Topic: Out of control?

[_sturt_]

What is really and actually lost by allowing individuals the freedom to debate their positions on the Tavern board?

Is this a social club that admins should feel some necessity to make sure everyone NEEDS to like each other, or even get along beyond their allegiance to Marshall University? Why?

Why shouldn't people be allowed to disagree, and disagree passionately?

Don't get me wrong.

I get it that there are those who get drawn into a thread, and eventually find that they aren't skilled enough to actually argue their point(s) and debunk others' arguments, and when that happens, they don't have the wisdom nor humility to back down...

So, to the contrary, they feel a need to divert into character assassination... often even referring to their opponents with the very adjectives and descriptions that, in fact, describe themselves just as much if not more than those they're trying to rhetorically injure...

But I ask...

(1) DO YOU REALLY THINK that the "Maroon" and "idiot" and other insults is seen by the mature and smart people here, in any way, scores points for them?

Because, it really doesn't among that class, I promise you. I can't show you the e-mails I've received over the last few weeks because that's not my right to reveal. But I promise you, they see through it, and recognize that tactic is only an attempt to divert away from their intellectual impotence.

And (2), of those who are not mature and not smart, DO YOU REALLY THINK it ***EVEN MATTERS***?

Those people are locked-in to a position regardless, and no amount of insult... nor for that matter, cold hard logic... is going to affect their perspective anyhow.

Having said all of that... admins set the culture of their board just like you set the culture of your family as parents... either people/children see you conforming to the rules you've preached/published... and either people/children see you enforcing the rules preached/published... or they don't.

When they do that, people know what to expect, and after some time of seeing consistency between what is preached/published and what is actually enforced, they start observing boundaries on their own.

And when they don't? Well, you who've been parents know. And those of you who've had parents who didn't actually mean what they said also know. It's not a good result.

(That's not just theory, btw. The board I began almost 20 years ago is arguably one of the most contentious yet free-from-character assassination pro sports message boards that can be found. But don't have to believe me... look for yourself at hawksquawk.net)

[_sturt_]

JReese:

I'm the admin/moderator for a group of over 10,000 members on facebook and we have strict guidelines in place to try to avoid this kinda stuff. We try to keep politics, religion out of the group. Belittling and name calling get one warning. After that, I have no choice to ban them from the group.

Admin:





Me:

I'm not a fan of the stringent policy JReese's FB page evidently operates under. That sounds a lot like why this site ever became popular in the first place when some of us grew tired of a similar SOP at the Grapevine.

But having said that, have to respect that there is not just a published policy, but that JReese has the integrity that it is one that actually is clearly and explicitly followed...

And giving him the benefit of a doubt... having the integrity to do so without bias/preference when it comes to those who JReese likes or dislikes... no picking favorites.

All anyone ever can ask for is fairness.

No made up rules on the fly, no discipline delivered without being able to explicitly cite the rule offended, no discipline made up on the fly, and all rules published being applied equally without prejudice.

Good, intelligent, passionate, adult debate between majority and minority opinions is what keeps an internet board from becoming stale and just a social club for good-ol-boys where group-think is king. It's what makes an internet board interesting and flourishing.

Good, intelligent, fairly-applied, consistently-applied rules and discipline is what allows good, intelligent, passionate, adult debate.

Out of control? That's a symptom of the lack of any of that.

And putting a bow on it, again, it's something we all learn as parents... if you don't have explicit rules that are fairly enforced, the rest of the family loses respect for your rules and discipline, as they should.

[JReese]

My page is about diving. We do not want politics, religion , current events or anything other than diving. As long as you post about diving, without commercially advertising your place of business (that is not allowed on our page) not talking about the no-no's of religion, politics or personal attacks on someone, I (and my moderators) let it ride. A member gets one warning. if they violate again, they are removed and blocked.

I have very strong beliefs in my religion and my politics, but I try my dangest not to slant my censorship towards my beliefs.

There are some gray areas....but we try to keep it strictly about diving and not allow personal agendas to infiltrate.

[_sturt_]

All good.

Diving, Grateful Dead zombie, ping pong fanatic, or restaurant reviews.... no matter... the larger point holds.

[_sturt_]

Such anger is not healthy and sports are supposed to take us to a place of common ground. There is no place for politics on an athletic board and most of these issues seem to go much deeper than just this board. Herd Fans are already a small group compared to many "power" schools and fighting amongst ourselves over things we have no control is crazy. Can someone tell me a scouting report on our kicking game and stop talking about this other trash? All I hear from these posts is personal pride, which will always take us down a bad! CNN and Fox don't bash each other this bad and I turn to sports to escape that crap.

What's crazy is not that people disagree (about politics or about sports or about whatever)...

But how they disagree, and how far they'll go in order to try to silence those with whom they'll disagree, even to the point of personal attack... and in my case, even to the point of personal attack campaigning, aka whining.

I note in that thread that I was complimented for never belittling others. (I'd like to think it's "never," but I probably slipped a handful of times.)

I was not complimented for never belittling others' conclusions and/or the support/argument they used to justify their conclusions... because, in fact, I see nothing at all wrong with that. I don't find any rules against it.

It's when you see people resorting to personal attack, and when you see people finding other things to criticize that have nothing actually to-do with the substance and meat of the discussion ... yes, like word count (never found a rule in that regard either, btw)... that you can be sure that you're too persuasive... that you can be sure they feel their conclusion/position can't stand up to critical thought and scrutiny...

It's all they can do, so that's what they do... resort to those things... oblivious to the fact that the character assassination performed comes with a price of a black mark on their integrity... and/or oblivious to the fact that their diversion away from the actual topic under discussion makes them look weak, if not incompetent, to anyone with logical skills enough to have passed a high school algebra class.

THAT is what is sad.

We all, me included, invest our egos to some degree in what we argue (politics or sports or whatever).

But only some of us and maybe even a very few of us who have frequented this particular board... me included again, but notably also MUther who I once tried to compliment for this... have demonstrated the maturity to back down and humble oneself and admit when s/he's discovered s/he was wrong. And then, it tells the story of how enraged and malicious and determined those without the capacity to humble themselves can become that that attempt to compliment MUther--and it was absolutely positively a compliment purely and with no hint of sarcasm intended nor expressed-- was what sent the admins over the edge. How dare I do such a thing, right? *sigh*

That is what is sad indeed.

The Bible says... for those of us who care what the Bible says... be angry and sin not. Right? Similarly, I believe it could have been said... disagree and sin not.

Anger sometimes is not just acceptable, but the right thing to have... you see a child who is mistreated by an adult, it is right to be angry. That's an extreme, but it illustrates a point that is valid for a variety of situations.

Disagreement also, can be not only justified but is even healthy. Healthier than the alternative.

Our forefathers cooked up a whole political process that is built on the idea that we WILL disagree, but yet we WON'T go to war, but rather, will have a process set-up that allows for positions to be voiced, and from that "marketplace of ideas" for the best ideas to win out... and do something more positive than if we were governed by a king or queen or dictator.

So, just as capitalism takes what is ordinarily perceived as a negative... selfishness and the pursuit of money... and turns it into a positive for all humanity by virtue of all of the innovation that occurs as a result of it... same that civilized democratic structure (aka our Constitution) takes what is ordinarily perceived as a negative... disagreement... and turns it into a positive by virtue of the fact that sometimes the minority position is the morally right one, and if given the opportunity in that marketplace of ideas to breathe, it eventually grows to become voted on and validated as public policy.

Who of us would say it is healthy for people to keep quiet... or that they should be made to keep quiet... when they see something isn't right, or that something is being argued that isn't right?

That's un-American, but taking the nationalism out of it... more than that... all of the free world has come to realize that's immoral.

Disagreement is healthy.

It just takes maturity on our individual parts for it to be the positive it should be...

And if people aren't mature enough within themselves, then like a good parent, if you are the authority over a situation, then you have to provide sufficient boundaries and consistent enforcement of those boundaries until they might eventually get there.

Am I right about that? Sure I am. And it's not right because I'm saying it, it's right because it's just putting into words what is the state of play because we're all intelligent human beings.

But understand, that's dangerous talk around here. At least in recent times. People regularly seem to interject into the authorities here some kind of deity status... at least, those who post regularly here. Well, no, when in your right mind, you know they're just flawed human beings like you or me. (Those who don't post as regularly, and for sure the subset with whom I've been corresponding lately seem to get that, though.)

The redemption is that most of them have shown in the past that they have a conscience. They know what I've said in this post is altogether not only correct, but right. Morally right.

Or at least, they used to know it. More recently, they've self-evidently given in to the dark side that pleads for everyone to agree all the time, and as a result, given into to the idea that certain people should have higher preference and influence as to what everyone should agree on.

That, of course, is how tyranny works.

And in the short term, tyranny can work.

But in the long-term, as our forefathers who engineered our Constitution realized, civilized, mature, intelligent disagreement is better.

West Virginians often are characterized as being ignorant and unreasonable, and for those of us who grew up there, it's an unfortunate stereotype with a long history.

So from where I sit, the best way to corrode that stereotype is to act and behave in ways completely opposite of that stereotype when and where ever possible.

[_sturt_]

When you join a discussion thread and part of your first post is to offer to "enlighten" others I think it sets the wrong tone...one of disrespect and belittlement

By self-evident definition, when one posts, one thinks s/he has something worthy of consideration... or that might "enlighten"... others.

I get it that there are words that can be more abrasive or less abrasive than others, and that people can have a more emotional reaction based on the degree to which the other person has or has not filtered his/her words for abrasiveness.

But having said that, ultimately, it's not "tone" that should matter. And even if "disrespect and belittlement" is intended, there are people who will feel disrespected and belittled as a result, and there are people who don't. Someone can "push my buttons," but it is always up to me how I choose to react, ie, whether the wiring to those buttons still works. A woman can hit me to disrespect and belittle me... I don't have to hit her back. And won't.

Why not, instead, focus on the actual meat.

Why not, instead, actually consider straight-up if the meat intended to enlighten was actually enlightening. And if so, why not acknowledge that? Why not be humble enough to say, in effect, "You know, I'll give you credit, even if I don't like to... that's a point I hadn't thought of."

Or, if it wasn't, why not counterpoint his/her "enlightened" point with information and/or lines of reasoning that is FREE of personal attack?... FREE of diversion to meaningless meatless tangents?

Wouldn't that be more productive?

And if you eventually conclude that the person can't hack your attempts at productive discussion, and you just learn that you can't  respect that person any longer because s/he is so prone to personal attack or diversionary tactics, why not just disengage from exchanges with him/her?

Incidentally, I don't say that with any "holier than thou" intent, either.

While I don't do the personal attack thing, don't do the diversionary thing, and too, notably, never have done the go-whine-to-the-authorities thing (which to me only means one is too inept to stand on his/her own two feet, much like the proverbial five year-old child)... I have given people too much credit so many times, and respected them enough to think them capable of productive discussion... when I should have just disengaged from them and paid them no attention, in retrospect.

It was something Dan tried to impress on me in the month or two before he passed, and I now believe he was right to a greater degree than I gave credit at the time. People deserve the benefit of a doubt and a basic respect at first, but can eventually prove to be unworthy of one's time and effort by virtue of their disinterest in sticking to substance in their posts. Dan was right to have a shorter tolerance than I did.

Caveat: Still...having said that... there are times that someone is saying something that really needs to be contested by someone just on moral grounds... like if someone is talking unsubstantiated smack about a Son of Marshall's reputation and standing with their current pro team... or someone is broadcasting information that they have the legal right to broadcast, but ethically crosses the line... or, most recently, someone is calling out a player for a tweet and because he disagrees with the tweet, inherently defames the player and owes that player as public an apology as his defamatory interpretation of that tweet... times when the person is attempting to enjoy his own personal ego kick of seeming smart or informed, and/but at the expense of someone who, by virtue of our allegiance to Marshall, deserves better. I think there is that exception to the rule, ie, when they create or reinforce unsubstantiated innuendo against one of our own. It was justified to confront that kind of thing, and would have been wrong not to, imo.

[_sturt_]

Most on here will agree that my conduct is civil and that I am a contributor to the flow of discussion on the boards.

Maybe so.

Was struck when I read this by the implicit assumption by a regular and prolific poster that most readers/participants of this board are, also, the same regular and prolific posters that routinely are seen.

But clearly, that's an erroneous assumption.

Just look at the end of any given day's tally of all of the registered members of this board who have visited, and how many of them are not names you often see posting anything.

Moreover, if that doesn't move you, add to that the number of guests that get tallied, but choose to remain nameless but are at least interested enough to read.

This is a much more popular place for reading than it is for posting, and it seems many posters lose sight of that.

The point has been brought home to me especially in recent weeks as I continue to receive more e-mails and FB messages complimentary of my posts in this thread and otherwise, and one yesterday even portraying me as being "brave" to continue to challenge the status quo and the good-ol-boy prejudices...

But while I appreciate that, it's not actually "brave"... brave is putting a police officer's uniform on and going to work, or a firefighter's or a soldier's. I'm not courageous just to write my thoughts for others to read and consider. What's the worst that can happen, after all?

Bravery? No. Courage? Hmmm.

I suppose if I can claim courage about anything, it's that I'm not afraid to reconsider my actions and, if warranted, to apologize.

Now, the flamers/whiners sometimes have accused me of being arrogant, and/but while I will acknowledge that sometimes I'm sure there's been some palpable condescension in how I've worded a sentence here or there, the condescension would always have been in the sense that my argument was better than the other person's... not that I am myself a better person than him/her. Because I just know I'm not. Everything I have in life has not just been a product of my own mind and hands, but so much more because I've been blessed by others.

So, I would just ask that the population of those who criticize me for any arrogance that's been perceived over time be reduced to only those who can cite recent occasions when they also have been courageous enough to reconsider their actions and to have apologized.

Because if you're one of those, naturally, your criticism demands respect that others don't.

[_sturt_]

Just noticed this.

*laughing*

Nothing quite says... "I'm a rhetorical coward"... and... "I despise you and/or what you're saying, but I can't make a coherent or articulate argument why anyone else should"... like the smite button.

Condescending?

In this case, completely justified. And not personal since, after all, it could be anyone.

Celebrate the people who stand up and voice their criticisms for all to see and evaluate if they're valid. To click a smite button is to hide and cower like a five year-old child.

[riflearm3]

 1) Does anyone read this sh!t?
 2) Have you been to a psychologist in the last decade?
 3) Does the wifi at River Park Hospital ever go down for you?

[_sturt_]

Honestly, rifle and I did not set this up as-if to offer up a portrayal of virtually everything I've written the last couple of days. I don't know the guy, but I do thank him. Very, very clever on his part.

[2xBison]

If we can get you two clowns to stay here and debate —-the internet wins


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[_sturt_]

[_sturt_]

[_sturt_]

My rules going forward are simple.  Say what you want to say without overtly insulting anyone.  We call this the "Tavern" and in most taverns that I have been in if you call someone a Maroon, not so smart, or a dumb%^&*, or worse, the bartender is very likely to tell you to cool it if you don't want to get thrown out or barred because that is usually the first step on the road to a brawl.  Same thing with calling your political opposites communists or nazis as a blanket description.  Using those words in an argument is like dropping an H-bomb in war, there is no deescalation from that point, there is no rational conversation beyond that action, just mutual and total devastation.

So have at it with your opinions.  I won't take sides.  Post your opinions, agree, disagree.  But be civil.  Fail to do that and you won't be a poster.  Too many of you do that and we won't have a forum.  If our country as a whole doesn't start doing this we are not going to have a country.  Let's be a model that people can follow.

What a novel concept....

Published rules...

Better... published that are enforced.

I like it.

Even better... published rules that are enforced.... that openly embrace civil disagreement... and Pat, I know, would concur with adding "mature" and "intelligent" to his "civil" just as I did above.

(I know because we go waaaaay back, and have had multiple side conversations about this very thing.)



So, look up and down this thread...

Look up and down pretty much any thread on this forum...

And ask yourself... and just be fair, or at least try to be... who are the ones who Pat would raise issue with if this were his domain?...

Just for instance, and daring to poke the bear, when I called Dale a clown, would that have been okay under Pat's guidelines?

No, I don't think it was.

Except I didn't, of course.

We're all... all of us... flawed people. And we all... all... should have a conscience, maintain some basic semblance of respect, and act according to what is fair. 

And. As Pat suggests, when we disagree, should keep our criticisms limited to and focused upon verbally assaulting the other person's substance, and not assaulting the other person him/herself.

And. When we see that we've overstepped... conscience should compel us to, yes, apologize, whether publicly or privately.

Anyone have a problem with any of that?

[_sturt_]

My rules going forward are simple.  Say what you want to say without overtly insulting anyone.  We call this the "Tavern" and in most taverns that I have been in if you call someone a Maroon, not so smart, or a dumb%^&*, or worse, the bartender is very likely to tell you to cool it if you don't want to get thrown out or barred because that is usually the first step on the road to a brawl.  Same thing with calling your political opposites communists or nazis as a blanket description.  Using those words in an argument is like dropping an H-bomb in war, there is no deescalation from that point, there is no rational conversation beyond that action, just mutual and total devastation.

So have at it with your opinions.  I won't take sides. Post your opinions, agree, disagree.  But be civil.  Fail to do that and you won't be a poster.  Too many of you do that and we won't have a forum.  If our country as a whole doesn't start doing this we are not going to have a country.  Let's be a model that people can follow.

And I'm sure Pat won't. Absolutely sure of it.

Why should anyone who is a mod?

Shouldn't that always be a standard worth trying to maintain? If not, why not?

In my best Ernie Salvatore voice... pardon me, I'm just asking.

[_sturt_]

On second thought, I shouldn't have said "in my best Ernie Salvatore voice" because people will see that as making light of the question.

It's a serious question.

[banker]

Glad to see you are doing your own threads nowadays.  Allows you to have a discussion with someone who appreciates you.

[_sturt_]

350-ish views on the most out-of-the-way forum on this board... in less than a week?

Yeah. I feel just terrible about all this. Utter humiliation. *rolls eyes*

Point was already made above... this board is more than just flamer/whiner posters. There are adults here. Many. And it seems they must think it worth clicking and reading, or they wouldn't.

But even if they didn't, people who know me know that what matters isn't how popular I seem to be or how many people write to me to convey their appreciation. (Though I'm complimented that they have.)

What matters is that I make the case for what's right over what's wrong. I just have a faith inside me that most people are good people, and root for and support what's right.

And that's what's been written above. Contrasting right from wrong. Fair from unfair. Respectful from disrespectful.

Don't think it's lost on the intelligent adults reading this post that the very fact that you decided to post what you just posted is another illustration of this...


Spelling it out, you had a couple of different options in terms of questions/substance you could have chosen to pursue.

But you didn't. You were impressed with your clever diversionary quip... and felt it necessary to hijack away from the substantive questions just posed.



Beautiful illustration of my point. Thanks.




And with that, unless you're going to tell me that you humbled yourself and apologized publicly for twisting his tweet and characterizing Bill-Legg-loving Ryan Yurachek as giving less than 100% (self-evidently because any friend of Bill Legg's deserves whatever mud can possibly be slung)... I'm done with you. No more engagement. Going to make Dan Shoemaker proud.


Circling back... in case there is someone interested in the substance of what's been said here...

...Look up and down this thread.

Look up and down pretty much any thread on this forum...

And ask yourself... and just be fair, or at least try to be... who are the ones who Pat would raise issue with if this were his domain?...

Just for instance, and daring to poke the bear, when I called Dale a clown, would that have been okay under Pat's guidelines?

No, I don't think it was.

Except I didn't, of course.

We're all... all of us... flawed people. And we all... all... should have a conscience, maintain some basic semblance of respect, and act according to what is fair.

And. As Pat suggests, when we disagree, should keep our criticisms limited to and focused upon verbally assaulting the other person's substance, and not assaulting the other person him/herself.

And. When we see that we've overstepped... conscience should compel us to, yes, apologize, whether publicly or privately.

Anyone have a problem with any of that?

And I'm sure Pat won't [i.e., take sides]. Absolutely sure of it.

Why should anyone who is a mod?

Shouldn't that always be a standard worth trying to maintain? If not, why not?

[wasbarryb]

Waterboy, I know this is beyond your limited comprehension skills, but not everyone who visits this thread is coming for the purpose of gaining infinite wisdom from your rambling babbling pointless posts. I come here for the laughs. It only took two sentences today, didn’t bother to read any more, I did skim a little as I scrolled to the end. As usual a lot of funny stuff in there.

It is so great to know I can come here laugh at the silliness of your mindless babbling then go to the adult conversations on the other threads and participate without your coming on those threads and high jacking them to attempt to settle some festering grievance from some past thread.

Thanks for the laughs Waterboy, I’ll stop back next time I need a good laugh.

[fuzzy fillez]

I just don't like this stuff, so I'm going to say something.

Full disclosure, this is a friend, extended family member and occasional colleague.

There are people who dislike others. Okay? That's life. And then, there are people who are plainly butt-hurt and keep showing up over and over again, scary obsessed by their dislike. Sorry if I sound like a mom, but I am one so I have that right. It's all really uncalled for.

[wasbarryb]

I just don't like this stuff, so I'm going to say something.

Full disclosure, this is a friend, extended family member and occasional colleague.

There are people who dislike others. Okay? That's life. And then, there are people who are plainly butt-hurt and keep showing up over and over again, scary obsessed by their dislike. Sorry if I sound like a mom, but I am one so I have that right. It's all really uncalled for.

Hey Fuz, or _Waterboy_, or who ever you are.

This is the Stampede board

Stampede Smack Board
This is the place to talk smack with Marshall fans and our rivals. This is an open, no holds barred forum. It is also a stop off point before a user is banned.

If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen “mom”.  There is a reason Waterboy is limited to this board  and paybacks  are a “mom” b!tch.

[_sturt_]

T, don’t get too upset. Just another example of someone illustrating what I've covered above. It is infinitely... infinitely... over the top... extremely... important to the guy to think I’m humiliated. And to accomplish that, of course, he has to live this fantasy that practically everyone agrees with him. (And if you don't, then you're a b or a whatever new insult he can throw out there that he considers impressive and reassures himself of his superiority.)

So let him enjoy that, and all the more so, since as he correctly observes, on this forum, there are no rules. (Not sure why he evidently took from your post you didn't already understand that.)

You're right about the butt-hurt part. Ever since I dared point out... this is obviously many years ago now... the discrepancy between barry's call for CUSA to expand based on population, and not much later, his call for CUSA to expand based on recent football success, he's been like this, thinking he can restore credibility as an intelligent adult if he just does the personal attack thing well enough.

Oh, the irony, right?

Still, gotta give him this much credit (and I did just that in another thread) that, while the personal attack thing clearly has had the opposite desired effect in that way, his passionate whining and flaming campaign over this past year when I hardly ever posted nonetheless is indeed giving him this satisfaction today.

It's flat out amazing to me, really, what barry's been able to accomplish in that way. He effectively persuaded Dale to totally abandon his own published principles encoded in 2006 originally, and more astounding still, persuaded Dale that the embarrassment of hypocrisy, going back on his words in own published 2015(?) apology to me, was not actually all that embarrassing.

(I can't know, of course, but a couple of years from now I think Dale's going to look back and realize how self-deceived and regrettably cavalier it was to think that. More intelligent people who have some standing and influence in Marshall University circles are readers of this board than often is fully appreciated. Me, I've only really been made to realize it in these last few months, too.)

Anywho... I’ve long long since disregarded barry as anyone worthy of engagement... which has probably only further fanned his internal flames and made his obsession worse.

And look, really, none of us loses when he does what he just did. He gets satisfaction that his flamer buddies giggle madly.

And for reasons that the adults here readily understand, I also get to giggle madly. It's all good.

That said, T, save yourself some frustration and just join me in giving barry the dshoe treatment.

[_sturt_]

[wasbarryb]

T, don’t get too upset. Just another example of someone illustrating what I've covered above. It is infinitely... infinitely... over the top... extremely... important to the guy to think I’m humiliated. And to accomplish that, of course, he has to live this fantasy that practically everyone agrees with him. (And if you don't, then you're a b or a whatever new insult he can throw out there that he considers impressive and reassures himself of his superiority.)

So let him enjoy that, and all the more so, since as he correctly observes, on this forum, there are no rules. (Not sure why he evidently took from your post you didn't already understand that.)

You're right about the butt-hurt part. Ever since I dared point out... this is obviously many years ago now... the discrepancy between barry's call for CUSA to expand based on population, and not much later, his call for CUSA to expand based on recent football success, he's been like this, thinking he can restore credibility as an intelligent adult if he just does the personal attack thing well enough.

Oh, the irony, right?

Still, gotta give him this much credit (and I did just that in another thread) that, while the personal attack thing clearly has had the opposite desired effect in that way, his passionate whining and flaming campaign over this past year when I hardly ever posted nonetheless is indeed giving him this satisfaction today.

It's flat out amazing to me, really, what barry's been able to accomplish in that way. He effectively persuaded Dale to totally abandon his own published principles encoded in 2006 originally, and more astounding still, persuaded Dale that the embarrassment of hypocrisy, going back on his words in own published 2015(?) apology to me, was not actually all that embarrassing.

(I can't know, of course, but a couple of years from now I think Dale's going to look back and realize how self-deceived and regrettably cavalier it was to think that. More intelligent people who have some standing and influence in Marshall University circles are readers of this board than often is fully appreciated. Me, I've only really been made to realize it in these last few months, too.)

Anywho... I’ve long long since disregarded barry as anyone worthy of engagement... which has probably only further fanned his internal flames and made his obsession worse.

And look, really, none of us loses when he does what he just did. He gets satisfaction that his flamer buddies giggle madly.

And for reasons that the adults here readily understand, I also get to giggle madly. It's all good.

That said, T, save yourself some frustration and just join me in giving barry the dshoe treatment.

Made it that far thanks for the laughs

Bye bye Waterboy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[_sturt_]

So, I take it that (a) no one has a problem with what Pat indicates are the standards he's going to implement on that board in spite of the fact that they are hand-in-glove fit, echoing essentially the substance of this thread... annnnnd... along with that, (b) there's agreement that mods should aspire to stay neutral, and not take sides.

I mean, I've seen mods actually appear at the top as visiting this thread on a few occasions, and I've seen some of the more contentious posters also appear there. No one, though, takes issue with the legitimacy of these standards... or at least it seems safe to say, no one feels capable of making an argument to the contrary.

Can we call that progress? I think so. We'll see.

This certainly is the board for testing it out since the only thing governing people here is their own integrity. If even in the absence of explicit top-down rules, you are all about civil, mature, intelligent disagreement here... and if as a mod you do not take sides even in this place where there's no fall-out if you fail to abide by that principle... then it says something very admirable and respectable and adult about you.

(And needless to say, the converse is also true, of course.)