"Free McLaddie!" Topic

Why is McLaddie in the DH? TMP link

There was no 'personal attack' in his post.

Without "actually"… It would have gone through the police.
Needs a lot of self control for researching knowledgeable, normally patient ( I marvel at his lengthy explanations) to carry on arguments without lapses with those who rehash opinions or old habits. Like the regretted immensely learned Russian who finally left, to our loss.

Without "actually"… It would have gone through the police.

That has never been the standard. If it were, then Kevin's posts:

And your point is…what?

You have erred consistently regarding the Prussians of 1806 in general and now Scharnhorst in particular.

and

You continually err when discussing the Prussians. How can that be?

and

I'm asking the questions because of your repeated errors, badly worded responses, and too many errors in fact. It is apparent that you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what is being written in the source material or you just don't understand it.

Comments such as the following do not support your stated position nor do they contribute to the discussion. To use your words, they are 'silly.' They are also without merit.

and:

Further, comments such as those are an indicator that you didn't read the material, didn't understand it, or are misrepresenting it.

are far, far worse examples of such 'personal attacks' in the same thread and have been left alone.

I've been reading McLaddie's posts for years (TMP and elsewheres).

His/hers findings after doing some research are usually illuminating – especially into the hitherto dark recesses of knowledge and understanding.

Over this time I have never observed him/her from using personal attacks to force understanding, opinion, nor will.

Hope he/she returns soon!

I thought it was just a good debate with 2 guys having slightly differing views . I didn't see any personal attacks

The title reminds me of a posting I entitled

"Perrys Release more Swedes".

To which someone (I forget) replied something like "Never knew they were holding any as captives".

This title I was sure was someone offering a free dram of a single malt.

Poor McLaddie. It is almost a badge of honour and does at least suggest a significant input to the topic. Internet is funny and things typed often do not read back quite how one intended. I surely know that by now!

Personal Attack? Ludicrous!

If it actually is due to "actually", then the Doghouse should be overflowing!

Something like if "if you actually bothered to read ….." or "if you ever actually did any research…."

They are attacks, the intent is clear.

And as pointed out above so is this!

I'm asking the questions because of your repeated errors, badly worded responses, and too many errors in fact. It is apparent that you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what is being written in the source material or you just don't understand it.

That has never been the standard. If it were, then Kevin's posts:

And your point is…what?

You have erred consistently regarding the Prussians of 1806 in general and now Scharnhorst in particular.

and

You continually err when discussing the Prussians. How can that be?

and

I'm asking the questions because of your repeated errors, badly worded responses, and too many errors in fact. It is apparent that you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what is being written in the source material or you just don't understand it.

Comments such as the following do not support your stated position nor do they contribute to the discussion. To use your words, they are 'silly.' They are also without merit.

and:

Further, comments such as those are an indicator that you didn't read the material, didn't understand it, or are misrepresenting it.

are far, far worse examples of such 'personal attacks' in the same thread and have been left alone.

I agree – in case McLaddie gets dawghoused for 5 days, Brechtel contributed a lot more and a lot worse attacks.

Maybe more readers should hit the complaint button at the appropriate posts.

It is ridiculous, and seemingly a lack of conviction to discern between the two responses.

That could be the key issue . If someone has made a complaint then TMP after act on that.

I got suspended on another forum for quoting somebody else ! Because nobody complained about the original post and somebody complained about my post because I quoted it, I got the suspension. The moderator stated that she was obliged to take action because there was a complaint against my post! Needless to say I am no longer a member of this Forum .

…with every 4 gallons

There was no 'personal attack' in his post.

The part where he said "IF you actually read Bressonet…" is a personal attack. Stick to the discussion, stop with the snarkiness.

…are far, far worse examples of such 'personal attacks' in the same thread and have been left alone.

Do you honestly think we read every post on TMP? Of course not. If you see a problem, hit the Complaint button. Thank you.

Do you honestly think we read every post on TMP? Of course not.

Of course not. But the presence of plentiful *snips* in that thread indicated at least one of the editors had looked over those posts and found them okay, which is inconsistent with DH'ing McLaddie.

If you see a problem, hit the Complaint button. Thank you.

It is no part of my purpose to get Kevin DH'd for longer or forced to have a chat with Gwen – I have had him on stifle for years so I don't really care what he posts (I had to log out to read what he had written when I saw that McLaddie was DH'd). I just drew the conclusion that since his comments had been allowed, then letting McLaddie out of the DH seemed just.

Really Bill? I've hit compliant on a non-science political leaning thread on the science board and not so much as a peep. So that tells me that just because someone complains it doesn't mean that the complaint is automatically be ruled in favor of the complainer. I would assume it goes through a review and a judgement is made, which I have no problem with. But the apparent lack of consistency in handling of complaints is the only consistency here. Others on various boards are far more insulting, attacking, etc., with impunity. Not every one is going to agree with your decisions of course but the application of clear and consistent rules governing civility which are applied equally to all would go a long way in getting people to calm down. (and it wouldn't hurt TMP's reputation in the wargaming community)

If that's considered a personal attack… holy crap.

The part where he said "IF you actually read Bressonet…" is a personal attack. Stick to the discussion, stop with the snarkiness.

OK – in case this is considered an attack, I simply cannot understand that those quotes Whirlwind did provide aren't.

I understand that you cannot read all posts on TMP – but I tell what I will do – I will unstiffle Brechtel and hit the complaint button for those cases I consider – compared with McLaddie insults.

two wrongs don't make a right (unless you're playing Robo Rally, when three lefts do make a right) – leave poor Kevin alone and concentrate on freeing McLaddie

von W makes an interesting point: lack of complaints about a poster may reflect a higher incidence of stifles.

Where is the Complaint button? Is this something else -like Hobby News – that I never knew existed?

Lambert, it is the "exclamation point" after the date/time group in the header of each post.

Jim

Ah, thank you. Not that I want to start making complaints or encourage complaining.

Most of us have been here for years, including McLaddie. We all know the rules. Even the new ones have been mansplained in nauseating detail.

We have the DH for a reason. We have all agreed to the whims of Dear Editor in this matter.

One message here, keeps coming across.

How much we really care about this forum/website.

Every time I read about DH, I think Deadhead for DH,

Not Dawghouse, but instead what have I done to follow an obscure West Coast band, who still are "cool" (even if most members of that band are actually truly Dead). Drives me mad, as we created that word "cool" (OK it was a US West coast term from at least a decade earlier than UK use)

The contributor will be back from the DawgHouse.

It don't mean nuthin' (what film was that? Vietnam I do know)

This is not Vietnamese boat people, Cuban refugees, Napalm on a broken arrow, an Afghan wedding party targeting by a drone (just because they were all tooled up with RPGs, AK74s and AKMs)

That kind of thing matters……….

By comparison this is small fry….

Folks, t don't mean nuthin. See it all in perspective. You play games with dice.

See it all in perspective. You play games with dice.

No.

I seek verity.

I might find it in any of the esteemed ones' postings.

Then I trust to chance and roll the die.

Sheer profundity….

It comes from a film. Now for God's sake …what was it

Sheer Profundity..

Google, here I come

Hamburger Hill.

Sooo, no free McLaddie?

Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts (turns) do.

@milbill

That one belongs to L'Ordre Mince.

Not very deep at all.

"Never knew they were holding any as captives".

Thank you DH, that made me laugh.

There is lots of good stuff on this forum, but when it veers into the epistemological/historiographic, it turns nasty fast- "you are willfully misinterpreting Du Cul" or "I just don't see how you can consider your argument informed with having read Arschloch."

OTOH, post a request for something factual, and you often come away with some amazing stuff.

So how long is a typical Dawghouse time for? I had one that lasted some months for reasons of which I knew not and still know not. It was only after a thread similar to this that I was miraculously allowed back almost immediately.

I did contact the powers that be asking when I would be allowed back and asked for a reason for my banning but I was never contacted with a reason or a resume date so I just let it go. As I said above, it was only after a thread was started by Whirlwind (Cheers Mate!) on the 27th October, that I was allowed back.

TMP link

So how long is a typical Dawghouse time for? I had one that lasted some months for reasons of which I knew not and still know not. It was only after a thread similar to this that I was miraculously allowed back almost immediately.

IIRC you weren't dawghoused, you had your account locked – i.e. banned. I have no idea why that was though, because when an account is locked, your profile doesn't show why (unlike the DH, which does) and there was no obvious post or thread which would explain it.

I have the problem to see any sort of guideline which are applied, McLaddie gets dawghoused for – in my view – if violation, than a minor one, Brechtel on the other hand, and please re read all his contributions in the thread, also only 5 days, same as McLaddie -in case I re read some of his other contributions in that thread, I see worse violations than McLaddie's – but maybe as a foreigner I cannot detect the subtle hints in English language

I hadn't realised that Brechtel had been DH'd too.

It's a bit echoey here without both Brechtel and McLaddie; and I think I just saw some tumbleweed blowing through…

I hadn't realised that Brechtel had been DH'd too.

Yes, Kevin was DH'd first, McLaddie and Bagration at some point later.

Ah, that explains why Kevin has been so active on the Napoleon Series Forum right now, defending his hero against all comers there instead.

He's also on ACG venting his ire over a certain person that owns a Tower and I don't mean Saruman, though it may as well be…

Whirlwind

IIRC you weren't dawghoused, you had your account locked – i.e. banned. I have no idea why that was though, because when an account is locked, your profile doesn't show why (unlike the DH, which does) and there was no obvious post or thread which would explain it.

Which is still annoying as on-one has admitted that they made a mistake. OK they gave me free membership which was appreciated, but I would have liked and still do want an explanation.

An equivalent (though of course, hugely overstated) similar example would be to have been suddenly arrested, thrown in jail for several months then suddenly released with a bit of compensation for my troubles and a ticket home via the nearest train station. All that with no explanation?????

It should be said too that without your thread I would have had life imprisonment without parole and no chance of a 'Shawshank Redemption' :D

@dibble

ACG?

Armchair General

@Whirlwind

Thanks!

Thank you gentlemen, for the support. It is very gratifying.

I'm back. Woof, Woof.

This is my first-ever dawghouse stay. I didn't even know where to look to find out what happened.

I do agree that a little heads-up/post would have helped. That is, "You're in the Dawghouse." I discovered the offending post and info being provided way at the bottom of the personal page.

As to the justice of it all: It is Bill's website and he gets to determine when or where personal attacks occur. I find it hard to determine such 'tone' with emails, so I don't envy the job of dawg catcher.

Ok, well you've missed the 'how old are you thread' so you need to weigh in there.

For a laugh maybe we could try to get the entire TMP massive dawghoused simultaneously? This could be challenging if it succeeded up to the point where there was only one poster left. In theory you need two posters to insult and get each other dawghoused, so the last man standing couldn't get dawghoused. There is a solution, however, which is to make sure Dave Hollins was that last man left. Mr. Hollins could start an argument in an empty room, so even if he was the only poster not yet in the dawghouse, he'd probably accuse himself of lying about Marengo and then hit the complain button.

We'd then need suitably contentious threads guaranteed to trigger everyone else. We could start a 'Never mind how old X says he is, how old do you think X really is?' thread, for example. That could be a hoot:

"I'm 56. I started gaming when I was 14 when I bought my first Foremost figures from Hinchliffe."

"You cannot have been using Foremost figures aged 14. If you are 55, you were born in 1963 or 1964. Elting confirms Foremost came out in 1980, when you were at least 16 and more probably 17. Unless you had a time machine? Liar."

"'Foremost came out in 1980' Evidence please? You're just retreading the same old tired nonsense from discredited English-language secondary sources."

"I just want to know why you continue to assert things that are completely unsubstantiated based on Anglocentric books you haven't actually read, you poo-faced marplot."

Or another fruitful one might be a 'Least favourite poster' thread. With black-hole inevitability, the latter would certainly trigger everyone in sight and result in anyone who posted to it ending up in the dawghouse.

The post count would fall precipitously, to around nil, but the civility level would improve. So it's an ill wind.

It's worth a try. I'll start. Here's my attempt at a dawghousable post:

'Napoleon had the third-best artillery system in Europe, and he would have admired Donald Trump.'

Flame on…

Classic ! :) :)

Yes superb! No wait I am 55 and I bought Hinchcliffe at 14. But I did. No really!

4th Cuirassier, that's the best post ever!!

Cossack – I too am 55 and bought Hinchliffe figures at 14, but maybe not the Foremost range which was added later. Not sure if it was 1980 but that sounds about right.

Can I join in the praise for 4th Cuirassier's posting?

I wonder how Boney and our Boris would have got on? Our PM is increasingly looking distinctly like Trump, both physically and politically.

Napoleon was against political corruption of any kind, so I sincerely doubt he would have put up with them.

My post would have marred the tone.

PS Welcome back from the dawghousing. You were missed.