Canada can't save you

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin
Don't you think that you've posted enough of your "Canadians are really just like us conservative evangelical nutjobs but they are oppressed by the ultra libral ruling elites" bullshit?

This particular piece of tripe sounds like some alcoholic wife beater trying to convince his fleeing wife to stay.

I lived there four years and it sounds pretty on point to me. You only have to see a couple hundred Canadians at one Mall sale to understand why they aren't allowed to have guns. They drive with their headlights on during the day, by law. That must say something about either how well they see or how well they drive. Over and above that, I loved the four years there and thought Canadians were great people. Gotta love a place where you can get a good grilled brat on the street any day.

It is not a law to drive with lights on durring the day time, however most people have their lights on for safety reason.

Daytime Running Light - An Extra Margin of Safety

They don't "turn them on for safety", they just don't have a choice. Every car since... around 1990 (?) has daytime lights that turn on automatically. they're much dimmer than the normal headlights, but usually the same bulb. But yeah, the purpose is for safety.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
bottom line is that with dumbya in the whitehouse there is no place on the planet that is safe from the reckless agenda of this fool

Given the choice between having riprorin back or just removing these kind of posts from P&N would be a tough choice though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Michael
BBD,

"8 of 13 provinces"

You lose more than a little credibility when talking about Canada when you don't even know how many provinces there are. As for the article itself, seemed to be a humour piece to me.

Taxes and opportunity attracted me from Canada to the USA and I have a much better opinion of the Canadian medical system than most conservative posters. However, it does work better because of the USA being right next door.

Anandtech Moderators,

You banned Riprorin for a thread that has generated a ton of responses and discussion? where he came in later and responded to a few of the original responses showing it wasn't just a post and run thread? Makes zero sense to me.

Michael

he's gotten multiple warnings in the past few days alone. look at some of his recent threads.

And yet there are many other thread that are similar to his that go untouched. charrison linked to one such thread. There are others. I found 5 in a quick 5 minute search. There needs to be some clarification because the ones rip has had locked did contain comments/opinion from him. I think it's a great rule but there seems to be issues with it being applied consistently.

CsG

The poster that was linked to doen't have quite the same record of copying, pasting, and running, although said poster could clearly use some work in that category.

And? Why wasn't his thread locked? If the "rule" is X - then clearly the other thread should be locked - no?

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Call it the Rip Rule. I knew it would cause a lot of whining and I also knew that it would be the end of Rip if it was enforced to the letter since he is by far the worse when it comes to cut and paste threads with little or no substantial comments. I think it's rather unfair on him as he's demonstrated that when he has to add any original thought it usually is nothing more than "That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it". IMO if any member lacks the mental capacity to form a logical well thought out opinion he should not be banned or denied the ability to start threads.

The rule has merits but it's rather unfair, especially to our less intelligent members. I think it should be done away with and Rip should be let back in.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Perhaps, during your next two weeks off, you will reevaluate your level of compliance with our new cut and paste and run policy. You simply must contribute on a more substantial level, and you have had PLENTY of warning.

AnandTech Moderator

hehehahahaha! :beer:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Michael
BBD,

"8 of 13 provinces"

You lose more than a little credibility when talking about Canada when you don't even know how many provinces there are. As for the article itself, seemed to be a humour piece to me.

Taxes and opportunity attracted me from Canada to the USA and I have a much better opinion of the Canadian medical system than most conservative posters. However, it does work better because of the USA being right next door.

Anandtech Moderators,

You banned Riprorin for a thread that has generated a ton of responses and discussion? where he came in later and responded to a few of the original responses showing it wasn't just a post and run thread? Makes zero sense to me.

Michael

he's gotten multiple warnings in the past few days alone. look at some of his recent threads.

And yet there are many other thread that are similar to his that go untouched. charrison linked to one such thread. There are others. I found 5 in a quick 5 minute search. There needs to be some clarification because the ones rip has had locked did contain comments/opinion from him. I think it's a great rule but there seems to be issues with it being applied consistently.

CsG

The poster that was linked to doen't have quite the same record of copying, pasting, and running, although said poster could clearly use some work in that category.

And? Why wasn't his thread locked? If the "rule" is X - then clearly the other thread should be locked - no?

CsG

FWIW I wasn't aware of the change in posting policy when I made that thread.

 

[aidanjm]

He's only gone for 2 weeks, right? It's not like he's been perma-banned.

Cheers, mods.

 

[Michael]

Red Dawn,

I agree that the rule isn't a smart one. And without a sticky, it'll be violated right and left by new posters. Or older posters, like this for example:

No different than the Riprorin threads that got locked

I bet that you could find 5 threads that would meet the description at any time on the front page.

If they wanted to ban Riprorin, they should have just done so. Now there's this rule that they have to enforce ...

Michael

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Michael
dmcowen674,

That thread has nothing to do with a cut and paste rule.

JustAnAverageGuy,

Actually, a PM to the mods is better than Forum Issues. Normally, I would do that. I posted in this thread for a reason - this is bad enough (in my opinion) for me to publically question the mods. This is the third time or fourth time I've done so in in all the time I've been posting here. Normally I support them even if I disagree (being a law and order conservative). This isn't as bad as banning the word gay (my one and only locked post was a response to that), but I don't like it enough to publically question the decision.

Michael

I wasn't specifically talking about the new P&N so called "Cut & paste" rule and neither is the Moderation thread stickied in Forum Issues. They talk about the problems of trying to Mod both OT and P&N. They both keep the Mods hand's full.

I think what finally got the Mods fed up with the roaring posts is the constant starting of new threads on the same theme by the same poster. That is also addressed in the Forum Issues stickied thread too. Again an automated thread ranking system would kill those types of posts but would also take out the human element.

It's a tough balancing line just like Democracy.
Can be too Liberal or too Conservative and becomes something else.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Michael
Red Dawn,

I agree that the rule isn't a smart one. And without a sticky, it'll be violated right and left by new posters. Or older posters, like this for example:

No different than the Riprorin threads that got locked

I bet that you could find 5 threads that would meet the description at any time on the front page.

If they wanted to ban Riprorin, they should have just done so. Now there's this rule that they have to enforce ...

Michael

I see a big difference between that thread and the threads Rip created. I think a better comparison would be McGowen's Threads.

 

[Michael]

Red Dawn,

Other than political persuasion, I see no difference.

Post a few words (BBOND is always Bush sucks). Dump a whole article out. Same pattern. conjur's the same. As is Dave. If there's a rule, then enforce it should be enforced evenly.

dmcowen674,

If the mods are that "fed up", simply ban him. And get the others that start the same type of threads. Or not and be plain it is the message that caused the messanger to be banned.

Michael

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Michael
Red Dawn,

Other than political persuasion, I see no difference.

Post a few words (BBOND is always Bush sucks). Dump a whole article out. Same pattern. conjur's the same. As is Dave. If there's a rule, then enforce it should be enforced evenly.

dmcowen674,

If the mods are that "fed up", simply ban him. And get the others that start the same type of threads. Or not and be plain it is the message that caused the messanger to be banned.

Michael

You're nuts, compared to Rip's comments BBond's are a novel. However that you disagree demonstrates the problem with this rule. What is the criteria for what is an acceptable commentary and what isn't. Should it be at least 4 sentences? What kind of content should it have?

 

[Michael]

Red Dawn,

Including links, one has 3 sentences, one has 4. I agree that 4 is 33% larger than 3, but in proportion to the article that was just dumped out, pretty much the same, don't you think?

Go and search under BBOND and see how many of his posts are the same theme, different long ass article. Typically I just ignore his (and Riprorin's) posts. However, I knew that BBOND posted the exact same kind of post that the new rule was banning and I was right. I'm surprised that you can't see that they're the same.

We both agree that the new "rule" will probably be more trouble than it is worth, but the mods just banned a member for violating it. If they want the rule, enforce it.

Michael

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Michael
Red Dawn,

Including links, one has 3 sentences, one has 4. I agree that 4 is 33% larger than 3, but in proportion to the article that was just dumped out, pretty much the same, don't you think?

Go and search under BBOND and see how many of his posts are the same theme, different long ass article. Typically I just ignore his (and Riprorin's) posts. However, I knew that BBOND posted the exact same kind of post that the new rule was banning and I was right. I'm surprised that you can't see that they're the same.

BBond's Commentary

It's impossible to hide behind a facade of lies even when a nation decides to be complicit in them. The truth just has a way of making itself known.

Bush was warned of the consequences before he attacked Iraq. Now all the warnings have come true.

The number of Americans who still choose to remain complicit is embarassing. And dangerous.

Rip's Commentary

For you lefties who are thinking about fleeing the US, better think twice before heading north.

Of course, I won't shed any tears if any of you actually make good on your idle threats.

There's a big difference. BBond's commentary was about the subject of the article where as Rip's was nothing more than a dig at the Liberals "Lefties" in this forum.

We both agree that the new "rule" will probably be more trouble than it is worth, but the mods just banned a member for violating it. If they want the rule, enforce it.

Michael

I think the rule is too subjective to be able to enforce without pissing somebody off. While Rip was an easy call other's won't be.

 

[Michael]

Red Dawn,

You and I have been "conversing" for years.

I honestly see very little difference between the header and the footer each posted.

BBOND used two opening sentences, but he starts by calling Bush a liar. Riprorin tosses out lefties.

BBOND then makes his point - Bush was warned, warnings come true.

Riprorin make shis point - if you're going to flee the USA, think twice about going to Canada.

Each ends with a vague insult.

Both have a pattern of very similar posts and both are one trick ponies when it comes to their views.

Both dump a long ass article into the thread.

The more "conservative" poster gets threads locked and then banned for a thread where a real discussion is taking place.

The "raving" left wing poster has nothing happen to him.

Same pattern again and again in this forum.

The rules keep it civil, but they're invented and applied in an uneven fashion. I like rules, but rules box in the rulemakers as much as they do the people they are enforced against.

Michael

 

[Isla]

Michael,

I see your point. I'm not a mod (nor do I know any) but I fully support the efforts they make here. It's not a volunteer job I would want!!!!

I do think that certain standards do need to be upheld here, and the mods are doing a good job of it. While I can't compare Rip to other posters here, I can attest to the fact that he ALWAYS comes into my threads and makes personal attacks on me. It's like he can't help himself. In that case, I would be the more 'liberal' poster and he would be the more 'conservative'. He gets pretty ugly, subtly attacking my character in all kinds of ways. He has openly expressed that he doesn't like me. Yet my threads don't get locked because I don't let them get to that point. And nothing happens to him for crapping on my threads and personally attacking my character. The difference is, I don't whine about it. He's the one who looks bad, not me.

Rip conducts himself pretty poorly here, IMHO. Consistantly. So if the mods have had it and are trying to find a way to put an end to it, more power to them.

 

[Red Dawn]

I still don't see it. IMO BBond's commentary is no different than Cad's, Raildog's, Alchies or any of the other prominent P&N Conservatives.

 

[Michael]

Isla,

I think I was the first one who directly insulted you when you first started posting here.

I would have no issue if a mod banned Riprorin for a personal attack or some other reason, or just did it randomly. I think there is a real bias in the moderation in P&N, but that's another complaint.

The problem I have is that the mods were clearly communicating a rule about cut and paste posting and then used the rule as the reason the ban Riprorin. If it is a rule, then it was either poorly applied to this thread or it isn't being applied against other thread that are in clear violation of the new rule. Other than my perception of a mod bias, I otherwise don't give a hoot about the fact that Riprorin earned a 2 week "vacation" except that the rule is dumb if not enforced. The mods don't need an excuse to ban.

Michael

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: Michael
Isla,

I think I was the first one who directly insulted you when you first started posting here.

I would have no issue if a mod banned Riprorin for a personal attack or some other reason, or just did it randomly. I think there is a real bias in the moderation in P&N, but that's another complaint.

The problem I have is that the mods were clearly communicating a rule about cut and paste posting and then used the rule as the reason the ban Riprorin. If it is a rule, then it was either poorly applied to this thread or it isn't being applied against other thread that are in clear violation of the new rule. Other than my perception of a mod bias, I otherwise don't give a hoot about the fact that Riprorin earned a 2 week "vacation" except that the rule is dumb if not enforced. The mods don't need an excuse to ban.

Michael

LOL, you are probably right about you being the first to insult me. But the difference is, you manage to behave yourself and follow the rules here most of the time. There should be higher expectations of P&N posters, not lower ones. And the more an individual posts in P&N, I think the MORE should be expected of them in terms of setting an example for acceptable conduct.

Rule making is a tricky business. It works well in a classroom of 20 or so children, but not so well in a larger society. We all know that rules are made to be broken, so what's the point? It really should be "Policy" that we are looking at, not specific rules. THat would allow for people to get a time out without a lot of whining about 'why'. Because it does seem that everyone here agrees that Rip needs to step away from the computer, even if they don't agree with the specific reason given for it.

 

[totalcommand]

MODS - can we get a sticky in P & N on what exactly the rules are, and what you will throw people out for? I only see names of the dead stickied. Thanks.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Rip's contributions are marginal. In fact, the only value in this particular thread was relating how partisans invariably distort statistics (ie IVCS) to match an agenda. As for John Leo's piece being humor . . . I agree . . . he's a joke.

Michael, you are from Canada, right? Despite growing up in the US, I'm a master at geography. Canada has 11 provinces and the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory. . . both of which have governments that are largely equivalent to other rural provinces. Nunavut was granted it's status in 1999, so you shouldn't feel too bad about not knowing. In essence, Canada has 13 provinces.

In the US, we say we have 50 states but in fact four of those "states" are formally known as commonwealths: PA, MA, KY, and VA. We have other commonwealths such as Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas that are not states.

You lose more than a little credibility when talking about Canada when you don't even know how many provinces there are.

You should really know better than challenging me. Sadly, I appear to be better versed in the geopolitical makeup of Canada than you are. Granted, I give you a lot more credence than John Leo . . . but that's a low bar.

I may not always get the facts right but my mistakes are honest. I'm sure you made an honest mistake in your critique of my Canadian provincial counting skills. Now feel free to challenge the total of "8" formally approving gay marriages. Off the top of my head, I don't remember the source . . . so maybe I'm wrong.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin
Don't you think that you've posted enough of your "Canadians are really just like us conservative evangelical nutjobs but they are oppressed by the ultra libral ruling elites" bullshit?

This particular piece of tripe sounds like some alcoholic wife beater trying to convince his fleeing wife to stay.

I lived there four years and it sounds pretty on point to me. You only have to see a couple hundred Canadians at one Mall sale to understand why they aren't allowed to have guns. They drive with their headlights on during the day, by law. That must say something about either how well they see or how well they drive. Over and above that, I loved the four years there and thought Canadians were great people. Gotta love a place where you can get a good grilled brat on the street any day.

It is not a law to drive with lights on durring the day time, however most people have their lights on for safety reason.

Daytime Running Light - An Extra Margin of Safety

Yeah, that's what they said. I saw how they drive!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: OffTopic
It is not a law to drive with lights on durring the day time, however most people have their lights on for safety reason.

Daytime Running Light - An Extra Margin of Safety

They don't have them on for safety. They have them on because it was cost-convenient for the car mfrs.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=163,197&sid=197&article=3367

http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.

Because DRLs negatively effect other motorists, versus the owner of a DRL equipped vehicle, they should be omitted from all new cars by government mandate. Vehicles already equipped with DRLs should be recalled and the DRLs disconnected. Furthermore, all states should explore legislation that limits daytime headlight use to low beam or parking lights. The government, in concert with various corporate interests has sold the driving public a bill of goods that doesn't live up to its advertised claims. It seems only fair that the government and the same corporate interests undo the damage they have done.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Cheers to the posters talking about Canada instead of harping on the absence of a minimally useful member. Personally, I'm offended that people call him "conservative." Granted, I'm offended people call Bush "conservative" as well.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
feh rip would post just to antagonize people here.
He never even stated a opinion except what would be flamebait and never actually tried to discuss anything.
He would be gone for a few days get upset at what someone would say and dump P&N with endless flamebait threads.
The conservative posters here must be desperate to back him up he NEVER contributed any insight into any of your causes.
Just there to be the center of negative attention IMO. So long to another spammer and a failure of a troll.
(Now can we please have some real debate this place has become a major yawn)

I was pretty much staying out of the Rip issue, but this begs reply. I think everyone here has a right to post their favorite issue facet and even disagree moderately with the personal attack prohibitions, although they seem to seldom be enforced. I have read his posts and yours. The only difference (based on what you are saying) is that you are polar opposites. He posts differently, but you are just as emphatic about your extreme. I still remember the Red/Blue paranoia you were posting and I always know what you are going to post before I read it. Talk about a major yawn! I don't read much of what Rip posts either if that makes you feel a little better. Agree or disagree, he did post a lot of subject matter and it was usually backed with some sort published material. I thought he always commented on his postings as well. If this is the censorship P&N mods are enforcing, policy with little or no guidance, it is wrong. I've looked for established and published rules concerning the reason he was vacationed and have found none that applied. If the other members didn't appreciate his postings, they wouldn't have kept his threads going. I think some of his postings attracted others to the forum. I don't see a real problem with his two-week vacation, but to keep slamming him when he can't respond is pretty low. If the mods used lack of comment as an excuse to vacation him for his subject matter, that is really bad news for a supposedly democratic political forum. I hope that isn't the case.