http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20356261&postcount=1378
The “secret meeting” is straight out of the cited articles. That’s the stupidity. That’s where the Trump Derangement Syndrome is. It was not “personal insults”. It was directed at the article writers.
Before the article writers told you, did you know the two leaders had a lengthy private discussion?
After the article writers told you about that lengthy private discussion, do you have any idea what it was that they discussed?
Weird to call the article writers stupid for referring to that as secret.
Reckless to wade into a thread full of people discussing a topic they are legitimately concerned about and not making clear who your repeated insults are directed towards.
I think in the first two examples in the linked warning you have daylight in making that argument. Both of those examples of the use of “stupidity” could have gone the other way, though. But in the case of TDS, in the context of your post, it was a bridge too far to construe it the way you are saying.
(my bold in each of the above).
**Entertainment Weekly: **The Flash is a better show than Arrow!
**Person 1: **I agree, I really think The Flash is a better show than Arrow.
Person 2: Anyone who thinks that The Flash is a better show than Arrow is stupid.
Your take is that Person 2 isn’t insulting Person 1? I disagree. This could easily be avoided by being clear on who you are trying to disparage. Maybe, ‘Entertainment Weekly is stupid’.
Problem is, people in that thread also called it a secret meeting. And the first part of your post clearly refers to anyone making anti-Trump arguments.
And I don’t think the mods can ignore the overall picture in your habits in posting. You deliberately post in a manner to try and provoke people. It’s why people wind up slipping up and insulting you in threads. You post like you are in the Pit, with the intent of riling people up.
I in fact will allege that you deliberately were being coy with who your target was so you could attack others with impunity. You’re one of those people who walks up to the line.
It’s about time the guy who starts the shit gets in trouble instead of the people upset because you keep on antagonizing everyone.
Here is the full exchange:
Skywatcher: What part of “the informal meeting included just Trump, Putin and Putin’s interpreter” means “the informal meating included Trump, Putin, Putin’s interpreter, all G20 leaders, their wives and press photographers”?
Me: It was at a dinner table, attended by all G20 leaders, their wives, and a gaggle of press photographers. Are you not aware of that? How in the world can that be characterized as a “secret meeting” by anyone other than a Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer?
**Skywatcher **did not say it was a “secret meeting”. The article said it was a “secret meeting”. I was referring to the article and the article writer. How exactly could it be construed to refer to Skywatcher?
Because you didn’t say it. And you did refer to a TDS sufferer.
I was referring to someone who characterized the meeting as a “secret meeting”. Which **Skywatcher **didn’t do - but the article writer did. Why was this warned as a “personal insult”?
As has been pointed out, posters in the thread other than Skywatcher either called it a secret meeting or agreed with that assessment. You insulted all of them too.
I think you may have missed where I referenced post #1322 in that thread. I also quoted it in post #3 of this thread.
My take:
In the cited post you seem pretty clearly to be accusing Skywatcher of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.
In #1370 you accuse him of being unable to read.
In #1372 you are clearly accusing Fiveyearlurker of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.
Frankly I think you’re lucky you only got one warning.
I was not responding to other posters. This was a conversation with Skywatcher. Now, if I responded to any of the posters that called it a “secret meeting” (after having it explained to them that it was in a public setting), then it would be a “personal insult”.
Bolding mine.
You characterized anyone who called it a secret meeting a sufferer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. That obviously includes other posters in the thread, not just Skywatcher. You can’t say you were in a “conversation” with just one poster and ignore all other posts in the thread.
If you want to hurl insults around, as Bone says you need to be clear whom you are insulting.
Message board discussions do not work that way. You do not have “conversations” with one other person. Just because you only quote one person doesn’t mean your comments are limited to them.
I would also note that Skywatcher’s post was disputing your post questioning that the meeting was secret. It was pretty clear he was supporting the idea that the meeting was secret, even if he didn’t use the word in that post. And if you didn’t believe that’s what he was doing, then there was no reason for you to bring up the issue in your response.
I wouldn’t even think being clear would help.
Suppose a bunch of people in a thread are saying X. And you quote a public figure who said X and say “such-and-such public figure said X and he is therefore obviously a moron”. I would think that just specifying that you meant the public figure wouldn’t help you, since the implication of your words is that this would apply to many people in the thread as well.
But where that leaves a bit of possible wriggle room is if it’s not clear that you’re aware that other people have said those things. Not everyone follows every post in threads they’re reading. And I can’t imagine insults directed at non-posters are warning-worthy if they just happen to also apply to another poster. If this is correct, then it would depend on moderator assessment as to the likelihood that the insulter was aware that other posters have made those statements.
I myself have posted many times in the thread in question but have not been following the exchange over the “secret meeting”. So I don’t know how the above would apply in this instance.
It wouldn’t apply in this case, since as I said whether or not the meeting was secret was actually the subject of the exchange between Okrahoma and Skywatcher, even thought Skywatcher didn’t use the specific word in his post.
Being clear always helps. For example, a poster in that thread could have said:
‘The writer of the National Post article suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome for thinking that the meeting was secret. It was held in front of other G20 leaders as well as the press!’
or alternatively:
‘The writer of the National Post article is a poopy pants.’
You’re batting on a sticky wicket here, Okrahoma. The article was mistaken in calling the meeting secret. Quite understandably some posters read it and took it at face value. You could have politely pointed out to them the journal’s error. You may well have found such a civil approach far more effective than abuse. I can’t guarantee that of course but I have found by personal experience on this board that vituperation takes you, and more importantly your argument, nowhere. And besides if those of the opposing view resort to barracking and personal insults you can watch their eventual discomfiture at the hands of the mods from the moral high ground for a change.
Worth a try, don’t you think?
Is that correct? You can that even if 10 posters in that thread made clear that they also thought the meeting was secret?
That sounds like a huge loophole in the “no personal insults” rule, for people so inclined. But I thought I’ve seen prior guidance saying that obvious workarounds like that would not be tolerated.
I don’t see how that’s a workaround or how it insults any members personally. It very clearly singles out the author of the National Post article and no one else. That’s no loophole.