Shodan’s views are still evolving. 
Well, they can’t be due to intelligent design.
Regards,
Shodan
We really need a “biting tongue” smiley.
…and …
My comment of Post 29 refers to this topic of an “insult in Great Debates”, as mentioned in the OPs reference, not radiation hazard protocols.
I wasn’t commenting on whether the discussions involving radiation hazards were erudite. I said that responding to a comment with “I didn’t understand how many levels of dumb”* is not an erudite (knowledgeable) response.
Insults like that* aren’t saying anything about the post or the topic to which the post refers - because there’s nothing in the insult about the post! The only thing that’s not there in the post is … The Poster.
Hearing that* is like listening to kids arguing and hearing the retort “Yeah, and so’s your Old Man!” or “Yo Momma!”. Great comeback. Sure convinced me.
If you’re not insulting the contents of the post, you’re insulting the poster.
Agreed, that’s the point I have been making. But evidently Bone and others do want to place more weight on the superficial form of words (over the implied meaning) than you or I.
From what Bone has said, and from the resolution to this specific situation, here’s my understanding of where this probably comes out in practice:
Per the long-standing rule, we should endeavor to engage with the contents a post on their merits, and not attack the poster, even when it is a reasonable inference from the contents of a post that the poster is [insert epithet here]. Provided the level of discourse is above the online equivalent of shouting with earplugs, interpretation of the rule should not be too challenging.
Blatant attempts to “game” this will not usually be acceptable. I hope everyone would agree that in response to a bona fide post, saying something like: “That post is half-witted incoherent drivel”, without addressing the contents of the post at all, is not appropriate. We may differ on whether it technically constitutes an insult to the poster, but I hope we’d agree that something like that is over the line.
In situations like the OP of this thread, the original post was provocative content-free nonsense, with no content to debate. The preferred approach with calm hindsight would be to ignore or report; but evidently some context-driven leeway may be given for a response along the lines of “that post was incredibly dumb” under these circumstances.
Well, no, that’s not what you said. You said, emphasis added:
Indeed.
ETA, perhaps the most concise way to put this would be:
I hope we all agree that phrasing something as “the post is X” rather than “the poster is X” is not a get-out-of-jail-free license to be a jerk.
I’m a little confused. Are you referring to the actual wording of the post in question? Because there certainly IS a reference to the post, but it’s in the part you left out from your quote. Here the full quote (emphasis added):
“This” and “this comment” refer directly to the post.
And indirectly to the poster, obviously. We’re going round in circles here. Do you really think that the superficial form of words should be a get-out-of-jail-free card, and that meaning does not matter?
If I said:
“Your post is incoherent drivel, just as stupid as all your other posts”
…would you really claim that this was fair comment on posts, rather than insulting the poster?
Honestly, I don’t want to go around in circles on this. I just wanted Corner Case to explain how he came to the conclusion that “Insults like that* aren’t saying anything about the post”. To me it is blindingly obvious that it DOES say something about the post. If you guys want to argue, in addition to that, that any comment about a post must also be a comment about the poster, count me out.
Well, now you’re circling back to the same straw man again. Nobody is saying that.
The issue is, when a comment contains no debate, i.e. it does not address content or arguments, which would be true of either:
(a) “post is all kinds of dumb”
(b) “poster is all kinds of dumb”
… to what extent do we want the superficial form of words in (a) to grant immunity from being considered just an insult?
Calling a post stupid DOES address the content of the post.
So now you are claiming to have the ability to read people’s minds, that you know what the real meaning of other’s words are, beyond what the words themselves say? :dubious: This is your position?
Barring any other evidence for consideration, yes, I would.
You even responded to that post. Yes, someone is saying that.
I will admit that I also extrapolated too much from your own post a few posts up:
“And indirectly to the poster, obviously.”
Not sure where you get the “obviously” unless you think any such attack is an attack on the poster. But I can see that you were referring to “content free” attacks on the post.
Sorry, being Aspergersy again. At least I’m better than I was 50 years ago, I think.
When you’re young you might not know what other people thing; when you’re old you don’t care what people think. 
This is one of the ongoing stupidities of the Dope Management.
Not providing an exhaustive list? Fine.
Being utterly unwilling to discuss a specific hypothetical or two? Idiotic. I don’t blame you for this Bone–it’s been this way forever. But it’s ridiculous to refuse to respond to a specific concrete example or two.
I’m willing to discuss a specific hypothetical or two. I gave two in my previous post. There is arguably a non-hypothetical example in the post that precipitated this thread. In fact, there was another example in a different thread offered by HurricanDitka which I responded to as well, so that’s four. Here is what I said upthread:
To that, the following response:
It seems like trying to find a difference between “That post is dumb” and “Your post is stupid” and that level of hair splitting isn’t productive in my mind. I see little value in trying to determine if there a difference between using the word “that” and “your” or a difference between “dumb” and “stupid”. This strikes me as going down the rabbit hole of coming up with a list of ways to rib other posters and that is not what I am willing to do. The next question could be, 'how about “that post is really really dumb.”? Talking about specifics is not that helpful because often that obscures context. That is the reason I wanted to present the general guidance. If an attack on a post is inseparable from an attack on the poster, then that could run afoul of the rules. It’s always going to be judgment when that line is crossed. In making an evaluation, I look at posts for context and try to interpret charitably.
I welcome discussion about how we should view various items and want to be transparent in that discussion. I accept that you may disagree.
I believe you may have misinterpreted him. I don’t think Saint Cad’s question is “Does it matter if I use “dumb” or “stupid”?” (I’d agree that’s useless nitpicking). I think he was asking "What if I say “Your post is stupid because reasons A, B, and C.”? which seems to me to be a valid question
Bone, perhaps can you comment on whether you think my interpretation of what you said in my post #85 is about right?
And, yes, as above, I’d like clarification that’s it’s ok to describe a post in harsh terms provided we then go on to provide some substantial debate, i.e. to explain why we think the arguments are stupid, dumb, whatever.