OK Fine. From now on you win. I will note the word this way

[derbstyron]

<sarcasm>


Because I serve to make sure that I always spell everything out
for everyone.

It is obviously my fault that a person doesn't "get" the concept of sarcasm.

There is no question that, in such instances, I should be hanged or shot.

From this point foward on DU I will promise to get along, play nice, never question and NEVER use sarcasm again.

I promise.




<SARCASM>
spelling it out for you: THIS POST IS SARCASTIC!!!

[Elise]

1. emkay

Sarcasm has no place here.

O8)

[derbstyron]

5. Good to see you again!

You have already become one of my favorite posters.

And I have added you to my buddy list.

:)

[Elise]

6. Oh, my

:toast:

:pals:

[ogradda]

2. i was just thinking about you!

you're not having a very good nite, are you?:hug:

[derbstyron]

3. Nope!!

And I'm patiently awaiting the locking of THIS thread as well.

For God only knows, what reason.

[roguevalley]

4. what happened?

[Elise]

7. Yes, please:

what happened?

[derbstyron]

9. They locked my thread its still on this page

Apparently, its ok for Skittles to threaten people, in a sarcastic manner, but I am not allowed to do the same.

I would *love* an answer from the mod as to why.

Also, it was a "copycat" thread which should have been another clue.
I followed a thread which read, "I am scared of some DU forums" with
"I am scared of some DU people"

How anyone could think I was afraid of someone because of their name is beyond me. Most people on the thread got it.

Again, why can Skittles do it, but not me?

[Bouncy Ball]

14. The mod said something about how

it was calling people out. You listed off people in the opening post and stuff. I don't think it has anything to do with Skittles. I don't know, just a guess. Read a little further down for my post about my confusion on what constitutes calling people out.

[derbstyron]

16. Yes

But how is that any different than what Skittles does on her posts.

ok. maybe its me but I dont see any difference between posting that you are afraid of someone and kicking someone's ass.

Also, *I* never threatened physical violence, like Skittles does. Yet, my thread gets locked? Ironically, I poked the most fun at myself: "idiot," "woman" etc.

oh well, I resign myself to never quite understanding this argument?

[Bouncy Ball]

8. I'm trying to understand just what constitutes calling people out

on DU. Is it just writing a post about them? If so, there is a post about Will Pitt here that is not locked.

Or is it being sarcastic even though you actually meant to be complimentary and it is pretty obvious you did?

I don't know where exactly the line is, so I'm trying to avoid it altogether.

But hey I'm glad you are on DU derb!!!

[Elise]

10. emkay, it was ostensibly about 'calling out'

There might be different rules for someone like Will Pitt.

......... not going any further with guessing about your thread, though, without knowing more!

I am VERY glad you are on DU! :yourock:

[Bouncy Ball]

12. Confused.....I don't have a thread.

Did you mean my post?

and thanks!!! :toast:

[Elise]

18. Sorry, I was unclear.

I was referring to the thread, not your post; but found your post to be relevant to the issue.

If that hasn't sufficiently confused you, I must need more meds.

:silly:

[derbstyron]

17. so, let me get this

I assume then, what you are saying, is that the error was in making the post about such a thing, rather than just responding to someone's post?

Is that, apparently, the gist of this argument?

I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to locate where the "line"
is so that I don't cross it.

I simple refuse to use an <idiot> device to explain things to
people. you either get it or you don't. I couldn't care less
about chat/e-mail ettiquette. One argument is that spelling or
grammar dont matter.

I dont accept that either.

At least, until I began struggling with the meds. Now I'm just
happy to get the damn post finished.

[Elise]

19. No.

To assume makes an ... well, you know.

I have no idea why there are perceived differences. Have you tried the 'Ask the Administrators' forum? Or, did you hit 'alert' and ask the mods why the thread was locked?

[derbstyron]

15. I have that problem as well.

When I first got here I was struggling to find the line with what I could say and not say.

As I mentioned in the post above, what is different about Skittles posting that she's going to "kick my ass." *I'm* not retarded, in fact the whole concept of "calling someone out" on a chatboard strikes me as
absurd, what am I going to do type them to death? I know that she was being sarcastic.

As you mentioned, and I thought pretty clearly labeled, this thread
was meant as a compliment to people I admired that amused me.

You would think that after my lengendary "Jesus" thread that I would have learned my lesson. But no, I fight on.

Thank you for the compliment. I am quite pleased to be here.

[Bouncy Ball]

21. I think this is a better analogy:

Say Skittles (or any DUer for that matter) started a thread in which she said "Here are the people whose asses I am going to kick!" and then she proceeded to list them and the reasons why, even if it were clearly tongue in cheek, I think that would get locked, too.

[derbstyron]

23. God, this is getting confusing

You may be right about the "calling out"
aspect of the thread. I reviewed the message board rules
and I think the reason you mention is the correct one:
if skittles started a thread...etc.

only 2 things about it though

1) I still think this entire argument absurd. I dont say how anyone can convince me of a difference if Skittles wants to kick my ass on my post or she wants to start a thread saying she wants to kick my ass. I mean, really, what the hell is the difference?

2) I could be wrong but in my opinion, doesn't "calling out" insinuate trying to start a fight, or at the very least get a response from someone. Please explain where I "called" someone out. I was posting a list of DUers that I admired in a sarcastic manner. I didnt give a rats ass if they posted or not.

[Elise]

25. How about this?

Go to the agreements you signed when joining DU and look at 'Your Right to Leave.'

:evilgrin:

Then, turn around and, for gawd's sake, DON'T LEAVE! :bounce:

[derbstyron]

28. aaackkk

I didn't see the bottom line.

For a minute there I was heartbroken.

DO NOT use sarcasm unless you label it so.

Otherwise, its not allowed.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


EDIT: where in the hell am I going to go?

[Elise]

33. LOL

kisses, sweetie

;-)

[Kenneth ken]

27. calling out

nothing in the original post about young Mr Pitt is negative; in the locked thread, some of the original comments can be considered negative. That's the difference.

:hi:

[derbstyron]

29. which comments?

what comments do you consider that were "negative"?

and am I the only person in the world right now who cant seem
to get the smilies to work?? Is it me or DU?

thanks

[Kenneth ken]

32. me?

none, because I knew (or strongly suspected) it was a copycat of the "other forums scare me" thread.

"the name just creeps me out" could be construed as negative, and so insulting to the person whose name you mentioned. :shrug:

I'm not and never have been a moderator; I don't know all the intricacies of it, but I do know it can be a difficult job.

:hi: mods

AFAIK smilies are still working

[sans qualia]

11. Do you need a hug?

I don't really need an answer, I'm giving you one anyway. :hug: !!

Golly, I'm all euthymic and lovey-dovey this morning. Must be the music. Here's another one! :hug:

[Kenneth ken]

13. I wondered if that thread would get locked

I suspected it would, even though it was a copycat.

BTW - if you use <sarcasm> you should use </sarcasm> at the end of your sarcastic phrasing (proper HTML, ya know.)

:7

[Elise]

20. If I call you a

smartass now, would that be considered 'calling out?'

To me, it would merely be a cutesy way of commenting on your joke regarding 'proper HTML' ... but, would it possibly be considered an attack by others?

[Kenneth ken]

22. no

that would be replying to me. Calling out is essentially posting a thread about someone else who is a member, sort of like if you were in a crowded room, and couldn't find the specific person you wanted to verbally assault, so you just start loudly cursing them so the whole room can hear, and hope that either the crowd will part to reveal your assaultee, or that the assaultee will seek you out.

Using smilies generally takes the edge off anything that might otherwise be possibly thought an attack. See the Smilies lookup table (in blue text) after you click the reply button - it is above your subject line.

:D

PS - welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Elise]

24. Thanks!

What smilies?

:tinfoilhat:

:silly:

B-)

:toast:

:pals:

:yourock:

[derbstyron]

26. actually thats a good point

although I would point you to my above post with regard to the
aspect of calling out.

I refuse to use an <idiot> device to make my thoughts known. As I have stated before, it kind of defeats the whole point of sarcasm if I announce it. Might as well tell the kids whats in the package before they unwrap them (sorry, it's the best anology I could come up with).

I know the argument that its chat and I understand it. But I am waaaaayyy to tired to go down *that* road again. I dealt with that
issue in my legendary "Jesus" post and I ain't never going to go there again.

But you were right about the smilies. I should have used one. It is less annoying to me and if I have a whole row of little wavy guys it still, in my opinion, has the little tart flavor that I am trying to deliver.

oh well, live and learn

thanks!

[Tony_Illinois]

30. I really love Skittles

... but Mike and Ike and Dots are my very favorites.

[derbstyron]

31. hahahahahahahah

oh god that was funny

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Moderator]

34. Locking

Please refer questions and comments about DU policy to the Ask the Administrators forum.

Thanks,
DU Moderator