I asked via PM, but I’m not sure I understand the response. Can you identify specifically where I attacked the poster [Elvis]? The gist was that (1) there is no point in arguing with some people [not attacking, stating as a general fact] and (2) his [Elvis] opinions were worthless (attacking the opinion, not the poster). That’s not okay?
In response, Jonathan you mentioned that it was because I identified Elvis by name. I’m not sure this makes a whole lot of sense since many many debate responses address posters individually by name. The discreet act of addressing by name can not itself be construed as insulting or a personal attack so the content must be the culprit. I’m not seeing where that’s the case. Can you clarify specifically where the poster was attacked?
Yes, seriously. If I did compare another poster to a crazy person muttering to himself on the bus I would agree with you. I was careful not to do that. I made the comparison, that a debate with Elvis would be as productive as a debate with X. Does it matter what X is? I am not saying Elvis is X, just that the debate would not be productive. An alternative would be saying that said debate would be as productive as a conversation with a dishtowel. Of course I am not saying that Elvis is a dishtowel in the same way I am not calling him a crazy person with that statement.
I understand you may disagree - but that was the intended and actual construction of that particular phrase. Did you share Colibri’s interpretation too, Jonathan?
I do and you know it. I expressed this same thing in response to your earlier private message. Your attempt to insult a fellow poster and rules lawyer yourself out of the consequences has failed. Don’t do it again.
You said “Just not with Elvis. That would be as productive as…”.
In other words, “Arguing with Elvis would be as productive as…”
That’s the students who claim they didn’t plagiarize because they changed a word or two in the sentence. You think hiding your intent in some written legerdemain protects you from breaking the rules, but I don’t think it does. You separated the idea with a period but the two halves of the idea (You won’t argue with Elvis and arguing would be like debating with a batshit crazy person) go together.
Apparently it’s what you call someone while at the same time complaining that the other person is calling you names. It’s pretty much on par with “gun grabber”.
Edited to add: It’s not a real medical term.
Believe it or not, Lynn. I was awakened by the squeals of teen girl laughter from my living room. My oldest is having a sleepover and the sounds of destruction woke me up.
I went and yelled at them - in proper irritated parent fashion - and sent them to bed I couldn’t get back to sleep so I checked in and lo and behold! There I was, being questioned in public after Bone had done some in a private message.
Well, to each their own. But I do hope this can be instructive. Don’t spend time looking for cracks in the rules to exploit, lest I revert to irritated parent mode with YOU.
Or, in short, if manhattan was - in his own words - ‘the fucking hall monitor’, then I would fall into the ‘fucking grumpy middle-aged father of teen girls just beginning to think about dating’. No one really wants me to bring that out, do they?
I understand picking apart rules is not a desired outcome. At the same time it appears that posters value precision of language - this is why I ask specifically where Elvis the poster was directly attacked. . How else would board staff countenance such comparisons of RKba supporters as racist chilld murdering paranoid fetishists with inadequate genetilia?
This is a regular occurrence. Poster A could say they are a member of X. Poster B will say that members of X are crazy alien goat rapists and as long as they are talking about the membership of X that appears to be okay. Am I missing the distinction?
What “group” does “a crazy person muttering to himself on the bus” belong? In your post, you compared Elvis, by name, to a crazy person. You didn’t compare gun control advocates in general to crazy people. That’s a clear personal insult.
You called him a hoplophobe and said his opinions are like lint. As Czarcasm pointed out, the first is a direct insult and, unless you enjoy making your own emergency fire-starters or paper, so is the second.
