You’re not idiosyncratic, your definition is.
" I’m all about idiosyncrasy, but you gotta know you got it." Bolding mine.
YOU, not "your post. "
Thereby, ipso facto, a personal insult. At least on the level of** wolfpup**'s funny & snarky post.
You can bold it, underline it, make it size seven, color it purple, and put a couple of spinning sombreros on it, and you’ll still be wrong. I’m unclear whether you think you’re engaged in some clever linguistic jujitsu, or whether you really are misunderstanding what I wrote that badly, but either way I see no point in continuing this conversation with you.
Yep. Agree 100%. “your idiosyncratic definition” is right there with “your post”. Attack the post, not the poster.
But the spinning sombreros would be way cool!!
“your idiosyncratic definition” may be about the post.
“but you gotta know you got it” can only be about the poster.
You insulted him and now appear to be trying to walk that insult back.
Slee
This quote has been empasized as directed - still not sure of the point, but I leave that to the reader.
maybe because we’re missing the sombero smiley?
Did you not go back and read your own Warning? You did quote his whole post. The issue is that you specifically cited “calling him OCD” as the reason for the Warning. It is not nitpicking to assume you mean what you say.
I do not understand this hostile attitude you take in all of this. You were asked very nicely by the OP, yet you act like he was being a jerk and trying to weasel out of things. Despite the fact that multiple other people agree with him.
What benefit is there in this? It’s not a requirement to be a mod. Asimovian, Loach, Idle Thoughts, IDC, etc. don’t do that. And everyone seems to be okay with their moderation.
I remember you treated me that way, too, when I contested my Warning. You assumed I was just trying to get out of it. Why did you assume I’m such a horrible person that I would be doing that? Why not take me and the OP of this thread at their word?
Maybe a private message would be a better vehicle to have a calm and rational discussion than a public thread?
And that’s not an insult.
It’s also a general “you” which DrDeth is purposefully misconstruing to try to make some sort of point.
It’s also–I can’t believe I’m even explaining this, except that I always fail my save vs. low-hanging fruit–not about the person. Given the fact that I was talking about idiosyncratic definitions, my reference in the very next sentence to “idiosyncrasy” is pretty clearly referencing idiosyncrasy in definitions. “You got it” references “idiosyncrasy” in the context of “idiosyncratic definitions.” It doesn’t reference “idiosyncrasy” in terms of personality traits; I hadn’t been talking about personality traits, and it would be bizarre for me to have changed topics like that from one sentence to the next.
DrDeth is misunderstanding on many different levels. Without every single level of misunderstanding, his clever verbal judo move of claiming I’m committing exactly the offense I’m condemning wouldn’t work.
I will not speculate as to whether his misunderstandings are therefore deliberate or whether he genuinely misunderstands my post on so many interlocking and fortuitous levels. I would recommend that he read charitably, and if he thinks he’s caught someone in a mega-gotcha, read one more time to be absolutely sure his interpretation is the most charitable one.
Exactly my point. I dont think you meant as a insult, but means come across poorly in postings.
Why dont we just apply this also to Jonathan Chance?
As I thought, then, when you wrote, “That’s an insult!” you weren’t being forthright.
Well, no, you understood my meaning just fine. You chose to misinterpret it in order to make a point.
That’s very different from my reading of wolfpup’s post, in which he used phrases that are only used as insults.
I absolutely do. I believe I’m on record as such :). In this case, however, I do not believe there is a plausible charitable interpretation of wolfpup’s post that excludes an insult.
Again, deliberately misreading a post to find an insult, as you did to my post, is not remotely the same thing as honestly reading a post and finding the insult contained therein. Your attempt at a gotcha is really really bad.
No, you see there’s a difference between reading a post with a jaundiced, cynical, ready to take offense eye, and a charitable, ready to look upon the bright side viewpoint.
Taken your post from A, it appears insulting.
Taking it from B, it isnt insulting- it is a little snarky. Dont try and deny that.
Same for wolfpup. At least from where I sit.
But Jonathan Chance is well known for having no detectable sense of humor.
Wolfpup’s post was original, funny and i dont think was meant as a direct insult.
The conversation I mentioned was in private. And even after I figured out what the issue was, realizing he’d sent me a terse PM while actually writing more in public, he still didn’t apologize for accusing me.
And now he’s doing it to other people, in public. So I brought it up in public.
Also, please stop following me around.
Then you are also deliberately misreading the post to find an insult. The guy flat out explained how he wasn’t trying to be insulting. He explained the other interpretation. He seems perfectly sincere, and we have no reason to believe he some shitty liar.
Which is what you are calling him if you say that he really did write it as an insult.
At least when Marley accused me of insulting someone, and I explained it, he said “Okay, I can see that. But it looked like an insult, and that’s all we have to go by.” He kept the Warning at the time, but now it’s gone.
Point is, he didn’t treat us all like criminals who were trying to get out of shit.
What other interpretation–that he thinks a “factual reference” is unable to be insulting? I don’t think he’s lying, I just don’t think he has a very good understanding of what an insult is.
Dr. Deth -
I trust you recognize this, but some things are worth saying anyway. The civility bar has been raised, for better or worse. The options are to adapt or ship out. I’ll opine and concede that the old civility line was brighter and clearer. But methinks the new one is clear enough. Regardless, it is what it is. Also, recall that the bar was raised with widespread though perhaps not unanimous support.
To be honest, I find both bars acceptable. I would have a problem if we reached a point where the goal of civility substantially interfered with making a substantive point. IMHO, this hasn’t happened and I’ve kept my eyes peeled. When I say, “Substantially” I mean, “There’s no obvious way of rewriting the post so that it was both sufficiently polite and the substantive point was made”.
I hope I don’t jinx myself. Touch wood!
I’ll give you this much, that’s an interesting approach you got there.