The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[jason_perrlx]

oh snap!  that's reez!  Sorry, I didn't recognize you dude.  In my defense, there's pretty much no way I could have.

Bourbon is a serious man-drink.  I'm too girly for that sh-it.  I love scotch 'cause it's smooth.  I'll drink bourbon to impress a client or something, but if given a choice it's Lagavulin or Laphroaig.  Can't go wrong with the L's.

[discoverer02]

So is this thread about banning whiskey?   

[jason_perrlx]

f-ucking christ, pay attention d. this thread is about which drinks are preferred by those with banning power.  Apparently, Knob Creek is top of the list.   

[Pardon Johnny Cash.]

Don't drink cognac much anymore.  Nowadays I'm all about whiskey.  Knob Creek to be exact.  On the rocks.  If you haven't tried it yet, try it out.  Change your life.

That's bourbon to be exact.

Try some Baker's or Basil Hayden's sometime when you're feeling flush. 

Those are good.  But Burning, if you want to spend roughly the same as Knob Creek, try out some 1792.  That's a nice smooth, yet flavorful bourbon.

[ISUCKATTHIS]

Every one here has already seen the post... or could if they wanted to.  What's the point of re-posting if it's only a few pages back?

Anyway, I'm sure it's not going to affect your career.  I have no idea who you are, I do not want to know, and I have no say about whether or not you make partner.  Quit going on and on about it.  I'd rather discuss why you're an asshat.



(I'm kidding, I think that's a great phrase and I'm just trying to use it as much as possible.  Thanks Matthies.)

Dude, ISUCKATTHIS is not worth engaging with, but I have a vague memory of thinking you, Jason_Perrlx, [ETA] were not so bad, so, against my better judgment, I'm jumping back into the fray here (And yes! I'm biased! In favor of someone with whom I've been friends on and off the board for more the three years! f-ing sue me! AND NO ONE CALLED ME IN HERE. Because what happens is, is that most regular posters read most active threads on the board. And when you are friends with people, on the board, it's often because you have been through stuff like this before and tended to have similar opinions, and it is therefore unsurprising and not some kind of conspiracy that you have similar opinions again).

Do you not remember being part of a social thread? Because my recollection is that you posted in MAS, or that "blah people entertain dotlyn" or whatever was going on around the era when you posted more. I guess my mind is just blown that everyone is so willfully misinterpreting the way this works. You are engaged in some kind of imbroglio with a poster that you perceive to be an idiot/a-hole/recalcitrant jerk, etc. You go and spar for a while and then, YES, you post in your chat thread about the fact that this is annoying, generally with the assumption that most people have already seen and read it, and that if they haven't they might want to go rubberneck the unpleasantness or say something soothing to you. And inevitably some of them will agree with you that said person is an assface and sometimes even be tempted (against their better judgment) to jump into the fray. But the reason that one posts these things is that one is frustrated and wants to vent to one's friends. The idea that Miss P is being slammed for saying (something along the lines of) "Jesus, that dude in the Drake thread is an asshat and he's pissing me off" is completely ridiculous. THAT IS WHAT THE SOCIAL THREADS ARE FOR. People gather in them because they have gotten to know these people and they want to vent about things that are happening in their online communities. The idea that this is out of line seems to be a pretty gross misunderstanding of the situation. And calling people "sad" or "scary" or whatever, seems to be jumping in and stirring the pot and being hurtful. But, you know, I'm glad you find that more entertaining than the "chances" threads.

And this crap about how Miss P tried to get people banned is unbelievable. She has posted the full content of the only comment she made to moderators, which is where she pointed out that PILOFO was equally to blame as comotellamas, and did not request his banning. She has not admitted to or even hinted at having made complaints to the moderators about anyone else, and ISUCKATTHIS has been hammering on for pages and f-ing pages about how she has "admitted" to wantonly demanding that people be banned when they hurt her feelings, despite this making no sense in context and there not being evidence for this. You are welcome to interpret this poo-show however you want, but, again, I remembered liking you back when and was kind of shocked that this was how you chose to re-enter the fray. To each his own interpretation, I suppose.

smh.

Figures.  She was one of the attack dogs who showed up and started insulting with no apparent motive.  She was also a regular poster in that other thread and materialized just after Miss P's bat signal.

I understand points made about not taking this stuff so seriously.  That's fair.  However, I really do like to call people out when they are this filled with sh*t.

[Miss P]

Don't drink cognac much anymore.  Nowadays I'm all about whiskey.  Knob Creek to be exact.  On the rocks.  If you haven't tried it yet, try it out.  Change your life.

That's bourbon to be exact.

Try some Baker's or Basil Hayden's sometime when you're feeling flush. 

Those are good.  But Burning, if you want to spend roughly the same as Knob Creek, try out some 1792.  That's a nice smooth, yet flavorful bourbon.

It is smooth, but I don't think it has a whole lot of character.  Something around the same price point with a lot of fun kick (not as smooth, obvs) is Bulleit.  Have you had it, PJC? 

['blueskies]

Has PJC had Bulleit...

[Miss P]

Figures.  She was one of the attack dogs who showed up and started insulting with no apparent motive.  She was also a regular poster in that other thread and materialized just after Miss P's bat signal.

I understand points made about not taking this stuff so seriously.  That's fair.  However, I really do like to call people out when they are this filled with sh*t.

The idea is that I somehow roped my friends into ganging up on you, right?  I just looked at the Drake thread, and goaliechica posted for the first time just over five minutes after you posted for the first time, a little before noon on May 5.  If you look through my back posts (which is, yes, humiliating to me, but go for it), you can see that I didn't post between 1:15 a.m. and 9:24 p.m. that day.  So she wasn't responding to my "bat signal."  I wasn't even here.  Like most people who post in multiple threads and on multiple topics, she probably just gravitated toward an active thread where there was a (moderately) interesting discussion.

[Miss P]

Has PJC had Bulliet...

lol, I don't know.  I don't know what he likes!

[ISUCKATTHIS]

Miss P posts:

• still haven't really started studying [subject]
• about to head out to dinner
• OMG, that thread is still making me twitch

(emphasis added)

[/update]

goalie chica is offline at the time of the above post and doesn't appear again until 10am on the next day, May 7 (see p6915 of the SFLSD thread).  At that time, Miss P is offline.  Before Miss P shows up again, however, goaliechica responds to P's bat signal by posting in the Drake thread:

Nor would including duplicate pages, etc. However, I think scewing with the format is a different issue.  I agree that the first thing a student is expected to do when he/she gets an exam is to allocate time appropriately.  Making that process more difficult/confusing for students might well have an impact on their performance.  On that basis alone, I think it's unfair.

Um, I shouldn't really come back to this, but isn't this exactly what happened? There were duplicate pages—not even of substantive pages of the exam—but of the instruction page.

ETA: Unless you only mean duplicate pages that are right in a row—because then it should be obvious what happened—but duplicate pages that are not consecutive are deathly confusing? Again, I feel like we are splitting hairs about saying "this is enough to throw someone off" and "this is not enough to throw someone off." I'm sure someone could come on here and pitch a fit about a misplaced staple, and someone would agree with them.

I agree that the crux of the disagreement is whether you think this is something that could reasonably throw someone off to the extent that it would affect their performance, or whether it's in the realm of somewhat annoying but not particularly debilitating poo that you deal with. Clearly people disagree about that.