That must have been a kinky deposition, mine don't usually go like that.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Don't know but it's going to be boring.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

BLeP has been banned.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Long time coming

He should have been banned the minute he admitted to buying Zima !

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

  Holy crap! You're still here??
:)

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Klehner has been dubbed Kleenex.

He’s crying about it in another thread.

Seems very apropos to me.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I've been banned and so's my wife.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4SYc_flMnMQ

Give him time. He apparently was busy all day.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Then what is your take on someone who has a board meeting at a Panera?

I actually had some, like, real work to do for the last several hours. Did they really get banned, and for what? Mr. Duffy and I and several others were communing with Lieutenant Dan over on that comportment thread earlier today. Now this?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

no multi level marketers allowed in here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

For the record, I'm not crying about it (and you can look it up). I'm trying to figure out why people are using a middle-school level of mockery, right up there with "Obummer", "Shrillary", and the like.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yep. Apparently they crossed a line in the locked thread.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

That’s a time out

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Hey. I am the guy that everyone calls moose fucker. I feel like I am right right person to tell you that you really need to lighten up.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

Yeah kleenex, listen to the moose fucker! Lighten up, Francis...


For the record, I try to stay away from name calling; but we all have our immature moments.

To be fair, we only call you moose fucker because you fuck moose.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think the difference is that they are not doing that to mock you; it's a good natured jab at you. It's so ridiculous that it really can't be taken any other way.

On the other hand I see Ken make a point and the immediate reply is to call him Kleenex and tell him to stop crying. It's done to mock him and shut down any kind of conversation.

That's at least how I see it. And btw my username is a nick name I got when I was really fat.

Na. They've been pretty harsh with Blep. To the point where sometimes I've felt bad for him.

What went down??? Something to do With Dans thread earlier today?

Trying to get banned for Digital Blackfacing on your first post of the day, eh? Strong work, counsellor.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Sure I can see that. But I think the guys that say that to him genuinely like him so that's why I see it as more of good natured ribbing. But yeah harsh.

I don't think the guys that use Kleenex to address Ken really like our respect him so to me it's used to mock, deride and shut down the conversation.

Like most of this stuff it's open to interpretation.

That’s sooooo mature, dick cheese.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Why, that's the most complimentary thing said to me yet here in the LR! ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Agreed. Ken's okay by me. Always has been. And he knows me too well. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Don't feel bad for him. Feel bad for his wife.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Because Katy complained about a "women are from Venus, men are from Mars" joke?

Katy should be banned.

So should Dan, for that matter. Pussy.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't believe that the bans were because Katy conplained about the joke.

Read Dans statement about the reasons for the bans. The joke wasn't the reason for them.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Just to put everyone at ease, I have not been banned.

Whatever. Not interested in Dan's mealy mouthed explanation, really. He's not generally honest about who's been banned and who isn't, and who does the banning, and why or why not. The whole thing started with Katy flying off the fucking handle about a totally innocuous and even-handed joke. And Dan has had a boner for Duffy forever. Fuck all that noise.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Dan very much looks after the wimmins, and in the unwritten "constitution" for this place there is indeed a right to not be offended if you are female. I'd imagine this is for both personal and business reasons, btw.

How about you go eat a dick?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Dammit !!! Dan must not've read those whiny little PMs we all sent him.

Mm, hm.

"She started it" is an excuse that 6 year olds use.

Some of you guys spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about the guy whose house you are living in rent free. This isn't a democracy.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

whose house you are living in rent free.
---

Wait, what? You guys don't pay the annual ST membership fee?

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Damn. My backchannel communications to Lieutenant Dan and Justin Trudeau didn't work.

Oh well, back to the drawing board... ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Makes sense to me: :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Why don’t you start your forum, announce it here, everyone will follow you over there, where you will moderate with wisdom, freedom and courage. Problem solved!

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

bummer, I like windywave

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Unless you deleted some posts there didn’t appear to be anything of particular malice in that thread that warranted banning.

only forum I haven’t been banned from.

---

sometimes

Have you been to one of windy’s Zima parties???

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No, what are they like?

no... don't know what Zima is... scared to google

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

i don't believe i said that that thread is the cause of any actions i might have taken. in fact i think i said the opposite. there's been an accumulation of uncivil speech and behavior and i'm not going to host it any longer. nothing more complicated than that. i fully appreciate the freedom some folks want to have to write whatever they want. i am inviting them to write it elsewhere. i am showing them the door, graciously i hope, but the door nevertheless. i'm happy to leave a forwarding address. if anyone wants to go wherever it is that speech migrates to, i'll post that link here, and if we lose half our audience that'll be good for everyone: those who leave and those who don't. i don't know, i can't predict the future, but i suspect others might fill that open space if they feel they can post here without someone going out of his way to hurl an insult. i'm fine with whatever the outcome.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Yeah, he was a cool dude. Assuming that he actually was a dude, that is. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I'm pretty sure I've met Katy before. If she's the one that's friends with Ironclm, then I am not surprised in the least at her reaction in that thread.

Its hard to understand why there is so little clarity on whether someone has been banned and why they have been banned.

It's an alcoholic beverage developed specifically for metrosexuals. Just saying. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

specifically for metrosexuals.
---

You spelled teenage girls wrong

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Thanks for catching that for me, buddy. That's why I love you guys. But in a manly man kind of way, of course. :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

He's apparently not taking the banishment well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/...version-authorities/

No one really knows what it is !

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Why don’t you start your forum, announce it here, everyone will follow you over there, where you will moderate with wisdom, freedom and courage. Problem solved!

How about you just stop being a bitch, instead?

Dan, you have no history of credibility, let alone transparency, when it comes to banning people. It's arbitrary and capricious, and then you lie about what precipitated the ban, or sometimes even if the ban occurred.

And enough with all this, "we're all just guests in your house," bullshit. We're not in here due to your charity and largesse. Slowtwitch is a revenue producing site. The participants in here are both the eyeballs you sell to advertisers and your content providers. So yeah, it's your site and you have the power to run it how you want. But hosting the forum isn't some selfless act of altruism on your part, and it doesn't make anyone in here indebted to you. You're the forum host, we're the forum participants. It's a two-way street.

Duffy was one of your more valuable contributors. He rubbed you the wrong way for some reason, and then one of your personal friends over-reacted to a harmless joke and complained to you, and now two of the forum's worthwhile contributors are gone.

That's just bullshit.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Not to jump in to the middle of the conversation, but, I agree with this assessment. It's a real shame that we lost two regularly contributing and constructive members of this forum over something so harmless.

Maybe I'm just jaded but I don't think the conversations had in this forum are particularly crass or insulting, except to the thinnest of skinned. I really hope this place doesn't get moderated in to oblivion ala tri-newbies.com.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Magical!!!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm another "frequent reader/rare poster." I have to agree with this as well.

It seems to me than banning people should help to clarify as to what is allowable/not allowable. Personally, I haven't seen anything in the thread in question, or in general, that is any different that normal. So I don't really understand the reasoning.

As a lurker, I watch this forum quite often, even though I rarely even log in. But I'm bummed its going to be less entertaining going forward.

*edited to add quote

I think the word you were looking for is "fabulous".

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Honest question. Why are you here? I've been on this forum for a long time and seem to recall that you & Dan have not always seen things eye to eye, to the point of let's have a duel at 10 paces. If I felt that way about someone I wouldn't visit them. Or is my memory hazy about you two?

As to Duffy and Windy - yeah Duffy has good things to say even though he can go AC or DC dependent on how much molly was taken. Windy I'm not so sure...

This forum has seen ajfranke, yahey, mattinsf, theforge, chainpin, and the ever entertaining kangaroo come and go. I'm sure someone else will fill their shoes.

some of you guys seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the thread i locked - one of many i've locked - is not the reason for any moderating decisions i've made. i find it the height of irony that many of those posting here are posting here because this is the only forum short of all-out flame war forums that they haven't been kicked off of, and you're complaining that this forum is heavily moderated?

so, to you, to vitus, to those who are righteously indignant. don't complain! leave! vitus is writing ever-more-strident insults to me, i guess because he doesn't have the balls to just leave, and is instead hoping i'll ban him and make his decision for him.

but here his insults stand, here they are, and he's still posting, because while i obviously disagree with his assessment of the moderation here i don't mind folks who want to form strident opinions (as he has).

stay or go. but the whining is unbecoming.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

some of you guys seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the thread i locked - one of many i've locked - is not the reason for any moderating decisions i've made.

That doesn't even make sense. Locking the thread is itself a moderating decision. And surely you're not expecting us to believe it's unrelated to the recent bans?


i find it the height of irony that many of those posting here are posting here because this is the only forum short of all-out flame war forums that they haven't been kicked off of, and you're complaining that this forum is heavily moderated?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never been kicked off a forum of any kind, and I don't know of anyone in here who has been. Who are you talking about?

And I'm not complaining about how heavily you're moderating the forum, but how arbitrarily and unfairly. And how destructively- like I said, you've banned two regular, entertaining, thought-provoking contributors because a friend of yours who rarely posts in here anymore complained about a totally harmless joke.


so, to you, to vitus, to those who are righteously indignant. don't complain! leave! vitus is writing ever-more-strident insults to me, i guess because he doesn't have the balls to just leave, and is instead hoping i'll ban him and make his decision for him.

Ooooo. Do you double dog dare me?

I don't need you or anyone else to make my decisions for me, Dan. What you need is for someone to hold you accountable for your own bullshit. If you were smart, you'd take a deep breath and listen to what people in here are telling you. Because you're out of line on this.

And speaking of righteous indignation, yours would carry more weight if you weren't so willing to insult people in here yourself. You aren't nearly as civil in discussion as you flatter yourself- it's just that when you attack people, you like to do it passive-aggressively. So spare me the sniffles over my insults to you, OK?

This forum is valuable for a lot of reasons. There is a very wide variety of people who participate in here, there is a wealth of expertise on a massive range of topics, there are endless complex discussions about serious topics and there are tons of posts that are just entertaining. It's freewheeling in the best sense of the term. It's getting harder and harder to find a forum like this, online or otherwise- precisely because hypersensitive people who fancy themselves victims more and more complain to those in power over harmless expressions they find "offensive" for some reason, and more and more, those in power indulge the supposed victim by silencing someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong. That's the side of the line you're standing on right now, and if that's the way you're going to continue to behave, you're going to ruin the forum and everything that makes it worthwhile in the first place.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm not whining. I'm lamenting the fact that we lost two frequent and generally positively contributing forum members over something that's pretty ambiguous. Maybe some people like the heavy hand of the ban button, I do not, and feel that I should voice my displeasure when it is used inappropriately so at least you're aware that there are those here who disagree with your decision. How else are you to know? I'm simply providing feedback. Do with it as you will.

There are a lot of level heads and intelligent people in this forum. When someone goes too far, there are usually quite a few who speak up in defence of those wronged. Not that this forum should be entirely self policed but I think there's something to be said when no one is really speaking up or objecting to one's behaviour, and then they get banned. And no one really knows why. Nobody complained about them, you just found their behaviour unsavoury.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Openly discussing and debating different viewpoints and ideas is one thing. But when you start attacking people personally- to the point that they leave the Forum or boards altogether - is another level. You risk creating an environment where only people who align with you and your ideas are welcome and there for defeats the purpose of open dialogue.

Or.......and I'm just spit balling here..... You could take a minute to collect yourself, admit that you entered here yesterday (whether because you just felt like it or whether brought here by Katy as many of us believe) and momentarily were heavy handed and arbitrary in your moderation and banning over a non issue and/or one that wasn't out of the ordinary. And you could restore things as they were (including unlocking the locked threads).

Everybody makes mistakes. Those that own up to them typically garner the most respect over time

Just a thought.

the moderating decisions i made in the last 2 days are a long time coming. i've had my run-ins with you, with JSA, Slowguy, etc. and so forth, on policies. ideas. and they were heated at times. the popularity of a position, or its palatability, or its "acceptability" according to the popular zeitgeist, has never been subject to a moderating decision. i have only, and repeatedly, and clearly, and frequently, stated what triggers my moderating decisions: that many folks here seem to think its okay to hurl insult after insult, and to test the edges of what is crude. is this the first time you've heard me voice this? you don't typically do that (altho you're ratcheting up your insults to me today, but none of that will ever get you banned).



which friend of mine is that? because, if you're taking about katy, i don't know who katy is. if i've met katy i haven't connected the real person to the screen persona. katy has never contacted me in any way, except if that has happened in the past and i just don't remember it. you seem bound and determined to consider me a liar. i can't help you there.



that last paragraph of yours, i agree with it wholeheartedly. except the part where i'm standing on the side of those who are faux offended. i'm against faux indignation as much as you are. i'm entirely supportive of - and scared shitless of - the metoo movement. i'm not scared of it because i might be the guy on next week's LA Times. i'm scared because of the mob mentality, and accusation equals guilt.

so, you're barking up the wrong tree there, pard, and there are tens of thousands of posts standing here on this forum that count as evidence on my side.

i'm willing to read, and do read, every criticism you or anyone wants to make of the decisions i make. just, here's one thought. here is what you wrote about this forum above, that there is a: wealth of expertise on a massive range of topics, there are endless complex discussions about serious topics. spot on, brother. how many more people, expanding that wealth of expertise, might join in if some of the folks here weren't so damned insulting, repeatedly, with vigor, on purpose? do you feel any responsibility at fucking all to help keep a community you value civil?

i welcome your criticism of my moderation. but you undercut your own critique of me by your own unwillingness to criticize any speech of any sort, regardless of how vile, how boorish, how insulting, how disgusting. you seem to think that any behavior that won't land you in prison is good and proper. you and i disagree on that.

and, by the way, thank you for this last post. somehow you and i always seem to go backwards in our discussions: instead of them starting well and spiraling out of control, we begin with the food fight and often end up in a good place. maybe that'll happen today, i don't know.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

there's just not very much that you can say to me that really just flat out insults me to the degree of anger. but calling me a liar, that's one of them. so, with all due consideration to your exhortation that i "collect myself", here's right back atcha. maybe think that one through.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Fancy themselves victims" you say? You do realize that you, windy, Duffy are doing that exact thing, right? I mean, you have to realize that, don't you?

That said, I've only been offended two times in this forum. Once Duffy called me a racist and possible child molester (two different threads) because he's got some screws loose, but I recognize his mental issues and honestly don't have too much of a problem with him. He is still the only person whom i hide posts, but will I unhide certain ones when I expect a response that will be reasonable, especially when I might not agree with it. Second time someone else straight up called me a liar for accusing me of making something up and I shut that shit down quick with irrefutable proof of names and quotes. Don't even remember who it was, but it was a right wing jerky who wouldn't concede a point that if it meant savings his loved one's life. To me, that's who we can without in these forums.

Never had a problem with windy but his reply in the locked thread was way out of line and was meant to intimidate and degrade and that's bullshit.

Sorry to have insulted you. I watched what happened in real time. Given that and your lack of detail I have related one thing to the other. I have just read your in depth explanation to vitus above re Katy. I was typing my post when this was posted

I believe Katy did not bring you to this situation. I believe your statement. I apologize for offending you in not believing you sooner. That was a mistake on my part and I retract the position

no. there aren't. there are tribes on this forum. and when one person piles on with insults, the others in that tribe chime in with back slaps and attaboys, not exhortations to be civil. that, and not some arbitrary decision, is what gets people banned. folks whom you think got banned, if they did get banned, got banned for their "body of work".

i'm happy to hear your criticisms of my moderation or of any action i take, anything i do, my mismatched socks, whatever. just, think about what you wrote above. when have you written to someone who went too far? meaning, someone who you essentially agreed with, but his or her aggressive and insulting of offending speech was just beyond the pale. when did you do that? because, if you didn't - if nobody did - maybe that is why some folks who were here last week aren't here now.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

thank you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You are very welcome. I feel a lot better admitting when I am wrong and correcting myself

Good luck with the rest of this thread. I have invested enough of my time and input in an attempt to provide a varying viewpoint. But I appreciate the forum to do so and I hope it continues in the form it is in

Why don't you just tell us who was banned? Instead of making us guess and wonder?

Re: body of work. So, several members had a body of work that wasnt ban worthy, until suddenly, it was. Gotcha. I think.

I think the above is what is bringing you the most criticism here. Be honest and transparent with us. Otherwise we are just left guessing.

Who was banned, and what about their body of work was so offensive?

As to your last paragraph, there have been several instances where I, or someone, called others out for going too far. Hell, I generally agree with Duffy, but there are times when he goes too far. Often people tell him so. He often apologizes or at least sees reason.

There was a thread recently where he went too far by insulting the friend of a fallen soldier. A lot of people called him on his shit.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

OK. Well, again, someone got banned and the aftermath is just weird.

You say nobody contacted you to complain about Duffy, and that you banned him all on your own for endlessly hurling insults. Except nobody else thinks he said anything insulting. So that's weird.

And no, I'm not sure that I've ever heard you say that testing the edges of what is crude will get you banned, or even hurling insult after insult. If that's really your standard, hardly anyone in here would survive the purge. Just about every regular poster has insulted people multiple times, or pushed the limit of what's crude. Including you. Yes, you.

My general sense in the past was that posters who contribute nothing but insults and idiocy were at risk of being banned, and posters of that ilk would get hit with the ban hammer if they stepped over the line a little. Posters who make valuable and worthwhile contributions to the community are usually given more latitude.

Duffy is nowhere near the worst offender in either regard. Not even close. And he was a unique, interesting voice. I get that he was under your skin, but he was not nearly the most abrasive or combative poster in here, and his perspective can't be replaced. Windy, too.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Fancy themselves victims" you say? You do realize that you, windy, Duffy are doing that exact thing, right? I mean, you have to realize that, don't you?

Nope.

You don't see the difference between running to a third-party authority figure to complain about someone in secret, and objecting openly and directly to someone when you think that person is at fault? Not to mention that I'm not asking for anyone to be shut down or silenced?

Really?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Who did that? And you know that how?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

this forum has been ongoing for 15 years or more. i can't imagine why i would change how i moderate it now.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

We’re trying to figure out why you did.

that's not what i said. i wrote that katy did not contact me. yes, i did get contacted about that thread. and i read it all. and there wasn't anything in that thread that was any more insulting than what i've read here a thousand times before. but i guess you could say i just finally hit that point. i just got tired of misogyny for misogyny's sake. of insults for insults sake.



i wrote it here post 51. and it's not the only place.



i'm not going to parse every element of a possible post to try to come up with a standard for civility that justice potter stewart couldn't define for obscenity. just, i could point you to a hundred posts, two hundred, where i pled for civility. some folks here just laughed and scoffed at that and okay. i took some action based on my best available wisdom and maybe it was entirely fair, maybe it was partially fair, maybe it was ill-advised. is what i did irrevocable? i don't know. but not a single person i banned has come back to me and said, hey, maybe i've been impolitic. can we try this again?



yeah, i think that's probably fair.


i can't say that i disagree with your view.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Because the person PM'd Duffy and told them they were going to do that.

I have been a participant for 12 years s or more. I can’t imagine how you can’t see that your actions yesterday and today didn’t change the perception of how you moderate it and the forum in general.

Serious question. If Duffy or ww write to JSA and post vicariously through him is that ok?

I missed the whole thing, but I do understand the banning for repeated behaviour that is offensive to other members, what I simply don't understand is why that behaviour is considered unacceptable, but the passive aggressive intolerable onanist in the other forum is permitted to take up bandwidth.

To be honest i'd much rather be told to go f$$k myself than read the demented ravings of the water boy and I am pretty sure I am not the only one.

I'm trying to keep up here, but you lost me. A brief synopsis of onaist in other forum and water boy would be appreciated. Seriously. Thank you.

Ramblings aside , why is he allowed to post for Frank day ?

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

because you've been a participant for 12 years or more you should remember the many times this very thread has sprung up every time i take any sort of moderating action. there is no threat, no loss of traffic, no loss of income, nothing that is going to change me from keeping this forum at least reasonably civil. i have at times thought of just shutting this forum down entirely. but it's a great forum! great people. great conversations.

so - and this isn't to you in particular, but to anybody interested - if anybody wants to say or do anything to change my course about any actions that have taken place in the last couple of days, you can sue me, threaten to sue me, boycott my advertisers, tattle to my mother, you can insult me, send me degrading or threatening PMs or emails (which i've already gotten today), you can leave, you can threaten to leave, none of that is going to change any decisions i've made.

what might change a decision i've made is anyone who says, yeah, come to think of it, i could have been more considerate of the party to whom i was writing. yeah, the modern political culture has infected me and i've been taking out my frustrations in the vitriol i've been writing. or the like.

but i haven't gotten any of that. i've gotten a lot of everything else. not a single person who thinks i reacted poorly or unwisely has voiced any validity to my stated reasons for doing what i did. this tells me that nothing else i could have done would have born any fruit.

i don't know how else to say it. righties and lefties have both gotten the boot from this forum. if you are racist, misogynist, vitriolic or insulting, not by accident, but because you intended to insult, and you do it enough, you're going to get the boot.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Yes and no. Please understand I'm not privy to the info about running to authority in secret. On the other hand, openly objecting can be done without malice and from what I've seen, is not the strategy of some in the LR. Both hard right and left.

ETA: some (duffy, et all) have swayed me, but you have to always have an open mind. I feel like we have an extreme right, Duffy somewhere on the right side of middle, many left of middle, and few extreme left.

I have my theory on the Dave / Frank posting situation, but can't prove it, so I'm not saying anything. And frank has been confined to one thread, which I've lost interest in a long time ago.

If Franks presence was more widespread and powercranky, then something would need to be done. But as it is, it's like a travelling penalty in the NBA, it's a legitimate penalty but probably won't get called until it becomes really egregious.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

There’s no doubt you have the biggest button around. And your ability to reign fire and fury is YUGE!!!! Good luck with that

no. once you lose your privilege of posting here, you lose it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The onanist in the other forum is h2ofun (aka "water boy", a term that Dan has warned against using, IIRC, but is roundly ignored). He starts threads about himself and hijacks threads to be about him. He is the OP of the most-read current thread, in which he *also* posts for Frank Day who was banned many years ago for pure and blatant and often-false promotion of his *****Cranks (the term that shall not be mentioned) and the inevitable wars with the likes of Andy Coggan.

Hence Andrewmc's question about vicarious posting, which apparently Dan allowed in that thread.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

if that is happening i'm unaware of it. i'd like to be aware of it. please post or PM me.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

never mind. i found it. thank you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Just look in the giant crank length thread. Franks comments are being made under daves profile.

What I'm unclear on is if Dave himself is posting them or not, based on some of the comments Dave (as himself) has made in that same thread.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Huh? I looked at that thread for a few minutes and I swear I remember seeing that Frank had written in the thread and even signed it Frank. I even think Fredly started a separate thread about it.

I had to unhindered his posts to look but you beat me to it.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

FWIW, I won't be posting vicariously for Duffy. But, I will provide updates on how he is holding up, what with having to carry Trump's balls in his mouth all the time.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What about poo water updates?

Shocked he wasn't aware of this.

-
Honestly, not that I'm slamming you or whoever else for doing so, but I figured you were the one who alerted Dan to the thread.

i was alerted to that thread by multiple people, none of whom were klehner or katy. i'm not going to go down the list of "clearing" various potential perps. which really would not solve whatever it is anybody might want to solve by the exercise.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Nobody needs to worry about Duffy. He'll be busy eating fish tacos, surfing, kicking' dudes asses in the BJJ gym, and generally gettin' laid or fighting off the multitude of dudes and ladies who want to lay him. He's the greatest,...just ask him.

I'm sure he'll be fine.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Amazing you admit to inconsistency in your logic on how you determine who and when you will ban someone. Without so much of a warning to posters who have contributed over 50,000 post of top quality entertainment you ace them. You say you are tired of the insults- I can't think of any bigger insult to your loyal LR Slowtwitch fans than to ban our friends like you did. Yeah now everyone is insulted!

-
lighten up Francis, I'm not asking you to. I wrote that to Ken, and figured if he cared to, he would respond...that's all.

Because no matter the explanation, some people will endlessly fight with you about it. So why even try to justify yourself? Sometimes you just have to take out the trash. No need to discuss it in a group therapy session.

I think being wilfully obtuse is insulting to everyone. There are 1300 posts proving the point from the tag team flat earthers on the other forum, one of whom to my knowledge should not even be posting.

If someone is repeatedly deliberately obtuse, in effect insulting every other members intelligence by feigning a lack of understanding is That ok? Or does an insult need to be very obvious?

I have always found those that are passive aggressive, say "with all due respect" or feign ignorance or pretend not to understand well accepted norms, to be far more insulting than those who just swear or are crude.

francis is light as feather. no problem.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Or as we say, you can lead a horse to water and sometimes you just have to shoot it

Yes. Especially when it's an asshole and keeps kicking you when you don't expect it.

Referring to Windy or Duffy - or other banned former STer? Calling someone an asshole after they’re no longer here to defend themselves says a lot more about you than them.

I didn't want this post to go ignored because of it's incredible attention to accuracy. Well played slow guy, well played.

Wut?

It's a generalized metaphor dude. Relax.

And no, I don't think Duffy is an asshole. I think he's a narcissistic attention whore who can't get enough of the attention that he gets by baiting people into arguments. I feel bad for him. I grew up in SoCal and I know people who are that conceited are really very unhappy on the inside.

To quote the not-so-immortal Rodney King: Cant't we all just get along?

And thank you for your patience with us. There are some very strong personalities here, naturally. And the place sometimes resembles a monkey shite fight at the zoo, but the perspectives of everyone here helps add to the conversation, I feel. As proprietor, you may or may not have some legal liability for what goes on in this particular hell hole, and I think we all understand that.

Personally, I like Mr. Duffy and Mr. Windywave, just as I like all of my internet friends that inhabit the left side of the aisle here. I hope one day soon those two gentlemen will be back in here, slugging it out and otherwise being memorable. :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Since you felt the need to rationalize a defense I am guessing it hit too close to home?

i was thinking a similar thought while reading dan's reply of how duffy is, probably, doing. imo he seems to be mocking him, which i believe can be taken as a personal attack. an attack on someone who is unable to defend their position. it's that ban-worth? or hypocritical? or both???

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

Dan didn't write that. I did. Slowman vs slowguy.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

you are right and i stand corrected and apologize.
sorry

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

you are nevertheless correct. that's another tradition around here. no ragging on someone who's not able to defend him/herself.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

We can't. There are some people who are just going to keep escalating until they get the reaction they want. No one being honest can really think that there haven't been repeated instances where someone just keeps escalating their comments to see how over the line they can get.

FTR - as soon as I posted it I felt bad about my comment about BLep's wife, but it made me laugh to myself (and who else really matters) so I left it. At BLep's suggestion I had some spotted dick, meh, not my cup of tea.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Duffy is turning in his digital grave at you labeling him "left side of the aisle." You know he's a Trump ball-washer, possibly the best!!

Uh huh. Must be one of those brand new traditions.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

not exactly. last post in this thread (as one example). i might be an asshole, but i'm a consistent asshole.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I wasn't labeling Mr. Duffy as a lefty. I was remarking that I liked the folks on the left side of the aisle here just as much as I liked the Duffmeister and Mr. Windywave.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yeah, I'm not sure that you pulling a thread because Forge was upset that he couldn't defend himself constitutes a LR "tradition" of not ragging on people who aren't here. People still talk shit about Art Franke, Kangaroo, Kahuna (while he was gone), etc.

People who develop reputations through poor behavior, and then stomp off in a huff or get banned because of that very same behavior, tend to occasionally get ragged on (and deservedly so in some cases) long after they're gone.

It's also somewhat ludicrous to suggest that commenting on what kind of poster Duffy or Windy were might be off limits, in a set of threads, the subject of which is Duffy and Windy getting banned for the kinds of posters they were. Interesting mental gymnastics required to square that circle.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I called Duffy an asshole on the phone last night. Know what he said in response? "Ugh muff oof moofin!"

Apparently, it is quite difficult to speak when you have Trump's balls in your mouth.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Neither Duffy or Windy are can really be pegged in one place. Sometimes left, sometimes right. Sometimes capable of human-to-human conversation, sometimes 4chan-grade trolls. What they both are is anti-authoritarian.

Having been a hairs-breadth from banned myself, I suspect that Slowman gave them the same private leash I got. He gave me a pretty clear warning: you can choose to remain here, or you can choose to to go. If you remain, you'll be expected to <insert behavior correction here>. I could easily see both windy and Duffy PMing back, "GFY."

Slowman is not consistent. There's been some horrific stuff posted that's completely missed. That makes his going off on seemingly more innocuous stuff hard to understand to some. But I get it. He doesn't want to be a full-time LR police with some super consistent transparent policy. This isn't Facebook. Sometimes there's just spring cleaning. We get a lot of rope. But when you get a lot of rope, it's easy to hang yourself.

I do appreciate that his forum rarely going completely 4chan. Though it veers in that direction at times.

Thank you. You have encouraged what will be my new parenting style, modeled after your new moderating approach — allow my children to get away with behavior consistently while not telling them it’s unacceptable and telling them other behavior is actually unacceptable, wait for sometime in the future when they do what I allowed to be previously acceptable, and then, without warning, kick their little asses to the curb without saying why & blame it on them.

Father of the decade, inspired by the Slowman!

Yup. While I disagreed with a good 85%+ of Duffy’s posts and thought Windy to be a blowhard ass, nothing over the last few days seemed to be egregious behavior compared to the past’s acceptable behavior. A random ban with no warning or explanation is ridiculous. Yet if you ask Dan 2 months from now he’s likely to “misremember” and say he’s only banned 3-4 people in total ever, denying a ban of those two.

Take that away, what's left?

---

“Read the transcript.”

How do you know they didn't get a warning? (I may have missed a post.). I got a warning.

I think the comparison to parenting is an ill-conceived analogy. Parenting is a vitally important task that (should) demand full-time effort.

The Lavender Room is a sideshow for Slowman. It's not a core business. It's probably nearly irrelevant to this site as a whole. We probably don't generate any ad revenue. And we risk scaring away his potential advertisers or business partners with our forays into darker areas of culture. It's not worth his time or money to turn moderating into a full-time job. If he throws an inconsistent tantrum here every six months or so, I kind of get it.

All the people hand-wringing about transparency and consistency are a little full of themselves, in my mind.

We're here at his leisure. We don't get to demand all that much.

Good points. Also, can anyone point to a moderated forum anywhere that allows a single post questioning a moderator's actions? Much less six pages of discussion?

Windy and Duffster are free to contact Dan and discuss the issues.

Actually I don't think Windy is banned. More likely he is day drinking again -- to a new extreme because of tomorrows SEC v. SEC National Football Championship and his screen is all double vision.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

This is pretty much my opinion as well. I don't see how people believe Dan can read every single thread in every forum to make sure everything is going okay. Everyone wants a pretty open forum and I believe Dan does as well but to assume he can and will let everything go is absurd. This is a business, his business and we are not his children. We're supposed to be adults and not needed to be watched 24/7.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

If Windy is gone who will be left to remind JSA how much the Packers suck?

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Anyone with an IQ in double digits.

The Packers.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

What I wanna know is, where's all the misandry and misandry for misandry's sake. We need to form up a diversity committee and right this listing ship in that regard.

Or is the misandry over on The Womens forum? I bet it is! ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yes, but they're big, luxurious balls. The best! So Mr. Duffy always has that going for him, which is nice. Besides, I hear Donny Two-Scoops is looking for a new Omarosa to fill whatever role it was the previous Omarosa filled in the White House, so there's hope for Duff yet. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Agreed. It's Lieutenant Dan's turf and he gets to call 'em as he sees 'em, whether we like it or not. But really; we still have it made here -- even with any change in temper that may have arisen of late -- when you consider that most mainstream websites have thrown these sorts of chat rooms right over the side, leaving people to seek out the 4Chans and Reddits of the world. Ugh! Not only "No," but "HELL NO!"

Speaking honestly, I'd say this room is more trouble than it's worth for the Godfather. And yet he persisted. ;-)

Lastly, WTH could you have ever said that would have merited a yellow card from Il Duce? You've never come across, at least to me, as someone particularly nasty or mean-spirited. I mean, you and I used to have quite-spirited discussions -- on almost every issue -- but I don't recall you coming anywhere close to deserving the Banhammer. You've always been a mensch, at least to me.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

The "Fudge Packers," you mean. Didn't they lose TWICE to the Detroit Lie-Downs this season? ;-) ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Replying to Trail, you said:


Folks usually are more likely to get into trouble over stuff they are passionate about.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Well, that's foreshadowing and ominous -- in a Wuthering Heights kind of way. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I wouldn't just agree, I'd go farther. The problem with the business analogy is that it tempts us to imagine we are in some kind "customer and business" relationship where the smart business tries to some extent to keep us happy. A better analogy is that we're guests in Dan's home. We don't buy stuff from him. How often do LR types click on his web ads and therefore add to his revenue stream? The whole group of us probably doesn't buy him a beer/yr. We're here as guests and we occasionally cause him to grind his teeth.

We can occasionally be shitheads. Then we howl that we're supposed to have a right to be shitheads. Here. In Dan's home. That's fucked up. We don't have a right be shitheads in Dan's house, we have an obligation to be good guests, to be reasonably respectful of each other. Besides, it's so much more entertaining to read a really clever put-down then to read someone telling someone else "you're an idiot".

If you're not smart enough to craft a clever put-down, then this is the wrong place for you anyways.

Re. misandry. I had to look that up. Had no idea the word existed. There's meaning there.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

It was actually the other forum where they talk about triathlon stuff. I went over-the-top in mocking an aspect of this site that wasn't found at all funny. I understand since this whole thing is his baby. You don't walk into someone's house and start cracking jokes about their life's work.

Ah, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Long ago, pre-exile, I used to drop in occasionally on the tri-forum and actually talk triathlon. They're a little touchy sometimes, to say the least. ;-)

Keep on commenting, my brother from another mother. You're one of the folks I consider an internet friend. :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

My greatest use of an obscure word or a word that had fallen out of common usage was when I deployed "Brobdingnagian" in this forum in defense of some Dubya Bushitler policy or another back in the day.

We don't hear a lot of the word "misandry" because women never hold an ingrained prejudice or dislike against the male sex or men, do they? And so it's never spoken of. Because it never happens, right? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

    Things are changing as society changes, and Dan changes, which is dangerous because there is a push for complete non-offense, and many of the more recent generations expect that and can't handle anything otherwise. Duffy was right to point out the opposite, and benefits of dealing with offense, for the individual and the collective. The problem is when we, often Duffy, would hew to the being offensive for offense sake, and the results that can bring. I think the recent thread where he slammed a guy (fishbum) relative to experience der fish had with a friend whom he lost is a case in point: I don't think fishbum is posting any here now, and I see that as a loss because his take was left of center, but not hard or consistently so. The best posts (and therefore posters) IMO are grey.

ps. As a funny aside, I remember years ago hearing Limbaugh railed against those in the middle (often undecided on some issue), and thinking that's where the interesting conversations take place. Fast forward to today, and that's pretty much the only place conversation takes place.

that is simply not true. perhaps you think it's changing because i have finally given up on my ability to get certain people to keep to my very consistent moderating theme.

this place is remarkably free from constraint. here is a reliable guiding principle: you can be a jerk because you strayed into jerkhood. or jerkdom. (whatever is the right word.) that can and does happen to all of us, me too, you too. nobody gets the boot for that, because everybody's guilty of that. but if your goal is to be a jerk to your fellows here in the forum who don't agree with your viewpoint, then you'll be invited to leave. if your goal is to see how much you can get away with, to try to find the limit, then you'll find the limit.

i invite you to move over to reddit. but if you don't find reddit to your liking, and this place is more your cup of tea, i submit to you the possibility there are reasons it's your cup of tea. if this place had reddit's moderating style it would be reddit.

and look, i've done what is pretty much not done in the world of reader forums: invite or at least allow the public gripes and questions about moderation. but i'm reaching my limit here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

     Sorry, you're wrong about you. (Play along with me here) My point is that more people in society are looking to live life and experience less offense, more of those people will be more easily offended, more will complain to you, you will be forced to read threads here and do you ever consistent moderation more often. To add, I did not complain about your moderation, as a matter of fact I pointed out both the reason to have banned duffy, and the cost of doing so in my post.

edit: corrected my post with a correction so as to be more correct

well, fine, but i don't give a good god damn about what more people in society are looking to do, and that is absolutely reflected in the moderation here. you may feel free to take any number of socially unacceptable positions. you may feel free to consider the #metoo movement a crock of shit. i might agree with a number of your theses.

but if you're going to tell me that somebody who is going out of his way to offend, for the sake of offending, is righteous because his topic concerns the PC subject matter du jour, no. the subject matter is not righteous cover. there are ways to express a view unpopular in the current zeitgeist without being a dick. if your goal is to express that view, no problem doing so here. if your goal is to be a dick, then yes you'll have a problem here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I am pretty sure that if being a dick intentionally were the criteria for banning, then there is surely no better example than the 1300 post thread in the other forum?

This is very true. Well said.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

-
WELL WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO??? lol (see this is where Duffy could have added a gif of you poundong your forehead on the keyboard, so now you feel the loss) Honestly, I'd prefer you be able to maintain this sub-forum with very little grief, or shut it down. We'd all be just fine doing this in the women's forum. :) Sorry, I can't stop, but the bolded is sincere.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Dan, this type of behavior is nothing a well-timed .gif cannot address.

E.g.:



Done and done!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

i'll choose your first option: to maintain this forum with very little grief, which usually gets done through these unfortunate moments, once or twice a year. otherwise, this forum is not hard to maintain.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan. What was the outcome after you reviewed the posts where H20 is posting for Frank....or Frank posting under H20's name? Several of the posts are signed "Frank"? Shouldn't that thread be shut down given that banned STr's are not allowed to post under another person's name?

I like this forum. Smart debates, intelligent people from a broad cross section of experience, and some highly entertaining antics and memes.

I’ve had my ass handed to me a few times when taking a position without hard facts and evidence which, to me, separates this forum from all others (never done Reddit or similar). And I’m thick-skinned enough to handle the occasional personal attacks. Some of the thin skinned folks should just leave, IMO, instead of driving out the offenders. Easier for them to leave than for you to issue bans, but I really don’t care enough to worry about it either way.

I really don’t like to see people banned other than for direct physical threats; then again, I don’t have the pleasure of being the referee.

Having said all that: on balance, when I consider all in my life that is important to me and where I’m willing to spend mental and emotional energy to the point of being affected, ST isn’t in my top 50 other than when/if I lay out a very personal issue (which I’ve done here once) where I’m emotionally vested. In that instance, all who responded were helpful and kind and appropriate.

Otherwise, bans or no, it really just isn’t that important, people should just chill. (JSA - have a good chill out meme?)

i think if you follow that thread the moderating decisions made will become apparent.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

---

RayGovett
Hughson CA
Be Prepared-- Strike Swiftly -- Who Dares Wins- Without warning-"it will be hard. I can do it"

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Ain't no party like a windywave party
'Cause a windywave party don't stop!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

This thread reminds me of the fallout after TheForge got himself banned. Someone keeps pushing the limit until Dan gets fed up and cuts him loose. Then everyone throws a fit about it.

IMO Duffy became some kind of angry troll in the last year. He went from engaging in profound discussion to downright shit-stirring. It got to where I would avoid threads that he was involved in (a lot of them). I got tired of his shtick:

1. say something vague
2. someone asks for clarification
3. answers their question with a question
4. others jump in and take guesses
5. answers more questions with questions
5. finds a victim to belittle because they assumed something, or asked something "stupid"
6. interjects about how awesome he is
7. basks in the attention he gets from all the crap he stirred up

Hardly a method for creating thought-provoking debate or friendly rapport. It was just a bunch of dysfunctional attention whoring.

This place has changed a little since I went into exile (not banned by The Godfather, but as a result of a stupid 2012 election bet I made with Mr. Mopdahl). I was once worse than Mr. Duffy or TheForge or Art Franke or any of the other dearly departed, and not even a back channel word of caution from Lieutenant Dan or even an attempt by those whom I tormented so to have me evicted. Those worthies had thick skin, for one. Many are still here and can attest to how bad I could be on many occasions (especially during election years ;-).

Admittedly, I don't recall labeling anyone an idiot (including Mr. YaHey LOL!) or cursing at them, but I didn't need to. I think I was a lot subtler about tarring a debate opponent than our two recent evictees.

But I also agree that this is The Man's home. We shouldn't be so quick to throw fecal material all over the place, especially when it's he who's allowing us to live here rent-free.

Sometimes I think some of us just wake up one morning with an internet death wish and come in here seeking banishment. Lemmings going over a cliff, LR denizens courting the ire of Il Duce. They're one and the same! :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Whilst you were (and are, to some extent) a shit disturber, that's fine. Nothing wrong with being a shit disturber or taking people to task over their views or what they write. The line is when you are mean about it.

I don't recall you ever being mean to anyone. I could be wrong, but that's not my recollection.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I had to put on the t-shirt I got for Christmas before posting to this thread.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Do you think Duffy was mean to some here? II never noticed that. And I don't know Windywave that well but he didn't seem mean either.

I never visited the offending thread, mostly because the title alone told me trouble was likely, so I can't say I know what it was that brought them to their outcomes. Hopefully they were launched for really good reasons. Like "9.0 on the Richter scale" reasons.

That would be the Duffy Way. The Tao of Duffy. :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Based on slowmans stated reasons for the bans, its possible.

Let's leave it at that.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Can you explain something to me? You spend hours and hours here, seemingly most days, and you are discussing whether Duffy was ever mean to anyone, offering your opinions, and yet you haven't even read the thread that got him banned?

I've "known" Duffy for years, and I count him an internet friend. I've never known him to be "mean" (though whether he was "mean" or not would seem to me to be a matter of subjective opinion -- outside of a death threat or "You're an idiot," I suppose).

I also can't remember exactly, but I think I first found the LR in 2004 -- after migrating from the tri forum -- and I remember reading his stuff not too many years after that. He never seemed mean as the word is classically understood by me. But I've said that I didn't read that thread because the title alone told me there was likely to be some blowback, mostly because -- in my opinion and apropos of nothing else -- it seems to me that people have thinner skins these days. But was the blowback going to be banishment? I didn't think that, admittedly.

Recall, as well, that I've supported Lieutenant Dan's actions. This place is his place, not our place. We're guests here. So he calls the shots in the end and if we don't like it, it's up to us to decamp. And I'm sure he'd be broken-hearted to see us go, right?

As far as the "hours and hours here" thing, that's not exactly true. Smartphones with browsers are a wonderful thing, and I'm a world-class multitasker, with about 20 pots boiling at any one time, so if I were the LR I wouldn't be too flattered at the attentions received from me of late, because they're not all that much in truth. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Regardless, it makes no sense to wonder if he has ever been mean without reading the thread in which he got himself banned. Carry on...

So, in your estimation, you believe he was "mean" in that thread, and therefore deserving of banishment? Am I correct in this characterization? I recall that you two, in your colloquies with each other, don't seem all that amenable to each other. But given my past experience with him, my characterization of Mr. Duffy is that he isn't mean, as far as I know. I also don't know you all that well, but you seem willing to give as good as you get.

Being a big 1A guy -- who doesn't believe in ANY restrictions on speech (and I do mean ANY) -- I think I have a far higher tolerance level for written and verbal utterances than many others here in this room, thin-skinned they may be or not. So no, even if I had troubled myself to read the thread and the comments therein that have apparently disturbed some here, I probably wouldn't have characterized anything he or Windywave wrote, or have written in other threads, as "mean."

Are we this weak-kneed these days? Sure seems like it to me.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I just wish once you would ban someone that I was happy about.

To me, I think tolerance levels have gone down over the years. Not just in here but in general and I think a lot of that has to do with the amount of sh!t we have to deal with daily virtually everywhere. Humans just don't have the capacity to process all the information we have access to on our smartphones/internet and as a result, we are seeing people becoming much less tolerable of the things they are closest to.
Just how I see it. I don't think Duffy was mean per se. I would say he was many other things but as Dan has said, he isn't here to defend himself so I will let it go.
I would love to know the #'s on how many people have chosen to ignore his posts. I know I did.

What I think is irrelevant to my point. My point is that it's asinine for you to wonder if he's ever been mean on this forum without reading the thread that got him banned. You rationale for not doing so is flimsy and I doubt you haven't in fact read it. (By the way, I suspect he was banned for things he said in the thread he started in response to the original thread.)

So if you were moderating this forum, you'd let anyone say anything they wanted to others, no matter how offensive?

For the record, Duffy called Katy a "weak minded sniveling little waste of space..." as well as being "damaged and weak willed."

What say you, oh great 1A guy? Not mean?

I've been called a fu#($&ng c*&t on this forum before. First time ever and I'm old.

So what?

I think you are allowed to spell out fueling coat.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Nice snark there, ma'am.

In my opinion, he had a 1A right to say it, and could have called her everything but a white woman and I'd STILL say he had a right to say it. But AGAIN: this is Dan's place and his rules apply. 1A doesn't apply to private institutions and organizations, such as this place. There's also no such thing as viewpoint discrimination in such institutions and organizations. Duffy knew that as well as I and many others here do. He paid his money and he took his chances. It didn't work out too well for him. Them's the breaks of naval air, as we used to say.

BUT:

Speaking personally, if that's all he said -- given what many of us have said to each other before your time here began (and I can't speak to post-November 9th, 2012) -- I'm not seeing the reason for the banishment. Why didn't Katy -- who I've always liked -- simply tell him to eat shit and die or something? So, by your lights, she was in need of protection from the mean men. Or she isn't. As her designated protector (I suppose) which is it?

Here's an example of what I mean when I say that what Duffy said to her doesn't seem like any big thing to me:

During the runup to the 2008 election (I was a McCain man, him being a fellow Navy officer with huge cojones and unquestioned courage) I literally called my friends here on the left a bunch of pricks. And I even offered to meet some folks at a race of their choosing to discuss the matter in person. But I received not even a yellow card from the powers to be.

THAT's what I mean when I say that things here have changed a little, what with the protectors of Lavender Room decency now patrolling these precincts so assiduously. Pity them.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

YaHey was a homophobic racist who hurled homosexual slurs at me and made racially condescending comments about my Mexican family members. But, none of that got him banned (and I never asked for him to be banned). He didn't get banned until he took a much-much-less inflammatory shot at one in Dan's fan club.

His house, his rules, but a little less arbitrariness would be nice.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I sent dan a pm about his bullshit towards you and threatening to call your offices. Not to be banned but to do something like erase them

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Did not know that (or if I did, I forgot). I appreciate that. But, I miss that little bitch. ;-)

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Speaking of yahey, was yahey male or female? I always talk to him like he was a dude, but then I thought I saw where someone said yahey was female.

I really miss yahey. Right before he got banned he had commented on the parenting of my son and I said something to him like shut his fucking pie hole.

---

I miss YaHey

My sense is that it isn't so much about specific incidents as it is about ones "body of work", as it were.

Only Dan can speak to his decisions as to when too much becomes too much, as we all have our own barometers. What one finds insulting, another thinks isn't a big deal, and vice versa. But if you believe that what you say might land you on Dans radar, then perhaps consider scaling back if you wish to remain a guest in the house.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

You didn't answer the question.

YaHey once posted a picture of YaHey's hands. There are NO WAY those were hands of a man. None. So, I started addressing YaHey via female pronouns. YaHey complained to Dan about it and I got a warning.

So, I dunno. But YaHey had some damn dainty hands.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Whether it was "mean" or not doesn't matter, and I simply don't care if it was. It was speech. It should be free. It's why I spent two-plus decades helping to defend its right to be free, too.

But no: it doesn't sound "mean" to me. It sounds like speech to me.

Really, do we need fainting couches and smelling salts in the LR these days for some of the folks suffering from weaker constitutions? Maybe they need to nut up and then speak up. Possibly nut up or shut up. I don't care which.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

YaHey was the man. Or the woman, given the lack of manliness in those hands of his. ;-)

I liked the guy, though. You could tell he was just egging some of us on and we fell for it every single time. Good times, bro. LOL!

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Hahaha. You can be a huge pia but that’s some funny stuff right there.

//Really, do we need fainting couches and smelling salts in the LR these days for some of the folks suffering from weaker constitutions?//

Around the LR? How about around the LR and the country. The snowflakes have a voice....hell, a whole movement.

I’m just thankful my two teenage daughters can handle themselves. They’d manage just fine in the LR.

There were a couple of times when I was mixing it up with him, if he'd been in front of me I'd have dropped him like a bad habit. And I do mean with the use of really, really physical contact, probably to his face or to his nads, if he actually was a guy. ;-)

I wasn't aware he'd gotten himself banned, and I'm sorry to hear that because I really did think he was okay. Besides all that, he was just saying what was on his mind, and he had a right to. I don't care how rough it got between some of us -- and I forget the name of the one fellow who called me a downriver rat and basically dared me to come find him, and if I could have I would have -- but I'd never in a million years have gone running to the Godfather like a little kid runs to his mommy when his brother or other little kids have been mean to him.

But that's my era. Back then, you took your ass whupping, got up, dusted yourself off and got back in the fight. And I got my ass handed to me here plenty of times. LOL!

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You're so inconsistent. First you wonder if he was mean or not, but don't read the thread. No you say it doesn't matter if he was mean or not.

Meanwhile you pint out it's Dan's sandbox, and his rules, but then contradict that by saying "it was speech, it should be free." Which is it, free speech, or Dan-regulated speech?

I think you miss Duffy so much you're losing all sense of logic and reality.

BK, you've got a funny idea as to what the 1st Amendment means. The first Amendment isn't quite about "free speech". The 1st Amendment simply lists a few "don't's" for Congress. One of them being "passing laws that abridge speech". What shitty things person A says to person B has nothing to do with a list of "don't's" for Congress. Just because we colloquially call the idea "freedom of speech" doesn't make us free to change the meaning of the unambiguous text.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Silence, woman! The men are conversing. ;-)

I wondered if Duffy was "mean" (note the use of scare quotes, both now and in the post you cite) and no, I didn't read the thread. The use of scare quotes around the word "mean" should have informed you sufficiently of what I thought about the whole "But Duffy was mean!" thing. So far, no inconsistency, other than what may be in your imaginings.

And yes; I did point out it's Lieutenant Dan's house, as I've said in every single instance, and I've consistently noted that I have no truck with that. Then I provided my personal thoughts to you on what free speech means to me, and what it probably should mean to everyone (including you) if they were being intellectually honest with themselves. No inconsistency there either. Again, other than in your imaginings.

And yes, I miss Duffy. Like the rose misses the dawning of a new day. I wilt without those beneficent rays falling thusly upon my increasingly wan skin.

Ugh! Excuse me while I barf! And please let me rephrase the above.

Duffy was one of my old bros from the days when the LR hadn't been de-nutted by overly sensitive types who can't help but run to The Man whenever they feel they've been offended by some observation or another.

Yes. That's much better. Carry on.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I don't think there is any evidence that Katy was offended by Duffy's words. She may have been, or not. Dan said she didn't contact him. Duffy' response was over the top considering Katy's complaint against the original thread. I actually agreed with Duffy in that thread, if you will dein to read it. But in the new thread he started he made those (imo) unwarranted ugly comments about Katy. He was clearly having a bad day, but I don't think that's sufficient excuse for saying those things about someone. You may live in a world where it's ok to speak to others like that, but I support Dan's efforts to prevent that happening here.

All us Lions fan's

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

The courts have provided us a long recitation of what 1A means, including that it means having the right -- outside of a very few proscribed instances -- to speak freely. Here's 1A in its entirety (note, as well, that there's no such thing as a "hate speech" exception to 1A):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is from the USCourts.gov website:

"Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech."

The courts -- in generally recognizing that 1A, and the Constitution itself, in conjunction with the Bill of Rights, was designed to prevent the government removing natural rights, such as the right to speak freely without fear of retribution or physical harm -- have gradually expanded the understanding of the scope and meaning of 1A over the centuries. One saw this in the debate over whether pornography constituted "speech" and whether or not that speech (if it was indeed speech) was in need of protecting, which is what the government is charged with by the Constitution: protecting and guaranteeing our natural rights.

First Amendment absolutists, such as myself, maintain that there's no debate whatsoever. There is an unabridged right to speak freely, with the exception of those very few instances in which speech must be tempered. Civilized people, also such as myself (hah!) only temper their speech out of a sense of respect for others or out of propriety or a desire to be polite and to observe the codes that govern civil conduct between people.

We of course also say that 1A is meant to keep the government from abridging that right, but that in private places such as the LR there is no absolute right to free speech. I do agree with that point, and the relationship between the Godfather and us, here in the LR, is a consensual one. He is free to release our speech-related animal spirits or restrict them as he may, and we are free to either accede to those actions or to leave and find more welcoming and greener pastures.I have no problem with that. Whether I find it "fair" -- and whoever said that life was fair -- is beside the the point.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

this is so not the case as to be laughable. but i will tell you this. when i get a complaint from someone in this forum about ill treatment against him or her, it's more likely to be from someone with whom you're sympatico. it's typically the most publicly vitriolic who are privately made of glass.

so, when you're going on about the overly sensitive types who run to me to tattle, as infrequent as that is, just remember who it is you're mostly likely to be talking about.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Obviously someone was offended, and if it wasn't Katy who herself was vexed by Duffy's words and complained to Lieutenant Dan, then the one who did complain is all the more at fault, it seems to me. I mean, not having a dog in that fight, what made that person feel it was incumbent upon himself to then involve himself in affairs that were basically none of his business? Doing so only proves my point about the self-appointed moral decency squad running around the LR.

And I do live in a world where it's okay to utter speech, which in this case was a colloquy of sorts among all of you fine folks participating in that thread. That someone was fine with it right up until he found his little moral code violated, at which point he ran to daddy, so to speak, I find a bit disquieting. Mostly because it makes us seem like delicate little hothouse flowers in danger of fainting from the stress at any second.

Honestly, I don't care whether or not someone appreciates or is offended by another person's speech. Their opinion of that speech carries about a feather's worth of weight in my calculation, to tell the truth. The right to utter that speech carries almost all the weight, in my personal opinion.

Also, I don't care who supports or doesn't support Dan's efforts to prevent something horrendous, speech-wise, from happening here in the LR. However, I do support the Godfather's right to police his PRIVATE land and to lay down the rules as he sees fit. Duffy ran afoul of that and Dan launched him. For being "mean," apparently. But do you see me rushing to organize a boycott or some similar fruitless and utterly masturbatory exercise demonstrating any displeasure I might or might not feel as regards his decision?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Another good reason for tempering ones speech and keeping things civil is to encourage a wider variety of viewpoints. It's not because people are easily offended snowflakes, but just don't want to put the effort into defending their character from the ad-hominem attacks. It isn't enjoyable to do so, so those people abstain from discussion. And the forum loses out on potentially valuable contributions.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

You remind me of one of these guys....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnLnvU8DjBY

I'm confused. There's not evidence that Katy was offended by Duffy's words . There is evidence that Katy never contacted Dan about the issue (Dan's statement as such). There's a thread where Duffy calls out people who contact those in power to complain and said "unwarranted ugly" things about such an (unnamed, general person). And you've concluded that he was talking specifically about Katy and this was the reason he was banned?

Or is there a thread that has been altered and/or another thread I am missing.

Can you point me to the thread where Duffy specifically called a member of this forum (Katy) ugly and unwarranted things (and the post #). I had some strong opinions earlier in this thread which may change as a result

thanks

the sense I got on Sat was that these things happened as a result of a "body of work" vs. a specific incident/post

I'm a bit depressed that people here actually do come to you to complain about something that's basically speech, but it is what it is, in that regard. And I do thank you for the light moderating hand you exercise. Also, I harbor no illusions about people here in the LR. On that point, I'm reminded of what Mike Tyson once said:

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."

So yeah; I agree. It's likely that the most publicly vitriolic are the worst offenders of the "Don't run to daddy and snitch rule" once they're figuratively or rhetorically punched in the face.But I can't do anything about that. Other than not run to you if my feelings ever get bruised by mean ol' Ms. Kay.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Absolutely correct! Which is why I appreciate that consideration, manners, respect for others' opinions and just common decency in conversation should be the order of the day. I don't have a right to impose that on others, but I try (and don't always succeed, to my shame) to adhere to that as much as possible. Hopefully, the examples that you and others set would convince some of the less-tame "animals" (hahahaha!) here to moderate themselves. Or Dan can hit them over the head with the Banhammer. I have no problem with either tack, and I'm not being intellectually inconsistent in saying that.

You're a good egg, sir. Always have been. And I value your observations and opinions, though in the past I might not have always demonstrated that was so. You goddamn Canuckistani! ;-). ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

FWIW - here’s my sense of what happened:

There was a thread where Duffy was reacting rather strongly to Katy. A person or persons alerted Dan that the thread seemed to be getting out of hand. Dan privately warned Duffy to cool it and take a break having fielded a complaint(s) requiring time and attention.

Duffy reacted to the warning by starting another thread strongly complaining about people running to Dan.

Dan then issued the ban. I suppose Windy was in the same situation.

Dan chooses not to provide much about such matters but this my opinion of the events.

I loved Robert Loggia, and that whole Tony-Feech thing was classic. That's all I'll say about that. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

thanks, I can see how that double down would result in a ban.

As to the thread where you say Duffy was reacting strongly to Katy. Is this the now locked thread that was supposed to be a joke about women. The one that Katy swooped into with potty mouth blazing. Unless there have been alterations to that thread I only see Duffy address Katy directly once (one post) and I see nothing substantial in it.

Yes that’s the thread - he (Duffy) then started another one.

I dunno if dan contacted Duffy privately, but he locked the thread, which seemed to be the catalyst for duffys rant.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I don’t know either way but I suspect Dan would likely reach out privately. But I have no more or less info than anyone else.

Makes sense. No secret I liked Duffy, for all that he has Donny Two-Scoops' big, luxurious balls in his mouth ( ;-) ) but I knew he was just begging for a double-tap from Dan by starting up that bitch-and-whine/passive-aggressive thread as he did. Pretty dumb on his part, to speak honestly. Almost like he woke up with an internet death wish that morning and decided to commit Suicide-by-Dan.

I also hope his and Windywave's bans aren't permanent and that they'll be back. I hope YaHey's ban wasn't permanent (and Lord knows he and I had more than a few slap fights). And TheForge's as well. Good guys, all.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You seem to think that freedom of speech comes with freedom from the consequences of that speech. Uou put it out there and let the market speak. The forum owner is the market. The market spoke. They were not impressed.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I don't think that in the least, a point I've made several times in this thread as regards Lieutenant Dan's right to do what he did. What I did say is that if I had my druthers speech would be truly free and that, with a very few proscriptions, wouldn't come with repercussions. But we live in the real world. OF COURSE there are going to be consequences, some of which the late, lamented (or not, take your pick) Mr. Duffy experienced for himself.

Like I said: once that woman-joke thread thing was locked he should have cooled it, if only out of consideration for others as well as a bit of judiciousness and prudence.

But Duffy is always gonna Duffy, right? And he went and opened up another thread -- which completed his "body of work" -- and took two in the head for it. All because he let his emotions override his intellect. Classic Duffy. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

//also hope his and Windywave's bans aren't permanent and that they'll be back. I hope YaHey's ban wasn't permanent (and Lord knows he and I had more than a few slap fights). And TheForge's as well. Good guys, all. //

I like Duffy and hope he’s back soon, same for Windy. I was disappointed when Forge got banned as well.

BTW, having grown up with 3 sisters and now living with 2 daughters and a wife, I’m certain Katy is perfectly capable of handling matters herself and believe Dan when he states she did not contact him. Shame her name is in the middle of this since she had nothing to do w the ban.

Well, knowing Katy and how tough she is, that's why I asked why she didn't simply tell Duffy to STFU and eat shit and die, as she would normally do. It makes sense that it was someone else who ran to the beat cop, so to speak. And that disturbs me a little, because it smacks of some sort of morality squad thing. Clearly they never grew up in my old Detroit neighborhood. "Snitches get stitches" there. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

That has never been how it works and you are probably the first person I have heard to want it like that.

You say it, the market judges. That's how good ideas get sorted from bad.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I didn't always want it that way, but as I became more involved in writing, including during that stint as a political correspondent, I gradually came to that conclusion. But I'm also a realist. And you can't make a very filling lunch on your idealism, can you?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Gotta disagree with you on the whole repercussions thing. I want repercussions for my speech, that's one of the ways I know if I'm saying something really stupid. If as a result of my stupid speech I get shut out of the conversation, then I should probably reflect on that as a learning opportunity.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I think we probably should distinguish between repercussions and consequences. Perhaps accepting that repercussions should be a natural result of most any speech, for good or ill. Consequences, though, which may appear to be the same as repercussions, are to me more serious and more negative, from a government-censorship POV. I would hope that speech doesn't come with consequences for the utterer, no matter how stupid or foul those utterances are. My libertarian impulses go stronger by the day, it seems. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Luckily for you, your federal constitution guarantees such rights via a vis government curtailment of your speech.

Other countries may not be so lucky.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I can't seem to find the post but Duffy (aka Omoplata, Chorizo Blanco, D'sGhost, Iron cross, SS88, Kilgore Trout, Nedrise, King Duffy!, TheReal Duffy, MidwestRoadie, 111333, Not Duffy, Dr. Duffy) once laid it out somewhere that he's just here to stir up shit and push the envelope.

That he did... That he did...

There were some folks in here though that figured out his button and once they pushed that Duffy's reaction is eerily similar to the man whose balls he's now caressing tenderly.

I'd just like to remind everyone, Dan included, that is was Katy who initiated the personal attacks. Nobody else- Katy. Someone brought back a completely harmless joke from a decade ago, and Katy felt justified to respond with this:

Thankfully I didn't marry an asshole so this kind if lame, insecure male bullshit doesn't cause an issue in our household. Weak ass misogyny isn't funny.

Up until that point, the thread was appropriately lighthearted and jocular. It was Katy- someone who by her own admission rarely contributes anything at all, let alone anything valuable, to the forum these days.

Duffy most certainly did not react "rather strongly" to Katy in that thread. His responses to her where even-handed, civil, and incidentally, correct. The locked thread is still there, for God's sake. There's a record. People should maybe check it out, because if someone says Duffy attacked Katy in that thread, and anyone but Katy initiated the vitriolic attacks, they're either wrong or lying.

Duffy didn't get riled up until "someone" complained to Dan, and Dan slapped Duffy's hand over it. And Dan was in the wrong. He didn't act out of some kind of principled support for civil discourse. He acted in support of his buddy. That's all.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, he hates cyclists who ride down the middle of PCH...so I buy him a beer anytime...I'd just request that he'd leave other people's balls at home.

And he knew the envelope he was operating in and pushed it..
Having been there there I wouldn't waste a second thought about why somebody decided to dislike my posts/stance on some insignificant online platform.

It seems to be some badge of honor to get DE's or his little helpers goat.

After all, it is all just smoke and mirrors.

i may be completely wrong and I certainly didn't see anything in the thread that I thought was offensive - Katy's comment included. That was her view and while I don't agree with it I wasn't bothered by it. I thought the joke was funny and the comments were as well. I don't think Duffy should've been banned and I hope he comes back. That said, I was relaying my own opinion about the chain of events, not defending the actions. And I believe Katy didn't complain because I don't believe Dan would lie about that.

So, you disagree with my assessment, so be it. Hardly worth accusing me of lying about it.

And I believe Katy didn't complain because I don't believe Dan would lie about that.

Because Dan is usually so forthcoming and transparent about the circumstances surrounding a ban, right?

Hardly worth accusing me of lying about it.

Did I? I'm perfectly happy to assume you were just wrong. But it is not correct to say that Duffy reacted strongly to Katy's harsh words in that thread.

Look, Katy felt the need to inject herself into a thread and throw out invective about misogyny and assholes. She was wrong. And obnoxious. I don't have a problem with her being wrong or obnoxious, but when you pop off obnoxiously, you need to expect push back. Whoever it was who called her a humorless feminazi was merely responding to her in kind. Duffy's replies to her were not anywhere near that level.

I just want it on the record, because everyone seems to have bought into the revisionism that Duffy initiated some horrid personal attack on Katy. He didn't. It was Katy who introduced the incivility to the thread in the first place.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."