with another poster.
I'm more of an intermittant poster now, just because it takes too much time to joust with some of the people here.
there's the same old characters doing the same old bits try as they might to throw in new things and failing, but, dammit, every once in a while something is said that makes you laugh.
and, like SNL, the skits are less funny when directed at you and more funny directed at someone you don't care for.
If we were too polite, it'd be a lie. Plus, he was answered accurately. We discuss gay issues in every thread all the time; the Sex thread is hosted by at least one gay member; it's silly to think that a few of Ace's "fag" comments equates to the entire site being homophobic, and if he wants a Gay thread, he can ask and there'd be support. As iiibbb says, we're ruthless, tough, insulting, and give good conversation. And very often we're extremely amusing.
It's also clear that we never agree on anything, particularly on how to treat newcomers.
as a general rule, it is good for people to know that we are an inclusive bunch.
I'm not. I am a Party of One.
that said, when have you ever taken off the 'Anti-Fag-Bat Helmet'? heh
Generally, I don't need one. I have the thick, masculine skull which naturally resists fag-bludgeonings of all sorts (and which is, of course, the exemplar of racial purity and good moral character).
But in the current climate of fag-bat induced suck-up-ism, I'm taking no chances.
No, we don't have to do that but we don't have to go out of our way to leave piles of dog poop in the floor, either.
You make good points in that post, Cal...I'm just giving my side of the issue and it differs with most. I've stated my position now so I'll back off.
I'm on the floor laughing, though.
I was thinking that a good test for newbies is to read these posts. If you don't think they're funny, then maybe this isn't the place for you.
But your posts are just as essential. Then people know that some of us are tender souls who want to be welcoming and they can bond with you if Ace terrifies them.
I mean, for the record, of course.
If we're going to be invest most of our monies into paying for archive services, we might as well put things in the right categories. I would hate to have board secretary, CalCal, spend a lot of time making all the changes six months from now.
BTW, according to my sources, most of the political TTers have gone to CNN to wait for the fix. They have followed DH100 order to stay away from mote.
Anyhow, why doesn't that just belong in social issues? It seems to me if the conversation got voluminous enough, then you would cleave it into it's own thread.
As it currently stands, gay issues gets more exposure, rather than less because they are included as part of other conversations.
If there were a stand-alone gay thread, I would be unlikely to read or participate because I don't realate to it... whereas the way it is in the mote now, the gay issue generally set in context with other issues.
I mean if you want to segregate yourself, feel free.
Furthermore, there is no Mote "attitude" towards either newcomers or new topics and it is irritating to read comments here that indicate that.
----
As for blueboy's statement/request, it is completely valid. The Sex thread exists partly to fill that niche, and since the porno-possums are done with their spank-off I think it can resume aspiring to be a thoughtful arena for discussions of sexuality and gender issues.
Sounds like Rolly McJiggleButt is suffering from his usual late-morning sugar-depletion funk.
Time to buy the donuts.
and since the porno-possums are done with their spank-off I think it can resume aspiring to be a thoughtful arena for discussions of sexuality and gender issues
Thoughtful arena.
Mm.
----
Finally, I'd like to know from the gatekeeper how many new registrants there have been over the past week or so.
Including pending requests, I'm guessing at least 30. If extant Motards spent some time actually conversing in their usual threads, creating and fomenting discussion, it would probably better help displaying this site than this gathering into a gaggle of schoolgirls gossiping about newcomers and occasionally throwing a spitball.
You now look absolutely...phallic.
We're not all that comparatively tough and ruthless, or even insulting, really, outside two or three threads. There's plenty of that at TT, with enough intelligence to match. FWIW, I've seen people dealt with a lot more harshly there and a lot closer to home than here. But they're a much larger bunch and have a lot more of all types than we do. Like us, different folders have different tones, but I think TTers would for the most part get plenty comfortable here, just as most Fraygrants got fairly comfortable over there in the transition period between Fray and Mote. I do agree with VW that the overall tone here is edgier; but you don't have to meet a certain standard of endurance to play here comfortably, by any means.
Besides what I've read of TTers' negative comments regarding the Mote, which have consisted basically of the individual tastes and turnoffs for either certain posters here or our interface, one of the biggest criticisms is our insularity, which TT suffers from as well. Still, I think already quite a few TTers have become fairly regular and comfortable. We still may get a good number more if TT really truly bites the dust.
The main problem I've seen with retaining newcomers since Fray days is our insularity, and the effect on them is that they're often not responded to at all or just in passing. It can be difficult to break into a conversation. IMO, we've gotten much better about noticing and welcoming new IDs than we used to be. It really helps having hosts of individual threads.
If even our toten ARK teacher won't do it, all is lost.
Absolutely. And for all the comments about the number of threads here, I don't recall any responses to my post a couple days ago about combining Parenting and Education into a Family thread, or about adding Travel to The Good Life.
You can't move my posts! Please please please.....
I hate that thread.
Don't, please don't move them there. Please.
Here's another example of one of our masters breaking the rules without any apparent punishment.
Besides, I've heard that they shit in the blue cupboard.
If Rosetta Stone mentions Charlie L's prior violation or if Charlie L again mentions Rosetta Stone's last name, you have the permission of The Reaper to suspend and/or ban them. I've never seen two people act like such punk ass pussies, except for Ace and Cartman.
As for the first name, that cat is out of the bag, especially with the rap song, "My name is . . . My name is . . . "
Drop the hammer or there goes Poland.
In #109 (same thread) Charlie L refers to Stone by his first name, despite supposedly learning his lesson by being suspended.
Remember what happened to Morgan Freeman in Unforgiven?
Shoot.
Honest to god, you are really pissing me off. Either live up to your word or don't come crying to me when you get suspended again.
Rosie,
CharlieL did no such thing here, as you well know. Go bitch about that at TT.
You were asked not to follow CharlieL around the Mote trying to bait him. He ignored you for a long time and still you persisted. You have lost my sympathy. Drop the crusade, now.
Or ban Charlie L and RIP Stone's thread. He's made a mockery of what should be a great subject.
Stop shilling for this turd. Charlie did his time and he's acted like a prick because he has the self control of a Village Person in a bathhouse. But Stone is about this. This is it. The whole magilla.
This is about whether the triumvirate is Neville Chamberlain or whether he goes on triple secret numerous warning probation.
(I have utmost confidence that wabbit will act judiciously.)
The idea that you would allow someone in who goes to the trouble of looking up another person's home address and phone number on the web, and then publishes it regularly in TT is sick.
I'm warning you.
This is your final warning.
Okay.
I'm warning you that I'll only take so much.
I'm warning you.
I'm warming you.
I'm warming up to you.
Oh baby.
Oh, oh oh, oh.
Baby, yea.
Stone is at least 50 percent of what's wrong with this place. If we can get rid of him, get rid of him, too.
Fine by me.
The law is to protect the unpopular, however.
There are no principles except for that Rosetta is a turd and Charlie has the self control of 5 year old. But he's an ex-con. At least he did some time.
Rosetta has spent no time in the joint.
He just gets stiff talkings to.
Nonetheless, I've said what I think and will let the judges decide. And won't lose any sleep over it.
Pelle,
I seem to remember you promising to ban Charlie permanently if he violated again.
What happened to that notion?
Poof. There it went.
Claiming that Stone "started this" is pure bullshit. CharlieL apparently takes Stone's existance as "provocation," for CharlieL directed an attack at Stone without an proceeding post from Stone to CharlieL.
Resign. All three of you.
Please show me where, in the following exchange, Stone is guilty of "following CharlieL around" and "baiting him":
47. boyblue - 6/13/01 7:59:08 PM
Style? What style? It's all I can do to be somewhat fashionable.
48. RosettaStone - 6/13/01 8:01:07 PM
Don't you have a remote control unit to your 12-incher to look for, Judithepromoter?
BTW, where, or where are the other littleboyblues that you promised to bring to mote.
17, wasn't it?
49. Rama - 6/13/01 8:26:57 PM
I came over here because Cellar Door said it was a good idea. And I missed CalGal. And I didn't think Anni Hunter would follow.
50. RosettaStone - 6/13/01 8:41:20 PM
References are important.
Like I was telling my old friend, Andrew Sullivan...
51. CharlieL -6/13/01 10:26:49 PM
Weren't you banned repeatedly from TT?
52. RosettaStone - 6/13/01 10:48:00 PM
Tell us why you published my name, address and daughter's phone number in TT, CharlieL.
If Charlie said his first name, especially after what appeared to be generous parole terms after negotiation, he should be banned. Also, because he's clearly retarded.
Rosetta should be suspended or banned because he was given final warnings before the Swede declared the whole thing boring.
I offer my services to the troika. I will take all such disciplinary decisions out of your hands. I will control the military.
Leave it to me.
He is a broken record on the same thing. You know it, I know it.
I'm on for banning both, but if you stand for discipline solely of Stone, when I control the military, you will be suspect.
Pelle, Wabbit:
Please at least tell us how many "last chances" CharlieL gets before he's banned.
Is this a finite number? What might this number be? 100 "last chances"? A paltry 50? 10? One thousand?
Please at least establish the order of magnitude of the number of "last chances" the multiple-violater CharlieL will get.
Tell me-- If I decide to post information about Charlie (let's say), will I get a similar number of "last chances"?
But Stone should be punished. He was warned twice. Final warnings.
Rosetta should be suspended or banned because he was given final warnings before the Swede declared the whole thing boring.
Final warnings about which violations, precisely?
FU, I have no problem with banning Rosetta Stone. But you are asking that we ban him simply because he had the temerity to report a violation.
Fucking nonsense. This is not a "violation" at all. It doesn't matter that Stone bothers you.
FU,
Again-- warned about what?
Ace--I'm unclear how it is you don't think this is baiting.
Nonetheless, I agree that CharlieL violated it again. But Stone continues to post private information and references, using them as bait to troll and then complain again.
I have no problem with Charlie being banned, but Stone's behavior takes up too much time and clearly has no other purpose than to cause trouble. Suspension is far too good for the little fuck.
You give him leeway you never would have given Clinton. Stone is the ultimate "letter of the law" evader.
He's a parrott, they told him to knock it off, and he couldn't.
He is the same as Charlie. No matter the prohibition, they cannot stop themselves.
The law is the law even when it is being unjustly applied.
But he just kept on with it, that nancy-harping miserable squawk.
Goodbye to both.
You were asked not to follow CharlieL around the Mote trying to bait him. He ignored you for a long time and still you persisted. You have lost my sympathy. Drop the crusade, now.
Please point out where this happened, Wabbit. Are you claiming that RS can't post in any thread in which CL is currently posting?
Are you claiming that CharlieDouchebag gets to bait Rosie and Rosie isn't allowed to respond at all?
Please clarify the moronic rules you're operating under.
And then RESIGN. You're sick of Rosie and me? Well guess what, Wabbit-- I'm sick to death of you and your Bataan Death March of Ten Thousand Final Warnings.
You want to warn me about saying so? Well fuck you. I've got 999 warnings left, don't I?
It is almost as if Rosetta is too clever for you, and I'm sure this can't be the case.
Cal,
Please check out the ORDER of the baitings. CharlieL baited first. See, Post 51 comes BEFORE Post 52.
Or are you (and Wabbit) claiming that CharlieL is allowed to rattle Rosie's cage, but Rosie ain't allowed to rattle back?
My position is that Charlie should be banned because he's retarded. Rosie should be suspended 30 days because he twice ignored a lawful warning.
I will cease further declarations.
Adios.
48. RosettaStone - 6/13/01 8:01:07 PM
Don't you have a remote control unit to your 12-incher to look for, Judithepromoter?
BTW, where, or where are the other littleboyblues that you promised to bring to mote.
17, wasn't it?
49. Rama - 6/13/01 8:26:57 PM
I came over here because Cellar Door said it was a good idea. And I missed CalGal. And I didn't think Anni Hunter would follow.
50. RosettaStone - 6/13/01 8:41:20 PM
References are important.
Like I was telling my old friend, Andrew Sullivan...
51. CharlieL - 6/13/01 10:26:49 PM
Weren't you banned repeatedly from TT?
52. RosettaStone -6/13/01 10:48:00 PM
Tell us why you published my name, address and daughter's phone number in TT, CharlieL.
See, Cal, on Planet Earth, 51 comes BEFORE 52.
And 10:38 comes BEFORE 10:46.
I'm a bit unclear on how it is that Rosie "baited" Charlie by talking to JUDITH.
Can you explain this?
FU,
When you come back, you can explain to me what order Rosetta Stone "violated."
Are you, too, claiming that if CharlieL lights up Rosetta, then Rosetta is breaking the "rules" to respond in kind?
Precisely when did we pass that rule, FU?
By the way, this idea that CharlieL is the victim of "stalking" is utter bullshit.
Every time I posted on TT under the name Simon Templar, CharlieL -- Yes! -- stalked me. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Every time I dared to enter "his" Table Talk, he started up with the unprovoked attacks and with the typical TT conspiracy-fantasy accusations that I was every pseudonym under the sun.
So don't tell me that Rosie "stalks" CharlieL. I know what the little prick CharlieL does in his spare time -- he baits people.
Ask the little fucking douchebag if that's true or not. I'd love to see the little cocksucker deny it.
I'd say a little more, but who knows, I might just violate the ROE, and we know you can only violate the rules six or seven hundred times before being banned.
Last I checked, Charlie wasn't told to stop baiting Stone. He was told to knock off the privacy violations. Stone was told to stop the baiting, something he does endlessly and repeatedly on a number of subjects, not just this one. You could find dozens of similar posts this week alone.
It doesn't matter what Charlie did first. Stone laid the bait, whining all the while--something he's been warned time and again about. (In fact, he wants the damn violations made, the better to get someone banned.) So suspend the little shit.
My TT experiences with Charlie L were similar to what Ace describes in 14296.
You could find dozens of similar posts this week alone.
Fine. Then find these posts. And post them here.
CharlieL baited Rosetta. It is LUDICROUS to suggest that Rosetta cannot respond.
If there's a rule that RS cannot "bait" Charlie, that's fine, but once CharlieL baits Rosetta, all bets are off.
CharlieL is a baiter himself. I know it, Indiana Jones knows it. He enjoys it. He baited Rosetta because he likes to do it; he posted Rosetta's first name because he enjoys that too.
Such bullshit. What a bunch of stupid, mewling, dishonest ratfucks.
"Stone laid the bait"
Ummm, how can Stone "lay the bait" when CharlieL baits first?
Did Rosetta psychically compel CharlieL to bait? Or what? Please explain.
9468. Ms. No - 6/15/01 9:44:14 PM
RosettaStone,
I'm not discussing this with you. This is your final warning on the subject.
Giggle. MsNo, is a "final warning" for Rosetta somehow more severe than a "final warning" for CharlieL? If so, why?
And could you clarify the stages of "Final Warning"? Is it that Rosetta is on Red Alert, whereas Charlie remains on Green Alert?
Could you perhaps demarcate them according to the "DefCon" level? Which DefCon level is Rosie at, and which is CharlieL at?
It seems that Rosie is at Defcon 5 and CharlieL is still at DefCon 1. Why is this, precisely? How is it that someone banned for violating our "most important rule" several times, then allowed back on probation, who then violates "our most important rule" AGAIN remains at DefCon 1?
How can this be so?
Oh, and: What level of warning am I at for daring to question your hare-brained and flagrantly biased rulings?
I just want to know:
How many violations does CharlieL still have left?
Why won't you commit yourself to some finite number?
You all previously assured us he would NEVER violate again; guess what? He did. Just as predicted.
But still you take no action.
So give us the number of intentional violations of "our most important rule" he has left. Commit yourself to a fucking number. If he has six violations left, SAY SO. If he has ONE violation left, say so, and then BAN HIM PERMANENTLY if he violates again (which he will).
Why is it you won't commit yourself?
Is it because, quite frankly, you're just not going to ban him? He'll just get a series of "you're pissing me off" statements?
Pelle,
Just for my information: Do you retract your previous statement that CharlieL had "learned his lesson" and would not vioate again?
Since the previous suspension did not, apparently, teach CharlieL the "lesson" you assured us it would, is it time to reinstitute the suspension?
But of course not, darling.
Pelle,
Do you, or do you not, communicate with CharlieL by private E-mail?
Does either Wabbit or MsNo?
If you want to claim that I'm all against poor, poor abused Charlie because I don't like his politics, then I think we're entitled to know precisely which of you assholes is buddies with him.
Not really. If someone baits you, does it justify a privacy violation? No. If Stone is warned not to bait and piss and moan any more, does it matter if one of his chosen targets says something nasty? No.
Incidentally, I agree about CharlieL at TT; I rarely saw him post unless it was to complain about me (in the one thread we both frequented).
Pelle,
Is there any chance we can expect an answer -- EVER --regarding your previous assurances that CharlieL had "learned his lesson" and would not, guaran-fuckin-teed, never violate again?
Previously I asked that you permanently leave the Mote should CharlieL violate again. You refused to make such a promise. Smart move, Pelle-- CharlieL violated again just like you knew he would. You knew he would violate again, but you assured all of us he would not.
Tell me, is this the sort of leadership that's rewarded with re-election in Sweden?
Don't be an asshole. The "rule" "Don't bait Charlie" is null and void the moment CharlieL baits Rosie.
In turn I hope you are not insinuating that his political views are an influence on my opinion.
Stone is a conservative, and I think he's the most ban-worthy poster we currently have.
However, the word is that
In #109 (same thread) Charlie L refers to Stone by his first name, despite supposedly learning his lesson by being suspended.
and according to the mote rules
What happens if you break the rules?
Personal information
For revealing private information, we ban your id. Or assume we will--while we allow an out for clearly inadvertent revelations of non-critical information, it's best not to count on the mercy of the judge.
Do not mess around with this rule.
Exceptions: Public information
- Has been revealed with the individual's knowledge and explicit consent
- Has been explicitly linked to the individual's online identity
Don't try to push the envelope.
Don't ask, "What if...?"
Don't try to be cute.
Just don't go near the line. This is the most damaging RoE violation, and the one we take the most seriously.
So ban Charlie L. I no longer care who's wrong or who started it. Charlie L broke the big one.
If RS spams but doesn't break the rules... The Mote didn't dump Jexter for spamming.
If people here are not bright enough to recognize a bait and walk away from one... oh well. You are immature... baiting seeks to egg people on. It's your own decision how to respond to it.
I think repeated bait/spams should be deleted except for the original message. Say something once and move along please.
JAH,
Pelle just suggested that I want CharlieL banned because he's a liberal. But that's not a conspiracy theory, is it, JudyNitwit?
I guess I just "baited" Pelle... by insulting him in a similar way after he'd insulted me.
We have a right to know the extent to which CharlieL is being protected due to personal relationships. No one who has any sort of private, email relationship with him should be allowed to rule on this.
If all three of them are buddies with CharlieStalker, then they should delegate all decisions regarding CharlieStalker to someone else.
For what it's worth -- since Pelle is asking -- I find Rosetta Stone a great annoyance and I would rather that he wasn't here. Ever.
But that doesn't mean I think he should be banned just because I don't like him.
And he may be a "conservative," but he's the sort of idiot who drags down all of his alleged "allies" with his nonsense.
There. I've answered your question, Pelle. Now fucking answer mine.
Exploring the Web will be RIP'd and archived on Sunday.
However, if we look outside the law and the big picture, what do either of these two contribute? Stone is here more often, but he's almost always a negative. Charlie L adds almost nothing IMO: he just uses the Mote for some place to hang his hat when TT is down or when he's promoting a record.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's not worth breaking the rules over.
Ahhhh... The Mote management. The place where questions go do die.
Don't ask them to respond to your concerns; it's far easier for them to just ignore you.
It's time for a house cleaning. The three of you should be gone, pronto, hasta manana.
In the arcane and bizarre world of privacy policy, Stone's information is not actually private. It was made public by the definition in the RoE on many occasions--he not only used his real life name when he first showed up online, he posted his email (which uses his real life name) on many occasions.
But a lot of people start off using their own names and then realize it's a bad idea. So they change their moniker or request that people no longer use their information online, even though it was made public. People are expected to do this as a courtesy. Using someone's name, in a case like that, is less about privacy (imo) than it is abusive.
Stone's name is common knowledge thanks to his own efforts--as is the school his son goes to,his daughter's specific activities and name, and so on. His constant wailings about the people who use his real name, while technically valid, are given less sympathy because he repeatedly reminds people of his personal information, whines about what someone did and points everyone to where the information is, and so on.
That doesn't mean I don't support a suspension or, in the case of repeated abuse, banning. I'm just clarifying the difference between a privacy violation and someone who asks, politely, to "take back" their revelations.
Ahhhh... two weeks. And "equal justice" demands, of course, that the victim be punished with the violator.
Wow. What a fucking brain trust we've got going here.
I just don't get it. What is it with CarlieL that gets people so absurdly upset, far more so than his alleged "crimes" seem to warrant?
I've known RS considers this off limits because of his incessant whining from the past. At that point it's off limits whether he was an idiot for revealing it or not.
Someone I was talking to in another thread said she assumed anyone who doesn't use their real name in here is famous. I replied, I don't use my real name because I assume one of you is a psychopath.
Talk about one note.
I don't see how CharlieL's post is baiting Rosetta, it is a direct reply to Rosie's post about how important references are. Obviously you choose to read something more into it.
So how about a little history:
Message # 9597 in thread 25(Suggestions thread)
I have asked you to please refrain from publishing
Rosetta's name here, yet you persist. Your ID has been disabled.
While I'm at it, let me remind you of this:
Don't
make posts that are needlessly abusive.
In a thread that is social
and friendly, you chose to fling shit. You have made of habit of making similar
posts to CharlieL and others. You may now consider yourself warned as well. If
you continue along that course, you will be joining your pal Cazart.
CharlieL's first post after his suspension:
Message # 44304 in thread 28
What is it with CarlieL that gets people so absurdly upset, far more so than his alleged "crimes" seem to warrant?
Nothing. There's nothing about CharlieL. It has everything to do with repeated violations, which you seem not to take very seriously, but which I (and others, and the ROE) does.
If you don't want to administer the ROE, say so. We should have some sort of debate on it; certainly they can be changed if people want to permit privacy violations. Some of us will leave, of course; but if that's what you want, go for it.
But you, wabbit, and MsNo are currently conspiring to repeal the ROE without asking anyone for consent. You are like a Governor who refuses, upon his own authority, to enforce the death penalty because he disagrees with the law. You have no right to do that.
if you are incapable of enforcing the ROE as written, it is time for you to
1) Admit this fact
2) Ask the Mote as a whole to allow a change
and
3) Resign if the Mote is unwilling to change the "rules" to the more lax standard (or lack of standard entirely) you're all in favor of.
I repeat: You have no right to ignore the ROE simply because you disagree with it. Either fight to have it changed or remove yourself from a rules-enforcing capacity if your personal opposition to the ROE prevents you from enforcing it.
My only iron in this fire is the privacy violation and that I've seen how Stone was persecuted at TT. No one should have to go through that. Sure, he brings all this greatly on himself, but that doesn't mean someone has to respond. Especially not by publishing real-life info.
If you think the latter isn't serious, then we should remove it from the RoE.
I would say a good 50% of Charlie's posts on this site are about Stone, and a solid majority of them include his name. Frankly, I think he should be banned because in his own limited way he fits the Ferguson model--his primary purpose here is to cause trouble. Although he doesn't really much care about the site itself, he certainly enjoys stirring up shit with Stone. I think the only reason he gets any slack at all is because he was an original Fray member.
As far as his "alleged crimes"--he continually uses Stone's name, despite being asked, warned, and flat out told not to. What else is required to move from "alleged" to "actual"?
I replied, I don't use my real name because I assume one of you is a psychopath
I resent that.
It sounds like RS even revealed his info on an entirely different site. So what gives with him using RS's real name on The Mote in table talk msg 109?
Charlie L is out... I don't care. RS can be out if you decide to do that too. Screw them both.
Sorry.
Good afternoon, all.
44305. RosettaStone - 5/17/01 12:55:25 PM
Aren't you banned?
"
Seems like a valid question to me, Wabbit.
I'd've been curious myself. I WAS pretty surprised to see him showing up all of a sudden.
How tiring you are. It's 1 a.m, here. The Mote is not my main concern in life. And in the Mote, you are not my main concern.
Thanks for your attention and good night.
No, it's not off limits whether he should have revealed it or not. Given that he revealed it, it is public information, by the RoE. We just are nicer about letting people take it back, and then warning (again and again and again) those people who continue to use it in violation of the warnings.
If someone knew your name and just came on and posted it, even though it could never have been learned, it would be taken far more seriously. At least I certainly hope it would be. I can't even think of any privacy violations we've had recently, other than Stone's incessant whinings. I know someone thought they had one lately, but they were wrong.
I see, Rosie's is a valid question, CharlieL's is harrassment. Thanks for the clarification.
Wabbit,
That was the first Rosie had seen of CharlieL, Dope.
What the fuck did you expect? You reinstated CharlieL without informing anyone about it. Did you expect that people wouldn't be surprised?
I just checked back. here's the SECOND mention of CharlieL's unbanning, here in this thread:
13500. RosettaStone - 5/17/01 5:56:55 PM
If CharlieL isn't banned, please reinstate JontheCad and Cazart.
Thank you
Tell me, wabbit, what time zone are you in? I have a feeling we'll find that, when we adjust for time zone, we'll find that Rosie's "aren't you banned" question came the moment he discovered, without being forewarned, that CharlieL's suspension had been lifted.
CharlieL's question was designed to bait, yes, Wabbit. You're as much an imbecile as I think you are if you are incapable of seeing that.
And *I* was surpised to see Charlie back, too. If suddenly Charlie reappeared, you bet your ass my first question would be "Aren't you banned"?
The Mote is not my main concern in life.
Good. Resign.
I'm sick of you idiots whining about how much abuse you have to take. If you don't want the abuse, RESIGN. No one asked you to be the Moderators. I sure the fuck didn't, and I wouldn't have chosen you if anyone had asked me.*
I'm sure the hell not asking you now.
*Exception: I would have agreed to appoint MsNo as a moderator. Unfortunately, she turns out to be as stupid and biased as the the other two.
Yes. Two weeks. I'm sure that will teach CharlieL a lesson -- the lesson he didn't learn after the six-week suspension. Six weeks didn't teach him, but two weeks surely will.
And I'm sure he'll giggle in delight over the fact that he can violate the rules to intimidate someone, and then his victim gets suspended for two weeks as well.
If I go to Washington and kick the shit out of FU*, how many weeks of suspension will FU get due to my beating him up?
Just curious.
*Assuming I could, which I don't, or that I would, which of course I wouldn't. It's hypothetical.
JAH,
Well, someone AGAIN violated "our most serious rule," after having been suspended for it previously (and repeatedly warned before that), and he gets two weeks.
Stone gets two weeks because... why, precisely?
Because you don't like him? Because he's annoying?
He is annoying, JAH. But like it or not, he's violated no rule.
Oh wait-- he "baited" Charlie by responding to CharlieL's provocation. Oh yeah. That's "baiting."
(Just passing by making my way from the bathroom to bed).
Two weeks.
Two weeks buys you morons no peace.
How long of a suspension for his next violation? Two days?
is that how it works? The more you violate, the less of a punishment you receive?
Wabbit,
Please answer: Do you, or do you not, communicate privately with CharlieL by email?
MsNo,
Same question.
Pelle,
If you're bored, resign. We don't particularly need "Moderators" who are incapable of enforcing the rules. We can have that easily enough without moderators.
JAH,
Then why was he suspended?
At least Charlie stayed away during his supension; you'll be treated to Rose sneaking back in and using every pseud in the book to do so. He will enjoy these next two weeks more than anyone...and you know it. He won't abide by the rules at all. But of course, you don't mind THAT, do you?
CharlieL should be banned permanently.
Barring that (which of course we can't have; the Dipshit Troika has decreed that "our most serious rule" isn't quite so serious at all), I would like, and I think this is perfectly reasonable:
A firm commitment that CharlieL's next, inevitable privacy violation will result in a permanent banning, no parole, no repreive, no questions.
Wabbit, MsNo, Pelle:
Please explain to me why that is unreasonable.
JAH,
I don't think the twit should have been banned in the first place, so no, it doesn't bother me much on one level. It's an unjust suspension.
; you'll be treated to Rose sneaking back in and using every pseud in the book to do so
Well, if he does, I'm sure Wabbit will "warn" him. That's what Wabbit does -- she "warns" people. And if they keep it up, they'll get an even worse warning, one incorporating the words "pissing," "me," and "off."
I think you need to go have a beer and a steak and maybe go to a club and listen to some good jazz...this is not worth it.
JAH,
With all due respect, I generally find that the people telling me "it's not worth it" are the same people arguing with me over the point that "isn't worth it."
Such as you're doing right now.
"It's not worth it" suggests indifference. If you (and Wabbit, and Pelle, and MsNo) were actually "indifferent" to banning CharlieL, they would most likely just ban him, since most people weighing in want him banned.
But you're not indifferent at all. You desperately want CharlieL here, even if he continues violating on a daily baisis.
What "it's not worth it" means, here, is that you want CharlieL to stay, you will fight any banning of him, but that you really wish I would just give in and shut up.
I certainly understand that. For what it's worth, I wish you would shut up, and that Pelle, Wabbit, and MsNo would just give in without forcing me to waste my breath.
And now Judith proves me wrong by turning off the computer.
Cute, Judith. Cute. But I know you only vanished yourself in order to win the point. I am not fooled.
So no, I don't think it is worth it...I don't mean "the point" or the "argument"...I mean ALL of it. This is a place to come for discussion, conversation, an exchange of ideas...it is not the entire world nor is it all of life. So why get so overly exercised about it? If you aren't enjoying what you're doing, do something else.
Where else do I get to call a Swede a "fucking cocksucker"?
I have no stake in Charlie being here or not
Please. You have no "stake," but you obviously have an OPINION, since you've already voiced that opinion three or four times.
I have no "stake" myself. But I do have an opinion. The same as you do.
So yes, I have an opinion...I think Rose brought it on himself.
See? Not so hard to admit you are not, as you claimed, indifferent, ay?
If Wabbit wants to suspend Rose for two weeks, fine. But Charlie L should be banned permanently.
If they won't agree to this (and of course they won't), why will they not agree to a permanent ban -- no questions, no "context," no parole, no pardon, no deposit, no return -- upon his next, inevitable, violation?
I think that is a perfectly reasonable request, and I phrased it without using the word "asshole."
Even if they object to such a committment, they should at least be responsive enough to explain why they will not agree to it.
But, alas, I have a feeling it will just be ignored. Because, fundamentally, they disagree with "our most serious rule."
Which is fine. But if the rule is to be repealed, it should be done with the consent and input of the Mote, not by a Troika repealing it sub silentio on their own authority.
If they can't, or won't, enforce the rule, they should recuse themselves from all enforcement functions related to the rule. They can appoint five judges who ARE willing to enforce the rule.
But this cannot continue. They cannot continue to repeal the rule without so much as asking anyone for their opinion on it.
Yawn.
By the way, this whole stupid Coase Theorem discussion (which I've been right about, on everything) started because I brought it up, and I shouldn't have.
The Coase Theorem has little relevance to the real world because the Coase Theorem doesn't care about whether it's "fair" to make a farmer pay for clean air. In the real world, we are so concerned, and, even if it's true the best level of externalities will be reached no matter who is assigned the rights or costs, it's sort of irrelevant, because nothing happens in this world without deciding what's "fair."
The correct response should have been: "Externalities? You're speaking of phantasmal externalities. 'Externalities' is just a 'magic word' liberals use when they want to urge a uneconomic law: They think they can just say 'externalities' and that makes the most ludicrously bad-economics law suddenly 'good economics.'"
Ooops.
The Mote *is* the Fray without the zine, we came en masse from the Fray and history cannot be repealed. Rosie chose to post under his real name there and as a result it is common knowledge. CharlieL has been asked not to use Rosie's real name, but he isn't outing anyone. The two of them have been dancing this same stupid dance for years now, can you not see the pattern?
As far as who I am emailing, I do not correspond with either CharlieL or Rosie, though I have written several times to Rosie regarding threads he has hosted. I have emailed them both regarding their suspensions, as I did with CharlieL last time. My first email to him bounced back and I did not have another email address for him until he wrote to me about the suspension. I don't think CharlieL would characterize it as a friendly correspondence.
Rosie chose to post under his real name there and as a result it is common knowledge.
It is not common knowledge among new members, Wabbit.
Everytime CharlieL violates, he tells new people Rosetta's name.
Will you agree that if Charlie violates again he should be banned permanently -- no excuses, no parole, no repreive?
If not, why not? Do you imagine this is some difficult stricture for poor Charlie to live under?
Everytime CharlieL violates, he tells new people Rosetta's name.
Half the people here know CalGal's name, due to Seguine's violation, which you also pretty much swept under the rug.
It is, of course, not a big deal for me to tell FU CalGal's name, for he knows it.
It is rather a bigger deal for me to broadcast it to persons who don't know it.
You keep claiming "it was revealed here." Well, it was revealed in the Fray, and most people here did not post at the Fray.
There is no reason to permit this sort of behavior. There is nothing GOOD that flows from violating someone's privacy, so I am baffled at how protective you all are of the right to reveal personal, private information.
Once again: If you cannot/will not enforce the rule, please say so, and recuse yourself from making such decisions in the future. I don't see why you insist on retaining the power to enforce (or not enforce) a rule you don't like.
Yes, actually, I will. But I will also be banning Rosie if he continues to follow people around harrassing them. See RoE #3. Fair enough?
I mean: Am I missing something, Wabbit? Do you imagine there's some social good that flows from revealing personal information that must be "balanced" against the rule prohibiting the same?
What "good" is that?
Why are you so goddamned stubborn about your "right" to not enforce a rule we all collectively agreed to?
You really shouldn't have more of a say than the rest of us on this. You obviously don't like the rule. So what? *You* were never given powers to make the rules by your own authority; you were only given the power to patrol for abuses to apply the appropriate penalties.
For the love of God -- step down, resign. Or at least delegate these decisions, which you're utterly incapable of making.
But I will also be banning Rosie if he continues to follow people around harrassing them. See RoE #3. Fair enough?
Nope. Because it's rather inarguable when someone's revealed information.
Who's to say when someone's "following someone else around," "harassing" them?
*YOU* claimed earlier that Rosie "baited" Charlie by daring to post in the same THREAD as Charlie, while not actually directing any comments at him. Shall this serve as your definition of "harassing" someone?
For some reason you insist on preserving CharlieL's right to "out" Rosie IF Rosie pisses him off. Why do you do this? Why shouldn't Charlie do what the rest of us do: Say Fuck off, buh-bye, get out of my face?
Again and again you insist that if Rosie annoys Charlie then Charlie has some "right" to break "our most serious rule." Where the hell did you get this idiotic idea?
Rosie annoys the shit out of me, Wabbit. Do I have, along with Charlie, the right to reveal his name to new people just because he pisses me off?
You can ban Rosie for whatever reason you like. If he actually violates some rule, suspend him.
I would just hope that you wouldn't continue practicing what appears to be the politics of vendetta.
You are really blinkered on this issue. CharlieL's violation is with Rosie, Rosie's extends to other posters as well. If you are going to play cop, read every thread and catch up with what's been going on. Rosie gets cut an awful lot of slack here.
I'm done trying to explain it to you.
I love Charlie and am glad he's back and hope he doesn't get banned, but I wish he and everyone else in this forum--including me!! would quit allowing Rose to push their buttons. I speak from 20 years of experience: DO NOT give the Class Clown the thing he wants most in this world--attention. When he crosses the line to become nothing but a pest, do what Wabbit's done, send him out of the room. I suspect she must have taught junior high school somewhere down the line.
Whenever it comes to this--what Rose wants--Ace goes postal. Ace, let them do their job and make their decisions. You won't agree with every one, maybe not any one, but that's why we have moderators.
Wabbit,
You're "done explaining it" because you can't explain it.
For some odd reason, you want to claim that CharlieL's clear, inarguable breaking of "our most serious rule" is somehow the equivalent of Rosie's breaking of... NO rule whatsoever. He's fucking annoying as all get out, but, unfortunately for you, he doesn't actually break any rules.
You know what? Tough shit.
You're doing, by the way, what the Table Talk administrators did: They "encourage" people to leave the forum by deliberately allowing violations against those persons. I've seen it happen. I've questioned it; they didn't want to explain it, the same as you don't. Because the answer is something unpalatable: I'm allowing these violations because I don't like these people, and thus I have tacitly enlisted other posters to drive them away.
If you want to vote Rosie out, fine. Tell me when the vote will happen; I'll vote him out. But please don't jerk me off and tell me we're voting him out due to a "violation of hte rules."
For Christ's sakes, Seguine and CharlieL (FOUR TIMES NOW!!!) have violated "our most serious rule" and they're still here, aren't they?
So if someone can violate -- clearly -- "our most serious" rule four times and collect merely eight weeks total suspension, praytell what rule has Rosie violated five or six times or more (I assume he'd have to violate more times to be banned for violating a rule which is NOT "our most serious rule").
Show me the warnings to Rosie. Show me the specific instances of these alleged "violations."
They largely do not exist.
And I will vote out Rosie for being a general nuisance and someone I don't want around.
I promise.
But I sure the fuck am not going to pretend he's "violated rules" and therefore deserves to be kicked out, when CharlieStalker's violated so many times and STILL has not been banned.
"that's why we have moderators"
I thought we had moderators to enforce "our most serious rule"... I guess I was wrong.
Quite frankly, I don't need moderators for much else besides rules-enforcement. Every thread that gets created is, frankly, a bunch of ass.
So: If not to enforce the rules... why are you here, precisely?
He will evidently do anything, even to the point of being very mean to people who've done nothing to him, trying to technically stay one hairsbreadth this side of the line, in order to make other people cause a stir then sit back and watch
Tough shit, really. If you concede he's remained "on this side of the line," then he's remained, yes, "on this side of the line," and all your caterwauling can't change that.
He annoys me. You know what I do? I don't read his asinine posts because he has nothing to fucking say, ever, ever, ever.
I do the same thing with Jexster. Works like a fucking charm. You really should try it sometime.
And caterwauling? Hahaha. My dear, if I were howling at the moon it couldn't be heard over all your hysterical squeals.
I will say that when I had "power," I did start deleting Rosie's posts by the truckful.
I have to admit: It was fun. It was satisfying, even... sexually so.
I guess I understand Wabbit's urge to purge. It's human.
But still: No rules violation is no rules violation.
You want to vote him out because he's a best and contributes nothing, I'll vote him out. But let's be honest about what we're doing.
Oh, and I should say this: If Rosie REALLY violates Rule 3, as Wabbit suggested, suspend him. If he keeps it up, suspend him again, for longer; if he does it again, ban him.
I objected to Wabbit's suggestion about "Banning" him immediately for a Rule 3 violation for these reasons:
1) It seems to me that someone who violates "our most serious" rule should be treated MORE seriously than someone who violates a lesser rule. Thus, it seems ludicrous that Charlie should get six strikes for violating our "most serious rule," whereas Wabbit proposes to ban Rosie for a SINGLE VIOLATION of a lesser rule.
2) Rule 3 is so, so, SO much more subjective than Rule 1. So I think we must be a bit more inclined to issue corrective warnings. Rule 3 violations are never really clear. They're often close calls.
3) And, quite frankly, I suspect Wabbit has it in for Rosie and will just ban him as soon as she's forced to ban Charlie, using her bizarre "I must ban the conservative Rosie if I ban the liberal Charlie to preserve 'balance'" logic. I mean, for christ's sake, she suspended Rosie today for doing... well, nothing really. Rosie didn't even get the multiple warnings that Charlie has been granted.
. I personally don't advocate banning Rose, but anyone who suggests he hasn't been more trouble more consistently to more people than anyone else in this forum is delusional
Concoct a rule against the "trouble" he is causing, then.
Trouble is, the "trouble" he causes is not against the rules.
I know that bothers Wabbit. Well, correct it: Figure out what he's doing that "causes trouble" and make a rule against it.
I can't say this enough: ROSIE IS FUCKING ANNOYING AND WHOLLY USELESS.
And?
So what?
There is no rule against "annoying" someone, last time I checked. For god's sake, Rosie doesn't even CURSE and throw around PROFANITIES like I do (which there is a rule against, BTW).
He manages to annoy just be being himself. Because -- get this -- he's an annoying idiot.
But it isn't against the rules to be a dumbshit. If it were, Raskalnikov wouldn't be here.
Haha. Yeah, that Rask--don't know how he functions. I used to think he was really smart until he spent about three valuable days of his life trying to explain something to you. ;-)
I've got to go look at the ROE. Doesn't #3 cover what Rose has been doing?
Arky,
Rosie doesn't "harass" by any fair definition of "harassment" that would exclude what I am doing to you right now.
I am arguing with you. To you, I am being a pest. And vice versa.
I am "harassing" you. You are "harassing" me.
Wabbit, and you, are "defining harassment down" so that you can claim that Rosie's mere *presence* in the Mote constiutes "harassment" of, for example, CharlieL. Wabbit today claimed that the fact that Rosie made a remark to *JUDITH* constituted "baiting" towards CharlieL, who was also present.
I thought there was something specific about spam in the ROE, but I didn't see it.
Please define "harassment." Seriously. I would say a fair definition would be "following around someone from thread to thread, doing nothing but attacking/baiting that person."
That's a fair definition, I guess. But I'm not sure I trust it, because today I was told Rosie had "baited" Charlie merely by posting to Judith.
Let me say something else:
Rosie gets annoying in THIS thread. Because he keeps saying the same thing over and over.
SO WHAT?
It's his right. People ignore him; he has the right to press his point.
Just like I do.
I think that half the time Rosie is idiotic when begins his latest campaign to reinstate Cazart or give Dr.XTC his thread back. But the other half of the time -- ON THIS ISSUE -- he's completely correct.
And the reason he just keeps repeating himself over and over is because it's all he can do. The Troika here refuses to enforce Rule One, our "most serious rule"; what the hell else CAN he do but be a pest about it? Should he just accept it?
I don't buy that. Not at all. And you can claim he's being a "pest" by making arguments you don't like, but that's a bunch of bullshit. That's the rationale TT uses to justify committing numerous privacy and THREAT violations against members (usually conservatives) whose POV they don't like.
Rosie CAN be a pest when he nags. But it's his right to nag if he wants. And I dare any one of you to even propose a rule that says "It is a violation of the ROE if you annoy people by obsessively reiterating points that no one else is interested in."
Because we all know your favorite shut-in AIDS-ridden mental-case would be the very next to go, and you don't want that. (Me? If you're going to pass such a rule, I'd be all in favor of it -- get rid of Rosie AND Jexster? Golly geee, what's the downside?)
Do you really think I'm a pest? I'm really annoying you right now? Me?
We are discussing something here specifically that I am willingly engaged in discussing. You're not dogging me from thread to thread making little irritating allusions because you're an expert at knowing where my buttons are. Rose does this to certain people. For the most part he can behave ok, but if he gets any indication he's irritating someone he will push and push until he gets a result. He's done it with several people here. Yes, they take the bait, but he keeps on until they do, usually. They think they're telling him off, but he's amused at getting the reaction and knowing he has that control over them and can change the tone of a discussion, be a fly in the ointment, etc.
Thankfully I haven't been one of his targets and I have really thought him hilariously funny on occasion (I have got to get in touch with a therapist, if I can remember to do it), but I may be after today. Oh well. I try to keep most of my buttons hidden. In fact, I don't have very many outside the ones Bob and Mose and my parents know and use regularly.
Anyway...
Rose knows what he's doing. I've seen it again and again. "Go sit in the hall."
"Who, me? All I did was ________ (fill in the blank)."
Rose never makes arguments. He's like one of those old dolls I used to have that had the pullstring in the back and about 5 phrases. They get repeated over and over and over and over until you just want to bash their repetitive heads on the wall....ah, childhood memories.
Arky,
I haven't spoken to Jexster in more than a year. Still, every once in a while I will read the last couple of days posts (days when I wasn't here), and I will see, out of nowhere:
HOW U LIKE THAT ACEY? YOU WANT TO SUCK DOWN MY VIRAL LOAD.
Out.
of.
Nowhere.
Now, I have an effective way of dealing with this: I ignore it. I don't even read his posts most of the time, though, when I see a big "ACEY," it's hard to ignore.
I don't bother responding. At all.
Now, truth to tell, Jexster does this LESS now... I haven't seen an "ACEY BEND OVER AND TAKE IT HERE IT CUMMMS" in a few weeks. But that's entirely because I just...
...never...
...responded.
And it was oh-so-obvious he wanted desperately to engage me.
Now, I admit I throw a lot of shit at people, and I have to (therefore) have a hard skin myself. But the fact remains that I do not talk to Jexster. Ever. (Well, once a month I will talk ABOUT him, and once in three months I will actually engage him in a brief "Yes it is/No it isn't" debate for five seconds. But basically: Not ever.)
So I don't know what to make of these "provocations" by Rosie. Should Jexster be banned for the hundreds of "BEND OVER ACEY HERE IT CUMMS" remarks that came completely out of the blue?
I don't know what CharlieL has done here. Since he went to TT two years ago, I haven't seen him. But I know how he behaved in the Fray before then, and I know he stalked at TT.
So, seriously: Rosie's "provocations" are, what, too much for poor Charlie to handle?
Who else "can't handle" it? JJ? Give me a break. JJ preaches "civility" while carrying on like the worst sort of douchebag.
So who?
Who are these "innocents" that Rosetta is unfairly abusing?
I also agree with Arky that Stone's behavior falls nicely within the grounds of "abuse". Unlike other posters in that category (caz, Ferguson), he at least has always seemed to have an interest (however perverted) in participating in the forum itself. But his signal to noise ratio is abysmal.
Cal,
His "signal to noise ration" is, indeed, abysmal.
You really have to stop asserting points I agree with.
i don't know how many times I have to say:
1) He's annoying;
2) He's a dick;
3) He contributes nothing;
4) If we were to vote people out just for being annoying dicks who contribute nothing, he would be the first (well... the second) I'd cast my vote against.
What he seems not to do, however, is commit clear violations of the Rules.
Much of the shit you claim is "shit-stirring" is stuff like this:
JJ, why don't you spend more time making this thread interesting and less time giving us your social calender?
As someone who typically dishes out FAR worse than that, and who typically receives, unprovoked, far worse than that ("YOU FEEL THAT ACEY? HERE CUMMS THE BIG-- DOG'S -- CREAMY LOAD!!!"), I have to say I'm rather unimpressed by Rosetta's "shit-stirring," and unimpressed by claims that innocent posters like JJ and Charlie are simply "unable to control themselves" when confronted with that extreme level of abuse.
Rosie has the tone of a retarded five year old, which makes his overly-friendly, incapable-of-understanding-normal-social-bounds "insults" a bit more annoying than they look on paper alone. You can almost hear his hiddeous, whiny voice behind the posts.
But the words he actually writes are simply not terribly offensive.
It is, ON PAPER, a rather good question to ask: Why DOESN'T JJ spend more time, like PP, making his thread interesting to read?
If JJ feels the need to say "Eat me" in return, so be it. But ON PAPER, there's nothing really wrong with that post.
It strikes me I had no good reason to drag JJ into this.
For what it's worth, I'm actually sorry.
JJ, take a shot; I deserve one. Make it hurt.
I only ask because I'm not sure if I should welcome him or, erm, greet him as someone I already know, returning after a brief, brief vacation.
Yes, dear. But lonely, dried-up aging queens have to wait their turn.
Why can't you just be mean and leave it at that? JJ can take a shot. He hangs out in the Politics thread, remember? It kills me how you'll blast somebody then apologize three posts later. I'd hate to see you in possession of a firearm. Maybe you could be a poster child for gun control.
"BLAM!!"
"Sorry. You really didn't deserve that. You can shoot me back. Make it hurt. Oh, you're unconscious? Not breathing? Sorry."
Deep T,
You find that odd behavior? Don't children normally mutilate their toys when they're tired of them--you know, ripping the heads off Barbies and using them for finger puppets, taking the button eyes off teddy bears, stuff like that?
Ace again,
I don't advocate banning Rose, but if the moderators choose to they'll get no complaint from me. If they choose not to they'll get no complaint. Same with Charlie, though I would personally hope he sticks around. I agree with you about Rose almost completely. Where we disagree is on what moderators have the "right" to do with him compared to Charlie. The ROE leaves them the leeway to act within reason, as it should and as they have.
Arky (Whorebag),
I don't, as a rule, enjoy insulting people out-of-the-blue. If I'm in a heated discussion with a loser poseur like Rask, who keeps accusing me of "lying" every three minutes, I do enjoy attacking.
But not really out of the blue, and for no good reason. Whorebag.
And everything you said about Charlie/Rosie is fucking horseshit, Whorebag.
DIE, SCUMBAG, DIE!!!!
You flatterer, you!
And yet you: You're all old and broken-down and can't get hardly any without paying for it. And yet you want it so bad.
Life is unfair. Tain't it?
Ooops.
That to Cellar's DIE, SCUMBAG, DIE!!
"After Andrew Sullivan Shoots His Last Hot Milky Load, Who'll Be The Next Conbservabot Scumbag to Eat Dirt?"
You may not want it, but It wants you!
Arky,
I wouldn't mind seeing Rosie go. For the right reasons.
The right reasons being:
Actual ROE violations committed after fair warning, AND NOT simply a reciprocal, "we've got to get even for Charlie" banning; OR
a vote of simple expulsion, not predicated on rules violations, but based only on annoyance factor (but in this case, I must insist I be allowed to nominate another expellee).
Cellar,
No capital letters, and only ONE exclamation point... and that was my best, nastiest shot. Congratulations.
You take insults well. Obviously you've had practice.
Azrael,
Don't be terribly upset about the "aging, dried up old queen" line. You still have at least four or five years before you starting paying for cock.
Unless you're fat and ugly, of course.
Now what would the odds be of that a male "Wiccan" would be fat and ugly...?
"Actually pretty good. "
You don't say? I never would have guessed.
I have seen pictures of a nudist camp. Briefly. The *idea* of a nudist camp is of course far more enticing that the sad, sad reality.
Arky?
Where have you seen pictures of a nudist camp?
Truly, though, on the nude beaches of the Riviera when we went to Europe it didn't look like Baywatch sans clothes, that's for sure.
Frigging HBO shows a hideous nudist camp every other episode of the revolting "Real Sex" series.
Either a nudist camp, or a "sexual discovery workshop," in which the primary "sexual discovery" I'm curious about is figuring out what sex each of the old, fat, hairy blobs of androgenous flesh might actually be.
And now on Real Sex 22... An All-Nude Pottery Workshop!
Hmmmmm... let me guess. One broken-down old hippie dude and six unappealing, decrepit hippie women... all making pots.
Get out of the way, Mabel! I've got a penis to masturbate!
I believe you, arky.
Really!
Doesn't sound like I'm missing much.
Joe,
Look at Ace's posts! There are shows like that on tv. Disgusting, isn't it?
Martha Stewart's Fucking
A big fat cross eyed woman explaining to an auditorium full of moronic college students and ex-hippies what a "dental dam" is
The Nude Olympics (events included: the 200 yard Sag, the Cellulite Medley, the 100 yard White Droopy Hairy Old Man Cock Jiggle)
Erotic Accounting
Europe's sexiest new game show, Name that Pungent Odor!
MMMmmm-hmmmm....
See y'all later.
They're reducing carbon emissions by giving up showering.
Of course I do.
I'm a Professional Homosexual. It comes with the territory.
Oh, I know what it's like to be a "victim," Cellar.
Anything to add an aura of legitimacy.
Why? The post wasn't addressed to you, so it's not like I was offering a rebuttal. My point was that Stone has always had a terrible signal to noise ratio, but for all his shitdisturbing, I felt that he had at least some interest in the site itself--making him different from the Caz/Ferguson sort, who had no other aim but to cause problems. But in recent months his pest rating has dramatically increased and his already minimal participation in any other activity has dropped off.
I see nothing wrong with getting rid of someone whose only interest is causing trouble. Abusing the forum is sufficient reason. Stone, for all that we're used to him, has demonstrated his quals in that regard for years.
And enough of this "vote" nonsense.
The post wasn't addressed to you, so it's not like I was offering a rebuttal
Fair enough. I assumed you were addressing me because I was the only person arguing the contrary.
Abusing the forum is sufficient reason
Define "abuse."
Good lord. Stone makes a few whiny comments and everyone says "Ban him." Ban him for the whiny comments if you like; but don't call it a "rules violation." It is not a rules violation to be a whiny pest.
As annoying as Rosie was when he campaigned, quixotically, for Caz, Jon, and Dr. XTC, are we claiming that expressing an unpopular opinion, repeatedly, is a rules violation?
If so, am I violating the rules by campaigning, equally quixotically, for the banning of CharlieL and the reinstatement of RS?
Can this be? Is this what we now claim is a violation?
I'm hardly a Free Speech champion in the context of a private forum.
But is unpopular speech, which annoys the majority primarily because they disagree with the sentiment, now against the Rules of Engagement?
When the hell did *that* happen?
It is not a rules violation to be a whiny pest.
I disagree, if your whiny pestilence is aimed at hurting the forum or causing trouble.
Stone's primary goal here is to get people banned or cause some sort of trouble. Hell, his whole obsession with "taking back" his name came about because he realized he could aggravate people into using his name. Never mind that he himself regularly and knowingly skirts the line, putting the nasty fuck in a piss poor position with a lousy case.
Of course, to the extent that he succeeds, he has to find someone to play. But so what? Who needs someone whose entire goal in the forum is to create more work for the moderators? Punish his playmates, sure. But over the long term, I see no reason why a continual search for trouble isn't reason to be banned.
Look, I'm not adamant that Stone be banned; I don't have a whole lot of energy about it one way or the other. It's not like Ferguson, whose energy towards hurting this place was 80 times that of Stone's.
But does Stone spend more energy trying to hurt the forum and cause trouble than he does on any other activity here? Absolutely. I see no reason why that isn't abusive.
No.
With all due respect, I don't think this is true.
Stone's primary goal here is to make friends. Sound hard to believe? Well, it's true.
Stone is inordinately interested in the rather dispicable topic of "Mote politics." I am ashamed to say I share in this interest. I think that several of the people who have posted the cliched "Oh it's not that important" sort of rejoinder are far, far more interested in the topic of Mote politics than they'd care to admit. I don't blame them. I don't like admitting it myself.
So, yes, his obsession with Mote politics does compel him to again and again come to this thread to discuss... Mote politics.
This is neither a bannable offense nor evidence that he "only wants to cause trouble and get people banned." It IS evidence that he is overly interested in a ludicrously trivial topic; a trivial topic I too (and, perhaps, even the person I'm talking to right now) have a morbidly strong interest in.
And that's all.
Never blame on malice what can be explained by simple incompetence... or, in this case, a shameful interest in a repellantly trivial topic.
Don't be daft.
Never mind that he himself regularly and knowingly skirts the line, putting the nasty fuck in a piss poor position with a lousy case.
Nonsense. What he revealed is public information. He doesn't claim that stuff about his wife, etc., is private.
he claims his name is private. And you all allowed Spudboy to reclaim his name even after he participated in a thread discussing his book. He even hosted, I remember. So puh-leeaze.
The idiot Rosie came into this place after being solicited by an email invite and used... his real name. He was fucking stupid. I don't think it's right to hold that breif stupidity against him forever.
Spudboy outed himself. HE DISCUSSED HIS BOOK, ADMITTING AUTHORSHIP. HIS NAME WAS ON THE BOOK.
And when he decided that was a mistake, the Powers that Be bent over to accomodate him... but then, THAT was Spudboy. The Powers that Be liked Spudboy.
Concerned was even threatened with banning for revealing Spuddy-Boy's name.
So very much please.
This is The Mote. And if you want to claim it's the Fray, be sure to mention that to Slate Magazine... I seem to remember a certain amount of legal concern that this place NOT be perceived as The Fray II.
If it's the Fray, change the name to the Fray. Let us see how long that lasts.
Rosie's request is not unreasonable. he outed himself in a different forum, a long time ago. He wants no one to use his name. I do not consider this request unreasonable and I would like those who consider it unreasonable to explain why it is so. I would like it explained to me why CharlieL "can't help" but violate Stone's privacy every time he feels like.
I would like to know why CharlieL gets to reveal Stone's name to new people. And there are new people here, all the time.
Again, I know your name, thanks to Seguine. So do many people here. I don't think you'd be happy if I revealed it to people that don't know it.
Ace's point about new people is absolutely correct. Just because their out, doesn't mean they have to stay out for every new person that comes along.
It is a security issue if anything else. Any new person could be nuttier than RS or Char'L combined. There is no reason for RS to keep his/her pants down. ESPECIALLY if (s)he reveiled his/her name on an entirely different discussion site.
Charlie L should be gone for good... as should anyone else who's revealed someon else's personal info on The Mote. Period.
On the one hand, you gripe about the triumvirate being mealy. On the other, when they act, you turn into Ron Kuby. Stone is annoying, but that was not enough.
In fact, ignoring two lawful orders would have been no problem. Except I jumped up and down about it.
So he got suspended.
Charlie is retarded and they should have put him down. But nothing would have happened to Charlie at all, except you jumped up and down.
In the meantime, trangressions by you, me, Cellar, jexster and on occasion, others, will always be tolerated.
Always.
For
ever.
So enough of your smooch fest with consistency and process and the rules and so forth.
It's a political world, and some people have more rights than others.
I really do believe that a) Stone actually baits Charlie and b) Charlie actually freaks out. But, you have at least elicited a pledge from wabbit. One more, gone. So, the triumvirate acts again. And still you go Kuby.
Though when I read "whorebag", all was made worthwhile.
Imagine that.
"... he could aggravate people into using his name..."
How does one do that? (cf. Jen's question in the Inferno, a few days ago)
I mean, I didn't keep my name a secret in the Fray. Let's say I now announced that I would like it to never be mentioned in this forum.
What would it then take, on my part, to aggravate you into doing so?
You don't have enough irritating persistence to pull it off. It takes a very rare and special breed.
And I think Cal is right about Deep Thoughts. Rose did claim one other id--was it TinTin or something?
He does so remind me of the (very occasional, thank goodness, or I'd have found another profession long ago) immature class clown of junior high, sometimes up to tenth grade but rarely beyond, who tries to get others in trouble, then when he/she (I've never had a female of this type, but I'm sure they exist) is finally removed from the environment, it's the worst possible punishment, and because of the tactics used these types try to make the teacher pin down a specific thing they did. I never waste much time arguing about it. I can't help it, though, I just love these kids, even when I'm disciplining them.
I had one last semester whom Bob also had who one day "sneezed" all over the kid next to him, just out of nowhere. We were having class, everything was going great, but I just happened to turn that direction (you watch these kids like a hawk if you have any experience at all) at the time he "sneezed" to see that 1) it was a fake sneeze and 2) he turned and leaned so it would appear he was dousing his neighbor in snot. I sent him out in the hall and went on with class and my husband Bob walked by, and the kid stopped him and said, "Mr. Bob, your wife sent me out in the hall and won't let me come back to class, and all I did was sneeze!"
Actually, you know my name, thanks to me. As far as making my name public without my permission, at least one other person did it prior to Seguine.
And when he decided that was a mistake, the Powers that Be bent over to accomodate him... but then, THAT was Spudboy.
Your wails of injustice and special consideration ignore an inconvenient fact: No one has been suspended for using Spudboy's name--in fact, no one has ever been suspended or banned for using Spud's name in Fray or Mote history. CharlieL has been suspended twice for using Stone's name. At least one person has been banned for making a joke about Stone's son--a joke, mind you, that was only possible because the asshole made his real name and his son's school public knowledge. But still, someone was banned because a threat is a threat. Several posts have been deleted because they use Stone's name (something that Spudboy demanded more than he got, as I recall).
Such favoritism. Stone: 2 suspensions, 1 banning for "privacy" violations. Spudboy: 0.
With all due respect, I don't think this is true.
With no due respect at all, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The last time you went on a vomitous spew about Stone, you revealed your profound ignorance by making any number of laughably untrue statements. Hell, Stone even had to correct you. Surely you don't want to try it again. Stone was posting his real name as part of his email address until very recently--possibly into Mote time, but almost certainly still at the end of the Fray. He didn't begin this whinging about his name until sometime quite recently, when he realized that he could use it to get people banned.
I would like to know why CharlieL gets to reveal Stone's name to new people.
He doesn't. He gets suspended for it. And the fact that the people are new doesn't matter for shit, really. Stone already made his name public--in fact, I can point to his name in several places accessible from this site. So it is a courtesy, this "reclamation". The person has already made the decision that makes any absolute protection impossible. That's their problem and their choice.
This is the same community as the Fray, and yes, it does count.
iiibbb,
You need to read that bit about public information again. It is not exclusive to the Mote. If the information was made available online with the person's explicit permission and is linked to the online moniker, it's public. Stone made his information public. Revealing Stone's name is, imo, an abuse violation, not a privacy violation. Just as it would be for anyone else who wants to reclaim their privacy.
It's still a violation of the RoE, but it's not the privacy violation--again, imo.
Stone is the most effective baiter I've ever seen. But that doesn't excuse the behavior of people who give in.
Stone figured out that some people are idiotic enough to rely on their own popularity and the fact that he's utterly despised to kick at him just on the wrong side of the line. After all, he violates privacy all the time, right? (while claiming that he "didn't know better.) So no one will really bitch if they do it to him--after all, no one is going to be suspended because of Stone.
Fortunately, most people figured out his game after Jadegold was suspended. Charlie's just a slow learner.
Forum politics in general fascinate me. But you are wrong about Stone. Stone isn't interested in Mote politics, Stone wants to foment Mote political fuss because it gets him attention--something he can't do with his topical posts, even when he copies them from someone else. He's always wanted this and, of course, does very well at it. Far better than Caz and Ferguson--even Ferguson, in his last at bat, being very careful not to violate the rules, couldn't hide his obsession with causing trouble, with everything else being subordinate to that.
Until recently, Stone's obsession with causing trouble while claiming innocence and wailing about the harm done to him was at least balanced by a marginal interest in the forum itself. I haven't seen that counterweight in a while now.
Creative writing could rule here.
Yes,I was a "Seinfeld" fan
I don't care, every time I look up those guys are bitching. This probably is just like whem my parents would grow tired of me and my brothers arguing... it gets to a point where you don't care who started it, you just want it to stop.
As near as I've been able to garner since I weighed in, RS was stupid enough to reveal his hame on another website. Charlie L, is spreading that name into this website. I agree RS is an asinine participant, but he doesn't break the rules as near as I can tell... he rants, but ranting isn't necessarily against the rules.
As for Rosetta Stone, he ignored two lawful orders, he has a rap sheet for petty crimes a mile long, and he's here in another guise anyway, so what's the beef? I screamed for his punishment because the Triumvirate had given final warnings that were ignored. Sometimes, shooting a looter is necessary, even if the looter has only stolen a Ho Ho.
Do I think Charlie would have been banned had he flitted around with arky's personal information? Yes. Do I think Cellar, jexster or Ace or me would have been suspended for what Rosetta did? No. In fact, our behavior is clearly worse, in terms of abuse (Ace/jexster) or technical incompetence/extremist thread hosting(me), repetition (Cellar) and baiting (all) than Rosetta's.
But we have a little clout in this little corner of the world, and we are afforded greater latitude. Most of this discussion ignores that fact, as well as the vagaries of time, place, member of Triumvirate in attendance, feel, sense, judgment etc . . . Instead, the farce of trying to show how the rules have been properly applied is offered. There is no "proper" application. There are only approximations affected by tenure, politics, and the specifics of the offense.
I agree wholeheartedly with you next to the last paragraph.
I ignore RS for the most part, but I do not find him/her particularly offensive compared to anyone else. I don't know what he's like on other websites as this is the only one I've ever participated for any length of time.
How about a thread that has no topic. This would enable thought to flow freely regardless of content. Anyone wishing to go off topic could take advantage of the no topic forum.
Creative writing could rule here.
We have a "topic free" zone in the Cafe where one may talk about anything and not be chided for being "off topic". Our Literature thread is a great place for creative writing and that includes short stories...several have been herded together into a collection, Mote Stories.
There aren't many "topic police" here, anyhow...we're a pretty flexible group, though that might not be readily obvious.
Also, why is mention of his difficulties in another forum considered "outing" him?
Actually, Cellar has been suspended for spamming, at least once. No one has ever been suspended for simple verbal abuse, so Ace and jexter's treatment of others is besides the point. And it's not baiting of others that is the issue--although your notion that we all act like Stone is bizarre. Stone continually whined about "privacy", while simulataneously leaving out lures, all the better to come running to the moderators when he was "abused". He was then told in no uncertain terms to knock that shit off. Disregarding the moderators is not something that most of us do.
So despite your notion of it as a "farce" of rules, I think they are applied. Of course there are other factors taken into account, and it's not absolute. But the framework exists.
I realize it's probably more comfortable for a country club denizen to think all organizations are run in terms of who's popular and who's not. But at least try to make your presentation match reality.
It's not. Ace is saying that Charlie baited first. But Charlie actually mentioned his name, which was what got him suspended.
Well, as long as we are on the topic of banning, again, let me, again, weigh in with my opinion that we should not ban anyone, but we should simply ignore puling fucks like Stoner.
I've said enough.
No, he revealed his name regularly, as well as other private information, on the website that we all came from and, I believe, did so on this forum in the early days (but I won't swear to that).
Example: he began by using his real name, and also prattled on about his son and the school he went to. Did this all the time. So Jadegold one day joked and said that she'd have her cousins, who go to the same school, beat up his kid. Now, that's a threat, and a threat is a violation, period. No matter how joking. She refused to take it back, and was banned from the Fray.
But consider that Stone is running around acting like some horror has happened--but he gave out his name, he gave out where his son went to school, and then when someone uses the information he gave out, even in jest, oh, no! Violation! Abuse! My kids are in danger!
So then, at this site, he lets his daughter post on a thread and give her name. He knows that most people her still know his last name, so now anyone can know his daughter's full name. A few months ago, he then tells everyone that she is singing in the President's inauguration and does everything but tell us exactly what row she's in.
He then announced which school his son is now going to.
At the same time, he reminds everyone that his name, address, and phone number are listed in Tabletalk, that the administrators there won't delete it, and has probably at some point or another mentioned the thread and the date (he's already said the "who" 9 zillion times). All in the profound hope that someone else who loathes him will look it up and post it here, so that he can gasp in horror and demand satisfaction.
Keep in mind, too, that Stone regularly tries to mention the private information of others and then protest that he meant no harm.
You are free to keep pounding those blocks into round holes. I'm just the moke telling you how it is (from my veranda at Bushwood, hey, chop chop, man, chop chop).
Deep Thoughts
Every Grain Of Sand
TinTin
as for his dumbass thread, if no one stands up to take it, then archive it. perhaps iiibbb would be interested?
How long of a commitment?
No, you're just the moke who pays any number of illegals to come pound a two by four into the hole on the 18th green and then celebrate your magnificent 6-under game.
It's not a popularity contest, and this isn't quite a club, but it's understandable that this analogy is your "round hole". Alas, though, the examples you gave aren't even remotely on point, for the reasons given. So if you're going to force this block through, tell all those Manuels to hustle.
you can be as involved (or not involved) as you wish to be.
as host, you set the tone of the thread and, if you want to, help guide conversation. nothing more to it than that really. there are some host 'guidelines' but as long as you aren't some tyrant, there is little in that regard.
if you wanna give it a shot, email the moderators or just post it here.
Hmm... maybe this is better suited to Notices and Queries.
Forgive me fathers (and mothers), for I am about to spam.
Thanks.
FU,
I'm not going "Kuby." I just don't see a violation by RS.
Further, I remember that LAST time a serious violation was committed against RS, the Management banned Rosie along with the violator as well, just for having the audacity to go over Irving Snodgras' head.
This is nonsense.
I have no problem with banning Rosie -- so long as the banning is not linked (as Wabbit suggested) to Charlie's banning.
Quite frankly, Wabbit can, if she likes, link the two bannings in her own head, but I don't want to know that they're linked. I don't want some kind of explicit deal about linking their bannings. They can ban Rosie, but I'd prefer it if they at least pretended he was being banned for independent reasons, rather than the typical tit-for-tat, "we ban one of ours in exchange for one of yours" bullshit.
That's all I ask. That they pretend they're banning him for independent reasons.
I just don't like this principle -- actually, a precedent now, now that's happened twice and Wabbit suggests it should happen a third time -- that when someone commits a serious violation against Rosie (or anyone) we have to ban the victim as well as the perpertrator for the sake of some moronic "Everyone's equal, no one's really to blame" sense of "balance."
I mean: Maybe we should have suspended Cal along with Seguine when Seguine outed her.
After all: Cal obviously "annoyed" her and "provoked" her into violating "our most serious rule." Surely Seguine was "baited" into violating the rule; surely she just wouldn't have done that had Cal not "antagonized" and "harassed" and "stalked" her.
If you want to take a shot at moderating the Exploring the Web thread, drop me a line at moderator@themote.com.
Subthreads are doable - take a look at the Poetry thread. Rick asked to have subthreads for Haiku and Limericks, so we created them. However, you'll see they don't get much, if any, traffic. They don't show up on the front page and people tend to forget that they exist.
OBVIOUSLY someone will only cross the line when angered.
Wabbit et al suggest that such "anger" is a reasonable justification for crossing the line; and that, if someone should "anger" another into committing a serious breach, then obviously that person "deserved it" and should be banned along with the violating party.
This theory claims that the true violation is no worse than the non-violation which "provoked" it. According to this theory, if I call Rask a "jackass" and "preening pussyshit" four or five times, and then he outs me, then either Rask hasn't really violated the rules -- i.e., he was "provoked" and "could not help himself" -- or else I should be banned, along with Rask, for obviously my "violation" was as bad as his.
I repeat: The ROE says that the rule against privacy violations is "our most serious rule." I hate to belabor the fucking obvious, but that means, inavoidably, that other violations are not our most serious rule. And yet Wabbit and Co. insist on treating run-of-the-mill "fuck yous" as the equivalent of "our most serious rule."
They are not the equivalent. If I call Rask a pussy, the "damage" passes after ten minutes. If I out him, his privacy is gone, permanently.
If Wabbit, MsNo, and Pelle cannot/will not treat "our most serious rule" as, yes, "our most serious rule," they should state so forthrightly, request a modification of the ROE, and then either resign or recuse themselves from enforcement (if no change is agreed to) or enforce the new, modified rule (if a change is agreed to).
But they cannot continue ignoring the ROE simply because they don't agree with it.
I didn't say the bannings would be linked,
Right, Wabbit. You just said you would ban Charlie upon his next violation (as if that's some sort of concession; how many "last chances" had you planned on giving him?) if, and only if, I agreed that RS should be banned, immediately, if he dared to speak to Charlie.
No linkage, Wabbit. But of course not.
Oh, for christs sake, Ace, get a clue
For christ's sake, Wabbit, own up to the unavoidable meaning of your own fucking words.
Perhaps Rosie should be banned. I don't know; I ignore him so I don't really see all of these claimed "baitings" everyone whines about.
But if CharlieL should be banned -- which he should -- I don't see how you can barter your promise to do something you should do anyway, and, indeed, already should have done in exchange for something else.
It's like a cop agreeing to arrest my mugger in exchange for my turning down my stereo at night. Maybe I should turn it down, but the cop's duty is to arrest the mugger in any event, and he cannot refuse to perform his duty in order to extract a concession from me.
Yes, actually, I will. But I will also be banning Rosie if he continues to follow people around harrassing them. See RoE #3. Fair enough?
How can you read a link between the two in this? You are hopeless on this issue.
Fine. You're apparently pretending there's no linkage.
I will accept your ludicrous pretense, as I already promised to be satisfied with pretending.
You are going Kuby. Kuby for Cocoa Puffs. It didn't come down how you wanted (nothing for Rosie/banning for Charlie) or how I wanted (banning for both). But you go on and on about high-falutin' concepts that are simply unjustified given the inconsistency and slack given you, jexter, and Cellar, for starts. For example, Cal became a philosophical burr under your saddle and for days you Charlie'd her. Maybe even weeks. She was a tick and worse. And as you took the time to work it out with yourself, slowly, over time, your epithets slowed.
Now, you can act as if your abuse is fine and dandy and even Cal is capable of finding some language to support your behavior, but surely you realize that you are cut slack because you are perhaps the most clever, funny and sharp writer here. If you were Rosetta and you jumped on someone like that -for an extended period - you'd be gone pronto.
That's life, Tonto. Van Gogh gets to fuck whores in the ear, and every one laughs. But an oil painter at the Holiday Inn gets run in for looking cross-eyed at a 15 year old.
And that is exactly what happened yesterday. No more, no less. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it.
Now, other people get slack because they know someone, or they are pitied, or revered, or maybe even feared, to the extent anyone can fear anyone in this place.
And that leaves you screaming for consistency, even it slits your own throat.
And if that is the case, I applaud your self-sacrifice.
But in all our discussions, you've never addressed this aspect of our rotten, corrupt and timid oversight.
Ace and I bitch, but if we had control, the place would be loaded with dead bodies and internment camps in no time.
And all threads would be devoted to discussing the propriety of our decisions.
I wish he had written "awre".
But I find this place to the tune of $50k a year.
So, there you have it.
I'm the funny guy who deleted a million posts.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
They don't understand the old ways, Cellar. I'm all for mouthing one man, one vote, and fairness, and all that, but Ace gets himself worked up to the point that the cause obscures the reality.
He's like that RJ Reynolds kid who turned on tobacco but never renounced the money he's received from all the carinogenic deaths.
The rules are great. And they should be applied evenly.
Honest.
No, he's not "cut slack". Name anyone who has been warned, much less suspended, for abusive language. C'mon. You should be able to come up with someone, Francis. Since you're resting your entire case on Ace not being suspended or banned on this behavior. Name someone who has been reprimanded for being meeeean.
Whorebag.
(g)
FU's a little (very little) Johnny One Note on this issue.
We're all different, there is no justice, it's always biased. We got it the first seven times, Short-Stuff.
I am grateful that FU has finally stopped with the diplomatic "we get cut a lot of slack" and cut to the more honest chase with "you get cut a lot of slack."
FU, you don't get cut a lot of slack, because you're not a loose-cannon maverick who plays by his own rules like I am. You are fucking DANNY FUCKING GLOVER, and you do everything by the book, and plus you shine the Troika's ass every opportunity you get.
I've hoped for your years that I could posit arguments similar to your evergreens.
But I can't even muster the outrage of CAPITAL letters.
So you can just suck my viral load. How you like that one note?
No clue.
It has the appearance of some attempt at communication, but the words don't intersect together with any sort of meaning.
Sure I shine the Triumvirate (they prefer that to the Troika). I love the Swede (that's my pet name for him, the "Swede").
And sure, your whole rebel things makes me itchy with envy.
I don't deny these glaring inadequacies.
But you still have to be my partner and sit next to me for a significant period of screen time after I've just unloaded a massive dump.
So there's that.
Francis doesn't get "cut slack" because he's never broken any rules--even his massive deletions are because he's a technogoober who can't even master his own domain, much less run it like the elitist he aspires to be.
Cellar doesn't get cut slack, as Francis claimed, because Francis seems to forget that Cellar was, in fact, suspended. For spamming.
So where are all these people who are being cut slack, Francis?
n. 3. a nuanced and multilayered presentation..
Because he's a pussy.
Explain this:
"I've hoped for your years that I could posit arguments similar "
Oh. "Your" = "four"?
adj 4. four
True enough. But he longs to be a badass like you; claiming the status in policy arguments is as close as he'll ever get.
You're a pussy. Cal says so, because you're "pretty scrupulous about following rules".
Mur -
Taugh.
I mean, he's not a screeching Wiccan flagrant- pussy like Azrael, but he's actually a more insidious sort of pussy.
He's the sort of pussy that got his ass kicked just enough that he learned to ape the most superficial sheen of non-pussy behavior, but he didn't get his ass kicked quite enough that he rebels completely from masculinity and becomes a chin-hair black-turtleneck-sweater wearing Clarice like Rask or Azrael.
But they are obvious. FU -- Oh, let me use the full name: FRANCIS URQUHART -- is a stealth pussy.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Acey-wacey da' webel doesn't want to get too cwose to that line.
Not *GOOD*, advanced stealth, mind you. But just enough stealth that 1950's era radar posts get him confused with a 700 mph seagull.
What's that, Francis?
Rebel
Andre Aggassi.
Rebel.
Just close enough to the line to not go over it.
Scrupulous.
CAPITAL LETTERS.
Lauded by Cal as the next Adlai Stevenson.
700 mph seagull?
Throw in eco-terrorist and. . .
PULITZER the rebel!
Francis.
Fett.
Bat
Francis doesn't step close to the line. He doesn't even know where it is. But then, he doesn't have to. "Daddy! Daddy!"
meet
Boba Fett.
Uma, Oprah
Oprah, Uma.
I'm outta' here.
The Francis Urquhart Story
Starring Bad-Boy actor Zack Galligan (Gremlins, Gremlins II: The New Batch, The Making of Gremlins, Gremlins: The Collector's Edition)
HBO Films, Produced by Ben Affleck and his homosexual lover, whatever his name is
Synopsis: CGI special effects are used to shrink Zack Galligan down to four-foot-six and give him a thick Cubano accent. "The Francis Urquhart Story" follows Francis' various flirtations with homosexuals and homosexuality through the years.
Reviews: Rex Reed says, "What a homo!"
I didn't know that.
Maybe I saw it without realizing I saw it.
Maybe, once again, it's that weird synchronicity.
Rebel Fett.
Eh. Go flirt with Cellar for a couple of hours.
Homo. If you want to touch my ass, just ask.
I couldn't reach down that far, Fidget.
All the women are attracted to my take-no-prisoners firebrand attitude.
Meanwhile, all da women say, "Oh? Francis? He's nice. Like a little brother. A little brother without genitals or any sort of normal male sex drive. He's good for snuggling."
Francis. Couldn't ya just snuggle him to death?
I might snuggle with him. I don't get any "male" reading off him whatsoever. It would be like snuggling with a Koala bear. Not gay at all.
I have to go, but Ace, I really think Slack has gotten you on Coase Theorem.
You really should be more scrupulous about your Coase Theorem.
Give me some of that scrupulous Coase Theorem.
Adios.
Eh, you're just trying to get me to use capital letters now, Snugglums.
Stop at 14551
wabbit
Move the entire exchange to Inferno.
I wanted it scored by round.
Now ...
vamanos.
Eh. Fey Francis feels this "scrupulous" need to always let us know when he's leaving. Adios, vamanos.
It's as if we're all sitting here thinking, "Gee, it's wonderful to have Francis here NOW. But will we STILL have him in five minutes? I'm gnawing off my fingers with anxiety about it."
I don't totally disagree with the idea of "linkage" because (although I don't believe we have to assign offsetting fouls in every case), in this instance Stone is an exception in that he does seek to cause "banishment" trouble more than actually debate. That is, if I provoke you from my comments politically or otherwise substantively or even just insultingly, then no, that's not enough to excuse you going over the line in response and revealing personal information. But if my sole purpose is not to win a debate or throw you off your game but to try to get you banned, then yes, I can see a double foul.
When Ace insults Rask his motivation isn't to get Rask to cross the line and be suspended or banned. Stone, OTOH, repeatedly goes near the line re personal violations himself (ask bubbaette, for starters) and then wishes those same rules to protect him. It's akin to "flopping" and pretending to have received a charge in basketball. The player isn't trying to guard the other effectively, but to get the referee to do his job for him.
So I don't mind seeing a technical called on Stone as well, provided that technical isn't just for pure unpopularity or being "hateful." When he's playing bait and bitch, then I have little sympathy.
Finally, the pseuds (ducky's list is correct) also indicate Stone flouts the rules that he wishes to use against others.
Perhaps he and wabbit can start a private dialogue on the matter since he only has a small window of time to fully work on it.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, it would be a crying shame if the opportunity flies by. One doesn't get very many shots at something like this.
to just declare it so seems kinda pushy to me.
Have the darn vote then. Like, now. At least enter into a dialogue with Wiz as a finalist.
vargasgirl,
How about a thread that has no topic. This would enable thought to flow freely regardless of content. Anyone wishing to go off topic could take advantage of the no topic forum.
Creative writing could rule here.
Since each thread in the Mote has a host, each thread reflects the host's personality. Perhaps you could host a free-form thread such as you describe. I'm sure there's room for another thread if you have time to host it.
Jesus, this crap about banning just goes on and on, and there are fifty more posts in this thread since Saturday. These kinds of discussions should probably be taken somewhere else for the sake of not discouraging new participation. The suggestions thread is a natural area for new participants to post, making initial contact with the moderators. It should probably be maintained in a more welcoming tone.
I can't believe you guys wasted a whole Saturday on this shit.
I don't think that Rosie has violated my privacy. Actually, Rosie has provided a service considering my lack of experience in chatrooms/bulletin boards -- serving as a warning that anything you say can be taken, twisted around, have baldfaced lies inserted, and then run back as if recounting an actual exchange. What the snivling weenie does is take an incident that I mentioned in the Fray (having been arrested for misdemeanor vandalism for taking down a yard sign of a political opponent) and invent scenarios in which I have been arrested for breaking and entering, trashing computer files, etc. I know that anybody who knows what a pathetic, pathological attention hound Rosie is will discount anything he has to say.
I agree with Arky that all the loser wants is attention and to stir up a stink.
Thanks anyway.
If it's a project that appeals, let me know. Otherwise I'll get to it eventually but it may take a couple of weeks for me to wrap it all up.
the thread is easily accessed in the archives...
where is Fielding? if he is gone (and has been since he let go of Quizzes), then why not retire Rants? what is the procedure?
I'm happy to send him an email regarding it however.
Re- Exploring the Web links
Yes, the links can be found by slogging through the thread in the Archives, but they'd be much more accessible and therefore useful if they were all on a single page. The thread would still be archived with the commentary on it, but if one only wanted to check out the links then those would be readily available as well.
So, iiibb, it is not because of the subject that the thread does not draw posts. Why don't you think again. I'm not pestering you to take it on of course.
I experimented using the technique with a few posts in current events and politics a while back; no one really commented on them one way or another... although I thought they were interesting if you followed all the links. I remember one was on nuclear power.
Like it?
I second Pelle's analysis and sentiments.
I liked the "reactor/protest/organize" link and think that type might be more interesting than Rosetta making snide remarks and then linking to one site.
Single links are ok, but I think it's really cool when you bring related (or unrelated) sites together into one place and build a story that sort-of ties them together.
Anyway... people get the picture.
Wanna try it again Elliot?
Thread Post # Time Poster Recent The Inferno 9535 6/18/01 3:17:32 PM vw 6 Tabled Talk 302 6/18/01 3:15:22 PM Cellar Door 36 Social Issues 1238 6/18/01 3:18:26 PM vw 4
That's not exactly the response I had hoped for.
Any thoughts on being able to search for posts by date? Is this incredibly hard to set up or possibly I'm the only person still interested in this.
Well... I really hope that other people would contribute too. It does have more or less endless possibilities, but there would be quite a bit of overlap with things like current events and politics... as well as other threads... although it does add a little twist.
Would this be considered problematic? Other threads have RIP'ed inthe past because of redundancy.
And as a newcomer, I can tell say that it was hard for me to guess where the truth ended and his constant fictionalizing began.
Are you willing to give it a shot?
Because Rosie couldn't possibly have a fan?
Say what?
I'm not sure I buy that.
Of course I'm being somewhat facetious, but Salon's business practices have made little to no sense to me. Do they still allow web-based accounts? Are they requiring members who registered under AOL to provide other email addresses? I think TT could be a big asset for them, but they don't seem to have the first clue how to take advantage of that.
Read here.
Still, it's comforting to know that CalGall, while proscribed from posting there, is still monitoring Table Talk.
Salon doesn't allow automatic id creations with AOL? You have to write them directly.
and
Salon has apparently banned AOL auto-id creations all because of Stone and some guy named Andy.
Same information in both places. So what exactly did you miss in your hasten to misinform everyone?
Anyway. Back to the conversation at hand, before poor Donnie got all pissy.
I would love to be at the VC meeting where they ask for more funding.
"So. Why are you new TT memberships declining so drastically?"
"Well, we had to disable automatic moniker creation for AOL because a few pests would come in over the weekend and create threads, generate clicks, and make a big mess that our poor, overworked, staff of three administrators would have to clean up every Monday."
"You don't accept entries from the largest ISP in the world?"
"Oh, sure we do. They just have to write in and ask and we have to verify that they aren't one of the troublemakers. We send them a fifteen page questionnaire, of course, and once they send it back with a credit card imprint, we let them in just like anyone else." (okay, I made that last part up)
I just don't see that selling.
Naw.
Naw.
Sour grapes.
Glad you're monitoring the situation, though.
"According to the FBI, in 1997, the year before Shepard was killed, a total of three hate-crime murders of homosexuals were recorded in the entire United States. This number is not a fiction. Murders are the least underreported of crimes, because bodies have to be accounted for, and the FBI's number is the total reported by some 10,000 reporting agencies across the country. But let's assume that the FBI understates gay hate-crime murders by a factor of five. That makes 15 anti-gay murders a year. Further assume that around five percent of the population is gay. That means that the chance of a gay American meeting the same fate as Matthew Shepard is about one in a million. Or about the same as being hit by a railroad train.
"
i have thoroughly enjoyed a Rosetta Slide-less week and look forward to more.
good work, moderators.
The moving of the computers commenceth. I will be offline until Saturday.
good work, moderators.
Details, please. I haven't been around much lately.
The Policy thread is that bright blue link in the butter bar.
The question is: Why have three (or was it four?)different thread headers in 48 hours?
I suggest you put the energy into creating more interent links.
1) My name-changing wasn't an issue until I changed the name to insult Rosie and then, more seriously, when I changed the name to create a secondary politics thread.
2) Before that, no one except Rosie (go figure) bitched.
3) I think name-changing is fun, generally.
4) Hosts will change names to ATTRACT attention, not to kill a thread. Of course, sometimes it might have the opposite effect. But a host can kill a thread via many poor decisions, so I see no special reason to discourage this one. If name changing helps a thread, what the heck. If it hurts the thread, the thread won't be around for long. If it doesn't affect anything, no skin off anyone's nose.
5) In sum, I think name-changing is fine. Except:
a) if the name-change is obscene or chosen to belittle another poster.
b) if the name-change causes confusion amongst threads, or if the name-change signals a new purpose for the thread which management hasn't given an okay to.
or
c) If it's an anchor thread. Name-changing might be harmless as regard the specialty threads (which no one posts in anyway, quite frankly), but it would get pretty annoying if Politics, History, International, Movies et al. were given new names every week.
Anyway, my observations and thoughts.
Before you're suspended...
3819. msgreer - 7/6/01 12:54:21 AM
ranheim
"I am not for cradle to grave coverage of anything-medicine included." Then why are you still practicing medicine? This is some statement coming from a doctor. Your compassion overwhelms me. We have differed on various subjects re healthcare. But I have always understood you when you moan about the paper work and how little Medicare pays doctors for the hard work they do. But you know what, ranheim? After awhile your moaning is a pain. If you don't like the system either get out of it, change locations and take care of the rich folks with personal health insurance or get out there and try to change the system you seem to dislike so much.
I think MsG comes very near the line in her behavior as a host. She attacks the character and opinions of people just because they don't toe her particular party line. I can think of no other thread host who behaves like this in regard their management of the thread. It often results in a near censorship of the topic discussion.
The thread is not a "Health Issues Support" thread--which is the only thing that MsG has any interest in. I really wish that the topic could be changed and Health Policy could move to Social Issues where any of her sneering could be done without having to deal with her as a host.
I've mentioned this before; just an ongoing documentation of it.
It also wasn't as if I told her that her opinion on a movie indicated she was a failure as a human being and should do something with her life to make up for her childish demand that everyone adhere to Judith's List of Cutiepies.
DonS--in fact, it was her attempts to censor the thread that first caused me to notice the little slug. Until her demands that people refrain from discussing policies she disagreed with, she was just some idiot whose posts I never read.
But I note that she has backed down again, just as she did the last time. For all her protestations, this means she'll chill for a while.
Still, I really do wish that the Aches and Pains and What MsGreer Thinks You Should Do About It thread could be accurately named.
Get a grip. You're overreacting.
MsGreer, along with all of us, has a right to express opinions or even ask questions. She's done a great job as host of that thread. If you have a problem with her (duh, like it's not obvious to all of that you do) don't go to to the Health Thread.
I have put a R.I.P. on Education and Rants which share the characteristics of no posts and absent hosts.
It also wasn't as if I told her that her opinion on a movie indicated she was a failure as a human being and should do something with her life to make up for her childish demand that everyone adhere to Judith's List of Cutiepies.
Oh really? Funny how we manage to see what we say as different than what we do...I got the feeling I was being attacked by you for having an opinion about MacGregor. But I didn't run whining to anyone over it. If it had been one of your pals making that remark, you'd have reacted quite differently and you know it...well, maybe you don't know it but everyone else does.
You can also throw a fit in any thread, as it (war)rants.
seadate has been around some, still I think this is a good call. Hate to disagree with Irv, but the Rants thread has always been of questionable value, especially given the Inferno (yes, a nuanced difference but no need IMO to have one thread for ranting at posters and another for ranting at everything else).
BTW, I'm posting this only because it seems as though people--including me--are much more inclined to express disagreement than their agreement. It's not as though I wish to weigh in on every decision the moderators make. Yet I've argued more than most about the Stone business, so I thought some positive feedback might be nice for a change.
Don't call me a dolt, and while you're at it you need to work on your delusions in general. Spin it all you want, your complaint made you look like an idiot in light of what you'd done not a week before in your own thread. Tough shit when it's called on you. Your attempts at validating your unprovoked rudeness in that situation would be funny if they weren't so pathetic.
Thread titles and the tone of threads is decided by the hosts. If you don't like the tone of a particular thread then do not visit it. Vote with your feet.
Peanut Gallery,
Please take the interpersonal bickering to the Inferno.
Pelle,
Good move.
Indy,
Thank you for your support.
Thanks, Indy.
I don't have any objections to people posting complaints and concerns about hosts here. This is certainly the place to do so and if people have problems with hosts I WANT them to come forward and say so.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit regarding CalGal's current post regarding MsGreer's hosting style. I was lazy. sorry. I'll rectify that.
MsGreer has her own hosting style and if more than one person or even two or three people were objecting to it I might be more moved to address the issue. There is a difference, however, between being a bad host and being a host who abuses his authority. While I think it is bad form to attempt to stifle opinions in one's thread, I don't necessarily see that as a reason to remove a host. Were a host to begin willy-nilly deleting posts she disagreed with that is another matter entirely.
If that happens you can bet your bippy I want to know about it immediately.
Yes, I know you "got the feeling". I'm waiting for you to have a thought. (thanks, vw)
Cal says, "I think MacGregor is gorgeous." Judith says, "I don't see how anyone could think MacGregor is gorgeous." Cal says, "I don't see how you could reach your age thinking that we all must have the same standards for 'gorgeous'." Judith, "Wahhh! You're so intolerant!!!"
Yet another day in JuJuville.
I was not objecting to the tone. I never object to tone. My objection is that MsGreer chastises people severely for doing nothing other than making on-topic posts.
I am not also demanding that MsG be removed as host. Quite the contrary, I think the thread she wants to host--the one about aches and pains and blah blah--is fine. I would happily avoid that one for the most part, or be a polite participant.
So as far as "voting with my feet"--I'd like to discuss health policy without having to deal with their censorship. Unfortunately, they have the thread entitled "health policy". They are very popular hosts and have strong support. But just because lots of people agree with their positions on health policy (MsG's, anyway) doesn't mean that they should be allowed to censor or mistreat people who are silly enough to take the thread title at face value.
If it is primarily intended to be a thread on health advocacy and advice, where the thread hosts periodically rant about the need for universal health care, then shouldn't it be named accordingly? While thread hosts have the right to name their thread, I don't think they have the right to mislead people about its nature.
Today, MsG told me that "all the hosts" of the thread demand a civil tone in their thread and that she "won't tolerate" my rudeness. In the current discussion, I have been comparatively civil. JJ has called me a bitch, MsG has demanded to know if I am on medication and told me that I'm ignorant--to say nothing of her broadside against ranheim, reflected above.
I am not objecting to this. What I do object to is MsG's fantasy that the thread is civil. It is not a civil thread. I submit that any posts moves due to tone or personal insults on the ground that this is not the nature of their thread would clearly reflect bias. They themselves have set the tone, and I believe it should be considered a no-holds barred thread, based on their own behavior.
They are welcome to move any fights or discussions that are off-topic. But I feel they have established a tone that makes it impossible for them to justify removing posts on grounds of rudeness.
Cal, the post this came from proves the only thought you had on the subject was a misunderstaning of what I said....I wasn't demanding everyone think as I do, something you seem to be quick in accusing others of doing but which you fail to see yourself doing.
Very clever, waithing for me to have a thought. The truth is, many of us are having thoughts lately but I don't think you would care for them.
Maybe I should have come here immediately to complain about the hosts tone....
I think MsG comes very near the line in her behavior as a host. She attacks the character and opinions of people just because they don't toe her particular party line. I can think of no other thread host who behaves like this in regard their management of the thread. It often results in a near censorship of the topic discussion.
However, if Arky is saying that I attacked someone for her opinion on an actor, she is incorrect. I was sarcastic to someone who was gormless enough to wonder how an actor could ever be perceived to be romantic--in short, an inability to grasp the concept that everyone doesn't share her notion of attractiveness.
the post this came from proves the only thought you had on the subject was a misunderstaning of what I said....
It wasn't a misunderstanding; it was a legitimate interpretation. However, I believe without question that you didn't intend to be intolerant and were hurt by my sarcastic response.
But your interpretation of my comment was baseless--and in fact ignored the actual text of my post entirely, as well as the followup where I spelled it out again, on the grounds that you weren't reading. Only "feeeeeeeeeling".
That's the sort of thing that becomes incredibly tiresome. Had you just said, "Christ, Cal, I didn't really mean that I don't see how he could be a romantic lead, even though yeah, that's what I said", you would have demonstrated comprehension and all would be well. Certainly we wouldn't still be discussing Ewan MacGregor--and since you don't think he's cute, I can only imagine how painful it is for you.
Well, yeah, I guess had I just written what you wanted to see, all WOULD be well...better yet, why don't you just fill your damned thread with what you expect everyone to say and all will be PEACHY KEEN.
And as for me "feeeeeling" things, I'm not surprised you see that as something negative; it's a concept completely foreign to your nature, evidently. You seem not to trust feelings...that's fine for you but most people don't live that way.
Today, MsG told me that "all the hosts" of the thread demand a civil tone in their thread and that she "won't tolerate" my rudeness. In the current discussion, I have been comparatively civil. JJ has called me a bitch, MsG has demanded to know if I am on medication and told me that I'm ignorant--to say nothing of her broadside against ranheim, reflected above.
I am not objecting to this. What I do object to is MsG's fantasy that the thread is civil. It is not a civil thread.
I agree. MsG cannot have it both ways. If she wants to hector and insult Ranheim and CalGal, that's fine. If she wants a civil thread, that's fine too.
But MsG cannot insist that people she disagrees with be civil, while she and those who agree with are free to be uncivil.
If she continues making such threats-couched-as-policy-statements, while continuing to violate her supposed civility standards herself (or allowing her ideological brethren to do the same), she should be removed as host.
That's all there is to it.
MsG, make up your fucking mind. If you want a civil thread, guess what? You have to start being civil yourself.
MsG should be warned by the management.
JJ and MsG apparently operate from the "you first" School of Policing.
YOU FIRST must be civil, or else your posts will be deleted. Once all of YOU are civil FIRST, THEN we will be civil, too. We promise. But YOU must lead first by example.
Us lead first? No, we can't be civil first. We're too busy calling posters a "bitch" and asking if they're on medication, or telling doctors they're selfish. But we're justified in doing this; we only call a woman a "bitch" in order to encourage civility.
We'll be civil LAST. Once everyone else is.
Doesn't work like that, assholes. If you establish a rule, YOU, and not other people, must be the first to follow it. If you yourselves cannot follow your own rule, then it is not a rule at all.
I've read.
Since MsG and JJ are threatening to delete posts for "incivility" while calling CalGal a "bitch," I think it's a valid complaint.
If MsG and JJ can actually live by their own rules for a full week, I'd be inclined to respect their requests for civility. But they are demanding civility from others while excluding themselves from such a requirement.
That is a load of shit.
What I "wanted to see" was merely indication that you had read and comprehended. Something you still haven't demonstrated.
In any event, your notion that I am complaining about MsG's rudeness is--again--incorrect. Try and track.
You were complaining about MsGs thread and her job as host; you claim she welcomes none but assenting opinions that agree with her own; you claim this is an egregious misuse of the hosting rules. You also claim MsG and JJ called you names and assumed you were on medication...I can track just fine, thank you.
Futile request...
love is blind.
My second complaint is the one that Ace is supporting, first voiced in Message # 14673, and it is far more troublesome. I would also like the moderators to respond. MsG and JJ have clearly set a standard that includes rudeness, yet MsG wants to call the thread "civil" and threaten to purge people who have been far less rude than the hosts, but have committed the sin of disagreement. That won't fly. Their own behavior has to set the same standard they demand.
I am talking about her restrictives on opinions and demands that certain opinions not be expressed, or that she "doesn't want to hear them". Given the association with censorship and post deletions here, it's probably the wrong term so I'll retract it.
I can't think of another thread on the Mote where the thread host attacks people on a personal level purely for the expression of their opinions. And I'm not talking about things like my comment to Judith, or saying, "jeez, that's a stupid idea". Rudeness is fine. Consistent attacks on people who express contrary notions to the hosts on the very thread topic are not. Nor are demands that certain ideas not be expressed because she doesn't want to hear them.
But because people will say "Oh, but so and so is rude as thread host"--which completely misses the point--it's much harder to establish the nature of the objection.
I have never seen a host (and I include me in this) who has ever actively discouraged conversations on topic by nastiness and sarcasm. Except MsGreer and, to a lesser extent, JJ. Been involved in a discussion and been nasty and sarcastic? Absolutely. But make unpleasant remarks or exhort people to "ignore" someone who is posting on topic? As a host? Not ever. Except in Health Policies.
As I said earlier, I'm not demanding that the hosts be removed or that the thread be RIPPed. I do think that MsG is far more interested in being a health advocate than discussing health policies, and I think the thread should focus on that. Health policy can then go into Social Issues.
But even on that, it's my preference. I'm not demanding a response. I just find the hosts extremely restrictive in a way that I've never seen anywhere else on the Mote.
Now, cease and desist this prattle or I'll have to move the whole spew (including my posts wasting time in response to your banalities) to the Inferno. Up to now, it's been marginally topical. But I sense a whine coming on.
No, no. Don't speak.
And this, from Cal to Arky, upthread here:
I have never seen a host (and I include me in this) who has ever actively discouraged conversations on topic by nastiness and sarcasm
The thread hosts set the tone of a thread. That tone should be followed. If it is not then it is at the hosts' discretion to move posts or instruct posters in order to enforce tone. Posters should not be scolded or moved for adhearing to tone just because the hosts dislike them.
Perhaps the concept in question is how tone is actually set. There are two ways:
1 - Mission/Thread statement: this is a formal statement in the introducttion of the thread and also to be found on the Thread Information page
2 - Host Behavior & Thread Norms: this means that as the hosts behave and allow others to behave so shall the tone be set.
It's important to understand the difference between these two. Many threads start with #1 but ALL threads end up adhearing to #2. It's just the way of the world. Because this is true it is necessary for hosts to be sure that they are exemplifying the tone that they wish to see in their thread.
MsGreer & JJ,
The two of you have been following a policy of "Do as I say and not as I do" in this thread for some time. It is unacceptable to move posts or scold posters for following a tone that you yourselves have set.
If you would like to change the tone of your thread then I suggest that you get together and decide what kind of guidelines you want people to follow. Once you have firmed them up present them to the thread so that everyone knows that there is a new tone being set.
Then lead by example.
The important part of that last is "conversations on topic". CalGal specifically said that if that particular discussion continued it would be moved for topicality.
A discussion of Ewan MacGregor is on topic. A discussion of which one of the two of you misunderstood the other more is not on topic.
The post Cal has presented here as "evidence" of MsGreer's shortcomings as a host pales in comparison to the attacks Cal herself has posted for months across the Mote. It saddens me to think that after all she has done her complaints can be taken seriously.
Good call, MsNo.
Incidentally, I think CalGal has crossed the line on occasion herself.
I think it is pretty unavoidable. MsNo will chase out posters for making off-topic chit-chat here, for example, but will engage such off topic banter herself. Inconsistent? A bit, but understandably so.
It happens. Hosts are first and foremost people, and people tend to give themselves more leniency than they give to others.
I don't think JJ and MsG are "bad people" for any of this. But they have to be more aware of their own behavior.
Including, I hate to say, CalGal, who also demands a civil tone, but who occasionally lapses into incivility in Movies.
Where the hell have I ever demanded a civil tone? Even from thread hosts?
The only thing I delete, or threaten to, is off-topic posts. And I have always freely admitted that my tolerance for off-topic is subjective--but have never let a long off-topic discussion, even on one I enjoy, stay in Movies. But I've often allowed off-topic discussions on issues I don't care for (like comics, for example), without mentioning it, if I think it will wear itself out.
This notion that I'm objecting to rudeness is just fucking bizarre.
Judith's sarcasm about "so I can be rude and on topic, right?" is particularly funny. Uh, yeah, Judith. That's always been the case.
Glad you cleared that up. Saved me the trouble.
"She consistently levels personal attacks against people who disagree with her then she whines like a baby whenever a thread host has the temerity to respond to her in a way she doesn't like. "
Eh. There is no doubt that CalGal can get nasty. But that's not the question. The question is whether you can threaten to delete her for behaving pretty much the way you do.
I think you should keep your thread civil. But that means you have to be 100% civil yourself. You can't be "a little uncivil" and then threaten to delete CalGal for being "a little bit more than a little uncivil." I don't know the difference between "a little uncivil" and "a litle bit more than a little uncivil," and I doubt you do either.
Don't worry....I get it.
Who wrote that rule, by the way?
Oh, I knew it was too good to be true. Not tracking, still.
If you feel the need to call someone a moron because they think MacGregor is a fine actor, it's fine. As is a retort telling you that you're a jackass for assuming everyone has to meet your standards. If people (including me) continue a conversation about who said what to whom, and none of it involves movies, then it doesn't matter whether they are rude or civil. It's off topic.
Do you really see no room for subjective judgement?
Suggestions please.
YOU are the one who said I said this...I did not. You read it that way; I did not mean it that way.
Sorry to be so repetitive but you aren't tracking in this one.
I understand what you have said, Cal...I was making a jokey retort to Ace. You are not alone in being able to understand the English language, you know.
I beg to differ with you. The tone in the Health thread is almost always civil and supportive. It is rare that discussions become heated let alone abusive.
Except in cases like these:
2325. JJBiener - 3/8/01 10:04:18 PM
CalGal - We have known each other a long time yet sometimes I am still amazed at what a cold-hearted bitch you can be.
2367. JJBiener - 3/9/01 3:03:01 PM
CalGal - I didn't call you a Nazi, I called you a cold-hearted bitch.
Or this attempt to be sly about it:
3838. JJBiener - 7/6/01 8:34:17 AM
Arky - Cal obviously knows your opinions better than you do, so why bother arguing with her? Arguing with Cal is like trying to teach a female dog to sing. It wastes your time and it just annoys the bitch.
3981. JJBiener - 7/7/01 9:55:41 AM
Cal -Reread the post. I did not call you a bitch. I was refering to the dog. I am not surprise you thought I was refering to you.
The analogy involves teaching a pig to sing, JJ. I've seen you use it before correctly on at least one occasion over the last five years so I can only surmise that the reason you picked a bitch in this case was to try and insist later that you didn't call CalGal one. I'm embarassed for you and disappointed because I expect more from you both as a thread host and as a person.
I generally would prefer to ignore all of the bickering between you guys and CalGal. I think it's beneath all of you and certainly a waste of my time to acknowledge it. If, on the other hand, you want to get into a debate about what is or is not appropriate behavior for a thread host then you'll need to abandon the disingenuous side-stepping and face up to facts.
By the way, Pelle, et al, feel free to move my posts to the Inferno....I am indeed aware they are off-topic.
Combine that with this:
3973. msgreer - 7/7/01 9:28:12 AM
... We all are on the same page when it comes to personal attacks on this thread. We don't like them. And don't start whining about how others do the same in this thread and I don't call them on it. The only times I have seen others post even the slightest personal attack is when you are here ranting about something you know nothing about. I believe Pelle and Ms.No would agree.
She is incorrect about my view and I suspect both Pelle's and Wabbit's as well, although I will not speak for them. If it is a rule of your thread that personal attacks are okay only when you believe your opponent has no idea what he's talking about then that pretty much clears the field for all personal attacks.
If the rule of your thread is that personal attacks are only okay when a thread host or one of the hosts' supporters wants to lambast CalGal or any other poster they disagree with then that is EXACTLY the issue under discussion here. That is an unacceptable policy and it will desist or RickNelson will be hosting alone.
The main point, in case people are losing sight of it, is that Cal's original complaint, as evidenced in the quote she posted from Health above, exactly mirrors the attitude and intent of her own posts to Judith.
There has not been a post censored in Health since the dustup over it, rudeness has certainly been allowed, and if people will notice, the problem with the hosts arose as they more and more frequently appear to do when Cal engages in discussions here. She makes a broad and provocative statement (the JJ post in question involved an uninformed response by Cal to a post of mine, for example) and it's difficult for people to limit their remarks to the non-personal.
This is not an unacceptable tactic of debate, of course, but the situation is exacerbated by the fact that Cal has an obsessive dislike for certain people here and she has much difficulty refraining from being very hostile toward them using personal remarks. Note her change in tone as soon as Race posts on her mother. In another instance, she makes a slam about Judith's age then says "I meant no slur." Any idiot can see that of course she meant a slur. She really can't restrain her feelings enough to prevent it wherever the tiniest opportunity arises. IMO it's beginning with Judith, at least, to border on harrassment.
As far as Ace, something catches his eye like a turkey with a shiny gum wrapper, and he's off like a shot. I actually don't think his point is invalid in general, but it certainly doesn't take the context and the posts from both the Movies thread and this one into consideration.
No, it doesn't. Not only not exactly, it's not even the same issue. I have never objected to a rude thread host.
She makes a broad and provocative statement (the JJ post in question involved an uninformed response by Cal to a post of mine, for example) and it's difficult for people to limit their remarks to the non-personal.
People don't have to limit their remarks to the "non-personal". But MsG and JJ have to be consistent in their enforcement of it. If you can honestly read MsG's post that was just quoted and claim that this is anything other than an open acceptance of "this is a civil thread unless people are kicking anyone who I think doesn't know what they're talking about" then you are getting a tad warped, yourself.
the problem with the hosts arose as they more and more frequently appear to do when Cal engages in discussions here
If the hosts don't like my opinions and they are on topic, that's really too bad. But that is, in fact, the issue for my first complaint. The reason problems ensue is because they are hostile to people who don't support the same health insurance policies that they do. Not a terrific mindset for people who host a health policy thread.
Of course, your post is nothing but an apologia in the "CalGal Made Them Do It" vein.
One other thing: you surely aren't saying that we all have to treat everyone the same, are you? We aren't allowed to be dismissive of some posters and polite to others?
Gosh. I hadn't read that policy yet. Let me know when it was discussed.
Really. That would be this post?
You have a right to think anything you like. "Ewan McGregor is dog ugly and looks like a Thom McAns poster boy" would go unobserved, or with argument to the contrary. Idiotic musings about why it is that everyone else doesn't think he looks like a shoe ad are also fine, if you don't mind sarcastic rejoinders. Feel free to do as you choose.
If that's not a clear invitation to disagree--with the indication that I or anyone else might be sarcastic in return--then I'm not sure what you'd call it. Insulting? Sure. But also reassuring that all opinions are welcome. Even if I think they are idiotic.
Also--and not insignificantly--you continually state it as my being nasty to Judith for disagreeing with me. I have said--and the text backs me up--that I was sarcastic because she was vapidly wondering how the guy found work as a romantic lead, without the first foggiest mention of the fact that maybe her standards weren't the only one used.
There is literally nothing that supports your contention--and much to directly contradict it.
I can't believe this is still an issue, but in any event, I have already told Judith that I'm sure she didn't really mean to be global. I was sarcastic because I viewed it as a stupid comment. I do that sometimes. Deal with it.
What I don't do, particularly in my thread, is attack people because they disagree with me. There are some 21,000 posts to back me up on this.
Civility. Ace's point is irrebuttable. If JJ and Greer and anyone else want to be civil, be civil. Even if whoever is being "uncivil" at that moment cannot maintain the level of civility that those who would strive for civility desire. Remain civil. Christin's post rebutting JJ on his call for civility pretty much slams the door on this point. In fact, I've never read such an effective rebuttal on The Mote. I imagine his only defense would be "provocation", but even that lame redoubt can be breached with if JJ could only practice the civility of which he preaches.
The other issue is the ongoing bitchfest that is occurring between, as near as I can tell, Cal, on the one hand, and arky, Juditha, MsGreer, and Jenerator, on the other. I have no answers to this scrum. But I have no answers to the conundrum/vendetta of Rosetta and CharlieL.
But Pelle picked on me in American Politics by suggesting I wrote in cliches. So.
Pelle is a fat bitch.
I don't see that people who disagree with principles in the Health thread are treated any differently than you have been known to treat posters in the Movie thread who disagree with you, but if your contention is that they've requested a tone they're not complying with, that's not the same as the other contention of discouragement of posting contrary ideas.
I'm not part of the "bitchfest." I've posted on particular points here and there, but it's certainly not ongoing and I've had no problem discussing issues with Cal.
MsNo did indeed put the Big Smack-Down on JJ. That was a whoopin'.
JJ has a bad memory. He is forever whining about civility and forever forgetting his own contributions to incivility. I don't think JJ was lying here; I think he really doesn't remember calling CalGal a "cold hearted bitch." He *never* seems to remember saying stuff like this when he pontificates as a Professor of Civility.
It's time for JJ to drink a nice cold glass of shut-up juice.
It seems like you two have been going at it of late.
Regardless, my primary point remains.
Pelle is a fat bitch.
Please don't get me wrong. Pelle really is a fat bitch.
. I'm not asking anything except that both the people who are provoked by her and the moderators note what is occurring.
the old "I was provoked" defense.
Blah, blah, blah. Of course, EVERYONE thinks they were "provoked." NO ONE ever thinks they are striking the first blow. EVER.
(Well, *I* know I'm striking the first blow about half of the time. But the other half-- I was "provoked," too. Whatever "provoked" means.)
Judith keeps "provoking" me, for example.
Were I not such a paragon of self-control, I might tell an allegory about teaching a bitch how to jump through a hoop while singing. Or whatever. Something to do with "bitch."
- 1 cup(s) Malibu Rum
- 1/3 cup(s) Pineapple Juice
- 1/4 cup(s) Cranberry Juice
- 1/4 cup(s) White Grape Juice
-1 shot(s) Midori
- 1 - Banana
- 5 - Strawberries
- 3-4 handful(s) Ice
- 1 splash(es) Grenadine
*PLUS* I deleted people like FU, VonK, and Fielding, who all knew I was kidding and just "demonstrating my power."
Okay, okay. And then I deleted Rosie for a while in an attempt to execute a single-thread ban.
But he "provoked" me. 
But he "provoked" me.
Exactly. We all get provoked every once in a while. Your thread host point is valid, but it's hard to practice. I still agree with Christin's first post, since there's been no censorship or removal of posts, and only one thread participant has complained.
Lab,
Love that bikini.
"Only one thread participant has complained"?
Of what relevance, precisely, is that? If you treat only ONE person unfairly, does that mean you've broken no rules?
And for the record: I complained too. That's two "thread participants."
"since there's been no censorship or removal of posts"
So what? There is the constant threat of such.
Any Motier dissatisfied with the job a thread host is doing can lodge an official complaint here. A moderator can then rule on whether the person lodging the complaint is "qualified" to do so (i.e., member in good standing, etc....call this the "Rosetta Rule"). The person lodging the complaint will suggest an alternate host, if the thread has but one at the time of complaint, who can be anyone.
For the next 30 days, the host having the complaint lodged against him or her will be on probation. At the end of 30 days, provided the alternate host is willing and the complaint has not been withdrawn, the new host will be installed and the old host removed. If no willing alternate is found and the thread has only one host, then the complaint will be dismissed.
A host removed in this fashion cannot lodge a complaint or host another thread for the next three months after removal.
The moderators will not rule on the actual removal, only whether the person lodging the complaint has standing to do so. At any time during the 30 day probation, the complaint can be withdrawn without consequence to any party.
Suggestions? Or should we just hem and haw around and go back to business as usual.
Hem and haw, I think.
No again. I just mean no one should be withdrawn from hosting, etc. One person has been treated unfairly at some point in almost every thread at some point or another by somebody's view of unfairness. Several complaints would indicate a pattern that required some sort of intervention, imo.
You haven't been a thread participant. One rant on the hosts does not a participant make.
Where?
Who's going to keep up with all that? I don't think one complaint about anything should result in action, particular of the complex sort you describe.
There's an old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he's in a boxing ring with another boxer. And, acting as the ref, he begins saying, "You know the rules? No eye gouging." Then he gouges the guy's eye. "No hits below the belt." Then he hits the guy below the belt. Etc.
And that's what MsG and JJ are doing. "No being uncivil. We will not 'tolerate' it. Got that, bitch?"
What I don't do, particularly in my thread, is attack people because they disagree with me. There are some 21,000 posts to back me up on this.
For the most part that's true, but only if you don't intensely dislike the poster. It's happened there more than once.
Well, Arky, you haven't even managed to demonstrate that I attack Judith because she disagreed with me. But you've managed to ignore that several times now.
In any event, I don't attack people for disagreeing with me. No matter what I think about them. And Judith is too vapid to work up enough energy for dislike, much less intense dislike. You wouldn't be able to list the posters I intensely dislike.
In any event, your massive backpedal should wind down soon. Any moment now you'll remember all your loving posts about Stone and his provocations. I don't recall you telling everyone then that the poor thread hosts and posters had to keep his behavior in mind.
Conveniently, you've decided to disavow him at the same time you changed your policy on provocations.
As for whom you like and dislike, I couldn't care less, I simply made that assertion based on observable hostile posts.
Besides, you are completely removing moderator authority and enabling the possibility of a two-person coup.
As it is, your point rested on your statement that most of the time I don't attack people who disagree with me--only if I dislike them.
So now that you've not been able to establish that I attacked Judith because I disagreed with her (I did not) or because I didn't like her (I don't dislike her), I trust you'll give it a rest. Especially since you've said you could "care less".
This puts onus on a thread host to act somewhat responsibly, but also puts onus on the person complaining to be serious. What I gather almost each time this comes up is "Now I'm not suggesting that this person be removed or anything done about it, but I just want to point out how bad a host this person is being/has been." (Note: To anyone who thinks they haven't said this, just assume I'm not talking about you but everyone else.)
If nothing is going to be done, then let's just shut up. I can't stand what is basically dragging other people into personal conflicts and asking the moderators to pat us on the back and say "You're right, that other person is wrong."
Simple principle: Don't complain if you don't want something done.
As for whether anything should be done about one complaint, the person has the option of withdrawing the complaint within 30 days. If they don't and are serious, I see nothing wrong with rotating hosts once in a while.
Cal: Do you have an alternative? Do you disagree with everything about it, or is/are there some modifications that would make it palatable?
I don't always make observations about hosts--or posters--because I demand action, and I know that's true of others as well.
I'm not talking about an observation. I'm talking about lodging an official complaint. As for observations that don't require action, please see my post to arky. Or observe to the thread host in the host's thread, or via email. Observations about posters/thread hosts IMO tend to drown out discussion of actual topics around here.
I also don't think that complaining about a host--even if it results in a warning--means they should lose their thread.
More warnings that mean nothing.
You are completely removing moderator authority and enabling the possibility of a two-person coup.
Moderator and host authority exist to serve the community and not the other way around. Having objective rules alleviates the need for moderators to take sides in personal squabbles. If I were a moderator here, I would appreciate having concrete procedures instead of essentially and continually having to referee social conflicts.
Moreover, my opine is that there is a vast difference between incivility, feisty discourse, and rudeness as compared to gratuitous nastiness and constant manipulation. We are all capable of seeing which is which.
Regardless of who "wins" in the personal disputes that occur in those areas left gray, someone is likely to see the moderators as showing favoritism. This is especially useless and corrosive IMO when no real resolution ever occurs--just the forced taking of sides.
Your proposal strikes me as too complicated for such a simple place.
PP
I hold sway over the moderators by dispensation of sexual favors and herring.
Others
The debate over motive is akin to asking whether the body was dismembered by a machete or a hacksaw. Whether someone is attacked for their opinions or because of a feud or because the attacker is rude or the attackee is deserving or their was provocation, who cares? If some posters can't get along with other posters, to the point that a lot of posts involving those individuals are on topic solely for the cover of another jab, and it gets to the point that the enmity spills from thread to thread, and in here, does it really matter the motive? Does one poster care that she is labeled a "bitch" because she disagreed with another poster as opposed to simply being in a personal feud? When one is labeled "vapid", does it matter why? If you don't like the way a poster expresses themselves, and you find it offensive, do not respond, on your behalf, or on behalf of anyone else. That poster will then gravitate to more suitable discussion partners.
Knowing your audience is critical to diplomacy. The present warring parties have demonstrated that, at most, they are angry, and at least, they cannot be civil to one another. Moreover, they are clearly getting in each other's faces. The Mote is often a waltz. A waltz requires deftness and an ear for the music.
The warring parties have shown neither of late. They should ignore each other until they can come to some mutually agreed upon sense of decorum. Or, they should take the pledge: "If I don't have anything nice to say about another poster, than I shall say nothing at all."
Not too long ago, the factions were arguing about what was said in private emails, an imbroglio started by Rosetta.
Dignity, people. Dignity.
Pelle is a fat bitch.
Even wiser comment and request from PP. It is common sense and should be taken seriously.
When you attacked me yesterday it was well after midnight European time. I was prepared to let it go. Now you repeat your insolence in broad daylight. Normally, this fat bitch would just sit on your puny little frame and listen to your ribs cracking one by one. But in fact I think you are a fine writer, if a bit too eager to adopt faddish terms like "glom on to". I bet you were the first around here to "segue" something too, although CalGal may dispute that.
Can I have my herring now?
Tedious, but really, there's no reason to go all Rodney King about it, Francis. They're just as entitled to make the "CalGal is Ruining The Mote" or "CalGal Runs the Cabal" complaints about me as Fielding was, or Ferguson was, or Cazart was, or [fill in the everchanging cast of thousands].
So I don't see why you have to single them out (and me with them) for a lecture about it.
Also, this discussion has not been about motive. The motive bit came about in the last few posts when Arky, in desperation, pulled out "yes, you usually don't attack people who disagree unless you rilly rilly dislike them."
Arky's distortion has been consistent from the beginning: she insists that I have objected to MsG because she is a rude host to people she disagrees with. This is not true, but it resulted in her little quid pro quo that has carried on far longer than it should have (due to my inability to let inaccuracies go).
You have confused the quid pro quo for the meat of the complaint--which is not about rudeness, but about thread hosts. (I've stated what that complaint is and am not going through it again.)
Alas, this is untrue. There was no argument between these "faction" on what was said in private emails. There was an argument between Judith and Stone about what was said in private emails--an argument that was settled with Stone's demonstration that Judith was lying. (a sad day, indeed, when Stone is able to prove you a liar).
Given that you don't really track arguments, surely you shouldn't be describing them? It is a bad idea to refer to history even when the reference is accurate.
Nevertheless, I agree that if all would practice homilic wisdom, rules would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, a system ruled by personalities will always lead to charges of corruption and perhaps even the deed itself. (It's well known that Pelle, for example, has a nephew clerking in my Strip Club.)
Regardless, I would also like to see an end or minimization of the moderators being asked to referee women's mud wrasslin'.
Jealousy, I suppose.
Cal
My words addressed something more meta than your particular complaint about MsGreer. They were an attempt, no matter how futile, to break the cycle of inbred recrimination. If the others take them to heart, there could be peace yet again.
Adios.
I wish you would stop calling me a liar...I posted the entire letter and I was not lying.
The proposal just seems unnecessary. Despite our numbers, most posts are from a relatively small number of people, and invoking new process into a simple responsibility (thread hosting) will give Christin, wabbit and the herring-gorged ragata more headache, not less.
You're a liberal, thinking the system can change people's hearts. Twenty minutes after my sage (yes, sage - you can look it up) advice, the combatants are already at it yet again.
And you advice another "program" to alleviate the civil unrest.
About time for you to pat us on the head and say "There, there little ladies..."
Dignity. Above all else, dignity.
Pelle
Coors Light. Swedish Bikini Team.
I nailed Greta's stage mother.
I'm again left having to clean up after Cal's miscomprehension of my posts. I can only assume it's deliberate, since I was very clear. I have only said that she made an effort to stifle Judith's opinion in her thread then complained MsG was doing the same in hers to someone else. I never said anything about rudeness. If she or anyone else disagrees with the actual assertion I made, fine. The posts are there for anyone to interpret.
The New Harmony! Aooooooooooom! The New Harmony! Aoooooooooooooooooom!
I thinks this argument has run its course. Further bickering can take place in the Inferno.
The proper word is "methinks." "I thinks" just looks dumb.
To get things on topic: I suggest the Inferno be renamed "The Mud Wrestlin' Pit."
A main problem with your proposal is that it would require a calendar and a lot of keeping up with. I don't have a problem with the more informal way things have been done in which a few complaints are registered before any action is considered. The problem is that whenever a complaint is brought up a discussion ensues in here, and I don't feel comfortable about that being dealt with by a switch to private emailing, though I think anyone should be able to email the moderators about a concern.
I have only said that she made an effort to stifle Judith's opinion in her thread then complained MsG was doing the same in hers to someone else.
And you are wrong on both counts. I did not attempt to stifle Judith's opinion, and specifically said so in the discussion. Your encapsulation of my objection to MsG's hosting is so offbase it would be bizarre if it weren't in keeping with your other spectacular misses.
From now on, practice stating your misconceptions in the Inferno. In the unlikely event that you get it right, you will then realize there's nothing to complain about. Peace out.
As for Indy's proposal--I can't see the problem he's trying to fix, but I can sure as hell see the problems his purported solution would cause.
If I have a post relevant to what's being discussed in Suggestions, that is where I'll make it. That you dislike it is not pertinent to where it belongs.
Word to your mother.
Take this "you said I said you said" argument elsewhere.
I can't even figure out what action either one of you is asking for at this point. If there's something specific then say so but please no more of this "I'm only posting because she misrepresented me".
We're all able to read the posts that you have both submitted. Further parsing of one another's posts can go to the Inferno.
All this time I thought you were a conservative and here you are pushing for more bureaucracy. I have no intention of running this place like a police state and keeping a calendar of each poster's offenses.
Nothing. As I said many posts ago. Arky was just determined to prove that my observation proved my hypocrisy. Not sure why it was required, but there you have it.
Besides, we both said we were done. You and Pelle just had to come in and get the last word.
Now I have it.
Neener.
The email sent to me by Moterheads is private. I will not discuss the contents of private emails nor the initiators of such just to satisfy your curiosity.
If you have serious doubts about my integrity then move to have me step down as Moderator.
BTW
Set your screen to show 1000 posts at a time and then do a word search for "bitch" in Health Policy and see how long it takes YOU to find it.
Ahem. *I* sent no emails.
I never do.
Private conversation is for faggits.
I have not "serious" doubts or concerns at all. As far as I am concerned, your actions as Moderator have been exemplary.
However, I do think such a policy as suggested by PP (and seconded by your co-Moderator) is wise and worthwhile. Not wrt all private e-mails at all, but e-mails pertaining to Mote policy and policy moves.
This policy needs to be put in place precisely to air out the decision-making process. In the last couple of months, it has become increasingly clear that a very large number of the potential visitors/contributors to this forum stay away because of misperceptions of this forum's moderating body and , if you like, where the power is. A move like this would clear the air - if someone e-mails you (or Pelle, who it appears is favorable to this) about policy the fact of the e-mail should be made public even if you feel the content should not.
Again, I have no argument against your decisions as Moderator. And I think you are doing a fine and worthy job. I, personally, think you've been far more hard-working than anyone could expect. And I join others in being grateful.
I also see nothing wrong, as such, with people e-mailing each other if and as they wish.
Except when it reeks of impropriety and (wrongly I'm sure) gives the impression of manipulation. In this case, it is more than clear that one party has griped to the well-meaning moderator, and the moderator has taken that griping on board.
The violation is so clear cut, Fattie, that I don't see the need to postulate a secret email campaign.
It's a simple question, Chubbster McLard. Did JJ repeatedly call Cal a "bitch" while simultaneously demanding "civility" and castigating her for making "personal" attacks?
If you check the record, Roundy McHeartDisease, you will see that this question is answered by a big, FAT, yes.
Here, have a banana.
Check it out. Lardy McElasticWaistband's fingers are too fat for him to properly type the space after each comma.
But you see, it is not "more than clear". It is merely an allegation made by a guy who just now assured the moderators he had full faith in their integrity.
I have stated before now and for the record that I never email moderators about policy issues that I raise here.
As Ace points out, this one was a no-brainer anyway.
Of course, maybe you weren't referring to me. Maybe you were referring to the fact that MsG's removal as host was clearly done by her own request--which must have happened through email, since I've seen no online evidence of it.
However, Spades, I'd like you to know that you and a thousand like you could be given a thousand and one computers screens to stare at and only after a thousand years of this would one of you actually get the point - or see what "the simple question" contained in a discussion actually is.
You're wrong here, of course. But then it is to be expected. Have another billion go's at it. I have faith in probability and am sure you'll get it eventually.
In
Weak.
I suppose "you" will continue to run it as a sorority instead.
Yes, I can see the issue: you doubt my integrity as Moderator. Specifically you believe that I am receiving and acting on emails sent by CalGal instructing me in how to act as Moderator. Why am I certain that you and others believe it is CalGal? Because I am also certain that if you belived it to be MsIvoryTower or MsGreer or Francis or Irving that you would not be posing this question.
For that reason ---because it is not the fact that you feel I might be influenced but who might be doing the influencing--- I will not share the existence or non-existence of emails regarding policy.
You either take my word that I have acted and will continue to act with as much impartiality as I can muster or you don't. If you don't then it is for you to decide whether you can live with such as me for a Moderator.
Do you have something specific to say? If so then spit it out. I disagree with your proposal for all of the reasons that Arky, CalGal, Ace and Francis put forward. Additionally I don't want any part of a forum that is more concerned with a fascist adherance to the letter of the law than with the wants and needs of the community to interact on a personal level.
As for running the place like a sorority you can go sit at PP's table if that is your claim. You've already seen CalGal say she doesn't send emails to moderators regarding policy matters. If you honestly think that I'm in her pocket then what use would my promise be? If you think I'm a liar it stands to reason that you wouldn't trust me to swear to tell the truth.
That was in no way a personal attack. If I offended you, I'm sorry, but I can hardly see how my post to you was more offensive than you asking me to swear that I'm not a liar.
You point out our long aquaintence and warm regard with a very large "BUT I'm going to ask you to swear to me that you're not crooked". My response is simply that there is no way in which I can force you to believe what I say. You either believe it or you don't. I will not violate the privacy of other Moties in order to satisfy a demand that cannot be satisfied.
You're asking me to prove to you that I am trustworthy. I'm telling you that my actions speak for themselves. If you cannot trust the actions that I have taken here as a Moderator then you must decide for yourself whether or not you are comfortable with me continuing in this capacity. I can't make that decision for you and as I just told Indy, if you think I'm a liar then it hardly helps for me to swear that I'm not.
Aren't you ashamed? Especially some of the men here - you are behaving abominably. How dare you demand that Ms. No publish emails sent to her? Even if they are relating to policy, what the fuck business is it of yours?
You know what it is? None of you can stand to be out of the loop. You have to know everything and when you suspect that you're not getting the full picture, you start to whine like a bunch of bitches on heat.
How sickening!
And PP, you can drop the "judicious" act. It makes me want to vomit up my kibbe - especially when it's employed to such petty purpose.
As for you, Indy - you call yourself a man? More like a lady in the geriatric home who gets pissed off because she feels the others might have a "club" that excludes her.
And Marji, I'm shocked. I thought you were above this petty shit.
Take this from someone who barely knows Ms. No and who feels no particular way personally for any of the parties in the original squabble: Ms. No has behaved with fairness and decorum. I saw her mediating in a restrained and intelligent manner.
And then the bitch-boys started their howling. Go back to your kennels!
you call yourself a man?
I call myself "the Mambo King."
And the Mambo King is always in the loop.
Now, care for a game of scrabble or would you prefer strip shuffleboard? (Fair warning: I'm defending champion of the latter in the "still continent" division.)
Arrrgh! Ya silver-tounged shithead...
I'm outta here.
Are you satisfied, yet?
Wars breed casualties. Given your own involvement in the merriment of abusive and uncivil behavior, it is indecorous for you now to play the wounded fawn. I've reviewed the discourse. None of you has any room to attempt public shaming. The House of Capulet holds no moral superiority.
Toss aside your bitterness. Give into the Age of Urquhart. Advance this blood feud no more.
In all seriousness, have you suffered a bump on the head recently? Or is your sudden adoption of Shakespearen eloquence the result of an outing to Shakespeare In The Park?
And when weak, seek solitude.
Dignity. Above all, dignity. The last word is left to the jackal. The unspoken word is the province of the honorable wolf.
Once good and brave JJ, gutted by the point of his own unsteady and ill-thought word.
Once steadfast and strong MsGreer, driven to distraction and self-destruction.
Who shall be next?
Whose entrails shall feed the jackals of Health Policy?
Whose sinews will warm the nests of the vultures in Movies?
What the hell are you babbling??
I'm not wounded, have another beer.
Sin and anger deliver their own morphine drip.
Now I want to see a topic of
BLUSTERING POMP FROM ADDLED POPPETS
Look into your hearts,
and where acid forms on the tongue,
replace with lilac.
Lilac is a vermifuge, serving to destroy or expel parasitic worms.
I believe I started reading of RosettaStone before I actually 'met' him, and his one direct comment to me was in response to my question of what was everyone's favorite Seinfeld episode. BTW, it was Soup Nazi, which was a good episode, now wasn't it?
And I, coward that I am, acknowledged everyone's answer but his, because I did not want to seem friendly to an outcast. Sorry, RosettaStone, and now I will proceed to talk 'about' you, since I didn't talk 'to' you.
Yea, O Skirts and Kilts of the Mote, I have been reading for but a few fortnights, but I think the parasitic worm is within yourselves. Witch Hunt much? Everyone seems interesting to me here, even RosettaStone, but everyone seems to jump on the hate bandwagon no matter what he posts.
As a newcomer, I have only read about how his daughter's phone number was published and I guess she got harassed from it. I can't think of how I'd take that; my child is too young to get phone calls. But I have been the unwelcome recipient of unwanted harrassment, and it's very disheartening, gentle people.
Apparently the last few days' posts have come from something about him coming back from double-unsecret probation and everyone stirring up trouble and him stirring trouble, and really, can't you just all give it a rest.
It was too boring to read, frankly, and I don't know the details because I couldn't bear the scan of any sentence until I reached the lovely, demented, FU shakespeare stuff, and JudithAtHome picked up the fairy wand.
Erinys, you are consistently witty and eccentric and always a pleasure to read. I sincerely hope you stick around.
HEY! That was a SUGGESTION so utterly ON TOPIC. Yay! :)
This last dust-up has nothing at all to do with RosettaStone, but if you would like to know all the horrid details of why he is currently under suspension it's certainly not a secret.
It's a long and tedious tale, however, and I'm bound for dreamland. My dog has already been snoring away for the better part of an hour.
If you really want to know I'll be glad to put the whole thing together for you, but only if you really really want to hear it all.
On that note I must away.
Good evening to you, Erinys and Khaval. It's delightful to have the two of you here....except when I try to drink soda at the same time as reading Khaval's posts!
scorpions in a bottle
And as for the future thread, there is a small problem: I much prefer to read what others write there, than to write myself. I realise this makes
me a crappy host. My reasons for wanting that thread in the first place were similarly parasitic.
And it seems that posts are thin on the ground there at the moment. SO maybe it is best to retire it.
Obviusly, if people disagree, they can speak up.
But I do want to thank you and the other powers that be for giving me a go at that whole hosting bizzo and setting the thread up. It was a lot of fun.
have it.
Who really want to travel anyway? I'm as comfotable as can be right here on my American couch-ass.
Now how'm I supposed to ever disagree with either of you in my own inimitable way? :)
Thank you kindly for this generous offer, but I'll take a pass and just muddle through with my own warped perceptions. Thanks all the same. That sounds snotty, I suppose, and I don't mean it to, but when I asked about giving it a rest, I meant it, and me asking you for the doo-dah doesn't cut it, see?
Um, fuzzbox, why were you having trouble getting in?
Acutally I am quite enamoured of most person's screen names and I wonder why you chose them all. I don't like mine anymore - started out with the plural greek furies Erinyes and everyone called me Erin. So I changed to Erinys, it's a bit better. I'm still furious that I didn't choose more wisely.
Now I want MadScientist, and my son can be ScienceBoy, and my husband can be Mr.Science.
I was wondering what happened to the "e"... I figured it was just a variant spelling of the furies.
You see my dilemma.
Erinyes is plural, Erinys singular for the furies.
Oh, special powers no doubt. Emanating from your earlobes, no doubt.
Did you get that hoop yet? You really should.
I still haven't gotten the gold hoop, which is in the mail from the other side of the world (from another Motie, in fact). But I did get a new earring my daughter picked out for me... a silver stud with an amethyst. Looks rather dashing, I think.
Wrong, I say.
We'd better move this topic to the Cafe, or risk the wrath of the chainsaw-wielding Swede and his associates.
My suggestion for a gold hoop is off-topic?
If you want to change your moniker, e-mail me at the Gatekeeper address and I will take care of it.
No dice.
1) In the Age of Urquhart, the personal attack is to be met with bemusement. If bemusement cannot be mustered, silence will suffice.
2) In the Age of Urquhart, the potency of an attack is directly proportional to the necessity of a response.
3) In the Age of Urquhart, the language of diplomacy must prevail.
4) In the Age of Urquhart, one should begin and end hostilities in the Inferno, as opposed to being directed there.
5) In the Age of Urquhart, discourse is elevated to the post-graduate level.
6) In the Age of Urquhart, a heated individual point must always take a backseat to the harmony of the whole.
7) In the Age of Urquhart, a vendetta is the Ebola of the Mote.
8) In the Age of Urquhart, consideration takes precedence over volley speed.
9) In the Age of Urquhart, an uncivil rebuttal is a greater offense than an uncivil attack.
10) In the Age of Urquhart, if you are upset, your keyboard is a loaded weapon. Put it down.
Ha! Nice try, you imp.
Urquhart only asks that you love him as you love your sister.
So, you see, it's not too different from my relationship with you.
Irv,
I'm so deft and subtle at disagreeing with the best I disagreed with you and you just never noticed it! See how good I am?
On another subject....
All right you Pod Person!! What did you do with 109?? You bring him back this instant. Reading his posts has become something like swimming in sorghum.
I explain all in the Mote Cafe (follow the Age of Urquhart link).
I'm so deft and subtle at disagreeing with the best I disagreed with you and you just never noticed it! See how good I am?
I disagree. You never disagreed with me. Until now. ;-)
Haha. You just caught me this time. I must be slipping, too. I do boldly disagree that you're a dependable correspondent. (hint)
Greetings and salutations to everyone else, and many thanks for the warm wishes. My main reasons for taking a break were a) remodeling and b) tiredness unto death of Rosetta's prating.
Good to see you, Maria.
So I manage to run afoul of the Urquhart Rules of Order on my first post. I am unregenerate!
Wonderful to see you here. Somehow I can't see you adhering to Urquhart's rules. Btw, you've got mail.
Arky:
The best way to get mail from me is to disappear (like MG). I am terrible at writing, I admit it.
Actually, that's why I emailed you--you disappeared on us.
I just got my fixed price bid off yesterday and am working. I will try and work on it this weekend. In general, changes take a long time to be develop, much less install. I had my last series of changes in place for nearly a year before they made it in, due to a variety of reasons.
So I'll get to them in dev this weekend if I can. But in general, a realization that this is a volunteer site and a cessation of demands or queries about status would be appreciated.
Where!
When!
Title please!
Thanks!
CalGal has made the following statement:
MsNo and Pelle determined that [msgreer's behavior] was an abuse of host authority and said so.
Is the statement above true for both of you? Was msgreer's behavior an abuse of host authority? Did both of you determine that and say so? Which posts? (There should be at least two, one by Christin, one by Pelle.)
Lest I again be accused of "escalating," I should point out that it is CalGal who has invoked your names.
Christin said, in this thread:
MsGreer & JJ,
The two of you have been following a policy of "Do as I say and not as I do" in this thread for some time. It is unacceptable to move posts or scold posters for following a tone that you yourselves have set.
and later:
If, on the other hand, you want to get into a debate about what is or is not appropriate behavior for a thread host then you'll need to abandon the disingenuous side-stepping and face up to facts.
MsG told me that her thread was a civil thread, despite having insulted me and supported insults from others. She told me she would move my posts if I insulted people. I raised this issue with the moderators because I felt she could not call her thread civil at this point in time. This is the response, supported by Pelle.
Now, if you have "abuse of authority" defined as "attempt to overthrow the forum" then that's your fucking problem. If you have it defined as host threatening to take action that the moderator has determined is invalid, then what doesn't apply, Indy?
If you are implying that I said they removed MsG, you're doing so despite two posts in which I specifically said otherwise.
And you most certainly are escalating.
No, it was your accusation that the debate was "personal" and that I went to the moderators because I wanted them to be involved in a "personal" debate that I was responding to. My point was that it clearly wasn't personal, that the response (quoted above) was clearly not about "now, MsGreer, be nice" but instead a clear instruction that she could not (at this time) set a policy that explicitly said that some people could be rude while others not.
But you, in your determination to "prove" that your bizarre "solutions" are necessary, have to define that as a personal battle.
Then you bring the comment here--out of context (although still accurate).
Did you not see Christin post this in Health Policy? Did you not see Pelle post "Supported"?
Well, obviously you did, or you wouldn't have started this whole thing over in N&Q whining about MsG's "public humiliation".
As for the rest, I would like for the moderators to answer my question. I already have your interpretation of their actions.
I realize the moderators are busy and this is a volunteer site. But a minimal standard for holding the post of moderator should be that they can answer questions for themselves with "yes" or "no" when the questions are about moderator decisions and policy.
It would be preferable that they explain why they think msgreer violated her office and support that position (if they believe so) in order that other hosts not perform similarly, but barring that, a "yes" or "no," I think, is a perfectly reasonable request.
What did I say that tried to paint you as gloating?
Then you bring the comment here--out of context
Both Aytch and Christin indicated the discussion needed to be moved.
Did you not see Christin post this in Health Policy?
No, I didn't. I read through the discussion on this thread and saw no such post. If you can direct me to the actual post in Health you reference, then perhaps we can resolve this in short order.
This sounds familiar, however, and I thought it was posted here, to JJ, not msgreer:
If, on the other hand, you want to get into a debate about what is or is not appropriate behavior for a thread host then you'll need to abandon the disingenuous side-stepping and face up to facts.
Again, if you can link the posts in Health (or just provide their number), then it may not be necessary for Pelle and Christin to repeat something they've already said.
The first quote, in which she said it was "unacceptable" was posted both here and Health Policies. In HP, it was followed immediately by Pelle saying, "Supported". Look it up yourself.
I am not answering for them. I am answering for me. If you are trying to figure out what constitutes "abuse of host authority"--as in Yeah, MsG did pull the "do as I say not as I do" routine but that's not really abuse, is it? Then just say so. I'm certainly not up for semantics with you. So long as there is agreement on the fact that JJ and MsG were told they could not say the thread was civil, given their behavior, I don't give a damn what you call it. So if your concern is for the narrow definition, be more explicit.
If, on the other hand, you don't think this was a rebuke to the host at all, I ask again: why the hell did you describe it as a "humiliation"?
The post I saw by MsNo in this thread and re msgreer said:
MsGreer has her own hosting style and if more than one person or even two or three people were objecting to it I might be more moved to address the issue. There is a difference, however, between being a bad host and being a host who abuses his authority. While I think it is bad form to attempt to stifle opinions in one's thread, I don't necessarily see that as a reason to remove a host.
So I would still like Christin and Pelle (for themselves) to each answer yes or no whether msgreer abused her hosting authority. It appears from the above that Christin said the opposite. She can answer for herself, however.
Re my "asinine" suggestions you continue to make reference to, I'm no longer the person bringing those up. If the system is to remain, however, that moderator judgment will determine such cases, then I'd like the moderators to be forthcoming about what their judgment was.
odd.
i don't recall anyone asking MsGreer to be 'removed', do you Indy?
thought not.
That is the specific language in question. Did Pelle and/or Christin think and say that msgreer had abused her host authority?
The closest language to that--as long as we're being careful and precise--is Christin saying "There is a difference, however, between being a bad host and being a host who abuses his authority."
Whom has authority OVER whom here? Unless of course, it is allowed to be perceived. I see no authority. Shut the place down...close the place up...
Life will go on.
Perhaps, for some, it will not I sadly suspect.
Your attention to detail is not just sloppy, it's irresponsible. Christin made that post before this entire brouhaha. Go back and read again. My first post about MsG in regards to Ranheim. It was not an official complaint, it was a documentation--I've done it before. MsNo's response, at 14670, is what you quoted. Since I didn't want her removed, but was just expressing concern, there was no issue (and my response says as much).
My complaint about MsG and her threat was at 14673--after the post you cite. Christin's next post in the thread is the response I posted.
No confusion, Indy. You just can't read.
Frankly, I find it a little nitpickish to take one post by JJ from four months ago that (indirectly) called you a bitch and then juxtapose it with a post by msgreer four months later calling for civility and use that to demonstrate a contradiction.
Details again. She quoted two separate events--as she said, she just set the post count to 1000 and looked for the word "bitch". One was several months ago. One was in the discussion of that day. The one you refer to--the "indirect" one--wasn't four months ago.
Tell me, do you fuck facts up this badly because you're ignorant, or because you hope no one will notice?
And since you have difficulty with comprehension, I'll say it again. Christin did not say that in regard to this incident. She said this in response to a different one, in which there was no complaint.
I just realized (I'm a bit slow) that you were planning on holding back on that quote of Christin's and then going ha! see? Here Christin said it wasn't an abuse of authority!
Wrong "it", Indy.
I have faith they can answer for themselves. To each of them, Christin and Pelle:
Did msgreer abuse her hosting authority?
When they answer this with a simple yes or no, we will know which of is right and which of is wrong--at least as far what they think and what they said. I may disagree with their opinion in the matter, but we will at least know whether your characterization of their thoughts and actions was accurate.
Even given the problems ducky cites and the ones I've already pointed out, you miss a whole lot.
MsG herself had been rude in the conversation that day. Others had been rude. She then told me not to be rude, on the grounds that it was a civil thread, that the only time people were rude was in response to my posts when I clearly didn't know what I was talking about.
So let's do your hypothetical again, Indy--but this time acccurately.
If Jen calls me a bitch in a conversation, if you also told me that I was mentally ill and not on my meds, if you told me I was ignorant and didn't know what I was talking about, and if you then told me that I had to be polite because "Religion was a civil thread", would I request the moderators to review and confirm that in fact, Religion was not a civil thread? Yes, I would.
You are welcome to await their answer. I'm awaiting your acknowledgement that you either deliberately or through ignorance misrepresented facts: specifically, Christin was not talking about this incident and that JJ did not make the post in question 4 months ago.
Make of that what you will.
So here's a second question for you, Indy (after you acknowledge you got the facts egregiously wrong):
Do you think that it is an abuse of authority for a host to insult people, allow others to insult folks, say that the only insults allowed are if they are deserved because they are to people she disapproves of, and then threaten to move someone on the grounds that her thread is civil?
I refer you again to Message # 14917.
I don't like it either. But your bizarre reasoning only makes sense if you assume that sort of shit. If you knew that MsNo had made that post--even if it was before the incident--why not post it first? If you didn't know she'd made that post until you went back and looked--after you'd made the fuss--then what the fuck are you doing making accusations without having read first?
Of course, I could figure that you're just a moron and hadn't read anything at all, just accusing moderators--and me--with no basis other than hearing that people got upset. At this point that works, too. At this point it's pretty clear you don't have the first clue.
Christin was not talking about this incident
The conversation was one long incident. When Pelle responded on the N&Q thread, he referred to the first part along with the second. I can also cite posts where you linked the two arguments yourself.
JJ did not make the post in question 4 months ago.
Eh? JJ's posts 2325 and 2367 don't have March datestamps on them?
Some good people allow the worst to be brought out.
Lead or follow, it's anyone's choice. But definately not by anyone's authority here...and definately not by anyone's will... unless it is embraced by more than one party.
I will call no one a bitch..unless I want to. I will not be made by anyone to call anyone a bitch.
I recognize no credibility in being called a bitch or whatever, (although being called late to supper will probably be the most likely a provocation for me to do some "bitch-slapping). I recognize no credibility (authority) in myself to to render the station of bitch upon anyone...(who doesn't choose to accept it here)
Unless, of course, it is my will...
Christin responded to my first issue by saying she didn't see it as an abuse of authority or grounds for removal. I actually agreed with her; my issue was different. The second issue got a completely different response.
As for JJ, you said:
Frankly, I find it a little nitpickish to take one post by JJ from four months ago that (indirectly) called you a bitch and then juxtapose it with a post by msgreer four months later calling for civility and use that to demonstrate a contradiction.
JJ called me a bitch more than once in the thread. The first incident was in March--in which he did so directly. The second incident, and the one you clearly refer to above, was not in March. It was on Friday or Saturday. That's not nitpicky, either.
Your facts are wrong.
If you have a question about Pelle's comments in N&Q, why not just question that? This is the first time you've mentioned it. Instead, you've been misquoting and misattributing and not even fucking reading the damn situation in question. Focus on the simple stuff, Indy. Maybe it's more your speed.
Rather than read your mind, I'll ask you a question. JJ and msgreer were both hosts. JJ (indirectly) said you were a bitch, and then msgreer called for civility. Why did you ask for her to be disciplined and question her hosting ability, rather than his? You glommed on to him and the civility question only after Ace provided it to you as possibly more fertile ground.
No, it wasn't one long incident.
I direct you to your own post, #14690. Moreover, all of this occurred within less than 48 hours.
If you have a question about Pelle's comments in N&Q, why not just question that? This is the first time you've mentioned it.
Absurd. You said both Christin and Pelle thought and said msgreer had abused her office as host and the post above demonstrates that you've linked the two. In fact, for a long time you remonstrated that others were misreading you in thinking that you were complaining about incivility, but rather what Pelle mentioned in N&Q. See your post 14692, for example, which comes after 14690, again showing that it was one very long incident.
You are like Ace at his worst.
"Just answer one simple question:
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
.. ad infinitum.
Here are the two posts in question:
4007. Ms. No - 7/7/01 10:46:54 PM
We've been through this before folks. In order to refresh your memories on my position let me be very clear:
The thread hosts set the tone of a thread. That tone should be followed. If it is not then it is at the hosts' discretion to move posts or instruct posters in order to enforce tone. Posters should not be scolded or moved for adhearing to tone just because the hosts dislike them.
Perhaps the concept in question is how tone is actually set. There are two ways:
1 - Mission/Thread statement: this is a formal statement in the introducttion of the thread and also to be found on the Thread
Information page
2 - Host Behavior & Thread Norms: this means that as the hosts behave and allow others to behave so shall the tone be set.
It's important to understand the difference between these two. Many threads start with #1 but ALL threads end up adhearing to #2. It's just the way of the world. Because this is true it is necessary for hosts to be sure that they are exemplifying the tone that they wish to see in their thread.
MsGreer & JJ,
The two of you have been following a policy of "Do as I say and not as I do" in this thread for some time. It is unacceptable to move posts or scold posters for following a tone that you yourselves have set.
If you would like to change the tone of your thread then I suggest that you get together and decide what kind of guidelines you want people to follow. Once you have firmed them up present them to the thread so that everyone knows that there is a new tone being set.
Then lead by example.
4008. PelleNilsson - 7/7/01 11:03:39 PM
Supported.
I found the clarity of Ms No's post admirable. In spite of your incessant entreaties I don't find it necessary to add anything.
Pelle and MsNo,
CalGal has made the following statement:
MsNo and Pelle determined that [msgreer's behavior] was an abuse of host authority and said so.
Is the statement above true for both of you?
I suggest you go back and read the posts for yourself, Indy, rather than having CalGal explain them to you and then asking us to verify her explanation.
Don't be such a pushover. Next time make him go do his own damn homework. You wouldn't want to jeopardize your image as a jack-booted martinet, now, would you?
So you as a moderator are unable to render a judgment as to whether someone "abused their host authority" with a simple yes or no? As a man, you are unable to answer with a yes or no whether someone has characterized your statement accurately when she quotes you?
I guess I do sound like Ace.
If you are unable and/or unwilling to call balls and strikes, you cannot serve as an umpire.
You should resign.
Simple as that.
Which only goes to show none of us is beyond reproach in our judgment.
Ta-ta.
I'm wounded to the core. I understand how embarassing it must be for you to publicly air the meager state of your reading comprehension skills, but there's certainly no reason to blame others for your disability.
You have swung twice at this and missed. Maybe you should choke up on the bat.
MsNo, don't you think there is enough of this sort of thing going on around here? I know this is a thankless job and I certainly wouldn't want to do it but it doesn't help to stoop to insults.
Indy has constructed a strawman, the purpose of which is unclear to me, but I don't think he's the white knight who is riding to msgreer's rescue.
I kind of agree (under the influence of the Age of Urquhart) with the last post.
Look, those who have been here a long time have our views of other posters, power struggles and are deeply suspicious of motivation and whatever limited action can take place here in terms of exercise of power. This suspicion, and paranoia, is now shared even by the moderators - in my opinion.
Everyone knows that I have my share of doubts and suspicions. But I am willing to put it all down to an increased atmosphere of mistrust on all sides and exhale completely this minute. If (the last of my suspicious attitude) some people thus undeservedly get away with negative actions - so be it.
Let us all exhale, once and for all. And start anew from, say, this evening. Post on-topic and in the context of debate and discussion. And allow the moderators and hosts a tabula rasa. Their actions (and our actions) from now will speak for themselves.
So, as of now, I am assuming that all is for the best in the ideal world that is this Mote. Pandora's Box is shut and sealed away with my attendant suspicions and mistrusts.
Let's hope that they were all indeed unjustified, and that it was in fact the obvious atmosphere of suspicion that clouded my judgement. I trust that this tabula rasa will prove that this is the case.
Join me (and Urkel). Hell, I feel dewy-eyed and better about this place already.
And it will, I hope, alleviate the moderators of the same and allow them to do as good a job as we know they can.
There's nothing more pathetic than the girly-boys who can only whine "Pleeeeease... all this is upsetting meeeee... can't you guys be friends..."
Gott in Himmel. It is, as the same girly-boys are fond of pointing out, "just a frigging website."
Let go of it. What the hell do you care if people get along or not?
But I do agree with Indy and Judith. It's just a question. Why not answer it, rather than inviting a page's worth of repetitions of the question?
For future reference, Pelle, here are three possible answers which actually answer the question immediately:
Possibility One: Yes.
Possibility Two: No.
Possibility Three: In the interests of diplomacy, I'd prefer saying no more about it than I already have. However, if you page back to MsNo's decision, you will find a post by me in which I clearly announce my feelings about her decision.
Why do this cute, coy, "I'll only answer once I've finished braiding my hair" bullshit?
Pelle thinks hypothetical questions are a "trap"; he also, apparently, believes non-hypothetical questions are "traps" as well.
In your simian fashion you have neglected to understand any of what I have written above, or the purpose of my suggestion, which I am implementing unilaterally.
See, I have been burdened with suspicion and doubts about perceived power struggles and manipulative games in this site. Others have too. Perhaps even the moderators have become overcome with this syndrome.
I am clearing my mind and starting with a tabula rasa. I think thise would serve all of us, including the moderators.
For instance, till today I was under the studied impression that you were a gibbering captive baboon who churned a post per peanut.
Now, as I breathe easy, I realize that is not at all true.
(You churn out two posts per peanut)
The "monkey" thing just gets funnier and funnier, Chubbs McHeavyDumper.
on the Indy question:
I should say that I don't care about Indy's question. I mean: I wouldn't have asked it. I don't care who supports the decsion and who doesn't; for me, it's enough that Management did the right thing. If it were the case that only MsNo saw JJ's and MsG's behavior as improper, but Pelle and Wabbit just went along, that's fine with me.
So, you know, Indy's question doesn't interest me.
But it interests Indy, obviously (though I don't know why). And if it interests Indy, I really don't see the need for coyness. Just answer the question-- why shouldn't you? If you don't want to answer due to considerations of tact, why not just say:
"I would prefer not to answer, due to considerations of tact."
Simple, no?
But I do agree with Indy and Judith. It's just a question. Why not answer it, rather than inviting a page's worth of repetitions of the question?
Mainly because the question has been answered and the answer has been reposted at least twice. Repeated asking of the question will not change the answer so I can only surmise that something else is wanted but Indy hasn't said yet what that is.
Again:
MsGreer & JJ,
The two of you have been following a policy of "Do as I say and not as I do" in this thread for some time. It is unacceptable to move posts or scold posters for following a tone that you yourselves have set.
What is unclear about this? You have done X action. X action is unacceptable.
The post goes on to offer two methods of rectifying the issue from which they might choose as they wish.
Nobody died. Nobody was maimed. The hosts were out of line, a poster complained, the Moderators said "You're out of line, fix it." end of discussion.
Except that it couldn't possibly be that simple. No, it's got to be about who likes who more and who should be allowed to bend the rules because he's more popular and how do we know you're not just acting on what somebody else told you to do since you couldn't possibly make a decision that I dislike if you weren't being controlled by my evil nemesis and so on and so on.
Here we are days later playing the "I just asked a simple question why can't you give me a simple answer" game. And the question isn't even about what I said or what Pelle said it's about what CalGal told Indy we said.
So I told Indy to go read the post himself if he didn't like the way CalGal was explaining it to him.
Really, what more is there to say about it?
I haven't noted that.
I generally trust the judgment of the moderators, but there's no need to get snippy or defensive about questions, and I don't like the feeling that addressing an issue is discouraged, though in consideration of past and present I can understand the temptation. Being direct and pointed, asking people to move on, drop it, etc, is fine and often necessary (as now), but I don't like feeling I might get snapped at or be suspected of nefarious purposes when I post here.
My only question was over MsG's post to Ran which was the beginning of complaints about MsG's hosting from Cal. FWIW, Christin's first post to Cal was rather snippy imo, though I agreed in principle since it remains the only complaint by a thread participant. I have not yet seen anything from the moderators to indicate that that post crossed any lines, and since Cal has said she didn't want any action taken I'm still wondering what the purpose was.
Please, no one answer that.
The rest, which largely emanated from that, both in this thread and in the Health and N&Q threads, has been a lot of wasted "breath," including mine, with nothing accomplished but further unpleasant and suspicious feelings on all sides. Surprise, surprise.
In short, there have been negative but hopefully temporary results, creating harsh feelings where none existed before, and no positive results I can see, and in the interest of damage control I agree it's best to move on; but not with the sense that it might irritate the moderators to raise future issues or questions or request clarifications of policies and decisions.
I don't want to sound snippy myself, but it seems an us vs them atmosphere has developed in here, and that bothers me. If I'm misinterpreting the online vibes, I'm certain I'll be reassured momentarily.
It is certainly wonderful to see you back. Watch out for the Pod People.
You were gone for quite a while. I mentioned your absence and a day later you come back. So glad you missed me.:-)
It looks as though there's plenty of suspicion to go around, and that's what's got to be dispelled. It's quite possible that all 'sides,' even the unaligned, feel the we vs. they dynamic at work.
I agree. I, for one, have not suspected nor expressed suspicion that any moderator is dealing under the table, via email or otherwise, and I think some posts from others have been misconstrued that way, or maybe I'm doing the misconstruing.
According to a few who came in for a look and decided not to stay, they felt it.
You are doing some remodeling, right? Are you going to tell us about it Good Life one of these days?
Gee, YC, that's what I do in Politics when I want to jumpstart my day!
Sleep well, Judith.
Goodnight, Judith!
I was speaking to Pelle. Indy asked if PELLE agreed. We know you agreed.
I'm trying to keep up with these discussions, but I find I am missing huge chunks of conversation the way I'm doing it, which is when I get popped to the first post, I go to the most recent. Is there another way to do it? Rather than go to the end and scroll back?
Maybe there is a feature to this site I'm overlooking that puts me to where I've been. Is there a feature where you can go to the first post of 11 July, for instance?
We don't have the other feature you describe. In the place the founders of this one came from I would just jot the last post number from a thread I was keeping up with on scratch paper and go to that number the next time I was in.
This from the guy who wrote 50,000 obsessive words about the CharlieL-Rosella Stone contretemps … and similar tomes about dozens of previous meltdowns? Uh-huh.
The "monkey" thing just gets funnier and funnier, Chubbs McHeavyDumper.
Hey! I thought I was your favorite fatty! So, you've got others eh? And here I really thought you cared about me and my weight problem.
Nevertheless, my new opinion of Pelle and Christin remains until such time as I see evidence that contradicts it. Until then and because they are so reticent about their own views, I ask that they not characterize mine, as Pelle has done in 14946 above. In fact, since they aren't able to exhibit the courtesy (and responsibility of their office) in answering questions I ask, I also prefer they not expect any responses to them from me in the future.
You're right. I was rude. I should not have been. As a Moderator it is my job not to respond in kind to provocation. It is a difficult thing to be civil and forthcoming in the face of insults and antagonism, nevertheless, provocation is no excuse for bad behavior on my part.
Please accept my apology for the rudeness of my response in post #14944. Regardless of what I may feel personally about the situation I have a responsibility to you and to the other memebers of this forum to act in a reasoned and civil manner at all times. I apologize for my lapse.
Shattered my hopes.
I accept your apology. I retract 14941, as the history of your appointment here was irrelevant to the point under consideration. I also retract 14942 for the same lack of relevance and for exhibiting childish pique.
Well that settles it...
Ok everyone...break it up...nothing to see here...get on back to whatever it is you do.
Don't forget to copy to me. Transparancy, you know.
Sometimes reading back a week or so in one fell swoop isn't necessarily illuminating.
what a crock.
And as for a frankie's self-proclaimed Age - what a super crock.
"The Age of Urquhart!"
OK. I'll play. My guess is....
14.
But if he is prepubescent, then all that sexual braggadocio would have to be stuff he just made up.
Oh.
In the Age of Urquhart, I can only say that I love you.
"I can only say that I love you."
Ouch! Stop it. I apologize most profusely.
WoW's submission easily brought in the most praise and we need to see what it's like in the 'real world' to finalize the look and see if the majority of people can live with it. i'd like to bring the thread back when it's done so that there'll be a vote as was agreed upon at the thread's inception.
no need to RIP, just retire.
thanks
Ducky, if you have more spare cycles I can send you the code. The problem is that you can't just mock up an html page, but put the appropriate html commands in the asp (as I know you know). It's not really all that much work once the original cut is done, but I've had a lot of other projects.
I'll retire it from the active thread list but it will be available in Archives until it is needful to take it "live" again.
i dunno. i think all that future gazing has made everything ... limp
The Future will be axed, I just haven't got around to it. khaval has no objections. I agree about Sex.
Of course you friggin' can. Cal, I've been begging you to do exactly that for two years now. That's how web design works. The designer creates a graphic concept, someone turns it into a HTML version, and the programmer implements it. It really is as simple as that.
Rubberdub, why don't you have a shot at it? i.e. the HTML.
Yeah, Alistair. You're always so asslike.
BBC Wales
There's a link on the front page in the upper area of the right-hand butter bar to the Try the Mote thread only now it's called the HTML Scratchpad.
When it was attached to the disasterous Welcome thread it had a purpose, but now it's just hard to find. I agree that it should be put back in the main list.
I'll email Dusty and see what he thinks.
Okay, well, I drop HIM an email.
sheesh.
new registrants should be told they are given provisional access only to given permanent access if the gatekeeper can verify (or whatever) him/her.
yes, we risk another Jon attack, but frankly that's worth it --considering. PP's Message # 3424 in thread 27 only confirms the need to act ASAP.
toycheck
1) I have no objection to having the HTML Scratchpad removed from the TT thread.
2) I have no objection to anyone else becoming host of the TT thread if s/he wishes.
3) I have no objection to any action taken wrt that thread at all.
I appreciate the desire to check, but please feel free to do whatever you wish with or to that thread - with my blessings granted in advance.
Then why don't you share it with me, so that I can implement it? You want the extra Brownie points for doing it yourself or something? I really don't understand. Give me the mock-up.
I've just changed the registration page error message to the following :
Automatic registration is currently disabled.
Please email gatekeeper@themote.com and ask to be registered manually : you will receive your password shortly.
This means extra workload until the server problem gets sorted out, but perhaps fewer people will turn away in disgust.
Now there's a nasty rumor on TT that WorldXing is going subscription, can you believe that?
So, all the people palnning on going there might decide to check in here, is all I'm saying.
I don't expect you to follow the technical discussion; I'm not surprised that you've missed the fact that there is a server configuration problem which prevents automatic registration.
I'm available to help on this if someone will tell me how. I'll be free to check a couple times a day over the weekend as well.
Alistair, stop being such an ass! After all CalGal has done for this place, how can you be such an ingrate??? It makes me sick!!!!!
2. I hereby humbly submit a request for My Own Thread (or at least one hosted by me). I would like it to be called Pike's Palestinian Prophecies thread or something like that. I assume it will be axed by you people eventually and that I shall then sulk off again and return after some time, etc., but I do hope you'll let it run for a respectable amount of time before that happens.
Your humble servant, etc.
I'm mulling over a new screen name, because it makes me furious when people address me as Erin.
And that little joke is getting tediously tawdry.
I recognized your name as Greek because I have a Greek friend whose niece is named the same...my friends name is Kaliope but everyone calls he Popi.
Maybe I'll be Ms. Peel.
Your cavilling neglects the inconvenient reality. I would not have the code or the access to the dev site if you hadn't sent it to me and told me to do it myself because you were busy.
For the most part, it works better. It allows me to get my stuff done without being bound to your schedule, and you do so much anyway it seemed like little enough to take off your hands. And anything that minimized the need to deal with you could only be considered a good thing. But it was your idea, chum. Not mine. A fact you conveniently forget everytime you publicly bitch about me, something I am getting really fed up with.
You only wanted me to make the little changes, but feel the substantial ones should be made by the Developer? By all means, go ahead. Find the Gif thread, look up the mockup, and do it. Wabbit did the mockup, and the thread participants approved it.
Had I not been busy, I would already have done the coding and you wouldn't have demurred for a second. But because I've been busy and people are bitching, you have to step in and assure everyone that this fuckup is all my fault, that you aren't involved, and that if the bitch would only listen to you it'd be done by now.
Go do the substantial work, by all means. I wouldn't have objected in the first place, and as it is I'm too busy right now. To say nothing of the fact that the never-ending whiny posts put me in no mood to find the time.
If we were paid for this, one of us would have quit by now. No need for the boss to spank.
Message # 15062
If Rustler Pike is going to host a thread about Palestinians, I would like to host a thread to discuss Israelis.
Thanks.
But it wasn't anything like that. From day one, I have asked you for HTML mock-ups; but you said you couldn't do that, and insisted you needed access to the code. I resisted this idea strongly - have you really forgotten this? - but eventually gave you access to the code on the test site, with the proviso that I wouldn't have the time to teach you how it worked or support you. (I think I've still got the correspondance from two years ago, we can look it up if you like.) My point of view is that the design and programming functions have a clear-cut frontier : HTML on one side, and Perl on the other, and there is no advantage, and a lot of pain, in crossing the boundaries.
I can understand that being able to tweak the code is useful, when you are playing around with layout, colours, fonts etc - but what happens when you've finished tweaking, is that I take the HTML and integrate it back into my copy of the source. That way, I'm supporting my own code and nobody else's. On a project as small as this, that's a huge advantage.
And in the current case, if we've already got HTML that we are happy with, then I can't see that there's any added value at all in your implementing that in code.
I'll do it when I get back from holiday, about 15th August.
send an email to gatekeeper@themote.com with your proposed name and we will manually register you.
To all newly registered people who are lurking but haven't posted: welcome!
Feel free to post in any thread. Weekends are good times to try out posting. There is not as much activity, and if you have a question, I'm sure that another Motier will come to your assistance.
Actually, I think Concerned has a point.
To me, this is the sort of thread that can - and maybe should - languish at the bottom of the list for days or weeks, only to be revived when some brilliant nugget occurs to someone.
And that's the point: apart from the initial flurry of people discussing tthe fundamentals of futurism and extrapolating on their own beliefs - which is a finite exercise -discussion of the future requires less of a "xhat" style of posting, and more a "statement/response" style.
What I mean by this is that it is the sort of subject in which which occasionally, a bizarre, futuristic thought will occur to someone in the middle of the night. Such thoughts cannot be forced into a constant stream of dialogue.
All that said, I am not too fussed either way about the ongiong survival of this thread. But now that I think about it, it does seem a shame that because people don't post quickly enough or in a certain style, it is only fit for archiving.
If server space is not an issue, I would ask that maybe the RIP be reconsidered - for a while, at any rate. There is nothing lost in leaving this thread up for a while longer.
I will now spam this post into the Features/Suggestions thread.
Your post creates the impression that the thread was RIPed without your consent but that is not the case. You wrote to me thusly in the Mote Annex:
It's fine by me to RIP the future thread.
RIP status can always be revoked if it provokes a flurry of activities, but I don't believe in having non-active threads around "just in case", except for the Slow Thread which is there for that particular purpose.
Irv has a good point...new people coming here might have different interests and ideas and we want to offer as much as possible to attract them.
I only posted so recently because it only just occurred to me that Future is a thread that benefits from sporradic posting and will not receive traffic constantly.
And Future is utterly incomparable with iconography or even archaeology. The latter two are specific and relate to singular disciplines. Future is a far boader topic.
But in any case, I agree with Irv that archaeology would prove a fascinating thread topic.
Look: I said it was fine by me to RIP the thread, and it was. Personally, I don't have great emotional depths invested in it. But it is a general topic that really interests me and induces fascinating posts from the members here. There is much to be gained by keeping it, and little to be gained by shelving it.
And anyway, what is the whole RIP institution for, if not for the chance for members to express a desire not to archive the thread?
What about my request? I am not a long-standing member like Khaval and the issues I post about are not as important as The Future, but -maybe I can get a thread too? Yes?
"We're hoping to attract new members to this forum -- new members that we desperately need -- and the more threads we have to attract them, the better. We should try and accommodate as many different opinions and ways of thinking as we can."
Of course, my posting style is relatively mild and does not attract attantion or interest as much as Khavvie's does - but still, there are some people who actually enjoy reading what I have to offer. What say you, o unelected triumvires?
I don't think it's a good idea to have the purpose of a thread being to attack or denigrate one side in a complex situation. In line with my thought above that we want to attract as many views as possible, it is much better to set a topic and encourage posting from various viewpoints. One viewpoint should not be pre-set as "right" by a host. Any thread should encourage intelligent posting from as many different POVs as possible.
In addition, in an effort to attract people to this forum, or an particular thread in this forum, I don't think it's wise to encourage threads to be identified with a specific person's viewpoint... a host should welcome a variety of viewpoints in a thread, and we should avoid tying things to a personality.
That said, I recall Rustler once suggesting and being involved in a very interesting thread on this topic (in the days before hosting) and I would be interested in a thread on "Israel and Palestine," hosted by Rustler. The topic is complex and has no easy answers, and could stimulate some very good discussion.
There is an informal procedure for these things. A poster suggests a thread. It gets support or it does not. Now you have Irv's guarded endorsement. I, on the other hand, think you will use the thread to propagate your own emotional views assisted by pictures like the one in Message # 22087 in thread 8.
Not in the slightest.
In September or October 99, you sent me a note telling me that I must delete all code in my possession. (How did I get the code? Why, you sent it. Just like I said.) Your first reason given gave me a great deal of concern for the future of the site. (I'll leave that reason out.)I told you that we should bring the rest of the membership in on this.
You then switched tacks and gave reason #2: I was too unpopular to be working on the site, and you wanted to reassure everyone that I had no undue influence. I told you that if you felt I posed a real danger to the site and should not be allowed to volunteer, by all means, tell the membership that my assistance can't be accepted. Alternately, you could opt to ban everyone from the dev site except for you. But that you weren't going to set up any secret "except for X" rules at the Mote.
At no point in that extended conversation did we ever discuss anything other than your desire to take back what you had already given (the code), and we certainly didn't discuss web design practice. My reasons for refusing to allow you to backtrack without telling others about it had everything to do with concern for the Mote's future (reason #1) and destructive policy (reason #2). I also pointed out that, to the extent that I understood how the code worked, it left us less exposed in the event that something happened to you.
My concern about your first reason dissipated over time as I realized it was most likely a ruse. But at the time, I was extremely worried.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that you gave me the code (including the *.pm files) to change directly, because it was more efficient than my always sending you mockups or requests.
I think it's fine that you take the mockup and do it. Had I realized that you wouldn't feel it was me putting work on you, I would have already asked you about it. So we would have ended up here--just without the acrimony. Instead, you read the bitching about me and jump right in--without even knowing that a markup exists, of course. And that is why I told you to fuck off.
As for the rest of the people who have been bitching regularly about the people who "work" here, please remember that you can always go to TT and pay to be ignored. That's not a request that you leave, just a reminder that all the people who work on this site in some way do it for free and in general try hard to respond in a timely manner. I know I'm not the only volunteer who wonders why she bothers when I read all the complaints.
I also like the idea of an archaeology thread.
I don't know. I suspect that anyone who signed up would be allowed to stay in, because if they'd paid and weren't currently breaking the rules, Salon would probably run into some legal problem.
I don't know how they will manage bannings generally in a pay forum for anything other than really egregious behavior. But who knows?
I'm not trying to deny the horror of it but please....
Yes, well, you seem to have an insatiable need to kick my family pictures around from thread to thread. Evidently you sense something about my family life that threatens you. Care to share, O Mother of Spawn? Could it be that you have a cold, unloving relationship with your son, or that you denied him a good relationship with his father? Is that why pictures of me and my son building Lego spaceships make you so aggressive?
I, on the other hand, think you will use the thread to propagate your own emotional views assisted by pictures like the one in Message # 22087 in thread 8.
Of course I will propagate my emotional views. I am not a cold Swede, now, am I?
I have a wholistic weltanschauung and I see direct connections between most everything I post about (including male-female politics and military fighting spirit in Israel). So if you guys do give me a thread, I will not be limited in advance as to what I may or may not post in it. If you insist on limiting what I may or may not say and post in advance, forget about it. I will feel at home in the thread and not have a sword dangling over my neck.
As for gory pictures - I don't think I've ever posted pics like that in the past but like I said, I linked to them twice and nobody responded. In a forum that is so sensitized to anything smacking of war criminality, I thought that was a tad strange.
RustlerPike, yes, I had emotions to the pictures. They're horrible pictures. What do you want to hear? That I can't believe people could do that to each other? Yet, there is the proof.
I almost didn't type a reply to that, because of the tactic used.
I rarely click on links that label themselves as gruesome. I am not interested in them. So, please consider: if no one replies, perhaps no one is interested in discussing it. Maybe a few of your own emotions would have sparked more interest.
I'm fairly new around here, so I don't know what kind of feud you've got going with CalGal, that her innocuous comment gets a rant that she's an unloving mother. I also agree that the pictures of your cute kid and his Lego creations wouldn't be out of place in The Mote Cafe or the Parenting areas. I would have seen them a lot sooner, at any rate.
Irving, if the viewpoint is pre-set as "right" by the host, that could attract lots of lively conversation as to why the host is "wrong." The host would have to make sure she encourages thoughtful posts from the other side, of course, for this method to work.
blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah above,
Blah blah blah blah croon,
Blah blah blah blah love.
Tra lala la, Tralalalala, Merry Month of May
Tra lala la, Tralalalala, neath those skies of gray.
Blah, blah, blah your hair
Blah blah blah, your eyes
Blah, blah, blah blah care
Blah, blah blah blah sighs
Tra lala la, Tralalalala, cottage for two,
Blah, blah, blah blha, balh -- darling with you!"
Gee, Ace -- never knew you liked Gershwin.
You and I come to The Mote for different reasons. I'm looking for a light diversion, usually, not serious discussion.
blah blah blah is about right.
Irving, if the viewpoint is pre-set as "right" by the host, that could attract lots of lively conversation as to why the host is "wrong."
But the host will simply delete any opinion out of line with his own.
OK, I'm guessing this is the way it's happened in the past, and the blah blah blah from above means my silly little idea would never fly.
You seem to think I wrote the blah blah post above, but it was Ace of Spades.
I'm fairly new around here, so I don't know what kind of feud you've got going with CalGal, that her innocuous comment gets a rant that she's an unloving mother.
The story is this, basically: CalGal dislikes me, among other reasons, because I was the one who suggested that The Mote get a facelift (the present design is hers and she is loath to have it changed). She was looking for a way to get revenge, it seems, and a couple of months ago she found an opportunity, when I shared with my fellow Moties the fact that I was going through some pain, domestically. I posted some pictures of myself - no, not with my eyes gouged out - but after having been beaten up by my wife's son, in an altercation that led to my wife leaving the house with her son. I did not look pretty: black eye, deep cuts, bruises.
CalGal's reaction was extraordinarily callous - something to the effect that I should apologize to my children for having been beaten up in their presence. She also seized on something I said to start insulting my younger children and claim that they were somehow maladjusted and poorly raised. All this - when she knew full well I was hurting and wanted nothing more than a little cybersympathy, or at least some benign cyberattention from my long time acquaintances here, and maybe one or two insincere pats on the back.
The next step was to demand I 'take it elsewhere'. I was told to take my sob story to another thread - from Sex to Social Issues, I believe - and then, after being forcibly evicted from Sex, I received the same kind of treatment in Social Issues, which turned out to be a codename for Femmie Heaven.
>>>
It would seem to me that a cybervillage like this would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by letting someone who is not PC and not a lot of other fashionable things rent his own space, where he would be free - within the limits of decency and fairness, of course - to speak his mind.
Feminism is intolerant of men and their problems. But half of the world's population is male, and the world seems to be turning away from radical feminism, after 20 to 30 years in which the movement was constantly advancing. The world seems to be realizing that we do not solve anything by branding men as potential rapists and murderers, divorcing them en masse, kicking them out of the house and taking their money. All we do is create a lot of pain and anguish, and deprive the sons and daughters of these men of their right to a father. We do not make the world a less violent place by roping and gagging men: we seem to make it a more violent place by doing that.
I think the feminist pov has more than enough space here on The Mote and has been aired amply. It is also, to be frank, quite boring already. My pov is different, if nothing else. If this forum really houses people who are intellectually curious, let me have my thread.
It goes without saying I will not be deleting any posts just because they represent a pov different from mine. I doubt I'll delete anything, unless it is obviously a spam filibuster, or kiddie porn. If there is a very long and very very abusive meltdown between two Moties that is not relevant at all to anything - I may ask them to take it elsewhere, more in the interest of cooling them off than anything else. I certainly won't use the censorship weapon as freely as the gracious host at the Sex thread did, and I'll give fair warning.
If I could die without hearing one more time about either A) Sakonige's squaw-hood or B) RustlerPike getting popped in the fucking mouth, I swear I'd die a happy fucking man.
Jesus Christ (0?-32?), if St. Luke is to be believed. See Luke 14:26
Great. Another 15-year-old who reads trite anti-christian books in between making photo collages of The Cure's Robert Smith.
The point has nothing to do with being PC or feminism. The Mote is not a place where "someone rents his own space"... it is a place where ideas are exchanged. Every thread is about ideas, not about personalities. I'm sure there are vanity sites where you can find what you want, but if you want to host a thread in the Mote, you'll have to make it about ideas, and not about you.
I think we should give Sakonige her own thread.
Then, me and some other Europeans could invade it and take it over. Maybe giver her some polished sea-shells for it.
That sounds heap big good to me.
I didn't know you're European!! I feel betrayed!
Luke 14:26 is clearly used as hyperbole. By his setting up of such an exaggerated contrast, Jesus was able to portray the kind of total dedication that was required to be his disciple. Jesus was demonstrating that our priorities should begin with him, His teaching is balanced...(see Luke 10 and Exodus 20).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh for shit fucking sake, Rustler ... I booted your posts from SI because they were off-topic and contained nothing but personal attacks. I warned you three times (which is twice more than anyone else has gotten) that if you couldn't get back on topic and stop with the sneaker pissing I was going to zap the posts and I did.
I really thought you might have had the chance to pull the Cranky-Martyr Stick out of your ass while you were gone. Apparently not.
Sorry to learn about your domestic upheavals. Um, I wasn't asking for an explanation of what went before. It was an ineffective plea to keep past hurts out of the current discussion. I'm trying to keep my mouth shut about all the feuds, but I slipped. The feuds, they drive me to distraction at times.
The "Policies" link to the right doesn't go into detail. Who decides? What's quorum? Like Jenerator, I'd like to see an Israel and Palestine thread. CalGal and Irving expressed interest, too.
Rustler
I sent the hosting guidelines to your Katzir address.
Thanks, Pelle.
Is anyone wearing the moderator hat still out there? I know Pelle is on vacation and maybe wabbit, too...Christin, do you know anything about people trying to get in and being blocked out?
I'm around sporadically but will handle any email that comes my way.
Ducky,
I thought this was in the works, but it may have been delayed due to the recent server glitches. I'll make the appropriate inquiries.
I agree with your post...other places take their chances with open registration and if things go horribly wrong, we can handle it just as they do.
We are losing potential posters to the slow process.
Anyway, I have noticed that when they do have trouble with passwords, once I recreate the accounts they are fine. Very odd.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
do you know what moniker he is requesting? I'll go have a look at the archived messages.
do you know what moniker he is requesting? I'll go have a look at the archived messages.
work or yahoo?
Good for you. Learning to dislike children at an early age saves a lot of expense and aggravation later in life.
For example:
USC ANNENBERG ONLINE JOURNALISM REVIEW
Main Entry: dic·tio·nar·a·o·ke
Pronunciation: 'dik-sh&-"ner-A-O-ke
Definition: Audio clips from online dictionaries sing the hits of yesterday and today. The fun of karaoke meets the word power of the dictionary.
Dedicated to ChrisO.
btw, nice boobies over in the sex thread. I think Don wants to date you!
I'll go check out the Sex thread: I thought my tit shot had killed it somehow. People seemed to have been dazed by it for a while (understandably).
Man, this Flu guy seems to be in bed with half the world! 
Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy
(1961 - 2001)
Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy has passed away. He was an original member of the legendary Fabulous Freebirds. He was also successul in both singles and tag team divisions in Japan.
I would like to thank Terry for all those great fights and for introducing me the music of Lynyrd Skynyrd, a great southern rock band virtually unknown in my home country.
(...)
Puroresu is a sport. It is not just a shorter way to say "purofesshonaru resuringu" (professional wrestling in Japanese pronounciation).
The fact is there are plenty of political message boards on the Web. What the Mote had was a certain level of discussion because of the posters here and because of the generally hands off moderation, which allowed for a pretty good balance between right and left debate.
I don't think eliminating jexster at this point will do anything in the way of providing content. Partly we've lost good posters, partly the interest level in politics has waned post Clinton and post election (though we could still be debating more interesting topics than photos of WWII airplanes).
I'm tired of fighting the same old battles about the Mote, though. How many times has this jexster question come up now? Nothing is going to change here except a gradual decline. And maybe that's okay because there comes a time to put away childish things. I think many came to that conclusion a long time before I did.
I forget what the approximate count of posters is here now, but khaval alazman went to WorldCrossing and in a few short weeks (4?) had more than 200 posters on her forum, just by her sheer effort. No one is going to do that here because those who "own" the place are too tired to do so, and those who don't aren't going to put that much effort into something that is clearly not theirs.
The site is tired. I propose that in observance of its second anniversary we have a going away party and close it down.
This proposal will be rejected, and like a poor old grandmother, the Mote will hobble along on life support because her family is too "sentimental" to pull the plug.
(More)
Lord, we're a self-centered crew.
I said my piece as to how I feel about the Mote lately, but I think it's fucking ludicrous for anyone to say "Well, it's slow, so kill it." It's presumptuous and arrogant to feel it has to meet your standards in order to continue.
Me canceling my TT sub has diddly to do with this place and has no bearing whatsoever on my tendency to be SNIDE. I never once said kill this place and I never once complained about it being slow but with your usual flair for redirecting the meaning of what people actually say, you've once again misstated what I wrote.
Now go complain about me making it all about you...
Sheesh!
(You may now retract your claws).
Sorry.
Cal: I'm tired of the same old same old and fairly convinced that is the best it's going to be. However, does that mean I want this place to die? No, but when you keep telling a smoker he needs to stop and he keeps doing it anyway, maybe the best thing to do is hold a wake for him.
As far as I can tell, the site is static in look, technology, and promotion. That's not a recipe for long Internet life. Suggesting structural changes invariably leads to being perceived as an enemy and no change in fact resulting.
PP: See my comments to Cal. Unfortunately, it is becoming less and less significant whether the place closes down or not, so your remark about nothing be gained much is accurate. I don't see any reason not to let the "friendly" threads stay around for people to enjoy, but if that's the point of the site, then we ought to quit kidding ourselves that this site is any more than a place for some old friends to chat. And if that's the case, then...well, I won't go into that. Let's just proclaim that it is.
Anyway, I don't want to get drawn into a long discussion of this because doing so violates the rule about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I agree with your static comments.
thought I'd pop over to say hi. You're right, I'll s
Her site is not nearly as active as the Mote, even in a slow period like this, and features a small and dedicated core of regulars (but very good regulars). The site may have 200 registered, but only about 25 active, while the Mote has nearly 1000 registered, and maybe 70 active.
The problem here is not competing sites. The problem is twofold: we need new blood, and need to promote the Mote more actively, not only among forum regulars, but even moreso among people new to forums (the most vibrant new blood). Secondly, we need more new topics. Rustler's thread has been active and consistently interesting. It is the only new thread to appear in the last three months.
Well, some of us are tolerating it less now.
what did wabbit find out about opening up registration?
it requires the gatekeeper(s) to approve said request before posting is possible. so - while not closed, the door is ajar versus wide open.
you didn't read my Message # 1485 in thread 39? shame on you.
From the discussion in policies, it would seem that most of us are quite in favor of opening the gates fully and allowing all comers.
I asked about this last time it was brought up and thought it had been automated. Email is still only working one way, though (receive but no send), so perhaps there is still a glitch. I'll ask again.
I apologize for my inattention.
I suppose that is the tradeoff.
Selectivity versus the masses of psychos and pseudonyms.
The reason is CalGal.
She has a way of offending virtually everyone at some point or another. I have seen more people leave because of her than any other reason. Threads die because of her. People leave because of her. Hell, I've experienced her wrath too. We carried on as "virtual friends" for four years and then one day, when I questioned why she swore like a sailor at a 13 year old, she snapped. She was downright vicious (and I was, right back) and now, the civility is gone.
She snipes at people, her opinions are hostile, and she even argues to death the issues when people are agreeing with her.
I have no idea what the solution would be. Hopefully CalGal can lighten up and quit being so terrible to so many people.
Now, I'm sure her supporters will come in and say that I'm wrong, but I know five people who have left the Mote specifically because of her, and I've read posts from others who left and have only marginally come back because she's still here.
Also, she has some kind of "creative" influence around here and that is why the look hasn't changed (she created it) and there's hardly any fresh blood.
Ultimately, I really don't care. I'm just calling it like I see it.
As a paid Cal Gal supporter, the Jenerator-CalGal catfights are often the only things that keep me tuning in.
What happened to the Age of Urquhart, then?:-)
But I do not engender these circuses.
Fran: of the 2, which would you prefer? i prefer the craziness of the Fray than to theMote now.
duck
I don't know. It is summer. Everyone is moaning, as usual. Is that better than 25 Catinthe Hats and 36 Rosettas?
I think only death could have silenced him.
Perhaps he took the TT shutdown a little too seriously.
I think that the disappointment of many, like Indy and Jen and Rustler, is commensurate with their heightened expectations. It is legitimate disappointment for someone who expects a great deal from a chat site. I would only advise that they lower their expectations and take what The Mote gives, however sparingly. Then, they will almost always be pleasantly surprised.
Usually as a way of explaining things to the current woman sharing his bed.
I am not sure CalGal has any friends here.
Banner day.
Don't look at the glass as half full. Empty it. Especially if it contains scotch.
This site is not what it used to be.
But then, it's never been what it used to be, has it?
It's slow now. Desperately, deadly slow. But we've been around this mulberry bush before.
It may be time for a Mote Election.
Really, only one thing matters with regard to improvement of The Mote. As Irv mentioned, get new people with different perspectives and something else to offer. This is done best by the personal touch, and it is always done slowly.
You just like Big Government solutions.
Fresh perspectives and "something else to offer."
Of course it doesn't come near what the Reaper accomplished though. Heh-heh.
Oh yeah, Indy...the Reaper drove away tons in one fell swoop. You should be proud you can clear a room that fast!
He got all uppity on me and pretended like there was life away from the Mote or something.
So the Mote has to be cool to attract the kind of folks you and I want to glom onto. (Brickhouse bods don't translate well here.)
When I have the nicest house in the neighborhood, it's time to move. When I look out the window of your Colonial Williamsburg plantation, I see my brooding Gothic castle, Ace's supervillian training mansion and lair, a few other towers and what not...but lots of abandoned tenements and encroaching urban renewal. (Not to mention jexster's crackhouse.)
Makes me want to sell up and buy a pirate ship.
Not really, I'm just enjoying my self-banter.
The rest of you feel free to jump in.
"A certain level." I keep reading comments to this effect.
You flatter yourselves.
Is there a message board somewhere, don, where you're considered witty?
If there is, I bet it's located in France.
2. I've never been to France.
I must say, this last 30 posts or so has been hilarious.
I went and read some khaval stuff from her site, and now I don't miss her nearly so much.
Indiana Jones, hey! I rent, you poofter!
2 entries found for poof.
-- used to express disdain or dismissal
That was a little raspberry.
Yep, I lived in England. They called homosexuals "faggots" and "queers" there.
The "no comment" bit was what you said re: Khaval.
And "poofter" means homosexual pretty much everywhere on planet earth.
The first I'd ever heard it was when Francis used it (kind of - he said "pooftah"), and Elliott803 - God bless his pointed little head - corrected him.
Do you have a brickhouse bod?
Jen: Don't forget "arse bandit" or "brown hatter."
Jenerator, your comments #15194 about CalGal bothered me enough to write this: A post of yours actually had me crying, and I didn't think I'd read/post here at the Mote again. Then I decided you can't have meant it that way, and I was complete loser for taking the words of someone I'd never met so seriously, and perhaps wrongly. So I'm blundering on here, despite my thin skin.
CalGal, if you're meaning to be vicious, why not lighten up, as Jen suggests? I notice you haven't written anything lately. Sure, people are nasty to you at times, but you're pushing buttons and I think you're smart enough to know it.
Ah well, that's my shot at diplomacy for the night. Gotta get back to checking my own baggage...
Indiana Jones, no, I'm not built like a brickhouse. Which I think means busty, but I'm not sure, since I got poofter wrong. I'm legs & hips, pneumatic enough that I never lacked for dance partners.
Oh wait...this is all anon...I'm each of yours' fondest dream. You'd all burst into tears of ecstasy, if I actually touched you.
I owe both you and CalGal an apology for the nasty things I said (I think I know which post of mine you're referring to regarding your subsequent departure). I admit then when my buttons are pushed, I can be cruel. Not that this excuses anything, but I assure you that there have been comments made by her to me that you probably didn't see.
In any case, I deserved your reproof.
But of course I am curious - which post of yours do you think would have upset me?
So I can blast you later, see. (winky)
I owe you an apology because it hurt you, and I owe CalGal an apology because what I said to her and about her was hurtful and cruel. Regardless of how I felt, I shouldn't have allowed such low things to come out of my mouth. I *know* that the written word affects people, even when it comes from someone in an asynchronous discussion forum.
OK, I'm weird. Time to watch a movie.
A parcel of vain strivings tied, we are.
Ah. This brings back memories of BullE. Remember, Irv? ;-)
I sure do. Funny, I never find myself missing him...
If Bull were to come back, I'd be inspired to poetic lengths, even. (So perhaps the rest of youse are better off, after all.)
Why don't we just open up registration?
BobbyJ is locked out right now, too. I don't know why; I sent a note to gatekeeper and to GJ, just in case he was around. Didn't know Diva's non-gatekeeper address.
My "no comment" was a subtle way of agreeing with you about what you said in the post before me!
It would be like if you and I went to my mother's house and she served us a terrible pot roast. If I grimaced after eating it and then asked you if you liked it and you responded with "no comment", I'd know what you meant.;-)
I am able to receive email, though I cannot send from the moderator account. I haven't gotten any complaints about registration.
mgleason and Irv, in which thread was the diary posted? Perhaps it isn't gone (though we never did get a complete archive from the previous forum's executioner).
I believe it was in the old Social Thread, sometime in 1997. Highly unlikely that it was archived, since it was before my time.
Example: DUMBSBURGY" GARRY TRUDEAU FOOLED BY PRESIDENT IQ HOAX
Before we went on vacation in mid-August, I offered a suggestion for a news media criticism folder here at Mote. I don't have time to backwash all the posts since then, but I don't see it running. No interest?
Example: DUMBSBURY--GARRY TRUDEAU FOOLED BY PRESIDENT IQ HOAX
For now, ignore last e-mail, and thanks.
It's been suggested before and I think it's a great idea...we've talked about a periodicals thread, also, to no avail. The running theory seems to be any article or subject we might want to talk about from the Atlantic, Harpers, Time, etc. could be done in the threads where that subject is already being discussed.
I think the Media thread could cover all of the news magazines and the rest; it sounds like a good idea to me.
No body new since 8/15? Pretty good.
And if you piggyback *Arts and Music*, you should do the same with *Movies and TV* since both folders are so parochial.
I think it was due to some sort of e-mail problem....I got a whole slew of them in this morning once I started firing test e-mails around. Very odd indeed.
well, that'd be your former co-host
That's why I left The Mote.
That, and the taxes.
Hi Rosie!
I don't know...my memory isn't what it used to be.
And yeah, sure seems youse guys were right about poj.
First item:
(By the way, you won't find this item in any AOL Time-Warner publication but I gleaned it in a salt-water stained copy of an August issue of US NEWS&WORLD REPORT.)
Out-Foxed
CNN execs, desperate to win a broader, more GOP audience, are back to begging congressional conservatives to end their boycott of the network Republicans view as liberal. New boss Walter Isaacson joined the effort last week, meeting with hard-line leaders in the House, Senate and White House, offering to be more balanced or, as one gleeful participant hoped, more like Fox News, which is known for being "fair and balanced" to the GOP.
kids get started back at school okay?
A cloaking device!
Is there a considerable slackening in Mote traffic in the past month?
When are we doing the facelift?
Thank you.
No idea about the facelift, I'll check with Alistair. I don't have traffic stats, it seems slow, but I think it's always slow this time of year.
Show some leadership!
Not, mind you, that the people kvetching about it make the work seem all that attractive an activity.
In fact, I'd like odds on how long before they do just that.
Counsel the lad.
I suggest you tend to your own flock and not worry yourself about me or mine.
She has obviously had a very detrimental effect on The Mote, actually causing a number of people to leave this place.
The way she speaks about this subject of the facelift, the arrogance - it's quite amazing, really. I mean, here is something that a large number of Moties want done, a whole thread was established to pick the design, people put in hours and hours of creative effort (something the Gal seems incapable of - true creativity, I mean) - and she just procrastinates for 2 or 3 months and thinks we're all fools.
Well, most people are fools - even in a relatively classy joint like this. And cowards. But how can anyone really accept these lame stories about her laptop and not having enough time, etc.? The woman spends ten hours a day Moting - and that's on a busy shopping and cleaning day.
You'e just like my Council Head, CalGal. And we're deposing him. And sending him to jail, just for good measure.
CalGal is a volunteer like everyone else who maintains this site. She or Alistair or Wabbit will get to the face-lift when their paying jobs and time allow.
If someone else has the time and skill to put together the face-lift there is no one at all opposing more volunteer labor.
Rustler, this seems to be a priority for you. Are you able to do some work on this?
Rather than carping about it, why not channel your energies into maintaining interesting conversation so people will want to participate, instead of pitching petty little fits of pique all over the site?
I did see your name mentioned above as a possible host for a Periodicals thread. I don't know how far it would go considering that we have Politics, Current Events and Literature, but there's certainly no harm in trying it out if you have an interest.
Let me know----I'll try and check back in this evening. For now I'm off to fight the traffic!
I doubt I'd be able to do the html very well though I could try. But CalGal can - and won't, because she doesn't want to, and then lies to all of us thinking we're stupid dildoes. The bit about not having time is rich. Has there been a day that she hasn't posted at least 50 posts to 10 different threads?
I say - let's just spare everyone the bullshit. Instead of saying:
CalGal is a volunteer. When she has time she'll do it.
Say:
CalGal obviously has no intention of doing this and has been leading us along for a while, causing many of us (including, famously, ac) some justifiable anger. This, however, is CalGal's character and she admits as much. Let us move onward. Ac has said he will do it and unlike CG, with him it really is just a matter of time - time he will eventually find, inshallah. Over and out.
That way you would be a much more effective and fair moderator / co-President / whatever you guys are.
Let's keep in mind that, in all likelihood, an equally-large number do not.
: )
How about:
The Mote -- A Bunch Of People Who Just Happen To Be Online At The Same Time, Give Or Take A Few Hours
No, actually, in all likelihood - many more people want it done than not. Certainly judging by the posts in the thread that was devoted to the subject, there was no discernible opposition, surely not a heartfelt one, while there was a lot of enthusiasm in the pro-facelift camp.
I mean, are you a conservative person in all fields of life?
Do you, like, wear 50's suits and stuff? Do you sport a vest with a watch-and-chain? Monocles? Ride a Model-T?
Your personal queries make little sense, unless you consider "newer" to be an exact synonym of "better."
Well - I confess to listening mostly to 70's music. But I don't consider that conservatism. More like living in a time warp.
which is why i suggested we bring the thread back to look at the development server when it is done. and, as far as i know, that is still the plan.
Yep. Still the plan, however, what the incentive is for anyone to put in the labor on a face-lift I can't imagine.
It's a gift.
30 days is just too excessive by far.
she's contemptible, but not breaking the ROE, imho.
However, most of us being more on edge of late, I think the threshold for "needlessly abusive" was rightfully lowered. An alternative would have been to move it to the Inferno, perhaps.
The invective would be, to me, more acceptable if there were an accompanying attempt at real debate. If a message doesn't even contain a small attempt at persuasion, what is its value?
Admittedly, I still puzzle over the idea of "needless abuse". I infer that some abuse is needed. I would probably agree with that.
You beat me to it. Sakonige's posts were the epitomy of needlessly abusive.
The only abuse really needed is self abuse....unless, of course, one believes what the nuns used to tell us.
S'okay, nobody in my family had great vision to begin with.
Do you mean those nuns who demonstrated to us that there was no abuse like nun abuse?
I will have nun of that.
At any rate, people pay good money for proper abuse and it's bad for the economy for others to just run around handing it out for free.
When I was in first grade, I told my mother that I was going to be a nun. She told me that she was sure the Church couldn't survive me.
I know of several nuns who couldn't survive *me* and at least one priest who left the priesthood in favor of becoming a Hegelian. He sells real estate now, I understand.
I'm quite certain I hold the All-West Ireland record for most nuns forced into retirement.
I, on the other hand, was the token mischievous kid who could do
no wrong. It all balances out, Seamus.
Which is rather Hegelian of us, don't you think, m?
Sounds pretty stiff from a group who allows people to stay members who reveal on the internet the home addresses and phone numbers of moters.
But that's ancient history. Never to be brought up again.
But nobody ever forgets where he buried the hatchet.
I've been looking for your thoughts about what happened and asking for them even.
After all, why should they? They're VOLUNTEERS!
You have been warned and even suspended before for continuing to spread false information.
You seem to have no desire but to denigrate this forum and the people who inhabit it. It is abusive, but worse than that it's tedious.
You have almost no worthwhile conversation to counter your flaws.
Straighten it out or you can call me names from Cyberia with Sakonige.
I'm glad to hear the reports coming in from Moties as they verify the safety of friends and loved ones and yet I can't sleep at night for worrying over those who have not been so fortunate and those from whom we haven't yet heard.
I find that there isn't much that I can say about the event personally and then actually post. It's an odd space to be in.
For that personal attack, VOLUNTEER Nyet, I suspend you for three days.
"Nobody wants justice."--Alan Dershowitz
I find that there isn't much that I can say about the event personally and then actually post. It's an odd space to be in.
Can you explain that a bit more? If you think you can? This is so awful that you just have to post about it, isn't it?
Unrelated, I think:
I MISS HASHKE.
No I really don't. It's one of the few times in my life where I honestly just can't even begin to articulate my feelings.
I suggest that Ace be suspended for 30 days as well. The filth that he has spewed goes well beyond even his previously tolerated standards, as has his personal abuse.
I think it's a mistake to turn ROE 3 into a democratic event in which we all make suggestions as to whether a certain person should be suspended or not. I think ROE 3 is purposefully and correctly ambiguous and its use should be at the discretion or misdiscretion of the hosts.
Else, let's open the floor for nominations.
There's a big difference between someone pouring salt in the wounds of victims and victims (though Ace would not choose that word to describe himself and probably doesn't like me using it either) lashing out in the only way they can.
Personally, I think Ace has gone over the top a couple of times, but I am far away from the World Trade Center.
Okay.
Will all due respect, I am from New York, my parents live in lower Manhattan (fortunately, well away from the Trade Center), and it is not inconceivable that people I know might have been killed in the attack.
I currently live in the DC area and have many friends who have been directly affected by the attacks.
I do not know if Ace has lost friends or family in the attack: perhaps he should take a little time off from his tirades and tell us.
I'm not trying to come between the two of you.
Seamus: I do carry on sometimes.
I've said my piece, pending any moderator response.
My apologies. I truly meant that you had so much better expressed what I was thinking. I will call on you to continue to do so in the future.
I most certainly did not think you were carrying on.
You say this:
sakonige was able to reach into people's real lives by exploiting a real-life tragedy to hurt them. The entire essence of the RoE to me is that we separate real-life from what occurs at the Mote, with the former being protected, the latter being much more wide open.
And you say this:
Whatever Ace is saying, he is in New York City and is entitled to a wider berth.
So Aces real life experience excuses him but Saks attacking our real life grief condems her. So how are we seperating real life from Mote experience again?
If Ace is grieving to the extent he must be abusive to everyone who has a differing opinion, maybe he needs more help that we here can give him.
I understand that Ace is in pain; maybe he needs more than we are able to give.
Judith: You can handle it.
Well, that's not true-- I complained once or twice. And I was told to fuck off; and that Cellar could say what he liked; and he really should mind himself, but honestly, words can't hurt you.
So, Cellar has told me to die two dozen times. Where was shitface Wombat, then?
And as for the Arab shit:
Fuck you. We are at war. Were I alive during WWII, I wouldn't be singing songs about the great engineering skills or cultural achievements of the poor, doomed Germans.
Judith,
Please list my comments you find ban-worthy; then I will find Cellar making similar comments when our greatest problem was how to spend the surplus.
I will then invite you to blather on about the "distinctions." "Cellar feels STRONGLY about homophobia, he's personally interested in this issue," etc.
Typical stupid whining haus-frau.
Ahem. Gee, I called Irv a "cunt." Wow. And Cellar and Jexster haven't called me by similar epithet thirty thousand times, 95% of which I never even responded to.
But again-- Cellar and Jexster are special. They're homos, and they have "strong feelings," and these "feelings sometime get the best of them," and they're "doing their best," and really, shouldn't we let cellar and jex be cellar and Jex?
Cellar gets suspended for Spamming and Privacy Violations, ASSHOLE, and only for Spamming and Privacy violations.
Please point out when he was suspended for abusive language or wishing death on me.
I never even mentioned Cellar...that is your own little nit to pick. I think you are showing your ass a bit much on the Mote these last few days but it doesn't mean I'm a stupid whining hausfrau. You're lashing out at eveyone and I suspect you might regret this later but hey, you can continue to do so and I'm sure you will. You'll never get banned, that's a fact.
Like IJ says, we can handle it...we always do.
"I never even mentioned Cellar...that is your own little nit to pick. "
No, *I* mentioned Cellar and Jex, idiot. I mentioned Cellar as having used more abusive language, and having wished death on more participants, than I ever have, and all that during a time of peace.
I complained about this several times. All those times, you told me to "live with it."
That is a precedent, Judith. You cannot tell ME to "live with it" when your buddies make death-wishes and get abusive and then claim that *I* should be banned for the equivalent conduct.
It is true I complained of it then, and I'm doing it now (or have done it recently). But YOU TOLD ME Judith -- YOU, personally, told me -- that it was all just jake and kosher to tell someone you wished them dead, to die of an epileptic fit, etc.
Having stood for this proposition, you cannot retreat from it now.
Asshole, not a single post was "spam." YOUR posts are far more "spam" in the manner you suggest mine are. You simply regurgitate the same bullshit, ad nauseum, never advancing any discussion.
But that's not "spam" and you know it. Spam is cellar's frequent
KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL!
posts.
Fuck you, Wombat. You're the biggest pussy-shit I've ever had the misfortune to know.
Back atcha, pal. Swift had you in mind when he wrote about yahoos. Now go soak your head, or give blood, or beat up the owner of a newsstand.
The only advancing of a discussion you've done is whether retaliation should be nuclear or not, and whether we should limit ourselves to wiping out all Arabs, or all Moslems.
Swift had you in mind when he thought about anal sex with a nice, soft plump clerk's ass.
There's a difference between the reciprocal abuse of regular combatants and the kind of attack you made on IrvingSnodgrass.
During the brouhaha with JonFerguson over his abuse of Diva you pointed out this difference yourself and even upheld it.
Cellar doesn't say anything worse to you than what you say to him, but your comments to Irv were totally unwarranted.
On top of this is the sheer volume of hatred and abuse that's been pouring out of you for the last three days. Promoting genocide may seem reasonable to you in your state of mind but there is no reason why all of us should have to sit around and be your punching bag.
MsNo,
With all due respect, I will modify neither my opinion on what should be done in this matter -- an opinion, by the way, held by many if not most Americans -- nor will I modify the way I say it.
The "irving" thing is pure bullshit. I called him a homo and I told him his whining pussyshit was similar to claiming we can't associate Italians with the Mafia, because not all Italians are in the Mafia. What precisely is objectionable about either, you'll have to explain further.
So, you know, screw you.
I can repost the exchange here if you like.
Having stood for this proposition, you cannot retreat from it now.
Show me. Please.
No need. I've read it. I've told you my opinion on it and you will now do whatever it is that you feel entititled to do and others will act accordingly.
Take it to the Inferno.
Odin has spoken.
this is why people ought not be suspended for expressing opinions in context of a discussion, regardless of how distasteful those comments may be.
The Mote Cafe Come join us for cyber-coffee and pleasant conversation! Host
: Sisters of No Mercy (#49253 posted 8/6/01 4:27:55 AM by arkymalarky). ...
Description: Self-supporting community discussing issues in politics and a variety of other topics.
Category: News > Alternative Media > Online Communities and Forums
themote.com/listthreads.asp - 17k -Cached - Similar pages
but when he tried to link there, he got a "this page does not exist" response. That's because it doesn't exist any longer...how do we go to all those places where we listed with search engines and change to the new address?
They somehow dropped the www from the front of that link. I just resubmitted us.
I'm glad that your funny bone is only bruised and not broken.
You can move my * post, too, if you haven't already.
I have no doubt there are many people here who disagree with me. As I've said many times before, fire me. Message # 20990 in thread 33 and Message # 20991 in thread 33 speak for themselves, as far as I'm concerned. By her own admission, Sakonige is here only to follow PE around and stir up trouble. Normally I ignore that she refuses to extend the respect to others that she demands for herself, but this is not the time for her pissing and spitting.
That explains things I had begun to wonder about.
i certainly wouldn't & don't want your job. i think you do a good job.
But you sure did ruin the Redesign Contest thread.
But, then in mid-September, pretend that you (or is it "we"?) have no responsibility for it anymore because "you're too busy."
But nothing has changed. There is nothing worse than a "now" look with a "then" face.
It's an insult to Wizard, who won the contest and now waits for something to happen.
Supposedly we were going to see a prototype in July.
Then August.
Then September.
Hey, I'm aging waiting to see them.
It's like that old George Burns joke: "When I was young, the Dead Sea was still alive."
Well, not really cogent, but coherent. And not really witty, but funny.
Certainly what she said wasn't that outragious for a member of a group of people who had genocide committed on them.
Sakonige wasn't around in the 18th and 19th Centuries. What she said was disgusting and low-class. The WTC and Pentagon bombings had nothing to do with her or her ethnicity. She'll stop at nothing to try and turn everything into something about her.
She a sick bitch and I'd love to slap her.
I think she's being punished for taking the side of the terrorists. That's why she's out for 30 days.
Now, I read that moderator Privacy Nyet is threatening Ace with the same punishment for his language.
But I doubt she really means it.
Others, like Frankie says, "have legacy."
I also think since sakonige has been suspended we should quit talking about her for the duration.
Nothing has been taken from Sakonige. She doesn't live on a reservation, she only visits them like a tourist does. She was disgusting with her comments about the *victims* of the bombings, hoping to try and turn it into something about her. Her conceit and insecurity are repulsive and she has no compassion for anyone, not even herself.
So this is another subject that can't be discussed in this thread, Pelle?
Honestly, I can't believe that out of 100,000 sperm, you were the guickest.
*Nothing on missing threads hosts of important threads like MUSIC, who keep their positions even though they haven't posted in months. (Is JJ still hanging out with BB King?)
*Nothing on privacy issues regarding moters.
*Nothing on the insult to Wizard regarding his good faith efforts to redesign mote's interface/graphics.
*Nothing on the 30-day suspension of a Native American who supported the terrorists and "mocked" us.
*Nothing on moderators, like Privacy Nyet, who threaten to ban people who she claims "don't write right."
2452. RickNelson - 9/15/01 7:29:45 PM
Big mouth ACE, man I would like to talk to you face to face. Keep you level headed enough not to lash out verbally, and that I would do!!
The above is a threat, and the sort of threat I've been tempted to use myself but have steadfastly avoided.
I make no formal complaint, but I do suggest that if MsNo puts on her Suspension Hat that she is required to follow strict RoE rules regarding threats and wishing violence upon others.
Forget it, Ace. He's legacy.
A link for you.
13867-82
13896
13899-01
13903
13905-09
13911
13913
13915
13919-20
13929-30
13937
I couldn't find any explanations until post #13916 where Indiana stated:
Any posts that are substantially not the poster's own words and don't have a link are subject to deletion.
Any posts that have missing HTML tags will also be subject to deletion.
The last provision is innovative.
After that at least one post (#13925) must be considered not being "the poster's own words ".
The hosts are invited to clarify their deletion policy prior to #13916 and why moving the posts was not sufficient remedy.
The hosts started deleting posts in the Religion thread when I brought up the fact that congresspeople in the Capitol were allowed to pray openly for the souls of our dead while school children weren't.
That sent the PC police of mote into the erase mode.
Now the thread is being used to taunt Baptists who listen to the TV preachers Robertson and Falwell.
Any defense of them is being deleted.
But, other than enjoying Ace's rants, mote can't stand internal criticism. Look what you just did to a Native American poster who expressed herself.
Thirty days suspension. Isn't that a record?
I left a message for you in the Religion thread.
I'm sure you could make a new one, if you really try.
What annoys you so, is that religious Baptist ministers are using this disaster to look deep into what's happened/happening to the American MTV culture. Bob Dylan recently made similar statements.
Jerry Falwell: "...what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Pat Robertson: "Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Jerry Falwell: "The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this."
Pat Robertson: "Well, yes."
Jerry Falwell: "And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
Now Mote's Religious hosts wants their thread to be secularized. They wouldn't recognize John the Baptist if he was screaming in their ears.
This was 24 hours before the Baptists ministers made their statements.
You immediately came on line asking the host to delete my posts. She/he did so. Now you want to ban me for 30+ days because I mentioned it.
This is after you successfully deleted a Native American from expressing your views (which I disagree with).
A serious response to that will be found in the Religion thread. Let's see how you handle it. Whether you're a man or a louse.
Go to post #10263 in the Inferno...it was the first post removed.
And it was done almost as soon as you asked.
It started the procedure which still goes on where almost everything I write in that thread is
removed.
Other than the anti-Catholic joke that I posted as a test to see if it would stay.
Arky: I read your post. It didn't seem that serious.
What I remember is you coming on almost immediately after I asked why schoolchildren weren't allowed to pray in their classrooms while our elected representatives did so in Congress.
You demand that they be deleted, and since then have encourage mote to ban me from speaking.
...the same day that mote suspended for thirty days a Native American whose viewers are controversial.
Those posts moved to the Hell thread aren't necessarily in order, Judith.
Oh sure they are; wait and ask Indy.
And I was merely echoing others who were suggesting you be banned...including one of the moderators.
The cheese stands alone and you are the cheese.
Al
Rosetta has the qualifications, except the skill.
To our VOLUNTEER moderators there are only two kinds of men--the dead and the deadly.
I say we should be able to ban anyone that we like. oooooooooooooooooooowe
Whooooooooooooooooowe
Snap to, Al D, and make some sense.
I will attempt to delete posts that I see that are in violation of the rules. I will not be on board 24 x 7 and reading that thread 24 x 7 to ensure those rules are followed immediately and all the time. Moreover, it is a guideline to control post after post of regurgitated material as occurs in the Politics thread--not a policy that will be inflexibly uniform.
When you and the other moderators can pronounce that the policies you enforce are 100 percent consistent, completely fair, and to the letter of the law in every case, then I will endeavor to match the standard you have set. This is not meant as a criticism, but to point out that following such a standard is well nigh impossible and that not following it is not evidence of deliberate unfairness.
Stone/PoJ is another matter. He is not interested in adhering to the rules but exploiting them. He is not interested in discussion but gamesmanship. To explain about his trouble-making requires more effort of those who would be fair than the trouble-making itself causes a miscreant who has no intention of playing fair himself. He has multiple log-ins in violation of Mote policy and does not respect suspensions when they are given, yet he expects the same rules to protect him and demands the suspensions of others. He deserves no explanation and no explanation will be forthcoming to him in the future regarding whatever I do with any of his posts.
Should he at some time demonstrate that he is capable of anything other than mischief, I will reconsider my judgment of him and his content. If you and the other moderators determine that my treatment of his posts are unjust, you of course can remove me as host.
Also and to point out the obvious, Stone is a well-demonstrated liar, so I wonder that any still believe anything he says and even feel the need to contradict it.
I did retract.
Al D snapping to! If your post was correct, there would be no Mote, for many who post here often have been stupid, disgusting, obnoxious, insulting, blah, blah, blah. I do not exclude myself, and I stand by my opinion. You see, my dear friend, all of the opinions as to content of posts are in the minds of the viewers. But let me make it clear that I am not talkiing about those who have come on the Mote and with computer skills have tried to disrupt the Mote.
For example, were I running the Mote, I might have banned for ever the Wiz for posting a cartoon with GW's head exploding as if shot by a gun. Yet, he is one of the most beloved on the Mote in spite of the fact that I have never seen one of his cartoons express a serious thought. I say "might" because I would not ban him. Much easier to ignore him, and why deny those who enjoy him the pleasure they receive.
I appreciate that.
Perhaps I agree with you. What I am referring to is someone's attempt do dominate and ruin a forum simply by churning out a great volume of stupid posts. It has become difficult to wade through them all and I don't bother with the place much these days.
It is funny. I was thinking about the Wizard not more than a day ago and wondered if he could put into words an expression of his apparent hatred of George W.
Your comments in #15520 are very clear and well written and I agree in toto with you. Thank you for taking the time to set out your thoughts.
all of his multiples should be banned and Rosetta's id should get a suspension for breaking the rules -- that way the ROE are followed.
Mote moderators are scaried silly of the wrong type of person posting.
Fix this sentence:
He put the horse before the cart.
Prof
Jay has been working on fixing the email for a couple weeks now. I'll see about putting up an alternate email address for the Gatekeeper for now (Alistair will have to do that, he's the only one with access).
Men and women, women and men. It will never work.
Prof
I love me some you, baby
Oh, I know, we're not supposed to bring it up anymore. It's old news.
Hamlet as performed at the Brooklyn Shakespear Festival: "To be, or what?"
I've told you a couple times now it's in Alistair's hands. Stop being such a little whiny shit.
And you have to take the bitter with the sour.
The artists who participated in the redesign contest deserve better and are being insulted by the delays.
And you have to take the bitter with the sour.
The artists who participated in the redesign contest deserve better and are being insulted by the delays.
Hi j@h....(what happened to J@H?)
we are cool though aren't we?
Howz the tour of duty coming along?
(well that was a wrong choice of phrase...)
you are a liar.
that is all, carry on.
It's easy to blame it all on CalGal but I hold rubberducky responsible since he was the host of the thread that encouraged submissions. But when CalGal was insulted and lost interest, he axed his thread in early July--saying to WoW and RustlePike to stop asking him questions about it and not call him, they'll call them.
No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up with some moter heads here.
Is this a new expression? Or did Josetta Stone just copy it down wrong?
If it was on purpose, one wonders whether he copied an actual Casey Stengalism. It could also be from a Yogi Berra quote book, I suppose.
(It's so simple and banal, it can't possibly be true, right! Must be a coverup.)
Sadly, I don't work for the government, nor even for a salary; so I can no longer give this site the time it undoubtedly deserves.
That's so funny...I used Yogis name first but like adding the "ism" to Stengal better...it read more cleanly.
Thanks for your efforts.
That's the problem. If AC can't do the time, he shouldn't be doing the crime.
Then I thought, fuck him. He would be so delighted.
If I were a moderator (which I'm not, I'm too immoderate) I think I'd ban the sucker. That would improve the ambience a great deal.
And that's what it's about. Life isn't worth living if you let someone sour it for you. If someone shits all over your living room floor too many times, in the end you just don't invite him in any more.
This virtual community only exists by dint of mutual tolerance. So just like cafard and fergodsake, rosella should be banned for the sole crime of existing. That is, someone whose primary reason for being in this forum is to make life miserable for the rest of us, has no legitimate claim on our tolerance.
If they really feel compelled to participate for any other reason, then they are of course free (both in fact and in principle) to come back under another name. Because if they can get away with it (and Podge managed that for a few days, before he was smoked out), that's proof that they are not the same persona, and are not having the same effect on the community, and therefore there's no coherent reason for banning that ID.
Two provisos about coming back :
* Observance of decent pause (six months? A year? Ten?)
* The forbearance of the rest of us : guessing games, aimed at smoking out someone who is trying to be good, lack decency, in my view.
We could just ignore him. Any attention is better than none for Stone. A while ago, I decided to ignore the malevolent posters along with the perpetual ham-sandwich arguers and therefore did not post much.
To those who surely will observe that my decision is no big loss for the Mote, I agree with you whole-heartedly.
AC, YC ..... well put.
Imagine a public place where people meet, to talk and play. Imagine a couple of people who turn up and bellow obscenities at each other, not just briefly, but for hours at a time. Imagine someone who stands on a soapbox and bellows out conspiracy theories non-stop.
Two outcomes are possible :
- nobody much goes there any more, except those who want to daub graffiti or throw rocks at each other
- the people get organised and oblige the unreasonable few to either moderate their behaviour, or bugger off.
YC's posts, as well as many other's. Some have told me they stay away because of the bullies you described.
Rosie is certainly often insulting but is also not too bright. There are those here whose insults dig much deeper due to their greater intelligence and literary skills.
There is one motie whom I care for dearly (and in whose back yard I tipped a few cool ones with last summer) who thinks Rosie is just funny as hell.
I find that completely ignoring those I find objectionable (acting as if their monkier doesn't exist) works well.
It pisses me off to see someone (RS) insult you and dismiss the efforts you have taken to provide us this venue but silence is the greatest retort, imo.
Driven off our turf?
Talk about immoderate, hyper-reaction...
[D-10]
The number of idiots are far too great. However, even if a definitive end to any means were possible toward eradicating the wing nuts, the very definition of idiots becomes the enemy in its subjective applications by any individual.
[D-10]
It's like the old lady demanding that we repaint the kitchen every two years.
Do it, or no food.
I agree with you in principle and certainly the tenacious nature of some can be overwhelming. Who, though, should be the judge? There are some on your short list of examples that I like having around, and it's possible the reverse is true.
I like your analogy of adults and kids, however, I'm afraid I'd wind up in Romper Room if it came down to it :)
Surely we can discriminate between those we dislike (we just have to put up with them; one here is universally lauded by all but I can't stand him) and those who have proven chronically ruinous to any correspondence?
no, not really. i would probably not post here if hosts and/or moderators were more heavy handed in censoring people than what already happens. if i wanted that, i'd pluck money down for TT.
as for thread hosts, (if you speak of me in your vague posts) i make it very clear up front what sort of host i am --very hands off -- and i will not change that for the sensibilities of some. if the Attack on America demanded a better host, you should have spoken up and i would have happily stood aside. if you want to host and can do a better job, please just ask.
before anyone thinks differently, no, I am not offended or pissed, i just want those that think we should drive out combative people just don’t understand online forum dynamics.
I will only become a target if I allow myself to be one. Credibility is where credibility is allowed to roost.
All I know, and all I really care about, is that my friends and family can and feel absolutely certain that when the shit hits the fan, I'll remain standing for the duration. This is not negotiable with my friends and family. In turn, I unerringly feel the same in reciprocation.
The world make call me an idiot, slut, bastard or whatever...but the only time I can ever be a target, to any degree of effectivity, is with the aforementioned group of people...the rest hold no credibility or influence for intimidation or deprivation of thought process.
Target?
Blast away. I suppose everyone has the right to expend energy in the way they desire...no matter how wasted that expenditure may be.
Scott
Address the remarks, not the person;...
exactly. Or choose to address the remarks. Simple really.
I think one of your most endearing characteristics is your Pseuderskepticism. It is essential that there are some of us, it keeps the debate honest and interesting. It's why he comes here, after all.
On the contrary. We understand the dynamics of on-line forums quite well. You imply that there is only one model : laissez faire, law of the jungle, victory to the loudest. There are plenty of threads in this forum which illustrate other, successful models. They work by encouraging people to respect the expected tone, with very rare sanctions to back that up.
One problem we currently have is that the excess of adrenalin from one free-for-all thread is leaching out all over the place. Another is that abusive exchanges in that thread have driven regulars away from the whole site.
I think that the forum moderators could consider more proactive sin-binning. A 24hr cool-off period could undoubtedly calm certain situations, without resorting to real censorship.
To some extent, if we want the community to have a certain shape, we all need to be responsible for our own behavior. Moderators should step in per the RoE (that is, mostly when the line between cyber community and real life is being blurred, or when someone is just spamming and thus preventing anyone else from having a voice). And perhaps when someone is attempting to harm the community, rather than express views.
Otherwise, if the consensus of the community really is that the community goes a certain way, it ought to have that power from within itself. I don't think that consensus exists, or at least I've never seen evidence of any consensus here--other than re Stone. And even in his case, from all appearances, many don't mind talking to him.
Is she absent?
well, i just don't see that more moderator action is a good thing. again, reference TT.
as for one thread spilling over to the rest of theMote, i laugh. you should note that a LOT of old posters have shown up and posted. will they be back? i dunno. the 'venom' of the thread didn't seem too much of a deterrent.
i think, rather unobjectively i must admit, that more moderation will drive away more people than Ace's 3rd grade screeds, but hell, i could be wrong.
1) excessive personally directed attacks
2) excessive copying instead of linking
3) the crazy poster
Numbers 2 and 3 are noise. Number 1 has the effect of a fight clearing out a bar. Too many of them and people skip hanging out at the bar.
When we orginally set up the inferno, we were better at moving personal attacks to that thread. Somewhere, we quit doing that.
Also, it creates work for the host and oftentimes results in the posts being read twice, plus discussion about whether the posts should have been moved.
--Nelson Rockefeller (1908-1979) to his aide Henry Kissinger.
Ozzie Nelson on Rosetta Stone, Sept 2001
toys
I know someone who wants to join the mote. Is that new-member email working yet?
However, I also long for the days of yore when an issue, such as the attack, would have attracted very knowledgable people from a variety of backgrounds offering insights and discussions resulting in a learning experience for all. Alas, no more.
It did, but it kind of got lost in the hysteria.
Comparing the Mote to a favorite hangout place, which a few decide to make uncomfortable, just doesn't make sense to me. If my actual body is at a place like that, I feel a threat. How can I feel threatened on the Mote?
I feel that some of the opposition to Ace is because he is very skilled in pointing out absurd positions, at least absurd to him and a few others on the Mote.
I don't know about pointing them out but holding them, yes.
The price of purity is purists.
That was not nice of Ace, and he should have his mouth washed out with soap.
Well, Scott, you may be right.
The worst offenders are the ones who have a great mastery of the language and the ability to type extremely fast but feel the need to prove constantly to all of us how intelligent they are. I am not saying they are not intelligent but they will go to extremes to prove they are. Unremittingly, incessantly, persistently, and adnauseam, these posters will not accept gracefully a learned answer because their need to prove they are intelligent is too great.
It does not matter how smart you are but if you feel inadequate, you have a real problem and you drive everybody else nuts trying to work it out. A person in that condition needs therapy not the Mote.
Are some here so weak-minded that others are able to exercise "psychological dominion" over them via posts?
Must be Europeans and other furriners...
For anyone who thought my misuse of toys was disruptive .... I'm sorry. I just wanted to see Ozzie banned before I had to kick his ass.
No, but the boredom that settles in after the thousandth post saying the same thing...embellished with name calling and ridicule...sometimes holds dominion over a thread. Just because someone thinks they are brilliant and witty doesn't mean they are...
This was told to me by Ace once so it must be true.
But I think the 'cease to engage' if more widely deployed would mean that quality posters would not feel the need to leave and, as slur-mongers found themselves with fewer and fewer posters willing to engage them, they may just possibly alter their behavior so they may maintain an audience.
would also make one feel less lonely and wondering why in hell one should keep trying.
it won't work, with him, however. he likes the sound of his own words and self-proclaimed wit too much. plus, his sidekick and he frequently feed off one another. to the detriment of both.
I see no easy solutions.
I remember (now). I should have attributed.
judith (15648): I will concede that were a Motier to post 1,000 posts of the same thing, then yes, that's interferring with discussion.
If we wish to discuss name-calling and ridicule, I suspect I can find instances of just about every poster here engaging in such (not all, but most). Most of the time, those who always engage the idea rather than the person will find that such behavior is reciprocated.
when I was in High School I hated when a teacher scolded the whole class for the actions of one or a few. I always wished they just named the villian they had in mind. I wish it here, too.
Als toys
I think blow-out verbal fights stop the conversation cold and scare off people. If people could move their emotional arguments over to inferno, and leave the topical thread for argument/discussion, it would help. That's my opinion on it.
Today Marjoribanks and Jenerator battled over the missionaries in Afghanistan. There is actually a discussion there. But when their descriptions of each other escalated, I reach a point that I don't read either. It's a "oh, they're in the middle of a fight."
Both of these posters have been part of this community a long time. I read both of their comments. And I apologize for singling them out. It is the freshest example.
A moderator or thread host can't police that stuff all the time, nor should they. When people are in the middle of flaming each other, why don't they move it themselves to the inferno?
The other answer, I suppose, is to have certain threads that are no-holds barred, and some that are tolerant up until it is all personal.
Would it be possible for you to name names, so paranoid people such as I will not take offense?
I don't have to like what other people say here.
They don't have to like what I post.
But it's a challenge. How do we have a community of posters who disagree or argue without it resorting to a knock down drag out?
One other observation. I don't know about the other participants here, but my nerves have been frayed over the past couple of weeks. That's my own problem -- I don't need the cyber equivalent of a group hug. But I imagine others here are little jumpy/cranky right now.
I had the wish of Thoughtful and Wabbit, but just as it doesn't work in any real life/face-to-face discussion, it doesn't work here. Some people just have more time and less to do with it and more pettiness or need for validation or whatever their problem is, so that they derail conversations with their incessant nit-picking and hatefulness and ranting, adding little to no substance when it's said and done. In a bigger forum they can't disrupt as much as they can here. It's not their aggressiveness or their rudeness. Scott's right, that the poster he refers to can be as rude as anyone here, but he doesn't derail discussions or talk out his ass incessantly or target people for annihilation by endless sniping and masses of posts.
I have no suggestions as to what to do. I'm just stating my own observations and airing a bit of irritation at what is admittedly a very small number of people. I have been grateful to Alistair and Wabbit and Jay and all the others who've stepped in to help them maintain this forum for our enjoyment, and as far as I'm concerned, whatever they choose to do with anything here is fine.
Seadate,
Smooches to you!
And you know I've confessed many times that my sense of humor needs psychiatric attention.
Fuck your granny if you get paranoid because of my posting style. Why should I be censored just because you're a titty-baby who can't handle plain speaking?
All kidding aside I didn't name names because while there are from time to time specific Motards who stand out because of this behavior I'm more concerned with the issue of deciding what our priorities are. What is the purpose of the Mote? Is it to ensure that every crackpot, heckler and bully on the internet has a place to grandstand? Or do we truly wish to promote intelligent discussion? There is a choice to be made.
At this point at least one and usually several people will come forward hysterically crying about how we're going to become a police state or embrace the Nanny-mamma-ism of Table Talk. Frankly, that's just bunk. No one is suggesting, has ever suggested that all must be sweetness and light in the Mote. Nobody here wants that, but there are a million points on the spectrum between All-Treacle All the Time and Abusive Bombast 24/7.
thank god for your last two paragraphs. I was half way to the medicine cabinet for my Prozac.
I, too, wish discussions were more reasonable and instructive. And I know some have left the Mote because they often are not. I will name one name, spudboy, who I've had the pleasure to meet.
He tried comming back under a different handle, but got the same result, although I don't think any were aware it was him.
I agree, gj.
As for people taking their marbles and going elsewhere, my own perception is that has little to do with failing to ban people who "need" banning.
I think what hurts the Mote is a lack of promotion and innovation. In the past, I think posters have been turned off by a perception of unfairness in the way the place is run (regardless of whether true or not, the perception is there). And finally, we haven't worked at retaining members.
For example, suppose Diva becomes abusive of Ace. If others think Diva is going over the top with Ace, then they should stand up to Diva. This is much better than invoking the "higher authority" of the moderator because it makes Ace feel like a valued member of the community and that some people here care about him. If Ace is the kind of poster who can't handle personal attacks, then a moderator stepping in doesn't do much for the hurt the personal attack has left him with; it just makes Diva mad and estranged and feeling as though she were treated unfairly (perhaps because she thinks the moderator played favorites).
That is the way a community should self-police. Positive reinforcement of one another rather than just negative behavior and punishment. It's not perfect because some sensitive souls will likely depart anyway (which is why we need promotion, etc.).
I could elaborate on all these points, but it's hardly worth the effort anymore.
Punishing Ace is another bad recruitment move, in my opinion. If you want an audience, start a fight.
You pussies aren't going to "punish" me.
I don't even know why you feel the need to jerk yourselves off about it.
There are about ten interesting people here. The rest of you are tedious intellectual mediocrities without personality, wit, or education.
The day you second-raters really rise up against The Great Satan Ace is the day I eat a fucking boot.
Ohmigod - the Mote is dying!
Cellar and Irv quit...AGAIN!
Cellar's already back, BTW.
Irv will be back next week if the pattern holds.
Oh, there'll be the typical hand-wringing about how this site no longer holds interest for him, blah blah blah blah; but he'll be here to whine about it nevertheless.
One Irv = 5 Aces, etc.
Nah -I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but still...
Only 5? That's a conservative estimate. Or rather, I guess, a liberal estimate. No, wait... oh, forget it.
Precisely how many Joezans are one "quality poster" such as Tokyo Loar worth? 100? 200?
Most of the self-adjudged "quality posters" here are, to put it politely, complete buffoons and jackasses. To hear persons such as thoughtful complaining that the world is no longer priviledged to read their "thoughts"...
Good lord.
The "quality posters" do very little besides parrot the confortable, convetional liberal wisdom. Their idea of "debate" is to parrot back the same trite pieties back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all day like some obscenely tedious tennis match.
Fuck that. What you take as "conventional wisdom" most of the rest of us see as "horseshit peddled by ignoramuses, retards, half-wits, shut-ins, and ill-educated hausfraus."
By the way:
For all of you peddling the bullshit about "we have to love one another or die," I invite you to take your own advice and love me unconditionally, in hopes your demonstration of nobility and love will "change my heart."
Any takers? Hm? No?
Didn't think so.
seriously: I hope one day The Mote has the courage to be hit and, rather than hit back, look AceofSpades straight in the eyes and say "I love you."
How about it, Alistair? If you're peddling that BULLSHIT to stop terrorism, how about you put some of it into practice in this forum, first?
What AceofSpades needs is not punishment and retaliation, after all, but only love, acceptance, toleration, education, improved public infrastructure, debt cancellation, and thousands of dollars in direct subsidies from the self-appointed G7 Group of Quality Posters.
When am I gettin' my fat aid check?
Usetabe 7 - it's 5 now, remember?
Wait - that's right. Cellar's back.
So, it's 6.
(That's in unweighted numbers, of course).
The "quality posters" do very little besides parrot the confortable, convetional liberal wisdom. Their idea of "debate" is to parrot back the same trite pieties back and forth, back and forth, back and forth all day like some obscenely tedious tennis match.
I generally agree with this. I often try to bring something new when I post. A link to an interesting article, or a viewpoint or comment. Perhaps less praiseworthy, but still interesting to me, is to see who fires up when I rake their idol of a former president across the coals. And, very occasionally, I even take a mild swipe at somebody (but I apologized for the last time I did that).
er...I think I need therapy. I found that therapy comment of yours very funny.
'cease to engage' doesn't work well unless everyone is in unison. Too many mavericks around here fo that, don't you think, thoughtful?
Ms. No - staunch devotion to protecting the right of people to be assholes
Never give an inch!
Do you have that on a plaque over your bed?
For some reason, this has given me a very bad case of the chuckles.
...Well, I guess some of the others also are worthwhile, just for their ability to get one's heart rate up a little bit.
Mebbe some people think those butt waxings are all in fun, but I know better.
I think I should be banned.
(I'll say this: I can't remember the last time that Cellar posted something toward me that was a personal attack. Not in at least a year, I'd say.)
But I don't think he left because of abuse by Ace. The two of them have gone at each other for years full throttle. My opinion is that Cellar left because of what he saw as the dominant reaction of this site during the few days after the WTC attack, and it was a reaction with which he didn't agree.
I do think, however, it's contradictory to be talking about the need to punish Ace for abusive posting while lamenting the absence of Cellar.
So I ask him: If you shoot at mimes, should you use a silencer?
Message # 15683 is simply not true, as testifies the Attack on America thread where information, solutions, insights were constantly disrupted by AceofSpades and JoeZan to no other purpose than to throw epithets like "peace-fairies" and "cowards" to anyone who opposed anything less than immediate and indiscriminate bombing of seven countries inhabited by "camel-jockeys", "towel-heads"... you get the point. Yet a week later the Great Ace retreated from this absurd position, but at what cost to any reasoned debate? Reasoned debate had long earlier left that thread so Ace could debate the living standard of Libya or the topography of Afghanistan - matters not open to debate but which can be easily uncovered for his enlightenment by referring to National Geographics.
Ace then moves on to discussing military matters of which he has no experience but does allow the wide latitude of speculation which feeds him. Again, to what end? So that we can be subjected to ever more of Ace and his sidekick JoeZan whose arguments reduce to (look! he presents his arguments here in front of you!) "Fuck you cowards"?
Joezan is a bit of a puzzle. Definitely a "me-tooer" in the Attack thread in terms of his own insistance that he and only he (and Ace) have the answers and that the rest of us are with "them" because we aren't with him. Not in keeping with his usual image. I chalk it up to the trauma of the terrorism, which is of course is unsettling (to put it mildly) to all of us, but perhaps especially so for those who live in picturebook quasi-rural America where political views are mostly homogenized and never given much of a reality check. It doesn't make his rigidity and desire to deck the "peace fairies" any easier to take, but more explicable.
The problem for the Mote is not the Joezans of this world, because this is probably an aberration for him. Ace, on the other hand, was just being himself but on an elevated level.
I don't have answers. But, on some reflection, I don't think the solution of some of just withdrawing from discussion with him when he's in one of his extreme provoked moods or just ignoring him generally does the trick. It tends to make his rantings even more prominent and leaves a distorted to any potential newcomers. (surely there continue to be lurkers here.)
At any rate, forward we go.
And to be quite frank, janjon, I do believe that is more the content of Ace's post that upset you than his abusiveness.
I'm not sure there is a choice to be made. To date we have been unable to diminish the former which is so whithering to the latter, despite the desires of what I think are a majority of posters here. We have struggled with it for years but have yet to devise an effective solution.
I wish there were some way to get the virulent posters to realize that their offensive tactics don't make for effective argument, sway no one and do nothing to honor themselves. It only drives others away so eventually they will be left alone in a virtual room shouting invectives that no one will hear.
But that wish has a snowball's chance in hell....
The suspicion of political bias is hooey.
Cellar -liberal- suspended
CharlieL - liberal- suspended 2x
RosettaStone -conservative - suspended 3 or 4x?
Sakonige - liberal - suspended
JadeGold - liberal - suspended
Seguine - liberal - suspended
Actually, it looks like we're picking on liberals. Maybe there's something to that bias suspicion after all?
How many fans of that oscar winnin' fellah got that?
It goes way against the grain, but I think I am going to start enforcing more civility in the politics thread, and see what happens.
er...I think I need therapy. I found that therapy comment of yours very funny.
My point was that just as a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor ask them to do so, the arguers will dispute or attack anything put forward irrespective of merit in their quest for identity.
I am glad that I did amuse you, though. Hard to do these days. :-}
Cellar - liberal- suspended -- For spamming ten or twenty times after numerous warnings
CharlieL - liberal- suspended 2x -- for revealing personal information after numerous warnings
RosettaStone - conservative - suspended 3 or 4x? -- for being a general pest and whiner
Sakonige - liberal -suspended -- I don't get this one, but whatever. Sak is the sort of liberal who calls for the extermination of Jews; it's fine if you want to count her as one of your own for these purposes, but I doubt very much that MsNo or any other liberal has ever called the unstable, Genocidal Sak a "liberal" *before* now.
What she is is a drunken crank.
JadeGold - liberal - suspended --For outing personal information multiple times and for making threats.
Seguine - liberal - suspended -- Ditto. Actually, she *wasn't even suspended*, so MsNo is lying. She *voluntarily* quit the site; all the liberals rallied round her and refused to take any action against her whatsoever.
There you go. All clear violations of the RoE (except Sak), suspended only after multiple warnings and multiple violations, and *always* only after long argument with the liberal management.
And yet:
"Fuck" and "fat assed" are now proposed as credible grounds for banning.
Whatever, assholes. It's your party; it can die if you want it to.
Please explain, MsNo and Wabbit, how you are suddenly in favor of banning under the vague and arguable caveats of "unnecessary personal attacks," when you've fought so strenously to avoid suspensions and bannings for clear, bright-line, no-argument-about-it violations of the Mote's
QUOTE
most important rule
UNQUOTE.
Have more liberals been suspended? Perhaps. But then, more liberals, apparently, have difficulty comporting themselves with the mote's
QUOTE
Most important rule
UNQUOTE.
And you dipshits fought banning and suspensions for *them* for weeks.
Again, I call for MsNo, Wabbit, and PelleQuisling to resign.
The check is in the email, Ace honey.
And yes, I'll turn the other cheek. So you can kiss my arse.
Psych,
Of course I bloody am. Duh.
But of course no one would allow me to serve in that position. So, fine.
PS,
I'd sorta like to be banned.
I just wonder if you have the balls to 1) do it and 2) apply the "Ace Rule" evenly to liberals.
Cellar was banned for spamming, not for his thousand "I hope you have a seizure and die" posts.
Jexster has never been suspended, despite his thousand "Eat my runny viral-loaded shit" posts.
Neither of these two Moral Champions has been so much as *warned* for the "abusive content" of their posts. Their posts, after all, are *funny.* And they're funny because they're true.
And yet: I am constantly warned, and threatened, etc., etc., etc.
So, ban me. 1, I don't give a shit, and 2, I honestly don't give a shit, and 3, I really, really don't give a shit. I like and/or respect ten people here; the rest of you can, quite frankly, go hang. It would not crush me to no longer spar with intellectual giants such as Janny-Jan, MajoriAziz, Alistair "Hypothetical Questions are Traps" O'Connor, etc. For the level of intellectual discourse I will be missing, I'll just have to make up for it by playing Yes you are No you aren't with my four year old niece.
So, ban me already. Stop threatening it; have the balls to do it. I will be greatly amused to watch you contort your rule to allow banning me while continuing to allow, and even encourage, Cellar's and Jexster's various outrages.
PP,
"Why not?"
Please.
PP,
You're a nice enough fellow, but don't ask dumb questions.
"It goes way against the grain, but I think I am going to start enforcing more civility in the politics thread, and see what happens."
Do what you like, Chump.
"nice to know that he has feelings, no matter how hidden."
Yes, Janny. Thank you for helping me figure out this funny little muddle called AceofSpades.
I don't care whether he's banned or not, but I'd like for someone to explain the difference between him and Jon Ferguson, for example, for whose banishment Ace himself bayed.
Francis called for it several times.
There are several people I think are nice enough folks here, and I do think the Mote has (for better or worse) a real sense of community, but I do read the Mote primarily for intellectual stimulation, particularly aggressive and entertaining argumentation.
Unfortunately from my personal perspective, it has become harder and harder to engage in that here because of the mixing of the personal and the intellectual (meaning not so much insults, but rather too many people have "relationships" going beyond just abstract posts).
In all honesty, though I like most Motiers (and probably find something to like in just about all of them), there really are only a few that I immediately click on a thread to see what they have to say. A few of those names might be surprising; a couple I consider(ed) singularly boring would also likely be unexpected. And it's not all politics, either, because I can name easily four conservative posters--though I won't--who I consistently scroll. Worse, I even find my own writing increasingly boring and lacking vigor because of the need to be diplomatic.
Anyway, I keep thinking it's time to move on. The events of 911 should have shown us (once again) that life is too precious to spend it in a way you find increasingly unrewarding.
there are probably two ways of handling him - more people responding to his bile (it really isn't difficult at all to cut through his crap, most of it is so blatantly obvious) or to the other extreme just withdrawing from contact when he gets particularly egregious.
the probable solution is that people will continue to do either, depending on their tolerance levels and personal proclivities.
and we will muddle on.
However, let me add that, at least for me, if/when I do decide to "move on", it will be only partly because of Ace's bilge and vituperative ways. It would be more because this place is too small and too predictable.
AlD,
The suspicion of political bias is hooey.
Cellar - liberal- suspended
CharlieL -liberal- suspended 2x
RosettaStone - conservative - suspended 3 or 4x?
Sakonige - liberal - suspended
JadeGold - liberal - suspended
Seguine - liberal - suspended
Pardon my naivete; perhaps I don't follow enough threads, but am I to believe that all of these people were prevented from posting by the Mote management at some time or another for RoE infractions, or am I missing something? The only one I was familiar with was RS.
Joezan is a bit of a puzzle. Definitely a "me-tooer" in the Attack thread in terms of his own insistance that he and only he (and Ace) have the answers and that the rest of us are with "them" because we aren't with him. Not in keeping with his usual image. I chalk it up to the trauma of the terrorism, which is of course is unsettling (to put it mildly) to all of us, but perhaps especially so for those who live in picturebook
quasi-rural America where political views are mostly homogenized and never given much of a reality check. It doesn't make his rigidity and desire to deck the "peace fairies" any easier to take, but more explicable.
1) I was born and raised in NY - lived there till I was 29.
2) It was precisely the, uh, unique "reality checks" on my political consciousness that only a place like NY can provide which changed me from a bleeding-heart liberal peace fairy into the raging, dangerously conservative man I am now, long before I ever left the place. In fact, the most important factor in my deciding to move here -precisely here, was the fact that this is the most conservative, law-and-order, Republican district in the entire country.
3) I still have many relatives all over NY, none of whom (except for a shirt-tail relative who works for Chase on Water St), thankfully, was directly effected by the attack. But "trauma" had nothing to do with my reaction to the events of 9-11, which served only to cement my long-held views about this country's policies with regard to terrorism, and the ME in general (which, really, are one and the same).
Where was Ace threatened with banning this time?
As far as I know, nobody has actually called for his banning. But Ace is not known for letting facts get in the way of a good story.
But actually, I interpret it as a plea for help. The Mote is a cancer which is eating up his life. A high proportion of his waking hours is devoted to an activity that he wouldn't miss. He's asking us to ban him, to save him from himself.
But compulsive personalities being what they are, perhaps by not banning him, we're saving him from gambling, pornography or heroin.
However, I believe he should be strongly reprimanded for posting complete articles, without linking them, such as the repeated lengthy fascist screeds of the ignorant mewling witch Coulter.
I must move there immediately! (And here I thought that Texas was fairly conservative with it's districts.)
I always read what you have to post and will miss your being a contributor here.
Jade was booted at the end of the old Fray days for something like two weeks. I suspended Cellar for three days around some kind of election time for spam.
What was JG booted for? I presume that was after I had stopped posting to the Fray.
JAH - Fascists are socialists. Republicans are not socialists. Ergo, no Republican is a fascist.
All Ann Coulter is guilty of is having a clear perception, a sharp wit laced with irony and conservative sympathies.
I could be mistaken about this. She may have voluntarily left because she didn't like being reprimanded but I thought she was suspended.
I wasn't threatening or making a gesture, just describing my current attitude. And a vacation sounds like a great idea, though it'll have to be some place I can drive....
Thanks. Such references to relatives of Motiers are distressing, I know.
And I am glad you are around. Sorry I misread your post.
Isn't JA being just a leeeetle disingenuous here? Maybe I've missed some significant posting he's done recently, but the last couple of posts I've seen from him, he was sorta hassling Republicans. And then he'd cut and run. No particular problem with that, but then to turn around and complain about 'low signal to noise ratios'?
She did say that.
Is this that blonde with all the hair?
Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims -- at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.
Source
I've seen this question twice without any answer, but of course I don't see every single post at the Mote, so maybe it was answered. Does anyone know anything about CalGal?
I'm not trying to stir you-know-what. If it's a touchy subject, maybe someone who knows can email me, and I'll keep mum about it.
Do any of you Infrastructure Moties know how to contact in RL and see if she's okay, just swamped with work or something?
I guess I'm not the only one that feels a bit sensitive about "missing" folks during these troubled times. Everybody seems to quick on the worry trigger lately (g).
I've emailed and yesterday left voice-mail messages but haven't heard anything back at all.
Do you frequent the other forums where she posts? When was the last time she showed up at any of them?
CalGal is a computer programmer and used to work in Saudi Arabia.
There is always the possibility that she is now working for Uncle.
Francis also disappeared at the same time.
calgal -maybe.
frankie - nah.
No, not commandos, moron. I speak to the possibility that she speaks some Arabic, and therefore is valuable to the FBI, CIA, and NSA.
Besides, you posted regarding both, as was I.
muddle on.
Cal wasn't old enough to work in Saudi; as you say, she was still in school then.
God God, no.
Only one dipshit around here. Right now.
I mean, especially considering how fond we internet types are of conspiracy theories. Surely some operative would have made a dummy post about 'needing a break' to throw us off the scent.
(If you're going to spread rumors, make it a doozy.)
Anything Francis can do, I can do better. And with a shorter recovery time afterwards.
er...like what?
Can you imagine Francis doing anything to stop a terrorist?
Well...maybe he could get them to lower their guard from laughter long enough for Cal to kick some ass.
your infatuation is wasted.
not infatuation, el grande pasion!
Someone check it out. It's a question of whether we're going to go forward into the future, or past to the back.
Don't go around killing the goose that provides the golden opportunity.
Good plan. Just let me know if and when you want it set up.
Rosie,
Take the chatter to an appropriate thread.
When the people who have left outnumber those here, you know you have a problem.
And, foolish me, to be the only one chatting here!!!
I don't mind losing CalGal or JJ, but the departure of that Jesuit-educated, that extrachromosome right winger, recently out-of-the-closet, Francis the Niner is a crime against the state.
Actually I do miss JJ. Not that he ever put any effort into his music thread, mind you.
2538. JayAckroyd -10/4/01 9:06:39 AM
This is a reminder that we are planning network maintenance activity for this Saturday between 9 am and 5 pm EDT. The mote server will be down several times within that period.
No, you're certainly not the only person who chats here, you just happened to be the person chatting at the time when I noticed that there'd been a lot of chatter.
If you have a legitimate suggestion then please make it without name-calling and insults.
For example, did you know that Matt Drudge's website gets more readers than those of the USAToday, Washington Post and NYTimes. Advertisers are taking notice.
There had been some push for a Periodical thread to focus on magazines like the Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker but nothing much came of it.
I'm not sure how an even more generalized "media" thread would be different from the News & Current Events thread. It seems silly to start a new thread that will compete in the same territory as an existing thread just for the sake of further compartmentalization. Sort of like "Well here we have the lima bean thread which is only about lima beans as opposed to the legumes thread, the vegetable thread and the food thread."
But a media criticism themed thread seems like a nobrainer.
BTW, how do some get to stay hosts of threads, even though they no longer post and/or lurk here?
Is it a legacy thingy...
There are several things to consider, thread traffic, not least of them. Some threads require more active hosting than others. Other threads need nothing more than the capacity to be hosted if some disaster should occur.
I have emailed JJ regarding the threads that he hosts/co-hosts and am waiting to hear whether he wants to resume a more active role as host or perhaps turn over some or all of his hosting duties to other Moties.
I can do the MOVIES thread. We've just rented "Josie & the Pussycats" and it's hilarious.
Sorry, no more threads for you.
Despite repeated oportunities to make good on your claims you have consistently proven yourself either unwilling or unable to comport yourself as an effective thread host for any length of time.
e-mail registration program is broken--and has been so since late June.
There are plenty of people available to host threads even if the number were to increase.
The Mote techs are well aware of the registration delay and have for some months now had an appropriate fix in place while they work on reinstating auto-registration.
BTW, I don't intend to address these issues with you again. If you cannot restrain yourself from repeated postings intended to do nothing more than annoy and provoke then you'll find your posts moved to the Inferno.
I think he was lurking in his MUSIC thread last week but might have been to freightened to post.
Just sad.
Is there a reason why he hasn't posted in three months?
Worry is rust upon the blade.
it boggles the mind to think that ANYONE could spend as much time as you do playing the insipid little games that you do.
Pathetic.
POJ, JJ hasn't posted....I think it's because of your breath.
I just placed at the NYTimes forum, under its Opinion forum, Maureen Dowd thread and gave credit to Judith.
BTW, if you want the FBI to read your posts, place them at the NYTimes' forums.
I consider this to be a threat.
Rosie adds nothing here but is a constant source of static. Toss him.
rosetta_stone - 11:40am Oct 13, 2001 EST (#61576 of 61588)
The NYTimes will remain very sympathetic to the gay agenda because "3/4th of those who regularly decide what goes on the front page of the Times are 'not-so-closed homosexuals,'" says Richard Berke, NYT national political correspondent, recorded by C-SPAN, at the 4/12/00 meeting of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Assn. in Washington, DC. [ed. note: the preceding is Rosie's tagline … it's classic Josetta: he hates all the boards he posts on!]
I just read this at the mote, another terrific online forum.
from Judithathome
This is something interesting I read on another forum and thought I'd share here; I've wondered why President Bush keeps repeating the words "evil-doers" so much and if this is true, it reminds me of the way his dad used to deliberately mispronounce "Saddam".
On the radio today I read that the term "evil-doer" was chosen specificially for the way it translated into Arabic, or whatever language Afphanis speak. It translates into something with shameful connotations in their language, versus "terrorist" which translates positively to them, as someone who's fighting a holy war & doing God or Allah's work. The story said that calling them "terrorists" is only encouraging them, making them believe they are doing what is right, and a great deal of thought was put into finding an alternate term for the President to use.
Basically they said that "evil-doer" in their language means someone who's doing the devil's work, someone with no regard for God or Allah who is fixated on senseless killing and violence. It's a huge shame and embarrassment to be called whatever word this translate to. I found this really interesting.
Seriously. Toss him.
Osama uses the same tool by calling Muslims who don't unite behind his cause "unbelievers". The same word is used in the Koran for those people who receive a fate worse than hell.
Call them evil-doers, it fits appropriately.
Didn't the mispronunciation of Saddam mean "little boy"?
Do you think that the press is deliberately mispronouncing Colin Powell's name? I've heard a lot of "colons".
The weird thing about this is my post was meant to show something I thought was smart in what Bush was doing...it wasn't meant as a criticism at all, and neither was my remark about the way Bush Sr. heckled Saddam by saying his name that way. I loved that idea...
That ought to teach me to say nice things about Bush!
1-976-STUD
1-976-SPNK
1-976-CLIT
1-976-POPE
1-976-POKE
1-976-JIZM
... all called from Josetta's daughter's phone.
Sodomee Es-sin
So damn i'sane. (Q'uranic rendition)
Sat him ass on
Oh, and the biggest macanudo you have.
I was agreeing with you and elaborating somewhat.;-)
No rush, but when you're done with lunch, could you toddle over to the pro shop and bag that cashmere twinset for me?
Muh darlin was asking me the same question about the pronunciation of Powell's first name. I've always heard it pronouced as "colon". It's my guess that's how Powell says it himself.
Oh, waiter... could I have a large hot fudge sundae to go with that?
We're all a nation of heroes now.
I heard that if prounounced SadDamn, it means "little boy".
So Papa Bush was secretly reminding SadDamn Who-Sane that we had the nukes and weren't afraid to use them.
Ask Japan.
And your post is a threat to them? How?
BTW, Francis. That number you posted is very,/i> close to our actual number.
No golf for you, anymore.
And your post is a threat to them? How?
BTW, Francis. That number you posted is very, close to our actual number.
No golf for you, anymore.
To show that we are a humanitarian bunch and that we just want to punish Rosie and not his family (god knows they've probably suffered enough over the years), I suggest that we airdrop 5 tons of MRE's on his house.
Very clever, IJ. Spoken like a true historian.
Consider it my gift to you.
Rosetta
You are about to be struck by a bunker buster. I suggest you work on your contingency alias.
Ducky, I'm confused. There's been a lot of name calling and swearing in your thread and I'm glad to see most of it is gone, but you chastise Judith for "*" but even after POJ's threat, he is not told to stop. Seems to me he goes out his way to hassle her. Stalks her even, at every thread.
Property of Dubya
Property of Slobodan
Property of Maryland State Dept. of Corrections
Envision Me Gone
J** T******
No, Rosie, as usual you are wrong...YOUR post was a THREAT to ME.
amen.
No threat. Just drama.
We remember when he first joined this little community. Using his real name, he logged on with an open heart and eager spirit. Soon, however, his shortcomings became apparent, and he was comprehensively rejected by the community, both intellectually and personally. More often than not his contributions to serious discussions were cut-and-pasted from others' works. And when he was expressing his home-grown opinions, the other participants groaned at their appalling shallowness and banality.
Thus began the revolving door of logon IDs. A new name. A fresh start. But always the same tired prejudices, the same stunted intellect.
Wounded, he retaliated in the only way he could think of: by emarking on a mission to make everyone as miserable as he was.
A lifetime ban of him and all his subsequent personas may force him to move on. His obssession with this community can't be healthy for him or for the people in his real life.
Do it.
I recount this vignette in support of don's post, and in support of a lifetime and vigorous ban on Rosetta Stone and all of his successor aliases. To those who would rush to his defense, based on notions of due process or fair treatment or concerns over the fates of those who may be more proular than others, I direct you to the actions of the ACLU.
Now is not the time.
Let this man hang.
First Judith sees a threat in the fact that a post of hers which lauds Bush has been placed in other forum which is allegedly read by the FBI. Frankly I have difficulty in seeing the threat, and, by the way, if the FBI is monitoring online forums we must assume that the best of them is monitored too, mustn't we?.
The second charge is of general obnoxiuosness. That is generally valid. On the other hand we have only banned two posters, Ferguson and cazart, on those grounds and I feel Rosetta has a bit to go before he reaches their standard. But of course what is lacking in quality can be made up in quantity and he is working hard on that.
I advocate ostracism.
As to point 2, it's clear that people won't ostracize him (and those that complain about him the most are often those who respond to him the most).
I won't be "rushing to his defense" either. Whatever is decided is okay with me.
Reliance upon your prior lack of spine in the cases of Ferguson and cazart, a spinelessness that now creates the standard one must reach in order to be banned, is not only unwise, but it is suspect.
Ostracism is attention, Osama bin Rosetta's goal, and a deteriment to The Mote.
Cough him up.
If I told you I was going to place your name in a area where the FBI might give you undue attention, I think you might feel threatened. You may not think it was a threat but I did.
Change FBI to InterPol, if you'd prefer.
What about posting something on another forum, taken from here, and posting it, with the name of a member from here, with out the Motie's permission?
I am wondering why DonS would post a hint at Rosie's real name.
Again and again, DonS and CharlieL violate, or *almost* violate, "the Mote's most important rule."
I have no major beef against Trousers48Husky. But I don't understand why he continuously breaks the rule after innumerate warnings.
I would think a suspension, or at least a last, final warning, is in order.
As for Rosie: Ban him. It's close enough to a threat to serve as a pretext.
That's not unfunny.
I hope DonS. will address these concerns.
Some possible future Mote Monikers™ for Josetta Stone:
Property of Dubya
Property of Slobodan
Property of Maryland State Dept. of Corrections
Envision Me Gone
J** T******
Ummmm... why?
Why is this necessary?
Banning Rosie will lead to fresh Mote recruits.
If Rosie is banned, he will go to other sites and whine that he has been banned.
Other people will realize: "Hey! The Mote is a site where Rosie is not allowed! Perhaps I should go there to avoid Rosie!"
It's a win-win situation.
Rosie is a good potential terror-weapon we should release, finally, upon the unsuspecting cyberworld.
As Afghans run from US bombs, so will cyber-chatters run from Rosie.
Yes, Pelle, but he probably enjoys the fact he can get away with making threats on people with no penalty even more.
Of course not but I don't think he should just be allowed to get away with it, either. He constantly ridicules this place and everyone who participates in it...
I'm sure you can come up with excuses for him; someone always does..."he won't bother us if we don't bother him", "it won't do any good because he'll come back as an alias","we just have to put up with it because we have to be fair"...fine, excuse him all you wish.
I guess we just have to wait til he irritates the right people...or wrong ones, however you care to look at it.
There's nothing to stop him from doing it. How would you know that he did it?
The Mote moderators are responsible for policing what goes on here. They can't do anything about and should really have no interest in what goes on elsewhere.
I have no problem with whatever the moderators decide re Stone's term here. But you know as well as I do that Stone engages you because you are someone who consistently rises to his bait. You empower him as far as anything he's able to "do" to you.
As far as "right versus wrong people," get serious. Stone irritates everyone here. You don't think he targets the moderators? You don't think he targets CalGal?
Who do you think he needs to hack off before he's banned?
I'm not talking about what he MIGHT do...I'm talking about what he DID do. I felt threatened by him saying he was going to put my name somewhere the FBI was sure to see it. Call me a wuss; I felt it.
I don't know who he needs to hack off before he's banned but it clearly doesn't matter if it's half the people on this site.
And yes I do "rise" to his bait...as do others. If you think that excuses him, fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
I think you are being uncharacteristically unreasonable over this. Rosetta irritates me mightily. But from there to banning is a long step. May I remind you of CalGal being banned from TT because a clique of posters there were upset by her style? I don't want the Mote to operate like that.
In my four years of posting in the Fray/Mote only three posters have been banned. Rosetta is a candidate but in my view he has not yet fulfilled the requirements.
I do agree with Pelle about the FBI. If anything is posted on the net, the FBI may be reading it. But, that doesn't mean POJ's actions here should just be ignored.
Copying posts between forums is done all the time, haven't you noticed?
But given that the Mote is public, I don't see any grounds for a complaint.
Oh well, evidently it isn't that big a deal; I shouldn't worry my pretty little head over it, right? Fine...I can wait for the asshole to step over whatever line you've got set up in your head. Thanks for you consideration, anyhow.
since we've pretty much decided it's for those already here and not to draw in new folks.
I wasn't aware we'd decided that, Pelle.
I didn't post that.
X-post.
