How can you have a PhD and have such terrible reading comprehension? The title says ‘Defends Billionaires LIKE Bill Gates’. Nowhere does it say you defend all billionaires. The whole purpose of the thread was for the mods to copy all the posts over, but they didn’t do that (don’t blame me for that).
It’s surprising that you can’t read the OP and see that was the complete intent behind the starting of that thread. I did not start the thread to shame you (you claim to be shameless). I started it as a placeholder to put the discussions that you love to have any time someone criticizes a billionaire or wealthy person. The problem is that no one moved any posts over, and that’s hardly on me.
That’s the entire OP. What’s wrong with it? What’s misrepresenting your views? If all that info had been copied over starting with your first post (or the post that led into it), you wouldn’t have had an issue, would you? Or did you not read the actual OP?
Meh. If someone asks to not have their name in a thread title, it seems reasonable to grant this request, all else equal. I don’t see anything here in favor of keeping Clovis in the title.
I’m tired of this guy doing the billionaire/wealthy defense derail thing and not owning it. This was a direct response to his actions in the Trump thread. Because that portion of the thread didn’t get copied in is not my fault. He deserves credit for that thread, sorry. The fact that he thinks it’s some kind of shaming is lol.
The topic is worthy of discussion, will ultimately probably be a huge thread, and he’s the guy who always turns it into a discussion. No one else would set up the positions he does, so why shouldn’t he be the topic king if this is something he wants to go to bat for? He can always just choose not to talk about this stuff, but he can’t help himself. I did nothing malicious, and I think his credit should remain. My only compromise is that I’m willing to take out one of his names in it, but I wrote it twice to make it very clear that that both sides of the topic name referred to him.
I haven’t read the derail but generally speaking if someone derails a thread they should proudly wear their name like a badge of honour in the new thread started as a result of it.
The problem is that the posts didn’t get copied over as expected, but I’m not sympathetic to clovis’s point of view in not owning what he caused. As an FYI, it was a 250+ post derail talking about Bill Gates, who has been featured in a different thread. It made it look like big news was happening in the Trump thread when it wasn’t.
Oh no, I got it, I just wanted to give additional context since you hadn’t seen the thread. My one piece of sympathy for clovis is that his posts, plus the other 250 didn’t get copied into the thread as I hoped they would.
Derail! (Adjective): a topic I’m not interested in, usually involving, to some degree, a poster I don’t agree with.
Let’s check the actual record.
Time period of “derail”: 2 days
Number of posts in the “derail” before I posted: 27
Number of unique posters in the “derail” before my first post: 15
Total of number of posts in the “derail”: 179
Total number of posts I made: 18
Total number of posts complaining about the “derail”: 11
Number of other threads on the topic I’d already created: 1
Number of posts in the new thread by me: one, asking for my name to be removed.
Number of posts in new thread clearly explaining why the title is misleading: one
Anyway, I am pretty shocked this whole thing has gone more than one simple post requesting my name be removed from the title.
What harm is there if the title was changed to “defending billionaires” or something similar?
The clear reason nun added my name twice in the title, used the plural of billionaires, and suggest I am offended by the very critique of billionaires was to disparage me as he doesn’t agree with me. This is completely obvious.
The fact that this has gone beyond my first request, including several refusals from mods to make a simple title change to a thread that again, contains not one post by me, can only mean one thing.
I mistakenly thought, that while we disagree from time to time, my years of posting with you all had earned me at least the most minimal basic level of respect. I guess not. I’m sure some of that is on me. I hate these public drama posts but here we are.
I think I’ll be posting a lot less going forward as it’s pretty clear my presence isn’t wanted by most people. I’ll still be around as a lurker as I find many of the opinions here very informative.
If clovis wants his name out of a thread title, it seems like a pretty easy call to just take his name out - especially if it was just a mod excising a derail to start a new thread.
In the interest of full transparency, he also PM’d me about it and I declined to override the original decision. I didn’t feel strongly about it either way, but I think mods overriding each other over stuff that’s not critical is probably not a good precedent.
Does anyone believe that the title of the thread and the mod’s decision had nothing to do with clovis’s history of high-drama and high-maintenance? (Please consider this a rhetorical question.)
If a poster doesn’t want their name in a thread title they didn’t make, please take it out? I would extend this courtesy to literally anybody who asked for it, not sure what the debate is.
Probably best to have a standard rule regarding this. It shouldn’t really be down to a mod as personal bias could so easily sway the decision. I’ve actually shifted my position somewhat after considering how I would feel if it was my name in the thread.