Yeah–I would agree that the way to handle the kind of anti-Semitic drivel such as that quoted in the OP is best dealt with via facts, mocking and pointing/laughing.
I just didn’t see how it fit under the rules as I’d been misinterpreting (apparently for years!) them. (I do now thanks to Tom’s clarification)
I agree that Shodan should be a lot more specific if he wants anyone else to realize what occurred. Obviously the person making the mistake is the least likely to realize it, at least in the moment.
From what I can tell, Shodan misinterpreted what tomndebb was saying. Whether he did so intentionally or not is irrelevant, as, as we were just told, we are not supposed to impugn the motives of other posters.
**
tomndebb**'s response, however, seems to indicate that he did think it was intentional, and is accusing Shodan of being dishonest. To me, this seems awfully close to calling the poster a liar.
Indicating that a post is a lie is a specific prohibition in Great Debates. Calling a poster a liar could be considered an insult and prohibited in all fora aside from the BBQ Pit, but the rule extending that to pointing out a lie is currently only specific to Great Debates. Having been the target of numerous accusations–never substantiated–from the same poster, I have drawn a conclusion regarding intent. However, I have limited myself to pointing out the falseness of the claim, in this instance.
Yes, you’re right. No doubt that would have been a much better course of action to take.
No, there was no misinterpretation.
Notice that the statement is quoted exactly.
So the accusation that I changed his statement is false.
tomndebb does this sort of thing fairly often - contradicts himself, or makes a false statement, and then whines that he was misinterpreted when he is called on it.
I don’t think there is any such rule, at least for tomndebb. He often accuses those who disagree with him of arguing in bad faith. He has been known to object to it in other posters, but never in his own actions.
Regards,
Shodan
I once asserted that the esteemed Tomndebb had made “false statement[s]”. He responded by imperiously declaring that I was to cease and desist from this is the future, and implicitly equated this with calling his statements “lies”.
Now it wasn’t clear at the time whether Tom was acting in his capacity as moderator, using his super powers in support of his position as poster (as I see he has been repeatedly accused of doing on other occasions) or simply acting as poster with moderator overtones. And I had actually looked at the sticky before my post, and assumed that “false statement” (& “untrue”) was the equivalent of “incorrect” which was specifically allowed. So I blew him off at the time.
But perhaps this needs to be thrashed out a bit. Incorrect/untrue/false/lie. Where’s the line?
Perhaps, although it has been clear to just about everyone else for a couple of years.
In the linked thread, youi did not claim that there were errors or that the facts differed from various statements. You repeatedly quoted phrases of mine and labeled them “false statements,” in other words, you did not demonstrate the inaccuracy of anything I posted, you simply called them lies. Rather than whipping out my Moderator badge and hitting you with a Warning, I simply told you to stop violating the rule.
Actually, you have broken up the statements and reposted them in a different context with your commentary, thereby changing the appearance of what I said.
I first noted that rants, as such, do not tend to attrract Warnings. When provided specific examples of various outlandish OPs, I noted that those specific OPs were examples of trolling. Your question conflated two issues.
You seem to be making a distinction between “the facts differed from X” and “X is false”. I don’t get this distinction.
“In other words …”. What magic there is in those few words.
Well yeah, I kind of got the notion that you were ticked. The question here is whether in fact that was an actual rule violation, or one you dreamed up because it served your purpose in that discussion.
So again: I’ve noted that “incorrect” is OK, but “lie” is very much not so. Question here is “false”. Is that similar to “incorrect” or to “lie”? And how does anyone figure out in general whether some synonym of “incorrect” is equivalent to “lie”?
Familiarity with the English language helps.
The word “false” carries the specific connotation, (and in several usages, the denotation), of deliberate untruth. For any word selected, the definitions and usage provided by any decent collegiate dictionary should be sufficient.
Sometimes, they are magical. Sometimes, “you have changed my statement”! 
None of the above, sort of. That is, it was a rule violation - he says so - but the rule was not one he wants to apply across the board because that would lead to so many absurdities that even he would be forced to recognize them.
He is not posting an official Warning, so he is sort of pretending not to be a Moderator at that point. The difference is minor - if you disregard his warning, he will give you a Warning - but it does not count towards banning, and he does not want it to be used as precedent. That is, this was a rule violation (as he mentioned) but only in this instance.
Now tomndebb is claiming that the word “false” connotes deliberate untruth. I suspect this is the same sort of thing - it only applies to this one case, (and don’t expect it to apply to anyone else).
No, “lie” is OK in ATMB. At least for tomndebb. It is not OK in GD. Now he is trying to say that “false” is not OK in GD because it connotes “lie”.
Or maybe that “false statement” is not OK but “false claim” and “false dilemma” and “deliberate distortion” are OK. Except when they are not.
The bottom line is much the same as usual - it doesn’t matter what you say, it matters what you mean. And tomndebb is the sole arbiter of what anybody means, himself and everybody else. If he doesn’t like what you say, you meant to be deceptive. If he contradicts himself, well, he didn’t mean it, and so it doesn’t count.
Regards,
Shodan
Problem is that when I look at the online M-W dictionary for “false” specifically, it indicates that false can but does not necessarily carry a connotation of deliberate untruth. (See #2, #3 & #7b.) This indicates that a collegiate dictionary might not be sufficient.
Possibly mystical intuition as to the mindset of the moderators - who have been strangely reticent in this thread - might be more relevant. And in your specific case it’s quite possible that consideration of whether one particular definition (& interpretation) better serves your own interests might be more relevant. Or, alternatively, in light of the continuing reluctance of the PTB to provide clear guidance, one might just make one’s best judgment and let the warnings fall where they may. The world will go on.
(Shodan I agree with most of your post, but “false dilemma” is a bad example.)
Indeed, many truth matrices are not bivalent.
Am I correct in interpreting your response to Fenris as having an emphasis on the you? I read it as the example would be trolling since Fenris believed no such thing.
Not so much an empasis on “you” (although it is true that I am sure that Fenris would not actually believe any of the statements), but more on the fact that they are clearly intended to incite and disrupt rather than provide a basis for legitimate discussion.
Tom, this statement from you is false. By that, I do not mean that you are lying. But it is obvious that your statement is inconsistent with the facts. The line has not been clear to “just about everyone.” Your comment is based on the mistaken idea that only the more ominous and insulting denotations of false are intended by its use in GD. As speakers of the English language, we are free to determine which legitimate message we are sending with the words that we choose. When it is pointed out to you that you have received a different message from the one intended, it would behoove you to pay attention to all all the possibilities and not to choose only that message which puts a poster in a bad light.
None of us have mastery over it yet.
IIRC, at one time weren’t we permitted to use “liar” in GD, as it was simply considered accusing someone of lying, rather than an outright insult? What happened?
If you wanted to be precise, I guess we shouldn’t call it an insult. It’s considered equivalent to an insult and is treated the same way - meaning you’ll get warned if you call someone a liar. The sticky discusses this.
What happened was that a poster raised the issue that it was bad policy and there were two lengthy threads discussing the rule, at the end the second of which, the rule was modified to conform to the apparent consensus of the TM who participated in those threads that not only was “you are a liar” no longer permitted, but that “that is a lie” and equivalent expressions would also be prohibited.
None of us *has *mastery over it yet. 