In the thread on WWI, engineer_comp_geek gave a warning to Leo Bloom at post 66, for an allegedly anti-Semitic comment.
I respectfully suggest the warning should be re-considered. I and one other poster, Deeg at post 68, both read Leo’s comment as a sarcastic response to md2000’s previous post. Leo’s comment that "idiotic stereotypes make for idiotic history** make that clear, in my opinion.
Thanks for posting the link - I’m using my phone and I couldn’t figure out go to do that in Tapatalk.
I re-read the post and I still am interpreting it differently than you are.
That said, I’ve sent this around the mod loop. If the other mods agree wtih you, then I’ll reverse the warning.
You bet.
Or the fact that his name is Leo Bloom…
Thanks, engineer_comp_geek!
May I just add that if the meaning of a statement is open to such different interpretations, that is an additional indication that a warning is not indicated; perhaps just a reminder that sarcasm does not always come through without adding a few emoticons. 
I can’t see how you could interpret it any way other than as Northern Piper did. Any other interpretation makes it a complete non sequitur; he’s clearly not saying they were Jewish.
After discussion with the other moderators, most agreed that the post was an attempt at sarcasm. Even so, some felt tht the warning was still deserved.
There are enough differing opinions though that I have rescinded the warning.
Thanks. That was well handled.
respectful applause
Thank you.
I ask that the line in my “infractions” profile be removed, rather than stay with the word “rescinded.”
I’d like to think of it having been “annulled,” where, I believe, the un-married person can say he never was married.
I don’t believe the open record of this is mandatory. It is humiliating to have been accused, and “punished,” for a relatively heinous infraction as far as these things go for the person who wants to have conversation with me. The “rescinded” is a record of some very bad comprehension (I’m aware I have now antagonized mods, hurting my case). It’s like, I’m claiming here (ok, I am thinking of a court of law) an illegal arrest, and is a case thrown out, never brought to trial and record.
Absolutely said with respect to ECG.
… nobody can see your warning history except you and the mods, you know.
Sure,now that Sylvia Browne is no more.
Surely the NSA can see, and has duly taken note, of this monumental threat to the national consciousness.
I have to work within the limitations of the software, and that option is not available. As far as the system is concerned, a warning was issued and was removed. The post in question no longer shows a warning associated with it. The fact that the software still keeps a record of it is beyond my control. Officially, there is no warning against you for this post.
Also, as was already mentioned, this is not a public record. Only you and the moderation staff can view your infractions. There is no public humiliation going on here.
And finally, keep this in mind. While your comment was judged overall by the moderation staff to be just a sarcastic comment and that no ill intent was intended, quite a few members of the moderation staff still felt that the warning should stand. Even as sarcasm, your post was not appropriate for GQ. You’ve already promised (in the thread in question) not to make similar comments in the future, so I’m content to just leave it at that.
Apparently it’s just me, but I can’t work out why exactly sarcasm referring to “cheap Jews” would be appropriate. It’s not that I think such sarcasm is never justified and always racist, but in this instance, what point is being made that justifies allusions to anti-Semitism?
On review most of the mods felt Leo Bloom was using that stereotype as a comment on stereotypes in another post, saying ‘what you said is just like saying this about Jews.’ He wasn’t putting that forward as his own opinion.