The circumstances are that I called Dangerosa out for equivocating (that would be a type of misquoting I bet (just sayin’)). I may have been a little sarcastic.
Dangerosa then declared
Now then, this is a non-sequitur: I am indeed anti-religious, but the context of my post(s) could only have revealed me to be anti-equivocation.
So how are we meant to characterise this ungraceful exit?
“Dangerosa having tried their best to dissuade the ungodly heathen from their unjust ways chose discretion over valour and left the discussion?”
Nah, that’s not it. Hmm…
“Dangerosa having been confronted by naught but bullish argumentation withdrew rather than waste more time?”
I don’t think so.
“Dangerosa having found that their opponent(s) were not prepared to engage in rational debate decided to spend time elsewhere with those more capable?”
Nope, not that either.
You know what I think, I think Dangerosa petulalntly left because they were unable to support their end of the argument.
Also, is there an exception to the insult "you are being a jerk"? Is it not an insult because it describes a behaviour and not the person? Because "not being a jerk" is codified in the rules? Could I have told Dangerosa to stop being a jerk when they equivocated (or would that have been junior-modding?)?
I don’t see my characterisation of Dangerosa’s behaviour in that thread as anything but fair comment, I don’t suppose they were literally crying in a corner, but how else are we going to describe what they did?
Fuck me, when DrDeth gets to tell TonySinclair to “keep up” – now THAT?! That’s patronization. Did TC run off in a sulky huff? No? He crucified DrDeth in his response.
They’re not. You’ve been here long enough to understand this. Complaining about receiving a warning when you actually received a note makes it look like you are ignorant of board rules.
I find it rather ironic that you were taunting someone about being overly sensitive, and then you immediately come here to complain when a moderator calls you on it. I would suggest that if you want to be insulting to others, you might be less sensitive yourself when a moderator tells you to dial it back.
Just because other posters are being snarky doesn’t justify you being a jerk.
You’re wrong, I am not a sensitive little flower and I don’t give a gnat’s ass what others think of me.
What I struggle to believe is that my “crying in a corner” comment strayed into jerkishness – in the circumstances it seems to me to be perfectly fair comment, describing (albeit figuratively) exactly what happened.
Feel free to edit my post to say “who has now petulantly left the discussion being unable to keep up her end of the discussion.”
Well, they shouldn’t be, they are vastly different things. Warnings stack against you and go on a “permanent record”, notes do not. Notes are just a reminder…a little “hey, come on, behave” instead of a citation. It’s the difference between a cop letting you off with a warning or giving you a ticket. Those are vastly different things and I’m pretty sure you’d clearly want one over the other. Or, by the same token, it’s being given just a ticket compared to being thrown in jail. Again, I know you’d pick one over the other, easily.
So if I were you, I’d try to get out of the habit of thinking notes and warnings were all the same to you.
This is fucking ridiculous. I made this thread because arguing with Asimovian in the thread would have been against the rules (though a lot easier to to).
I’ve certainly not learned why fair comment can be considered jerkish.
But they’re not the same. Just like being a jerk is not the same as having a civil discussion. Maybe there is a problem in terms of differentiating things that are, in fact, different? And after multiple people tell you that you are wrong, it should be time to consider that you were, in fact, wrong.
Colibri. you twice accused me of being butt-hurt, one of those times after my direct repudiation. You were wrong both times.
How is that less jerkful than pointing out the patently obvious behaviour of another poster? Especially when that behaviour serves to create a false impression (that they are unable to express themselves NOT because their opinions are contentless or unsupportable, but because of the intolerence or unreasonableness of others.
By the way, this is what I consider to be fair-comment: things true and a propos.
It’s not an argument ad populum since it’s not an argument at all. Jerkiness is not something one determines by logic, but by societal norms. Societal norms are set ad populum. If a large majority of posters said the behavior was not jerkish, I’d expect the mods to take that into consideration.
