# Little help with semantics here. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 17, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763 "2011-04-17T22:25:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/21 "2011-04-18T06:45:48Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > It’s not hard, really. > > **Scenario 1** > [ul] > [li]Poster A: Which movie’s fans do you dislike the most? [/li][li]Poster B: People who love Ghost Busters are idiots[/li][/ul] > **Scenario 2** > [ul] > [li]Poster A: I just love the movie Ghost Busters![/li][li]Poster B: People who love Ghost Busters are idiots[/li][/ul] > > No matter whether Poster B is quoting Poster A or not, in scenario 1 what he says is not a personal insult, whereas in scenario 2, even though he says exactly the same thing as in scenario 1, it _is_ a personal insult. > > It’s pretty clear in scenario 2 that Poster B is referring to Poster A,whereas in scenario 1, Poster B is not referring to anyone in particular in that thread. > > If you still don’t get it, there’s not much you can do except observe the mod rulings for a few months to get the picture. Except this is not a rule applied evenly, hence the “not getting it”. Poster A: Jews are bigoted. Poster B: No we’re not. Poster A: Yes you are. Anyway, why am I responding to you? You said I wasn’t Jewish. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/22 "2011-04-18T07:51:24Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Except this is not a rule applied evenly, hence the “not getting it”. > > Poster A: Jews are bigoted. > Poster B: No we’re not. > Poster A: Yes you are. > > Anyway, why am I responding to you? You said I wasn’t Jewish. Because this thread isn’t about being Jewish? (FYI, I said that you are culturally/ethnically Jewish and can be considered religiously-Jewish as long as Cthulu believers can also be considered religiously-Jewish) ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/23 "2011-04-18T08:49:32Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Because this thread isn’t about being Jewish? > > (FYI, I said that you are culturally/ethnically Jewish and can be considered religiously-Jewish as long as Cthulu believers can also be considered religiously-Jewish) Again. Insulting my religion. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/24 "2011-04-18T11:07:53Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > A royal ‘we’ would be capitalized. If you read the thread, you’ll see that I wasn’t a lone Macabee. I think most dopers have an aversion for hive-mind mentality. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/25 "2011-04-18T11:28:52Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > I think most dopers have an aversion for hive-mind mentality. I don’t think what was going on in that thread, or what she’s describing here, comes close to hive-mind. We were all in agreement, but for more meaningful reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/26 "2011-04-18T11:34:45Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > I don’t think what was going on in that thread, or what she’s describing here, comes close to hive-mind. We were all in agreement, but for more meaningful reasons. Sorry but when a poster goes out of her way every two posts to give high five to anybody she might recognize as jewish (or posts freaking pictures of herself and her boyfriends ?? What the hell?) all the symptoms are there. She sounds like a jewish **poet**. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/27 "2011-04-18T11:42:12Z")
[Moderating] Keep the debate in Great Debates and the questions about the rules in this thread. We don’t need the same argument in two threads. [/Moderating] > [@CitizenPained](#): > > I got called out on this one, but I’ve been told this about five times in the last 24 hours, amongst other things…no mod intervention, of course.) I’ve read the last couple of pages of the “why do Jews get a pass?” thread and a few others you participated in, and I don’t see this anywhere. I’ll admit to not doing the most thorough search but the closest thing I saw was another poster saying “Don’t be blind,” which does not mean ‘you can’t read.’ Regardless if you think you’re being insulted, _you should always report the post and not respond with insults._ No exceptions. We try to be thorough in reading threads that are reported, but we don’t read every post or every thread, so if you don’t report there’s no guarantee we’re aware of it. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Again. Insulting my religion. :rolleyes: I can see you take offense to this but it’s not against the rules. We don’t moderate everything that any individual could take exception to. If we did, we couldn’t have a debate forum. For the most part we moderate comments that are directly insulting to individual posters or other statements that are likely to derail a thread. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Can someone explain what is and is not allowed in a non-Pit thread? > [@](#): > > You’re wrong. It would be very hard to have a debate forum without this one. > [@](#): > > […list edited…] > Jews are elitist racists. > Blacks are genetically less intelligent than their white counterparts. > Religious people are stupid. > Religions are stupid. > You can’t think coherently if you are religious. > Most women who claim rape are just feeling regret the morning after. Not directly against the rules. In context I might moderate these for being off-topic or for being inflammatory. > [@](#): > > Women are bitches. > Men are assholes. These are not against the rules (since categorical statements like this are usually allowed), but they also have zero debate value. > [@](#): > > […list reordered…] > You speak an untruth. > You’re blinded by your religion. > You are destroying your family. > Your actions are immoral. > You are lying. These are all personal. “You are lying” is explicitly against the rules, “you speak an untruth” looks intended to circumvent that rule on a technicality while making the same accusation. The others all make the discussion unnecessarily personal and are likely to get moderated. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/28 "2011-04-18T12:10:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No, “people in political party X are assholes” might be indirect, but claiming that a person who holds belief Y is an asshole when directly replying to a person who has just espoused Y is merely being coy while being directly insulting. That makes no sense Tom…and if true, I’ll look forward to seeing the night of long warnings occurring going forward for posters that haven’t been warned for exactly that but regularly (EVERY fucking thread type “regularly”) engage in exactly that behavior. How many times have we seen: Poster A (espousing political party 1 views in the thread): I believe such-and-such Poster B: All political party 1 members are racists/misogynists/cowards/liars. or, my personal favorite and yours: Poster A (espousing religious views): My faith believes such and such about this issue. Poster DT: All people who are religious are morons. Simplistic dolts. And evil. Evil as the day is long. Totally whacked. How is that not _exactly_ what you warned CitizenPained for? ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/29 "2011-04-18T12:17:22Z")
Or more aptly: A: I’m an atheist bur Jewish B: people who claim that are disingenuous, with blinders on, hypocritical etc etc. I wonder if the post I reported will get any comment ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/30 "2011-04-18T12:22:57Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > How is that not _exactly_ what you warned CitizenPained for? I gave the warning, not **tomndebb**. The violation is obvious: **CitizenPained** said **Polerius** was telling people what they believe and called him a “sanctimonious a-hole” for doing so. There’s no interpretation of the rules under which that is allowed. For a long time the guideline here has been that you can say insulting things about groups of people (Republicans, atheists, whoever) that Dopers are a part of and it is not considered a _personal_ insult. We don’t know what associations are and are not represented here, and there wouldn’t be much room to discuss anything if you could not say anything negative about any group of people. When you respond directly to a statement made in the thread by saying “anyone who believes this is an idiot/asshole/whatever,” you are clearly insulting them individually rather than responding to the argument. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/31 "2011-04-18T13:12:13Z")
I think **Marley23** sums it up admirably. People may well _feel_ personally insulted if their group is maligned but the fact is it doesn’t become a personal insult unless it is clearly aimed at an individual member. Mods are old hands at detecting when a group insult is, so to speak, a personal insult in sheep’s clothing and to tell the truth it’s usually pretty obvious, as it is in the particular instance for which the OP was warned. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/32 "2011-04-18T13:12:16Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > I wonder if the post I reported will get any comment The post is confrontational but I don’t think any comment was called for. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/33 "2011-04-18T13:16:04Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Sorry but when a poster goes out of her way every two posts to give high five to anybody she might recognize as jewish (or posts freaking pictures of herself and her boyfriends ?? What the hell?) all the symptoms are there. She sounds like a jewish **poet**. In a thread about _mate selection_, I noted I wasn’t attracted to certain ‘looks’. That’s a biological response. I also think it’s pretty obvious who’s a Jew in a thread about Jews. :rolleyes: wtf. You wanna pit me, go take it to the Pit. You and Dio can have a party. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/34 "2011-04-18T13:21:05Z")
**Capitaine Zombie** and **CitizenPained** , take the original topic back to the Great Debates thread and take any personal inssues (as **CitizenPained** said) to the Pit. This is the wrong forum for those arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/35 "2011-04-18T13:40:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > [Moderating] > Keep the debate in Great Debates and the questions about the rules in this thread. We don’t need the same argument in two threads. > [/Moderating] thumbs. > [@](#): > > I’ve read the last couple of pages of the “why do Jews get a pass?” thread and a few others you participated in, and I don’t see this anywhere. It was in the Jesus and literacy thread. I think Dio said it twice. It’s actually less annoying than someone blowing up parts of your quote and saying, “I’m making this easier for you to read.” > [@](#): > > I’ll admit to not doing the most thorough search but the closest thing I saw was another poster saying “Don’t be blind,” which does not mean ‘you can’t read.’ Regardless if you think you’re being insulted, _you should always report the post and not respond with insults._ I did. Once. But it’s hard to report posts cause then I feel a little tattle tale ish. I could actually go through and cite inflammatory posts in that thread, but that’s not really the point. I don’t think. And doesn’t constant post reporting bother you? Anyway, the search function keeps kapooing on me. > [@](#): > > No exceptions. We try to be thorough in reading threads that are reported, but we don’t read every post or every thread, so if you don’t report there’s no guarantee we’re aware of it. Wasn’t knockin’ mods, just curious as to how it all works. 🙂 The last few pages of the Jew/Racist thread were pretty G-rated. > [@](#): > > I can see you take offense to this but it’s not against the rules. We don’t moderate everything that any individual could take exception to. If we did, we couldn’t have a debate forum.\*\* For the most part we moderate comments that are directly insulting to individual posters or other statements that are likely to derail a thread.\*\* I thought inflammatory statements like some of the ones I listed _were_ against the rules? > [@](#): > > _Jews are elitist racists._ – How is that different than saying Christians are sanctimonious assholes?\* > Blacks are genetically less intelligent than their white counterparts. > Religious people are stupid. > Religions are stupid. > You can’t think coherently if you are religious. > Most women who claim rape are just feeling regret the morning after. \* > > Not directly against the rules. In context I might moderate these for being off-topic or for being inflammatory. :eek: Doper A: I’m religious. Doper B: If you are religious, you can’t think coherently. is not insulting? > [@](#): > > \*Women are bitches. > Men are assholes. \* > > These are not against the rules (since categorical statements like this are usually allowed), but they also have zero debate value. Well, yeah, but so do most others I’ve seen. 😛 > [@](#): > > - > > You speak an untruth.\* - Wait. **I** said that because someone gave out a factoid that was incorrect. I said that so I wouldn’t say “you are lying”. Because speaking an untruth is something that is not true. You are speaking a falsehood. Do I just say, “You are factually incorrect?” “You speak a falsehood?” I’m not sure I’ve ever actually said that to someone. :eek: Somehow calling someone “incorrect” rather than “wrong” sounds less…elementary. > _You’re blinded by your religion._ - Yup, that one happened. > _You are destroying your family._ - Yup, to the guy who left his wife. Also Agent insinuated I was a crappy Jewish parent for being an atheist because he suffered a spiritual deprivation as a child. Err…😕 > \*Your actions are immoral. \*- Guy who left his wife. > _You are lying._ - Well, that I know from the lying liars thread. > > These are all personal. “You are lying” is explicitly against the rules, “you speak an untruth” looks intended to circumvent that rule on a technicality while making the same accusation. The others all make the discussion unnecessarily personal and are likely to get moderated. I’m sorry. I guess I feel that the rules are slippery, slightly ambiguous, and rulings aren’t binding or follow precedent. I do appreciate you going through the list, though I’m sure I’ll get into trouble with semantics. It always sucks to get busted when you’re trying to behave. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/36 "2011-04-18T13:57:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I gave the warning, not **tomndebb**. The violation is obvious: **CitizenPained** said **Polerius** was telling people what they believe and called him a “sanctimonious a-hole” for doing so. There’s no interpretation of the rules under which that is allowed. > > For a long time the guideline here has been that you can say insulting things about groups of people (Republicans, atheists, whoever) that Dopers are a part of and it is not considered a _personal_ insult. We don’t know what associations are and are not represented here, and there wouldn’t be much room to discuss anything if you could not say anything negative about any group of people. When you respond directly to a statement made in the thread by saying “anyone who believes this is an idiot/asshole/whatever,” you are clearly insulting them individually rather than responding to the argument. Well, I did say _sanctimonious_ a-hole, so it was completely relevant to the topic. 😃 I was puzzled at what the purpose of making new rules for someone else’s religion was. I wasn’t specifically referring to **Polerius** (though since that comment I’m starting to wonder) but he kept asking me what if this, what if that, well why can’t people believe this or that, why why why + infusing his (factually incorrect? false? not true? help!) ideas of someone else’s religious history into the conversation. Either he was **trying to egg me on** or he was really curious. Or ignorant. I still stand by that statement. What kind of sanctimonious a-hole (a jerk who thinks he’s morally superior) tries to redefine another religious group’s rules? In other words, “What’s the purpose of this Inquisition?” I can’t go and tell his religion that their rules are wrong and then change them! That’s impossible. To presume I\* could \*do so would mean I’d have to assert some kind of moral or intellectual superiority, not to mention the power to enforce such a change. And actually trying to do that just kinda makes me a jerk. [ol] [li]So yeah, I kind of think anyone who tries to define Jews as a race by Mengelean standards is an anti-Semitic jerk. [/li] [li]Anyone who tries to re-write the rules for someone else’s religion to make it acceptable to their own beliefs _is_ a sanctimonious asshole. [/li] [li]People who decry members of opposition political parties as “idiots” without discussion probably a) don’t know public policy b) don’t know how to debate c) are too tired to think it through d) one or more of the above and and in any case **should refrain from commentary** until their neural pathways are a little more formed.[/li][/ol] Soooo I think some opinions on general groups are more valid than others - especially when that general group is inflammatory, rude, bigoted, racist, hateful, or otherwise just not freakin’ capable of productive conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/37 "2011-04-18T14:05:08Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I did. Once. But it’s hard to report posts cause then I feel a little tattle tale ish. I don’t think you’ve reported a post to this point. And you’re not required to ever report anything. But if you don’t, you really can’t complain if we don’t do anything about insults in your direction because we may not be aware of them. Other people may report the posts and they may not. > [@](#): > > And doesn’t constant post reporting bother you? No. Most of the forums here are too busy for us to read every thread or post, so we need people to help us out by reporting threads and posts that could present a problem. And if you’re constantly reporting posts that are not against the rules, we’ll just ignore you. 😉 > [@](#): > > I thought inflammatory statements like some of the ones I listed _were_ against the rules? There is no rule against inflammatory statements, and no one ever said there was. An inflammatory statement is often the subject of debate, but there are situations in which those statements get moderated. > [@](#): > > Doper A: I’m religious. > Doper B: If you are religious, you can’t think coherently. > > is not insulting? Yes, that’s insulting. By the way this is exactly what you did with **Polerius**. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry. I guess I feel that the rules are slippery, slightly ambiguous, and rulings aren’t binding or follow precedent. I think if you hang around here and get a sense of how discussions here usually work, you’ll get the hang of it. > [@](#): > > How is [‘Jews are elitist racists’] different than saying Christians are sanctimonious assholes? They’re pretty much the same. But you didn’t say Christians are sanctimonious assholes. I probably would have just moderated that for being off topic. > [@](#): > > I said that so I wouldn’t say “you are lying”. Because speaking an untruth is something that is not true. You are speaking a falsehood. Do I just say, “You are factually incorrect?” “You speak a falsehood?” I’m not sure I’ve ever actually said that to someone. Somehow calling someone “incorrect” rather than “wrong” sounds less…elementary. I recognize the difference between “You are lying” and “You are speaking an untruth.” But someone who reads “you are speaking an untruth” may not make that distinction because it leaves open the possibility the person is lying. “You are wrong” addresses the same issue without imputing ill intent, so it works better. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/38 "2011-04-18T14:07:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I gave the warning, not **tomndebb**. My bad, and my apologies for the error. > [@](#): > > For a long time the guideline here has been that you can say insulting things about groups of people (Republicans, atheists, whoever) that Dopers are a part of and it is not considered a _personal_ insult. We don’t know what associations are and are not represented here, and there wouldn’t be much room to discuss anything if you could not say anything negative about any group of people. When you respond directly to a statement made in the thread by saying “anyone who believes this is an idiot/asshole/whatever,” you are clearly insulting them individually rather than responding to the argument. Great–then I’ll look forward to seeing many, MANY, _MANY_ more warnings under this interpretation. Der Trihs\* does exactly this in every religion thread I’ve seen him in, most abortion threads and many political threads. When this interpretation is applied, he’ll be banned within a day. Ditto several others on both sides of the political fence. (And GD will be a better place for it) (Please note, I fully, 100% support this new interpretation. No snark, I think it’s a change for the better. I think it’s a huge positive for GD and for the SDMB. I’m just eager to see it applied) \*Yes, I know the idiotic new rules of ATMB frowns on naming names, but it’s fucking impossible to discuss moderator actions _without_ naming names. Speaking of rules that need to be revised, that one needs a serious look, ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/39 "2011-04-18T14:15:19Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, that’s insulting. By the way this is exactly what you did with **Polerius**. Sort of. I wasn’t 100 per cent positive if he was in that group. But I did refrain from saying, “You are a sanctimonious asshole” based on all the precedent I’ve seen on SD this week… I’m tired. If I’m not allowed to give examples in here (as Fenris just said) then I donno what to say. Okay. I’m here for the ride. _rubs eyes_ Time for coffee. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/40 "2011-04-18T14:28:33Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Sort of. I wasn’t 100 per cent positive if he was in that group. I think maybe you should reread what you wrote, because no doubts are evident in the post. > [@](#): > > I’m tired. If I’m not allowed to give examples in here (as Fenris just said) then I donno what to say. I’m not sure where he is getting that. It’s hard to ask about the rules without ever using an example. Attacking people personally is not allowed. That being said, you’re not required to like **Diogenes the Cynic** but you’re inserting potshots against him into a lot of your posts, and that is _still_ not appropriate outside the Pit. I’m rereading the thread about Jesus and literacy and frankly, your claim that **Diogenes the Cynic** “called you illiterate” is balanced out by the fact that you were being at least as hostile as he supposedly was. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763.md?page=3)