I feel the same way. Except, apparently, about entirely different posters.
Explain, if you’d like.
The people who side with me on this are trying to engage the other posters intellectually. They’re trying to use analogies to make others understand. Or to ask them what their thought process is, so they can address it.
On the other hand, the people who are against me are simply saying “I don’t care what you actually said, you said this one word, conversation over!” or “I’m not going to listen to any analysis” - or simply ignoring questions repeatedly when the answers would demonstrate the flaws in their position.
In the vast majority of situations, the people who are attempting to offer intellectual engagement are in a superior position to those who are trying to shut them down.
You’re missing something in your construction. You think it’s illogical for B to be insulting A and therefore only used the statement as a rhetorical device. You’ve missed the possibility that both A and B’s statements can be true.
It may not be a refutation - it could simply be agreement.
If you really wanted to make a similar point, you could have said, ‘If 4.62 posts per day make me a loser, then what does 4.65 posts per day make you?’ Answer: Awesomer.
I do think that what SenorBeef wrote is not bad enough to warrant an action that will make him unable to find employment, unable to vote, and unable to live in a decent neighborhood without the other residents picketing his house and demanding that he move.
I’m assuming that SDMB warnings entail all those consequences, because I can’t imagine anyone carrying on like this otherwise.
In other words, you’re not choosing your battles wisely. Even if by some miracle you get the warning rescinded and abject apologies from every mod in the thread, IMO you will have lost more than you gained.
This is actual a reasonable point, but I disagree on the grounds that the reasonable presumption is that most people do not self-identify as losers, so it’s more likely that he’s making the point that 4+ posts/day doesn’t make someone a loser than the point that both posters are losers. The latter is a reasonable interpretation; it’s just not the most likely one.
If you find it so pointless, feel free to ignore the thread. It’s pretty easy.
ETA: Bone, the first sentence may come off as a bit snider (“This is actually a reasonable point…”) than I intended - or at least, I didn’t intend it to be snide toward you. If anything, my point is that your argument is the first one in this thread that can support a warning that passes a basic logical sniff test, even though I still disagree with it.
Which is an insult. To him. Which is, after all, the best way to get someone. Use their own words against them.
It really doesn’t matter what you felt about the concept of the number of posts. You knew that he felt that was an insult and pointed it out in a way that he would take as an insult.
This is not an accurate summation of the situation. I’m not trying to shut you down; I’m saying that your analysis does not change the outcome of the situation, because you’re analyzing for the wrong thing. The thing to analyze for is this:
On a quick read, does it come across to a lot of readers as an insult?
Analyzing why it doesn’t totally make coherent sense to read it as an insult doesn’t change the answer to that question.
Now, if you generally believe that people that engage in long, drawn-out explanations for behavior are in a superior position to those who believe there’s an easy answer to a question, that may be a bias preventing you from understanding what’s being said here. But that paraphrase of your position may be inaccurate.
Analogy? Everyone likes analogies!
Once I was collecting donations for a raffle basket for school. People were supposed to bring me items like gift cards or cocoa, but one parent brought me a twenty-dollar bill. So I went out and bought a $20 gift card, put it in the raffle basket, and turned in the receipt.
I was written up for it for not following proper accounting procedure.
In looking closely at the record, I had clearly done nothing unethical. Everything donated had made it to the gift basket.
But at first blush, I’d taken a cash donation from a parent and gone out and spent it. And that violated our accounting procedures.
Was I pissed? Sure. Did I ever break that rule again? That’s a big old nope.
Sometimes first blush is important.
Is your argument that SenorBeef’s statement was not an insult, but it appeared to be on at first blush? Is the rule here that posters should avoid even the appearance of an insult?
You’re missing the point that the rest of your post is irrelevant to the fact that you got, and deserved, a warning.
But you’ve already been told that multiple times.
You’re missing the point that the rest of your post is irrelevant to the fact that you got, and deserved, a warning.
But you’ve already been told that multiple times.
So far, this seems to be the best, most concise summary of SenorBeef’s post I’ve seen in this thread.
Allow me a hyperbole example.
"You’re a bigger loser. In fact, with that logic, you’re the biggest loser on this board. Loser? You too. Bigger loser than I.
Oh, but don’t read this wrong, I’m not calling you a loser. I’m just saying you’re the BIGGER loser. Looooser! Way bigger than I. A bigger what? Loser! But rest assured, I’m definitely not calling you a loser. Not calling you a loser at all…except a bigger loser than you claim I am, because the logic shows that…that you are, in fact, a bigger loser with your post count…so that makes you a Bigger Loser with a capital B and L. That is “B-I-G-G-E-R L-O-S-E-R”, got that? Although also get that I’m not calling you a loser here by any means."
Now…with that example, would you say the person was calling him a loser or not?
That above example is almost how this thread has gotten for me. Because his post (the real one, not the exaggerated one above) clearly calls the person a loser, yet there are many in here who are claiming: 1. It wasn’t insulting anyone and 2. He wasn’t actually calling him a loser.
He was, without a doubt, one hundred percent, no way to misunderstand or having lack of clarity, calling Dajn a loser…and the warning will stand.
Next time just choose the words a little carefully.
Beyond this post, I’m calling it fairly redundant to continue debating it with anyone who is still seeing it a different way. Obviously we both see it differently. I can see it your way, but that’s not how I took it, so you have to see it my way and admit it can be taken as a face value insult as well and was poorly worded and probably that way because it may have been made in the spur of the moment, in the heat of the moment, by a poster who has had trouble with that in the past…
,…thus, the warning stands and this is my last post in this topic.
Sure, why not. Who doesn’t love a brick wall?
It’s against the rules to call people names on the SDMB. You cannot circumvent this rule by arguing that, technically, someone else is calling them a name, and you’re just relaying that information. You can’t say, “You’re an asshole,” nor can you say, “Stephen Hawking thinks you’re an asshole,” nor can you say, “By your own standards, you are an asshole.” While it is possible to parse a minor semantic distinction between those three cases, that distinction is - even for this board - way too much of a nitpick on which to pivot board moderation.
You think that distinction is actually highly significant. That’s fine. The moderation staff here disagree. Posting further analogies in an attempt to illustrate that distinction is not going to help, because the problem is not that we do not understand your position. The problem is that we find little merit in it.
Whether the warning stands is above my pay grade…that’s why you get the coffee mugs.
But I strongly disagree with your assertion that he was calling Dajn a loser. He was stating that Dajn’s standard for determining “loserness” was an absurd standard because Dajn himself exceeded his own loserness standard. How about this analogy:
Cruz: Any candidate who proposes greater than a 15% income tax rate is a horse thief!
Rubio: Ted, you propose a 20% tax rate so you must be a horse thief.
Is Rubio calling Cruz a horse thief or is he pointing out the fallacy of Cruz’ argument?
Again, you are leaving out the possibility that Rubio is using Cruz’ argument to insult Cruz, even if Rubio doesn’t personally believe it.
Or, what Miller says.
No, Poster B did not.
First, Poster B was not talking directly to Barack Obama. Even if the substance of a comment is largely the same, saying it TO someone rather than ABOUT someone undeniably makes if more personal.
Second, Poster B softened it by phrasing it as a question. “I guess Barack Obama is a racist as well, huh?” is simply not as harsh as “Turns out you’re the bigger loser.”
Third, Poster B did not have the history that led the moderator to conclude Senor Beef was once again walking up to, and over, the insult line.
The context shows us that Poster B was using a rhetorical device to make a point and that Senor Beef tried to use a rhetorical device but did it so clumsily that he turned it into an insult.
Well I’m glad the instigator was banned because normally the troll gets no infraction and the responder gets smacked with a suspension.
Yeah, it’s amazing how some people in this thread have made up their minds and are not open to the idea that they might be wrong.
^ 
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Sick burn, John!