Boozer who?

[sirkickyass]

Pun intended of course.

One thing you can always count on from KEK: he's the master of making the double entendre into the single entendre.

 

[franklin]

Hey everybody, it's trump JAZZFAN_2814 word day. I'll defenestrate you all.

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

I had to look that up. 'Family Guy'? You watch and reference 'Family Guy'...

Well, I think we have a baseline for many posters in this thread, if not this site.

The oxymoronic nature of Bourgeoisie Pride. It's not about living up to a standard, it's about not meeting one, and somehow feeling superior because of it. I guess I know how we went from Julia Child to Rachel Ray now -- the WalMart aesthetic and lifestyle.

haha pretty rough, but pretty funny

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

I also breathe, eat, defecate and screw. How common.

Pulp, or Ben Folds and Shatner. (I didn't have to google it either, I'm in the club!)

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

We all determine our standards arbitrarily, and then moany of us cast aspersions toward those who do not meet those standards. Julia Child was an expression of her popular culture, Rachel Ray is an expression of ours. Still, those are hardly fair comparisons. We have an entire network devoted to food shows, and it would seem Emeril Lagasse is a much better modern comparison to Julia child. Meanwhile, Rachel Ray has taken over the roles of Hopper and Parsons.

It's so easy, and so shallow, to sneer at the standards of others and rely on the nostalgia effect to illuminate the great fall that must have occurred from the Time Everyone Thought Like Me to the modern day.

Getting back to the topic, it sounds like Jefferson is was getting more with the program on Sunday, but I don't think we'll see a real test for that until we play Orlando (or maybe Miami).

I'm digging the culture war up in herr.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

All reported posts receive a vote. It takes three moderators voting in favor to issue an infraction.

I see you reply and have the same reading aptitude as you show in your handing out of infractions: i.e. capricious and incoherent.

I made the point in my reply, which you found either too difficult to follow or would prefer to ignore the content of, that the very nature of needing these votes to pass through an infraction proves the point: that they are subjective rather than objective.

It seems you're conceding the point.

Which leaves me with only one question: do you guys pump each other off before or after voting? By your very "standards" I'm sure this is offensive, and an infraction.

Have at it.

I suggest you lose your attitude.

I'll do that. Right after you apply objective, rather than subjective, moderating policies, and learn how to pay attention to what the other side is saying.

In other words, I am who I am. I'm not you're serf, and I will not do as you tell me.

And, further, your suggestion just expands upon the implications, turning them into explication: you care more about personality than conduct, and moderate from under that rubric.

If you want to ban me or provide an infraction for this, it'll just be a compounding point, for the few that care, as to how lacking the moderating standards of this board are beyond popularity contests and personality preferences.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

I mentioned before that this is an assumption on your part. I will confirm for you now that the post in question is still up for a vote. Claiming that he has gotten off is premature.

Oh, it takes days for him, but hours for me.

I see.

Which would be relevant if you had received an infraction for homophobic comments.

It's relevant because I was replying to a homophobe, who has not been punished, after there was a sticky post as to how such conduct would no longer be allowed.

Evidently, gays get less respect than bipedal afterbirth. I find that very offensive.

The standards of conduct on this board have as much relevance and truth to them as a NY traffic sign -- something like "No honking in the city - $500 fine"

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

We all determine our standards arbitrarily, and then moany of us cast aspersions toward those who do not meet those standards.

I'll keep that in mind, particularly in relation to your ridiculous assertions about Kirilenko.

 

[One Brow]

I made the point in my reply, which you found either too difficult to follow or would prefer to ignore the content of, that the very nature of needing these votes to pass through an infraction proves the point: that they are subjective rather than objective. ... I'll do that. Right after you apply objective, rather than subjective, moderating policies,

You can create objective standards for the use of specific words, because they either are there or they are not. You can not create objective standards for insults, trolling, or a host of other human behaviors, because contextually the possible variations concerning what would and would not be permissable would start to show behavior similar to what leads to the Goedel's first incompleteness theorem. Your suggestion shows very immature thinking.

If you want to ban me or provide an infraction for this, it'll just be a compounding point, for the few that care, as to how lacking the moderating standards of this board are beyond popularity contests and personality preferences.

The child erects his banner high on the hill, braying his victory over his father, who slowed down deliberately.

I'll keep that in mind, particularly in relation to your ridiculous assertions about Kirilenko.

I don't have enough knowledge of basketball to form independent, reliable opinions in the first place. So, I don't expect anyone to care what I have to say. Instead, I digest and interpret the opinions I read of the players, coaches, and other people knowledgeable of the game. That list does not include message board poster whose abilities to examine the situation are clearly deficient by comparison, regardless of how such opinions are worded.

 

[franklin]

Got it. Would you give the mailman a reach-around if he asked? I know you like the way he looks in those Sketchers.

It's relevant because I was replying to a homophobe, who has not been punished, after there was a sticky post as to how such conduct would no longer be allowed.

Will lose the wonky notion that this is a homophobic slur so I can give credibility to the remainder of your claims? If nothing else, using this sexual reference as an example of subjective rule enforcement adds credibility to your claims. Insinuating it's homophobic makes you appear hypersensitive and not worth responding to.

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

I see you reply and have the same reading aptitude as you show in your handing out of infractions: i.e. capricious and incoherent.

I made the point in my reply, which you found either too difficult to follow or would prefer to ignore the content of, that the very nature of needing these votes to pass through an infraction proves the point: that they are subjective rather than objective.

It seems you're conceding the point.

Which leaves me with only one question: do you guys pump each other off before or after voting? By your very "standards" I'm sure this is offensive, and an infraction.

Have at it.



I'll do that. Right after you apply objective, rather than subjective, moderating policies, and learn how to pay attention to what the other side is saying.

In other words, I am who I am. I'm not you're serf, and I will not do as you tell me.

And, further, your suggestion just expands upon the implications, turning them into explication: you care more about personality than conduct, and moderate from under that rubric.

If you want to ban me or provide an infraction for this, it'll just be a compounding point, for the few that care, as to how lacking the moderating standards of this board are beyond popularity contests and personality preferences.

It's pretty obvious that there is no "objective" moderating policies. "Objective" moderating policies don't exist. The mods here volunteer to try and keep the board a reasonable place for discussion and I think they do a fine job of it. The mods can do whatever they want. For the most part it seems they have kept this board from becoming too troll-filled. They've been assigned by the owner of the board. I used to be one. I know they try to be conscientious and fair in their judgement, but they aren't applying a scientific methodology in order to moderate. It's rather silly for you to think they should do otherwise. Welcome to the Internet, where you have to try and get along with folks rather than expecting everyone to kiss your feet and thank you for your invaluable contributions.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

It's pretty obvious that there is no "objective" moderating policies. "Objective" moderating policies don't exist. The mods here volunteer to try and keep the board a reasonable place for discussion and I think they do a fine job of it. The mods can do whatever they want. For the most part it seems they have kept this board from becoming too troll-filled. They've been assigned by the owner of the board. I used to be one. I know they try to be conscientious and fair in their judgement, but they aren't applying a scientific methodology in order to moderate. It's rather silly for you to think they should do otherwise. Welcome to the Internet, where you have to try and get along with folks rather than expecting everyone to kiss your feet and thank you for your invaluable contributions.

This. I'll add what I know others have said in the past. If you don't like it 2814, leave.