Well, I guess I’ll be on the veranda, since you’re already on the cross.
In the posts by Terr that you’ve quoted, Terr doesn’t actually SAY “child killer.” He referred to someone killing a child, but doesn’t single out anyone in particular. I think that’s an important distinction.
You know what I honestly think, Der? I think that you’re generally so goddamned bored, you have to invent things to bitch about, so you seem to have a very thin skin, and look for any perceived slight to get your panties in a wad about.
Question to the mods: why was this post not mod-noted (AFAIK)? My emphasis:
**DT **wasn’t even in the thread yet, and was being called out in GD by name for anticipated behaviour. That he later went on to live up to the expectations is besides the point, IMO. “Give a dog a bad name…” and all that.
Ah, you’re at liberty to call me deluded and wrong all you like, but Satan will be hosting skiiing holidays before you can cast aspersions on my reading comprehension. Sorry if you didn’t like my precis, but it wasn’t down to inability to read.
That’s a moronic defense of the guy. It frustrates me that I have had to point this out twice in the last two weeks. Oddly enough, the first time was in an unrelated thread in response to somebody I know doesn’t like Der Trihs. How can people on both sides be this stupid? I come here for intelligent commentary for fucks’s sake.
You don’t have to single somebody out to insult them. This is about bigotry. The instant you insult a group, you are using a stereotype to insult every member of that group.
I’m not disagreeing with this point - I’m saying if DT did it (IMO, he did), then Terr did it too, and the argument was that Terrwasn’t doing that…that he wasn’t targeting any people on the Board when it’s bleeding obvious there are women here who’ve had abortions.
Good thing it wasn’t your post I was replying to, then, isn’t it? You quoted my reply to Superdude, which very much was about Terr. So if you don’t care about Terr, how about you just not reply to posts about Terr?:dubious: Yes, yes, Fallacy of Two Wrongs, blaah blaah. Doesn’t remove the question of why DT gets warned and Terr doesn’t for the same class of behaviour.
I don’t see how anticipating a poster’s (extremely) predictable behaviour is trolling. Especially when you’re trying to express a milder version of the poster’s screed.
Well, I did not Mod it because I never saw it and no one reported it. My guess is that Jonathan Chance may also have not seen it.
At this point, I will not go back three days and over 200 posts to add a note. I have Modded such shots at uninvolved posters and I will continue to do so. However, the seriousness of the offense does tend to set up a sort of “statute of limitations” on many offenses and I judge that it has expired on that particular post.
As armedmonkey points out, you know you’re committing a fallacy, yet bulling ahead and doing it anyway. May I suggest you open another thread? Because frankly, I agree that Terr’s remarks deserve moderation, and would rather the issue not be conflated.
But he’s not even taking a shot at DT. He’s expressing that he agrees with the same sentiment that he expects from DT, in milder terms. Unless I’m being whooshed.
Which figures into the judgment regarding “statute of limitations.”
However, as phrased, had I seen it, I would have told the poster to not call out other posters in that way. It is one thing to invoke one of our lawyer posters by saying “can we get a legal opinion from PosterA?” It is a bit different to say “I want to get my view posted before PosterB gets here and muddies the water.”
True. Although he’s got some pretty…special…views on dating and relationships, I don’t see his attitude toward women as comparable to his attitude toward Republicans and religious leaders.