# Is this really worth a warning? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 28, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472 "2016-01-28T06:35:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/201 "2016-02-04T15:34:26Z")
> [@sich\_hinaufwinden](#): > > An analogy to physical violence does nothing to advance the conversation about whether or not the modding in this case was appropriate. Due respect, that wasn’t a response to your point; I don’t think your point merits much response. ---
**Author:** ![sich\_hinaufwinden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@sich\_hinaufwinden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sich_hinaufwinden)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/202 "2016-02-04T15:45:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Due respect, that wasn’t a response to your point; I don’t think your point merits much response. I don’t know why you think I wasn’t aware who your response was to; your analogy was ridiculous enough that it merited a response and I chose to give one. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/203 "2016-02-04T15:55:13Z")
ok thx ---
**Author:** ![sich\_hinaufwinden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@sich\_hinaufwinden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sich_hinaufwinden)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/204 "2016-02-04T16:04:35Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > ok thx > > * * * > > “In politics, everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who’s twice as crazy as they are.” -Timothy Tyson ur welcome * * * You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/205 "2016-02-04T16:52:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s not quite how I see it. If anything, it’s like we have a rule against smashing people’s faces. Dajn came at senorbeef trying to punch him. Senorbeef caught him by the arm and use his momentum to swing him into the wall, smashing Dajn’s face. > > Wouldn’t’ve happened without Dajn’s silliness, but Senorbeef still broke the no-smashing-people’s-faces rule. The only problem with your analogy is that, in it, SenorBeef apparently avoids a face smashing. In reality, he got his face smashed harder than anyone. I’d argue that Dajn smashed SenorBeef’s face with his own face. Did Dajn get his face smashed in the process? Yes, he did. Could we say SenorBeef smashed Dajn’s face? I suppose if we were being very technical, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/206 "2016-02-04T17:14:48Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Your grasp of the concept of “context” is…lacking. Your understanding of my point is…lacking. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/207 "2016-02-05T02:02:44Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I understand dead horse is quite tasty if tenderized by beating it sufficiently. Oh, don’t I know it. I’m a big fan of beating my meat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/208 "2016-02-05T02:31:28Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Oh, don’t I know it. I’m a big fan of beating my meat. I think this thread just jumped the shark. Very tenderized shark, but a shark nonetheless! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/209 "2016-02-05T03:19:54Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Oh, don’t I know it. I’m a big fan of beating my meat. The problem is a lot of people are getting off on beating someone else’s meat. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think this thread just jumped the shark. Very tenderized shark, but a shark nonetheless! It jumped the shark after post #2. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/210 "2016-02-05T07:01:05Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > The only problem with your analogy is that, in it, SenorBeef apparently avoids a face smashing. In reality, he got his face smashed harder than anyone. I’d argue that Dajn smashed SenorBeef’s face with his own face. Did Dajn get his face smashed in the process? Yes, he did. Could we say SenorBeef smashed Dajn’s face? I suppose if we were being very technical, maybe. Dajn smashing SenorBeef is irrelevant to the warning to SenorBeef because we don’t have an exception for retaliation. The proper response is to report the insult, not to use verbal jujitsu to turn the other’s attack against them. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/211 "2016-02-05T13:00:14Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Your understanding of my point is…lacking. Zing! ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/212 "2016-02-06T09:20:07Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > If it’s unwritten, then there’s nothing to interpret. We can only interpret actual words written on the page. > [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > I believe this is known as message board fundamentalism. Not fundamentalism, rather Textualism: a formalist theory of the interpretation of law, holding that a legal text’s ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law. AKA _I can read what you wrote, not what you thought_. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/213 "2016-02-06T10:07:23Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > Not fundamentalism, rather Textualism: a formalist theory of the interpretation of law, holding that a legal text’s ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law. > AKA _I can read what you wrote, not what you thought_. Your link is bad. I think the quotation marks in the tag are throwing it off. I fixed it below. [Textualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism) ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2016, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/214 "2016-02-07T03:31:36Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So far, this seems to be the best, most concise summary of **SenorBeef** ’s post I’ve seen in this thread. +1. The whole thing merits a non sarcastic _sigh_, though. It occurred to me, around the post I cite–which is where I now plan to bail–something along the lines of "…had SenorBeef said ‘…[whatever the hell he requoted]…and that makes you a “loser” too’ or “makes you a loser too” (larger quote span), the quotation marks to provide even a more obvious neon fingerpointing to the meta level of verbal argument, which is a use of the rhetorical trope _tu quoque_. If SenorBeef had cited his case/data, and the punchline, instead of “and that makes you a loser too,” was “and you can draw your own conclusion as to the absurdity/ridicule-worth/baselessness of the insult which I am now rebutting”–which is the point you are making since post #1, then, judging by the mod’s comments and supporters in their side of the bleachers, you would get away with it. Or simply, present the data, and say “pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it?” The response of a mod, viewed through this idea and sigh-causing thread, _may_ be to miss that point and (for better or worse) zero in if “black” is an insult, which would be just another case of ignoring the “plain meaning” of his sentenced infraction. Which is infuriating, almost at the level of being dinged for a typo–ie, that a certain level of discursive skill is (correctly) assumed to be operant. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472/215 "2016-02-08T02:27:17Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > Your link is bad. I think the quotation marks in the tag are throwing it off. I fixed it below. > > [Textualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism) Thank you, **cochrane**. I thought I’d checked the link while in Preview, thought it worked but perhaps it displayed from the browser cache. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-really-worth-a-warning/744472.md?page=10)