Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
- Status
Hopper
Banned
Mo, if you think my objection was to your "phraseology," then I guess that just goes to show how difficult it is to discuss this issue in any meaningful way. That was not the basis of my objection.
Let me see if I can clarify my comment some. My comments are simply addressed to what "could be considered trolling." That's the substance. I am not particularly concerned with whatever "catchphrase" (whether it's "disrupting the natural flow," or anything else) one might to assign "summarize" a proposed new way of deciding that a particular behavior "could be considered trolling." My observation was that I could not see how adding a comment to an existing thread could be considered "trolling" just because it had the incidental effect of momentarily becoming the most recent post in the thread.
You did not even address that substantive point, at first. You still haven't that I can see, but maybe I’m missing something. You have added some new content to your post that seems to go beyond questions of definitions, so let me address those comments. You added:
I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at there or if it's intended to elaborate on the "disruption" that you suggest occurs automatically because the machinery shows posts in the time order they occur. But since it is in all caps, I take it that the TIME FRAME is important to you. I also take it that the question of whether or not some other party "is responding" seems important to you. It could be that the two are related for you, i.e., that the TIME FRAME involved between the time a post is made and the time (if any) that a poster "responds" or otherwise enters a new post into the thread, is crucial to you, I'm not really sure.
Just to help with the "CONTEXT," Let me summarize, to a relatively brief degree, the warning I got, and the circumstances which led to it being issued. The warning referred to the "Morman Hypothetical" thread, but contained references to page numbers in that thread which did not exist (for me, at least). You may recall this thread. You, and quite a few others, made some contributions to it. At some point, based on a comment made by Edgewriter which was basically scoffed at by Sharpie, as I recall, the thread took a turn toward the question of whether or not "atheism" can be viewed as a "religion." Toward the end of that thread (which appears to be where at least some of my allegedly objectionable posting occurred) the major participants had been reduced to me and Eric, although you and others were still involved to a lesser extent.
The warning I got asserted that: "you have 16 of the current 23 posts, including one group of 6 in a row and another of 5 in a row." Again, it was not clear just what the particular 23 posts being referred to are, but I have just now taken the time to try to figure out which ones they were. Kicky said this would be “easy” to do, but it has in fact taken me the better part of an hour to do so.
I got this message at 5:43 A. M. on 7-8, and since it speaks in the current tense I am guessing that the last post counted in the 23 post sequence in question was one I made at 8:13 P.M. on 7-7. If I count back 23 posts from there, I come to a post that Marcus made at 8:17 P.M on 7-6. In that sequence I count 15 posts made by me, one of which was deliberately left blank for legibility purposes, so really 14. All of this occurs over a 24-hour period.
Prior to making my first post in this 23-post long sequence, I had not made a post since about 8:00 P.M. the night before—about a 15 hour period. In the interim, Sharpie, Raspberry Delight (twice), Marcus, and you, Mo, all made posts, almost all of which were addressed to comments I had made before I left the thread for the night. I was not there to immediately respond to them of course, although I did address some later in the thread.
But the first thing I did was make a couple of posts that were directed to the discussion itself rather than particular posters: one quoting from atheists.org and one quoting from Richard Dawkins' website. In my view, these two posts added a LOT more to the advancement and stimulation of the general topic than the 6 posts that been made while I was gone, but that's probably just my own self-bias. Eric works, and, although he appears to have made a couple of posts during his lunch break, most of his posts are made after 5:00 P.M., so I certainly didn’t expect him to “immediately respond” to any of the posts I was making that were intended primarily for his reading and consideration.
As far as “CONSECUTIVE" posts go: On 7-7 I made 6 consecutive posts in a 46 minute period between 12:18 and 1:04. Just prior to that, at 12:11, Eric had made a post in response to me and my first two posts were directed to that particular comment (the two could have been combined, I suppose, but I had received no warnings and thought nothing of it at the time). Those two posts were followed by quotations from an article I was reading on the web about the relationship between secularism and religion, which were posted for general consideration by Eric or anyone else interested in the discussion. The last two were addressed to you, Mo. Although one of those posts specifically quoted a prior (joking) post of yours, they were both just joking posts on my part—which you may have strongly resented, I dunno, but, if so, I’m sorry.
Then Eric made another post at 1:07 P.M. which responded to one of my posts. Thereafter he did not return to the thread until 5:36 P.M., when he made his next comment. In the intervening 4-5 hours, I made a total of 5 posts, one of which one intentionally left blank, so 4, really. Of those 4, 2 were addressed to Eric’s last point, one answered a question posed to me in a previous post by Sharpie, and the final one merely noted the hateful rep hit I received for the 3rd post, and asked if Sharpie had given it to me.
If there is any more to the “CONTEXT” that you think is important here, Mo. Please feel free to point it out. If not, is there something in particular about the TIME FRAME which you think makes these posts particularly intolerable. Eric begin responding again after he got back from work. Does it bother you, or other mods that he did not respond immediately? It is really not accurate to say that “nobody is responding” to my posts, just because no one responds until later. But even if no one responds, is that a reason not to make a post in the first place? Can’t people find something of value to consider in a post even if they don’t personally respond, whether immediately, or ever? How I can I know if, or when, anyone will respond when I make a post? I can’t know, best I can tell. Should that deter me from making a post to begin with?
Well, Mo, eliminating any standards of intent will certainly give the mods more license to simply say “trollin IS whatever we happen to say it is,” I spoze. Do me a favor, if you don’t mind: If you become aware of any significant changes in the rules being made in the future, can you make some kind of “public announcement” out of it? I don’t review the rules every time I log in as a matter of habit to see if they have changed, and I doubt anyone else does either.
Last edited:
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Who?
Hopper
Banned
You, Sharpie, that's who. That's my "nickname" for ya, cause...well, cause you're such a Sharpie, see?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Ah, you still think that.
Good for you.
And I think it's HILARIOUS that you, of all stereotypical cliches, would call anyone out on bringing substance to a thread.
Although it's only a one laughing smilie at you. The post earlier was more bemusing.
Good for you.
And I think it's HILARIOUS that you, of all stereotypical cliches, would call anyone out on bringing substance to a thread.
Although it's only a one laughing smilie at you. The post earlier was more bemusing.
Hopper
Banned
I don't think you're gittin no "special treatment," eh, Bum. You're treated just like (almost) everyone else is that's all.
No, I'm totally getting special treatment. I get away with more than anyone, it's spectacular. Also, I hate you. Die.
Actually you're up for a vote right now for your "five in a row" stunt. I wouldn't start celebrating yet.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Would this post be a good post to flag for spam?
Seriously? Don't take this the wrong way aint, but how the hell did that take the better part of an hour?
I went looking for it because I thought this was utterly unbelievable. I used an imprecise method of measuring how long it took me (I looked at what my clock said when I started and then looked at my clock again when I found it, so I'm not precise to the second or anything) and the answer was "about four minutes." And that was with the cat crawling all over me and periodically standing in front of my screen.
I didn't use any special tools or search methods either. I simply went to the general discussion forum, paged through until I found the thread, opened it, and then scrolled through the thread until I saw your avatar several times in a row. It was the least sophisticated search method possible.
Is your internet connection at 2400 baud? Did you have to restart your computer a whole bunch of times? What the hell else were you doing during your search? If some of this is caused by bad/old hardware and software that might be a contributing cause to your problems with the first post in threads as well.
Hopper
Banned
So, Kicky, you're sayin that as soon as you saw my avatar "several times in a row," you immediately KNEW exactly which "23" posts were bein referred to? Figures that you would think you knew that, assuming you did think so. Truth is, I still can't find any 23-post sequence which contains 16 by me.
And you're sayin you only went "looking" for "it" only AFTER reading what I said about exactly where to look? Well, aint that special, eh? Here I mighta thought that you woulda "looked" at the allegedly intolerable sequence BEFORE you voted on it. Stupid me, eh?
Last edited:
It is times like this that I miss the eyeroll emoticon.
Before (when it was originally reported) I had a direct link. I didn't have to "go looking" for it. I merely did a "dumb search" to see how long it would take to investigate the better part of an hour claim. Absent ancient technology and connection speeds, I still have no idea how it took you that long given that you knew which thread to look in. I could read the entire thread in less than an hour. How did you go about looking for it that it took so long? Did you try googling for "Hopper" and "16 of 23"? That wouldn't work. Did you check wikipedia for clues? Did you call a psychic? I'm serious when I say that I'm completely floored that this process took you longer than 10 minutes tops.
Hopper
Banned
Oh, ya did, eh? Is there some *special* reason why I wasn't given a "direct link" instead of some totally indecipherable reference to non-existent pages, only to thereafter (1) have my requests for clarification go unresponded to while (2) being told, along with every poster on this board who cared to read (and believe) you, that I had been "fully warned" on a "repeated" basis? Go figure, eh?
I'm "floored" that you actually think that what you "say" carries any kinda credibility, eh?
You should have been given a direct link because one accompanies every infraction or warning with a link to the post that was flagged for the warning and infraction. I gave your complaint a valid though and considered that it was possible that no link was automatically provided given that I myself have never been warned with the new board system. I created the testers account that you see in a post directly above mine then "warned" that post to see the message that was sent to the message box.
This is what I got:
As you can see, a link is automatically provided. So yes, I believe you got a link. If by some weird quirk that I'm not seeing you were not provided with a link, you were provided with the name of the thread and the uniqueness of you having only one stretch of posts that consist of five in a row and six in a row should have made this findable in a few minutes. Therefore, I accord your "lack of notice" claim zero weight.
My fragile self-esteem has now collapsed.
Hopper
Banned
Let me get this straight, eh, Kicky? On the basis of that long-*** post you're claiming to BELIEVE I got a link? As you have repeatedly stressed, you have access to the ACTUAL warning I got. Why didn't you look at it, before forming a 'belief" on the matter? Wouldn't that have been both (1) easier than some elaborate fake "test," and (2) much more reliable?
Because, ya know, there IS NO link in my warning, eh? Maybe you really weren't looking for anything reliable and definitive, but rather just for any means to create a deceptive appearance. That's what your prior behavior leads me to think, unfortunately.
Last edited:
I can't look at your PMs. What I can look at is the text of the warning you receive that is inputted by mods into the message box. That's what I've quoted to you previously. Without having access to your actual PM box or to the PM sent box of the moderator who sent you the warning I can't look at the auto-generated text that contains the links. That's why, out of an overwhelming desire to be fair to you, I went through the exercise described above: to confirm my beliefs about the automatically generated text.
I'm sure that you will take this to mean that I was somehow lying when I said I could look at your warning, as is your wont. To my knowledge, no one has ever complained to us about not receiving the automatically generated text. Feel free to forward to my PM box your warning message and I'll take a look.
In any event, I think it is clear that given the quoted text of the warning that you could have easily found the string even if you were subject to a unique technical glitch with a modicum of searching and a minimum of effort. You dispute this (obviously) but we are where we are. Clearly you consider yourself a martyr of some sort.
EDIT: After consulting a users' guide for the software, apparently if the warning is given out from the user's profile page as a "profile warning" it doesn't automatically provide a link. That's probably what happened in your case as I can't find any other plausible explanation. In any event, you were told the thread and given a description of the string which should have been sufficient notice applying a "reasonable person" standard. Frankly, that's better notice than appears in a lot of court summons. I think we can consider the matter closed.
Last edited:
- Status