No. However, it is not permitted to bash a class of people in such a way that that the poster links that class directly to posters with whom he or she is engaged.
What I am doing is reading the thread from the perspective of a poster who happens to hold the states rights argument who sees, first, an attack upon his person, followed by a Mod’s intervention to prevent that from occurring further, followed by one more attack that would most likely be construed as a further attack upon his or her person.
Note the construction of The Second Stone’s post. Following my introduction of the phrase “moral turpitude” to paraphrase ed malin’s attack on other posters, The Second Stone specifically says that
In the context of the three posts in question, **The Second Stone **has specifically selected a phrase that was used in conjunction with an attack on other posters and insisted that the phrase does apply to someone without making any effort to distance his remarks from the posters on the board.
All that I sought at that point was a shift in emphasis to ensure that no poster was attacked. Such a shift could have taken the form of highlighting specific historians that had made the argument and demonstrating their pro-slavery views. It could have been as simple as a comment that The Second Stone had not intended to attack another poster or even simply making sure that all further posts clearly indicated he was not including other posters in his remarks. It could even have amounted to simply not posting that view, again, if that sub-thread died out on its own.
If The Second Stone insists on coming in here and playing barracks lawyer on a matter of “rules” when there is a long and explicit tradition that this board is not Moderated in that fashion, he is simply going to be disappointed.
I did not invent a rule. I did not employ a rule–real or imagined–to impose a Warning on a poster.
I moderated the discourse with a note that statements that could easily be construed as personal attacks were to be posted in the BBQ Pit.