So, I take it then that when I next accuse liberals of supporting the enemies of this country with their rhetoric, you won’t feel offended? Since, you know, it’s not a personal insult.
Well, I can see that there was some ambiguity in the way that I phrased it, but it was not my intention to imply what you inferred, just poor articulation. I’ve reiterated now several times what my position is. I was speaking only hypothetically, and my real point was about GD rules not military policy.
saying we are going to target civilians does not equal a personal attack on Airman.
gobear - please fucking note that I said yea, we feel insulted etc but it’s not generally considered to be a ‘personal insult’ according to the rules on SDMB in GD.
christ.
I’ve seen dozens of not-so-veiled comments hurled at those with military backgrounds on this board. “Murderer” about sums it up, crappy ad hominemwise. Personally, having read the garbage as it was spewed, I thought Airman posted a perfectly good Pit rant - inexplicably in Great Debates.
Airman, you were one link away from doing nothing wrong. But, even though IMO “murderer” is way out of line, you had to know you were ‘crossing over.’ I thought the “murderer” comment deserved some kind of warning also.
We get accused of stuff like that all the time, Gobear, and we don’t go crying to the mods about it.
Are you saying we are going to target civilians?
Geez, a 4 simu-post!
Let me say it again with more clarity:
Diogenes, are you saying we are going to target civilians?
NO! I’m only saying that Colinito’s statement that “we are going to target civilians…” did not constitute a GD violation.
Not true. The rules are much more convoluted and stupid than that.
For instance, some “group” insults are verboten too.
Which, by the way, shows how fucking assinine the rules are (not that you wrote it/them of course, Wring, but I’ve been wanting to vent for a while). Especially with all the idiot caveats that have been tossed on top. The current GD “rules” actually should read something like:
Insult the post and not the poster unless you can figure out a way to lump the poster in a group and then insult the group which is just fine and dandy unless the group is one that you’re born into and can’t change and not one you join or are born into and could concievably change, in which case it’s not ok, it’s hate speech and bannable…with a couple of exceptions :rolleyes:
I wait for the day when some of our neo-Nazi buddies start trying the “groups that you’re born into and can’t change/groups that are “just” a matter of choice to belong or not” loophole on Judaism since, being both an ethnicity (born into it, can’t change it) and a religion (“just” a matter of choice to belong or not) it fits both categories.
Plus, as Lib pointed out, the obvious loophole is as follow:
Fenris likes musicals
Anyone who likes musicals is a fucking asshole
Therefore…
which is just peachy under GD’s current rules.
I really, really, really would like to see GD revise it’s rules so that they read “No insults. Argue, debate, refute, but no name-calling. Wanna call a person, idea or group “stupid” or “evil” or “fucking insane”? Go to the Pit and do it.”
It’s supposed to be great “Debates” not “Great attempts to skirt the idiotic, contradictory rules that have accreted throughout the years”. Try some of the December/RTA style “All _______ are evil assholes”-style comments that are acceptable in GD in a legitimate debate (on a forensics team, for instance) and see how far you get.
Fenris
Excellent. GD is going to be a lot more fun for me, then.
I agree that the whole “all liberals/conservatives kick puppies” stuff is insulting and aggrivating.
But aint’ currently against the rules. And I agree w/you Fenris, that perhaps it should be looked at, since it continually bumps up against this same issue.
However, what I’ve been arguing here is that the comment that so offended Airman wasn’t (as it appears here) a ‘personal insult’ wrt GD at SDMB.
note that “not a personal insult” ** does not mean** that one doesn’t find it personally insulting. as in Fenris’ “I like musicals” example (or as I’ve been pointing out since page one, as in any of decembers’ and Wildest Bills threads)
hell, I"ve been complaining for eons (in pit threads) that when folks say “but **december ** is polite” I don’t agree in the slightest since when he pointedly demeans and insults liberals that he’s quite fucking aware that he’s pointing that finger at individuals here.
but as it stands the comment referenced by the OP was, in fact, a group gratuitous insult and not a personal one.
The S.D.M.B.S.P.C.D.H. would like to have a word with all of you. 
To add my ten cents to what’s been going on, I find the use of insulting language directed at any member of the board, whether as an individual or as a member of a large or small group, to be completely out of line anywhere but in the Pit. (This is not to say that it’s wrong to point out that the position already taken by someone suggests strongly that they are [insult plural of insult-term group here].
Presuming this to be the case, I’d find Airman Doors USAF’s case to be thoroughly justified.
However, IANAM. We need to wait on a ruling from the folks who do hold authority over situations like this.
Diogenes, this is quite true – but the context here is:
The only clear way in which I can read that rather impassioned and not well formulated passage is: “Americans are using technology to overawe their enemies, and make attacks impersonal and without regard to military/civilian distinction. That turns the USAF, including anyone who willingly serves in it, into murderers.”
And IMHO that constitutes a clear insult to Airman Doors, USAF , since it was said in clear riposte to him.
If you’re saying that the GD rule is violated only by addressing a poster specifically, then as Fenris pointed out, you are opening one stanky can of worms.
not me, gobear the fucking rules themselves.
Poly, with all due respect, I understand your position, but I personally did not read the statement as singling out the USAF-- I read the use of the word “we” as constituting an all inclusive assertion. In fact by using the first person plural, Colonito would have had to have been including himself would he not?
…and again, I am not agreeing with the statement itself, Only arguing for its legitimacy in a GD context.
Well, since a thread has formed, rather than this all being handled by e-mail privately, it is clear that opinions are being solicited.
I think it was unwise to do this publicly. Lambasting the decision or a mistake of Staff publicly puts people on the defensive immediately, and has already stacked the deck against the complaintant. I speak both as a poster and an Administrator (not here). It’s not entirely fair, but it’s human nature.
I’ve always, without exception, had a fair and complete hearing from the SDMB Staff when I’ve mailed them and presented my case. Even when they’ve made a mistake.
That aside, I have to agree completely with the impression received by Airman Doors. If the post in question wasn’t a clear reference to him, personally, as a “murderer”, then it’s at least (as evidenced by this thread) ambiguous enough that there should have been an official “You Better Explain Yourself, Little Mister” asked of the person in question.
Just IMO.
Actually, I’d like to see some of you denounce the statement in the strongest possible terms, but that’s just wishful thinking.
I denounce it categorically. There are some politicians who are murderers, but soldiers are guardians of liberty. God bless them each and every one. Especially our own Airman Doors, USAF.
why on earth would you assume some political stance because of the interpretation of the rules of SDMB, GD forum?
I’ve repeatedly indicated that generalized insults are insulting as well. just that they’re not against the fucking rules, as I’ve seen them explained.
your comment here reminds me of the House UnAmerican Acitivities witch hunts where some one’s willingness to sign some statement or other was taken as the only evidence of loyalty to the US.
I can agree that the statement was garbled and ambiguous enough as to justify a request for explication, but does anyone know if Airman used the “report this” function before he flamed Colinito? I think the mods might have asked for clarification or issued a warning if Airman had expressed his offense through proper channels, but just flaming away right off the dime is always going to attract more moderator ire than an ambiguous or indirect insult. He should have at least given Colinito a chance to explain himself more clearly. If at that point Colinito had said “yes, all airmen are murderers,” then Airman would have been justified in going to the mods or pitting the prick or both. What Airman did was more of an obvious violation than what Colinito did. I don’t think the mods have any personal vendetta aginst Airman.