Chotii, you’ll notice that every time a mod posts in his/her capacity as a mod, there’s some sort of tag indicating that they’re acting as a mod - for example, [mod hat] [/mod hat]. I, personally, have never felt any confusion on the issue.
Just fixing your link to #158
So is “Playing Devil’s Advocate” now the same as trolling? I really like this line in SamClem’s post:
Wasn’t this just banned in Baltimore?
Like calling someone a troll?
Playing Devil’s Advocate is not the same thing as trolling. When you post in a sincere manner, so that most people can understand, you’re not trolling. When Scylla posts, it not always understandable. This isn’t a one-off deal.
And, yes, he sometimes posts in a “trollish” manner. If that is calling him a troll, then I"m guilty.
I would have gladly accepted an apology at the outset of this thread.
Instead of apologizing you went with what Sagan called “Weasel words” which was to restate your original accusation to something else. First, you said that I admitted to sometimes trolling the boards, than you changed it to sometime somewhere I admitted to deliberately saying something that wasn’t true.
Now you have a bunch of people searching for instances where I admitted hyperbole, played devil’s advocate or posted that Ewe’s Sluts contained poetic license.
This is dishonest. If I accused you of being a pedophile, and then backed that up by saying that somewhere sometime you admitted to kissing your daughter goodnight… or something. Somebody find it for me so I can judge it…
Well, If I did that, I think you’d be pretty pissed, and I think you’d consider it pretty dishonest
You made that original accusation in strong terms, saying that I’d committed and admitted to a bannable offense and solicited help in trying to find it.
And you’re still doing it.
Oddly, I cannot find the thread I was remembering about the Southern Strategy. However, here’s a post I wrote on 1/4/2003, discussing my favorite fictional work of Scylla’s ever, in which I said:
Perhaps I got it wrong when I wrote that. It would be nice to be able to double-check it with the original, but I can’t seem to find that thread.
Was it the surreally satiricial thread about Rush Limbaugh? That got a lot of people worked up.
I just want to know what the fuck Sam is thinking of, because I <3 Scylla and would rather argue against something specific.
Dog! Whatup with the “I <3”. You dissing my hoagie?
Not getting the cut of your jib. the <3 is merely a side-effect of my 1nt0rn3tz0rz upbringing >_<
Is that, like, phonetic Klingon?
Nothing to do with the Rush Limbaugh thread, apparently, Autolycus, It appears to have been a thread started by stoid in 2003, called “Let’s debate debates!”.
FTR, I just perused it, and what I think that what a few people have alluded to here is that they believe he was willing to excuse some dishonest debating tactics, such as denial, obfuscation, confusion, and ad hominem as means that are justified by the end of “taking out the garbage”. There might also be support for the interpretation that he disclosed his hand with an admission that he had attempted to intentionally insert an erroneous assertion of something so that he could later show himself capable of conceding a point.
The first argument I find to be somewhat shaky. The second is eluding my capacity for comprehension at the moment (this may be related to the fact that while I was attempting to glean support for samclem’s interpretation, I was in the process of consuming a bottle of wine from the 99 Cents Only Store).
Anyway, my personal degree of impairment aside, samclem, I’d like to endorse Una’s (implied) suggestion that you let it slide as not having been Scylla admitting to “not being above” trollery, and let him have his apology if he feels it’s important.
Hell, he’s wrong on the merits often enough; let’s give him his propers for being pretty good about adhering to the rules of the Board. It’s the least we can do. 
ETA: And Una, please accept the good wishes of a fellow Doper that you find the strength to get through whatever rough times you’re currently experiencing.
{{{{{Sorry, I don’t do the huggy thing}}}}}
n0 d00d 1tz 1337-$p3@K1
I’m only conversational though.
99 cents for a bottle of wine!? YE GADS that must taste horrible.
Yeah, but it’s 99 cents!
What? Hey, as long as it produces the desired effect without giving you jake leg…
I have a strict rule: any wine under $2.00/bottle is for rectal administration only. Avoids the whole taste issue.
Are you barking mad, sir? Complete vindication? An apology from a mod? Do you have any idea how insufferable…?
The next time there is a pitting of someone I’m not fond of, is it okay if I solicit help in finding evidence to back up my claims against the pittee?
Nevermind. It’s a matter of pride.