In this thread, I was engaged by someone who was unable to support her statement or follow it to any kind of logical conclusion. The worst thing I said to her was “If you converse in person the way you’ve replied to me in this thread, your friends and family must often be quite confused.” Next thing I know, I’m getting a mod slap-down and being accused by both of you of insulting her! I’m sorry, but when did calling someone “confusing” become an insult? Not only that, but you also basically told me to leave the thread just because I expected some rationality in IMHO! So, what, shoving a barely applicable CDC report at me is ok, but I’m not allowed to question its applicability because the forum isn’t Great Debates?
I really, really don’t understand what I did wrong in that thread – I don’t see how my behaviour was any different than hers, let alone how I’m the only one who warranted a slap-down.
Bout damn time. Two and a half years! And you don’t even have the courtesy to name me fercrissakes. I’m the one you’re pissed at!
:rolleyes:
Weeeellll, let’s just hold on there, cowgirl. You still haven’t told me which statement I didn’t support to a logical conclusion. Which one? That the OP wasn’t being bigotted simply because she took health risks into consideration? Or that bisexual men are more of an at-risk group for HIV than heterosexual men? Or that your statement that working with HIV+ patients and counsellors in order to establish your credibility was misleading to say the least? Either you worked in a capacity with these people which establishes your credibility as an authority, which means you did, at some point, work in health care, or your volunteer capacity was along the lines of handing out lunch trays and books, which means your credibility for speaking to this particular subject is precisely squat. So which is it? Are you full of shit or lying?
Aw, c’mon babe, you weren’t mildly querying there, that was a total “You must have a helluva time communicating, bless your poor daft heart” thing instead.
I’m pretty much on your side in there, right? Point and counterpoint and my cite’s better than your cite ain’t my bag, but y’all were getting heated.
Maureen, your ego is astounding: I hate to burst your bubble, but this thread really isn’t about you. I’m not Pitting anyone. It’s exactly what the OP claims to be: a sincere query to Czarcasm about what the hell happened and why I got the Underoos treatment. I haven’t gotten a mod smackdown since my copyright thread, and that was the first one: I’m pretty good at following the rules here, and would never deliberately violate them. I’m here for clarification, and am only in the Pit because this is where such questions belong. So I’m sorry, but if you want to continue attacking my credibility you’ll have to start your own damn thread.
Queen Tonya: Yikes, I didn’t realize my statement came across that harshly. Honest. I really did mean exactly what I said. Gotta work on using the “wink” smiley more often or something. Anyway, I’ve been under the impression that rules are enforced based on what we say, not based on what someone might think the subtext is. I really don’t think that calling someone “confusing” can be construed as an insult, especially when no insult was (genuinely) intended … guess I’ll find out when Czarcasm is back in action.
I’ll also grant that things were getting heated, but y’all will just have to take my word that I gave up before I saw Czarcasm’s post – I caught it on preview.
Boy, do I regret using the “point/counterpoint” language!
Well, maybe Czarcasm’s agitated because he now has two layers of Moderator Underoos on (post #54), and they’re pinching and overheating him in his very special place.
Misnomer, I was going to write a separate note for Maureen, but got sidetracked with real life. When I got back, she had already apologized and moved on. Your postings in that thread were inappropriate for exactly the reasons I stated before-they were insulting, and you were attempting to debate in what was supposed to be a poll.
Fair enough, I suppose. It just seemed like the definition of “insult” suddenly got broader and more arbitrary. And I’m not quite sure of the whole debate thing: I shouldn’t have used that terminology, but I didn’t think that was actually what was going on. I didn’t realize that poll threads are exempt from our “fighting ignorance” creed. Now I know better.
