mogrits on 
AParker on 
Willy Mac on 
Shaking the Southland, the now-SB Nation affiliated Clemson blog (we wouldn’t join up at SB Nation despite multiple requests, so the settled on the only Clemson blog they could get) that was formerly Clempson or whatever the hell they were called, has once again ripped off our Dumb Shit on series with a post they call Dumb Shit on TI, even down to the name (and yes, we’ve covered TI in the past so don’t start). It’s not even the only thing they’ve ripped from us, since we started Danny Ford is God we’ve been heavier than the average Clemson blog on Danny love, even coining the term “Dannystalgia” which has been jacked by them. Hey, that’s fine, we don’t have it copyrighted or anything, but damned at least throw us a link and a hat tip. We’re honestly flattered to influence some of the fledgling Clemson blogs. The Sporting Gnomes were big influences on us in the beginning, were great to us from the start, and we’ve always thanked the guys over there for inspiring us. So I leave an understandably irked comment calling STS on it, and what do they do, but ban me and call me a bitch for calling them on it. So, intellectual theft (not the first time) isn’t being a bitch, but calling someone on it is. Delivering a little bit of criticism is being a bitch, but outright banning someone for one comment is totally not being a sensitive little bitch.
I get it, they have little original content humor-wise to post so they just bite EDSBS bits and LSUFreek gifs (at least giving them credit), and have more than once blatantly ripped our shit. Me calling them out bothered them not necessarily due to the phrasing of the comment, but due to the spotlight it cast on their glaring lack of originality in that department, so of course instead of a bit of manning up or introspection they knee-jerk ban me. Sure. But, again, I was acting like a bitch, not them.
And another note, we invite them over here to give their side of the story, we won’t ban them. We’ve never banned a commenter who wasn’t a Russian spambot. We don’t consider dissenting opinions “acting like a bitch.” In fact, we sort of think that not being able to take a bit of criticism is textbook bitchassness.
1flaact
on Nov 16, 2009 at 5:34 pm:
Fags.
2dwight_clark87
on Nov 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm:
I heard one of those guys has a Disorderly Conduct conviction on his record for publicly “Shakin’ his South-gland” in a men’s restroom off of I-26 near Orangeburg.
3Chili
on Nov 16, 2009 at 5:42 pm:
Dwight wins it in 2.
4Tully
on Nov 16, 2009 at 5:50 pm:
I opened the comment section in the hope that I could say something to flame STS, but really nothing can be said that tops #2.
Bravo, Dwight.
5box125
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:01 pm:
I actually enjoy both blogs for different reasons. STS is definitely the best for analysis/x’s and o’s talk, and I love the humor on y’alls blog.
6Aaron Neville's Pet Tick
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:09 pm:
@5, agreed. They both have their place.
7Chili
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:09 pm:
@5, hey, my post on their site says plainly that they do good analysis, I concur with your opinion. We aren’t strong on analysis, but we don’t go ripping off other peoples’ shit to make up for it. I’m not saying for people not to check out their blog, do what you want. I’m simply calling them out on their ripping us off and subsequent bitchassness.
8box125
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:15 pm:
@7, I understand totally.
9TigerSACK
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:19 pm:
In college we had a intramural team that stayed together and played every sport. We weren’t the best but we had a motto… “You can beat us on the field, but you can’t beat us in the parking lot”. STS hasn’t beaten anyone, but I can’t help to remember that saying. Makes me pissed because of their extreme pussitis. At least they could keep coming back and forth with insults or something. That would be a good read.
10cgb
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:32 pm:
Best post ever? Why yes, I think it is.
11Charlie
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:47 pm:
Look, dont say my posts have never been removed here because I know they have at least twice.
This is three times you guys have come over to bitch about something you say we ripped. You dont email, you just come over and complain. One time it was like my 3rd ever blog entry and I posted a Fridge/Bacchus pic and I didnt think it was a big deal: corrected on that blog and apologized. Was new to blogging then and it was just a pic, not even the same pic. Another time it was a pic i’d found on Tnet and I didnt even know it was yours. I apologized and put the link in when you sent it. This time you do it again when I post something that has nothing to do with you, no email, and the email is available, and instead try to call me out on my blog. I’ve never come over here and bitched at you guys for what you write. I’m not running STS like Tardnet, i’m just going to ban people who try to stir shit up.
Now I’ve cut stuff out of TNet 3 or 4 times, and now that we moved over, you want to say something. I don’t make a habit out of it because I dont try to make the blog very funny, its just not my style. I even said so in the post. Its your style. “Dumb shit” is your thing, so I’ll change the title of it, but i’m not going to quit clipping stuff out if i think its dumb.
Dannystalgia is your word, thats also fine and you like, i’ll change it. I just thought it fits the best. We worship Coach Ford too.
12Aaron Neville's Pet Tick
on Nov 16, 2009 at 6:57 pm:
Who would’ve thought Clemson blogs would be the final frontier…
13CUVince
on Nov 16, 2009 at 7:01 pm:
You guys crush Shakin The Southland in the humor department. Shakin the Southland crushes you guys on pure football knowledge. Both blogs are good…mines the best though. Faggots.
14Chili
on Nov 16, 2009 at 7:07 pm:
@11 First off, we can all agree that Coach Ford is worthy of worship.
I’ll try and respond to your points in order.
I can’t think of a time where your posts have been removed. I think we’ve had fairly limited cross-blog commenting and I only remember a few times you’ve even commented here in a negative fashion, if any. We’re not trying to bullshit here, we aren’t into banning, we’ve pretty much only put a muzzle on Tom because he tends to try and take over a comment thread and respond to each poster as if it were his own blog. He’s got a 5 comment a day limit and he knows it. Any other posts that have been removed, I can’t say for sure. I can say we’ve not banned a single person, even those who have blasted the shit out of us.
The Fridge thing didn’t even come to mind, honestly, and clearly that’s not along the same lines here. I remember we bitched at you for blogger etiquette or some shit like that. We absolutely overreact a lot. No denying that. That’s why we have a post tag under “overreacting” so we can look back and see mountains made from molehills. We’ve been guilty of picking a picture off the internet without knowing the source and getting flak for it. Happened earlier this year with a picture that turned out to be from a photog’s Flickr account. Completely understandable.
“I’ve never come over here and bitched at you guys for what you write” yes, this is true, but other than perhaps having a beef with something we write (specifically this post) when would we have given you reason? We haven’t taken anything from your blog at all, much less taken a theme or bit, a piece of your fine analysis without attribution.
Look I’ll admit there are better ways than posting on your site to direct a question your way about an issue, but when I see a bit that I created, a post type that I am pretty proud of and that our site is associated with exclusively, I don’t stop and think rationally, I just get pissed off. Obviously anybody out there can copy dumb shit from any messageboard, it’s seeing it with the identical name and zero attribution to us that I have an issue with. And then you say I’m acting like a bitch for complaining that a bit I created has been ripped off? I don’t see where you get off doing that. The ban, if it is your personal moderation style, is what it is. I think it was a bit reactionary and makes you look bad, but that’s just me.
There’s plenty of room for multiple analysis styles when it comes to Clemson, be they more dick joke based or x’s and o’s. I just think giving credit where credit is due should be de rigueur.
15Lloyd Christmas
on Nov 16, 2009 at 7:31 pm:
OUCH CHARLIE!!!!!…..CHARLIE BIT ME!!!
16chris simp
on Nov 16, 2009 at 8:06 pm:
I think we should settle this with a walk off!!! BLUE STEEL!!!
17Reed
on Nov 16, 2009 at 8:54 pm:
At least they misspelled you’re in an interesting way…
18Charlie
on Nov 16, 2009 at 9:14 pm:
If you say you didnt remove the posts Chili, i’ll take your word for it. I can only say that there were a couple times I posted, saw it show up, then came back and it wasnt there.
“We haven’t taken anything from your blog at all”- not quite true. We uploaded a Danny-1985 maryland vid to youtube and asked for a H/T, only because we felt it was proper etiquette. I should’ve emailed in retrospect. It wasnt a big deal to me because its youtube and WillyMac wouldnt have known it was ours unless he looked at our blog and the youtube page. Again, I don’t own it, I just uploaded it.
What I was speaking about, in regards to coming over here to complain, is when we disagree. I wouldnt come over here and call you a coot, or something like that, and then curse you out in the comments. I can’t even think of a time either me or FF has taken a sideswipe comment at you guys. I commented over here regularly last year but as you know, this blog shit becomes a timesuck, and I like to talk about football analysis and I don’t have time to read over here anymore.
We don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with us, but to call me out publicly on the blog instead of taking the time to email -” hey guys, the thing you posted is worthy of DSO__ but its our thing, would you give us a H/T?” resulted in the ban. I think its a bitch move to publicly call someone out in their own house, so to speak. Its also our intention to make sure STS doesnt form a mentality like Tardnet or TI, and aren’t going to let stuff go like Crump, Philpott, or Ard do. We want discussion, not a bunch of emotional reactions where everybody calls everyone else an idiot when they disagree, so we are quicker with the ban button. The latter is not directed at you or Willy, or this site, just telling you where we are coming from.
“I think it was a bit reactionary and makes you look bad”-I can say the same thing about this blog post, but yes it was reactionary. If you’d emailed your complaint, I’d have changed the post like I have in the past.
Again, we both read this site and enjoy it and hopefully we can both take the high road if it happens again.
19Braap
on Nov 16, 2009 at 9:16 pm:
lol, as soon as I started reading about who’s blocked who and who’s comments have been moderated, I knew Tom was going to come up.
20Chili
on Nov 16, 2009 at 9:26 pm:
Okay I think we’re seeing eye to eye here for the most part. Yeah, I get your points there, and I see that we posted a video that one of you guys also posted but did not create, but this whole thing boils down to you not liking the way I complained about something we did being ripped by you guys.
Had you guys not done that or at least said hey in the spirit of DSOT, here’s some mouthbreathing fun we can all enjoy, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I accept that calling you guys out in your own house might not have been the best thing to do and if I’ve got a beef in the future it’ll be addressed in email form, but the ban was still a bit silly. Like it was so insane for me to post a comment on a post completely derived and with not attribution to a Block-C regular feature. I’m just saying how would you guys feel if the shoe was on the other foot.
I like your site, and I don’t mind if something we did influenced you guys or vice-versa, just don’t pretend like it didn’t come from somewhere, you know?
Again, high road is the way to go in the future, but pulling material without attribution is a pretty low road to begin from. Roads. Ro-ads. Rowwww-addds.
21bigcheesy
on Nov 16, 2009 at 9:54 pm:
ah, another crisis averted. Chili is there a way to trademark your dab-o-meter before it’s too late?
22Winfield Featherston
on Nov 16, 2009 at 10:04 pm:
Blog War!
235knklshfl
on Nov 17, 2009 at 1:10 am:
only answer FUCKING NUKE’EM
24thedabokoolaid
on Nov 17, 2009 at 1:29 am:
lmao! well played chili. they sound like complete tards and are just jealous of block-c is all, they can never ever dream of coming up with stuff as clever as the dabo-meter.
25Clem
on Nov 17, 2009 at 6:56 am:
And we at the gnomes thank you for the hat tip. See! It’s not that hard! Glad someone can keep up with the blogging, this getting old and responsible thing is rather a bitch.
2603tiger
on Nov 17, 2009 at 7:30 am:
whoop his ass sea bass!!
27Riggs
on Nov 17, 2009 at 8:35 am:
Come check out the Sporting Gnomes for our cool new article:
The ThermoSwinney!!!
I kid. I kid.
I do like STS for their breakdown of plays and such. I think you guys should have a beer summit at TTT this weekend. Perhaps you can start a co-article where SBS analyzes a play and Block-C cracks a joke every other paragraph. You know, kind of a Point/Counter-point thing.
This idea sounds less funny the more I write . . .
28thedabokoolaid
on Nov 17, 2009 at 11:26 am:
@27 LOL! the thermoswinney