Galenrox - Matt Damon thread deleted? (1 Viewer)

[Iriemon]

The whole Matt Damon thread was deleted? Because I called Current Affairs on misrepresenting my statements? I could understand you locking it down if you felt it devolved, but to delete the whole thread for that seems harsh. I spent a lot (too much) time researching and writing posts re: Bush's Vietnam war dodge just to see it all vanish. What a waste of time.

Probably a good thing, I waste too much time on this site as it is. Maybe I'll take your hint.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

The whole Matt Damon thread was deleted? Because I called Current Affairs on misrepresenting my statements? I could understand you locking it down if you felt it devolved, but to delete the whole thread for that seems harsh. I spent a lot (too much) time researching and writing posts re: Bush's Vietnam war dodge just to see it all vanish. What a waste of time.

Probably a good thing, I waste too much time on this site as it is. Maybe I'll take your hint.

It's tough getting exposed as a liar and even tougher to take it like a man.

 

[aps]

It's tough getting exposed as a liar and even tougher to take it like a man.

Grow up and show some class, for a change.


Would someone explain to us what happened to the Matt Damon thread?

 

[Tashah]

Would someone explain to us what happened to the Matt Damon thread?

I would suggest sending Moderator galenrox a private PM inquiry.

 

[aps]

I would suggest sending Moderator galenrox a private PM inquiry.

I will do that next time.


I do understand galenrox's point, and thank you, galenrox, for explaining why you did what you did. :bright:

 

[niftydrifty]

it should've been sent to the basement, not deleted.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

The Damon thread died long before it was deleted.

Bush haters think the President's daughters should serve in Iraq, defending their assertion with remarks like: "If Bush can send other Americans to fight in a war, he should send the twins as well."

Those that know better understand that the President doesn't pick and choose who serves in the military. As commander-in-chief, he "sends" those who have and will volunteer for duty.

It's really that simple and is the reason the thread died.

With perfectly civil debate and the use of his own quotations, Iriemon was shown to have lied about the President and his address aboard the USS Lincoln. Why he chose to bring that topic to the the Matt Damon thread is still a mystery. Rather than taking his medicine like most everyone else in the forum, Iriemon continued to pour salt in his wounds, which brought his ire and his postings to an unacceptable boil. Galenrox tossed the thread at that point, which was the right thing to do.

 

[jallman]

The Damon thread died long before it was deleted.

Bush haters think the President's daughters should serve in Iraq, defending their assertion with remarks like: "If Bush can send other Americans to fight in a war, he should send the twins as well."

Those that know better understand that the President doesn't pick and choose who serves in the military. As commander-in-chief, he "sends" those who have and will volunteer for duty.

It's really that simple and is the reason the thread died.

With perfectly civil debate and the use of his own quotations, Iriemon was shown to have lied about the President and his address aboard the USS Lincoln. Why he chose to bring that topic to the the Matt Damon thread is still a mystery. Rather than taking his medicine like most everyone else in the forum, Iriemon continued to pour salt in his wounds, which brought his ire and his postings to an unacceptable boil. Galenrox tossed the thread at that point, which was the right thing to do.

You were the kid that brought an apple for teacher every day because you thought it upped your chances of being picked for hall monitor, huh? :mrgreen:

 

[niftydrifty]

With perfectly civil debate ...

LOL!, ... with "perfectly civil ad hominems," is more like it.

Admit your misguided hate for all things Republican.

Your statement is jam-packed with hate-filled ignorance.

By the way, when are you going?

Who wants to wager that disneydude will never answer this question?

But you might want to slow down when reading.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

You were the kid that brought an apple for teacher every day because you thought it upped your chances of being picked for hall monitor, huh? :mrgreen:

:lol: I can't really remember back that far. I think I brought candy. It seems I was always visiting the penny candy counter at the local dime store before school...but that was the early 1960's.

Welcome back, jallman. Where have you been?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

LOL!, ... with "perfectly civil ad hominems," is more like it.

civil, none-the-less.

 

[jallman]

:lol: I can't really remember back that far. I think I brought candy. It seems I was always visiting the penny candy counter at the local dime store before school...but that was the early 1960's.

Welcome back, jallman. Where have you been?

I took a nice long Christmas vacation with the family and some friends. Was trotting all over the east coast for a couple of weeks. How have you been?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I took a nice long Christmas vacation with the family and some friends. Was trotting all over the east coast for a couple of weeks. How have you been?

I'm terrific. Rested and ready for a great year. Have a good one. :2wave:

 

[Iriemon]

The Damon thread died long before it was deleted.

Bush haters think the President's daughters should serve in Iraq, defending their assertion with remarks like: "If Bush can send other Americans to fight in a war, he should send the twins as well."

Those that know better understand that the President doesn't pick and choose who serves in the military. As commander-in-chief, he "sends" those who have and will volunteer for duty.

It's really that simple and is the reason the thread died.

With perfectly civil debate and the use of his own quotations, Iriemon was shown to have lied about the President and his address aboard the USS Lincoln. Why he chose to bring that topic to the the Matt Damon thread is still a mystery. Rather than taking his medicine like most everyone else in the forum, Iriemon continued to pour salt in his wounds, which brought his ire and his postings to an unacceptable boil. Galenrox tossed the thread at that point, which was the right thing to do.

~ swims away ignoring bait, leaving Current Affairs holding his pole in his hand ~

 

[Iriemon]

Alright, I deleted the thread, and here's why.

At first it was a good thread with good discussion, but then Iriemon and CurrentAffairs took over the thread with what I refer to as "grabass", which is when two or more people forget about the topic they're talking about in the first place, and just want to prove that s/he is better than the other. I warned that if things didn't get better quick that I'd delete the thread, and the next several posts were the exact same **** that was going on before I placed that warning, and so I deleted it.

You can start up a similar thread, or hell, I'm completely willing to open it back up, but just keep in mind that I have no intention of standing idly by while threads devolve into the state that that thread had reached.

So yeah, if you want it back up, I'll open it back up if there's a guarantee that that **** will cease and desist immediately. Let me know.

Question: Is it the regular practice of mods to delete threads if they feel an argument has gone off track? I have never noticed in my time here, except maybe in the most inflamatory type of things. It certainly is the first time it happened in a thread I was participating in. Usually I see threads either locked or put in the basement.

I agree the thread had devolved into Current Affairs making inane claims that I said x when I had not and calling me a liar. I admit I defended what I wrote, I think my last post said: "for the record, my statement was misrepresented." I agree that kind of pissass stuff is silly, tho' most people here tend defend themselves when there statements have been misrepresented.

If it is not the regular practice to delete threads, why on this occassion did you feel that tactic was necessary as opposed to the usually tactic of either locking it or putting it in the basement?

 

[Schweddy]

Question: Is it the regular practice of mods to delete threads if they feel an argument has gone off track? I have never noticed in my time here, except maybe in the most inflamatory type of things. It certainly is the first time it happened in a thread I was participating in. Usually I see threads either locked or put in the basement.

Our standard practice is to lock them or move them in the basement. Deleting is frowned upon and rare.

However, at our descretion, we can take what we believe is the best course of action.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Our standard practice is to lock them or move them in the basement. Deleting is frowned upon and rare.

However, at our descretion, we can take what we believe is the best course of action.

I will support Galenrox's decision and echo what vauge said. Threads are rarely deleted. However, and I think this is what Galen noticed, personal attacks in threads are occurring far more often, and requiring more mod intervention...even after warnings. Sometimes it goes beyond what can or should be salvaged, even to the basement. This is a debate site, not a personal attack site. Some folks need to remember that.

 

[aps]

~ swims away ignoring bait, leaving Current Affairs holding his pole in his hand ~

The very classy thing to do. :clap:

 

[Iriemon]

I will support Galenrox's decision and echo what vauge said. Threads are rarely deleted. However, and I think this is what Galen noticed, personal attacks in threads are occurring far more often, and requiring more mod intervention...even after warnings. Sometimes it goes beyond what can or should be salvaged, even to the basement. This is a debate site, not a personal attack site. Some folks need to remember that.

Upon what basis did you feel that the Matt Damon thread had devolved to that level justifying deletion?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

~ swims away ignoring bait, leaving Current Affairs holding his pole in his hand ~

Except that this very post shows you can't swim away at all. :lol: It is your insistance on taking the final potshot that started this in the first place.

Take the Damon thread, for example. When you couldn't resist having the last word in that thread, you let your temper take over and that's when you turned to attacks. The thread became pointless after that. No matter how much you complain to them about it, I still say the mods did the right thing.

 

[Tashah]

I will support Galenrox's decision and echo what vauge said. Threads are rarely deleted. However, and I think this is what Galen noticed, personal attacks in threads are occurring far more often, and requiring more mod intervention...even after warnings. Sometimes it goes beyond what can or should be salvaged, even to the basement. This is a debate site, not a personal attack site. Some folks need to remember that.

I have closed/locked threads, sent them to the Basement, and banned certain posters from particular threads. That said, I also have no ethical problem with deleting threads that devolve beyond redemption and are nothing more than weeping wounds.

If galen thought this thread merited deletion, I have no qualms with his decision. Once a Moderator issues a cease-and-desist warning... you should all realize that there can be profound consequences if that warning goes unheeded. Although it rarely happens, every DP Moderator has the discretion to completely delete a thread.

To avoid this unpleasantness, please keep threads civil and heed all Moderator warnings. If you feel that a particular post merits Moderator attention, please use the Report Post feature and a Moderator will adjudicate the matter. Your concerns are always considered, and your cooperation is always well appreciated.

 

[Schweddy]

Indeed, I agree with all the mods that have posted.

It is very rare, but at our disposal. I support galen's decision.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Take this thread as evidence of what I was talking about.

Why don't you two just have it out in the basement so you can cut this **** out up here.

No need, in this case. The debate reached it's completion even before it was deleted.

 

[Iriemon]

...I will support Galenrox's decision and echo what vauge said...

I
...If galen thought this thread merited deletion, I have no qualms with his decision...

...Indeed, I agree with all the mods that have posted.
It is very rare, but at our disposal. I support galen's decision....

My question is: Do you support Galenrox because he is a mod, or do you support his decision because you were reading the thread and agreed it needed to be deleted because it hadn't gotten so out of control? If the latter, I'm curious which posts or comments on the thread you felt reached that level. IMO, the discourse didn't exceed what you typically see on other threads, and I frequently seen much worse flaming and juvenile back and forths in threads.

My last post in that thread was, in its entirety: "For the record, that is a misrepresentation of my statement." Is that the kind of flaming that justifies deleting hours of my work?

I'm really not trying to be argumentative for argument's sake. One thread is not the end of the world. However, I did spend a lot of time writing posts on that thread, which IMO contained some of the most researched and thought out arguments pro/con on Bush's ANG/Vietnam actions by Stinger and I. To me a bigger issue is the basis or rules for deleting hours of someone's work (in this case mine) versus more temperate sanctions of locking the thread, moving it to the basement, or perhaps chastising the member who is out of line or causing the problem.

Late in the thread Current Affairs came along and picked a fight about the meaning of the phrase I wrote: "he [Bush] landed on an carrier proclaiming 'mission accomplished'." Current Affaris claimed that necessarily meant that Bush made the proclamation, not the carrier, repeatedly calling me a liar when I said I meant the carrier made the proclamation. Idiotic thing to argue, I agree, but I certainly didn't see the basis for deleting hours of work for that, which is not unlike the typical discourse on many if not most threads, really. I don't see the basis for deleting hours of research for that.

When you spend a lot of time researching and writing stuff just to see it erased, and you perceive that is done arbitrarily, you think, why bother? Are threads I spend time writing going to be deleted whenever Current Affairs jumps in writing a few posts calling me a liar?

Thanks for your consideration of my comments.

 

[Iriemon]

Take this thread as evidence of what I was talking about.

Why don't you two just have it out in the basement so you can cut this **** out up here.

OK, let's take it --

Which posts in this thread are you referring to as evidence of what you were talking about that justifies deleting a thread? Have *I* posted something in this thread of that nature, Galenrox, as you imply? If so, which post(s)? If not, who did? Which posts?