# 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:** 3
**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, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/41 "2011-04-18T15:12:58Z")
I was \*\*responding \*\*to a comment, not flinging pot shots at Dio. I’m just getting myself into trouble by virtue of talking in this thread. > [@](#): > > 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. :eek: Potent Quotables for 100 please, Alex! [ol] [li]You just seem to be having some difficulty grasping what I’m saying.[/li][li]You do understand the meaning of the word \*if/i], don’t you?[/li][li]This is completele Bollocks.[/li][li]You should take your own advice. I, on the other hand, have provided informed information. you don’t seem to have much, if any background in historical method[/li][li]This is a fun hypothesis, but it’s based on absolutely nothing.[/li][li]You’re the one who seems to lack any relevant background here. [/li][li]This is simply inaccurate and uninformed.[/li][li]Read with comprehension.[/li][li]I just apear to klnow more about those things than you do.[/li][li]I didn’t say any of these things and your distortion of my words is becoming dishonest. Please quit making up things I didn’t say. [/li][li]You are misinformed [/li][li]I’m telling you, and you only, that you are misinformed [/li][li]You appear to be upset because it doesn’t jibe with your own mistaken/misinformed perceptions[/li][li]it does not appear that you have any idea what Crossan means[/li][li]You’re the one who keeps flying off on tangents and non-sequiturs.[/li][li]I don’t think you really know much about the scholarship in this ara[/li][li]This is just a mishmash of more dishonest distortions, ad hominems and a demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend arguments.[/li][/ol] RE: Warning: The sanctimonious asshole comment came after a lot of repeated questions and elbow throws. I really couldn’t understand why he cared. AFTER the thread continued, then heck yeah, I thought he was for sure being an asshole. It’s not that I got Warned. I’m O.K. with constructive criticism and correction when I’m wrong. BUT I feel like I could argue for **or** against half of the obvious insults on SD based on what was said here. There seems to be no solid answers, no precedent. It’s just how you want to bend it (if you aren’t a mod). Or how you see it (if you are). Highly subjective. Makes it hard to figure out what’s all right and what’s not. Actually, that just means that the rules aren’t really rules but more like “good things to live by so you don’t get banned” instead of “this is how we operate”. Is that the geeky Civics teacher in me? Maybe. Yeah, I could just be super safe and take great pains to not insult anyone, but that would make me look like a weenie. Weenies don’t fight ignorance. I don’t run SD or have any say in how you (all) run it so I’m stepping out of the thread now. ---
**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, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/42 "2011-04-18T15:33:50Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > :eek: Potent Quotables for 100 please, Alex! Many of those comments are absolutely fine, and some aren’t friendly but are allowed. I’ve read most of your participation in the thread and I’m not going to be swayed by a list of quotes that includes everything you object to with no discussion of your own behavior, which was rather obnoxious in some places: > [@Was Jesus Literate?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-literate/570254/144): > > \*\*Why \*\*are you even in this conversation? To be negative? > > […] > > //end Dio Show. > [@Was Jesus Literate?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-literate/570254/145): > > Anyway, since you think the Bible is a work of fiction, I’m going to go with “Dio Can’t Have A Strong Point in This Thread”. You know nothing of Jesus, his birth class, his life, etc. if the Bible is fiction, so WHY ARE YOU IN HERE? > [@Was Jesus Literate?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-literate/570254/157): > > We have to look at the Gospels. If we question their validity then the only thing we can do is throw our hands up and say, “I donno. Impossible to say.” If that is your position then SAY THAT and leave the thread be. > > Some of us like investigating the mysteries and unknowns of history. That’s what makes SD so great. If you can’t participate productively, then state your “I donno” piece and move on. So that’s why I say you were giving as good as you got, if not moreso. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > The sanctimonious asshole comment came after a lot of repeated questions and elbow throws. I saw, yes. Your comment took that to a level that is not acceptable in GD. > [@](#): > > I really couldn’t understand why he cared. There’s no rule against this, but is it necessary to question his motivation this way? > [@](#): > > BUT I feel like I could argue for **or** against half of the obvious insults on SD based on what was said here. You’ve been here two weeks. Read some threads and you’ll figure it out. Meanwhile stick discussing arguments and not the people who are arguing (or their reasons for making those arguments) and you will do fine. If you do that it is very difficult to get warned. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/43 "2011-04-18T15:38:01Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > _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 are permitted to state “that is false”, “that is wrong”, “that is incorrect”, “what you said isn’t true”, or any other variant of statement to declare the person’s comment untrue, _as long as you do not imply the person is deliberately being false_. “Lying” is more than being wrong, it is _intentionally_ being wrong. It is being wrong to serve some purpose or agenda. By claiming a person is lying, you are making the conversation about that person rather than the issue. By the way, your editorial comments within the quote box are not allowed here. I’m not a moderator, and I’m not trying to get you warned, I just want you to be aware that you should not do what you did here. Restrict the actual quote to the quote box and put all editorial remarks afterwards. Example > [@](#): > > _You speak an untruth_. [Editorial response here.] ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/44 "2011-04-18T16:05:19Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > You are permitted to state “that is false”, “that is wrong”, “that is incorrect”, “what you said isn’t true”, or any other variant of statement to declare the person’s comment untrue, _as long as you do not imply the person is deliberately being false_. > > “Lying” is more than being wrong, it is _intentionally_ being wrong. It is being wrong to serve some purpose or agenda. By claiming a person is lying, you are making the conversation about that person rather than the issue. > > By the way, your editorial comments within the quote box are not allowed here. I’m not a moderator, and I’m not trying to get you warned, I just want you to be aware that you should not do what you did here. Restrict the actual quote to the quote box and put all editorial remarks afterwards. > > Example > > [Editorial response here.] No, those were just examples of things I thought of. They weren’t direct quotes. \*edit oh you mean the second post. clearly marley didn’t have a problem with it. it would have been excruciatingly tedious. I don’t see how “What you say isn’t true” and “What you speak is an untruth” are different. They mean the same thing. //exhausted. And Marley, when I addressed Dio, I actually did things like give points, discuss etymology, history, whatever, instead of just saying, “You’re wrong. My statement is correct” over and over. He was backpeddling, he was derailing, he did not want to have any kind of discussion at all. Just shut downs. I’m not going to be cutesy sweet about that. But whatever. That’s your shtick. I’m not the only person here who has problems with the “rules” and “rules when it’s Dio”. So yeah, you’re the mod, I’ll just stick around and see how it’s done. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/45 "2011-04-18T16:08:51Z")
As long as we have this thread open, is “You are not an honest debater” now an allowed comment in GD? ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/46 "2011-04-18T16:10:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > As long as we have this thread open, is “You are not an honest debater” now an allowed comment in GD? Only when directed at you, bubeleh. Edit\* But we can now say things like, “You are a misinformed debater. Can you not read?” ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/47 "2011-04-18T16:15:11Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I don’t see how > > “What you say isn’t true” > and > “What you speak is an untruth” > > are different. They mean the same thing. I explained it in post #37. > [@](#): > > And Marley, when I addressed Dio, I actually did things like give points, discuss etymology, history, whatever, instead of just saying, “You’re wrong. My statement is correct” over and over. He was backpeddling, he was derailing, he did not want to have any kind of discussion at all. Just shut downs. Like I said: I read the thread and I know you those comments were not the full extent of your participation. But I don’t share your assessment of his behavior and we generally don’t go for “he started it” and “he deserved it” around here. You’re expected to behave regardless of what someone else is doing. The BBQ Pit is there if you want it, but you can’t post that way in GD. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > As long as we have this thread open, is “You are not an honest debater” now an allowed comment in GD? “Now?” ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/48 "2011-04-18T16:22:48Z")
Marley: You said to say “you are wrong” instead of “you speak an untruth”. My post was in response to Irishman, who said I could say, “that is false”, “that is wrong”, “that is incorrect”, “what you said isn’t true”. I was asking Irishman what the difference between saying, “you speak an untruth” and “what you said is not true.” So Marley, you are wrong. You did not answer my question to Irishman in post #37. > [@Marley23](#): > > 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:** ![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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/49 "2011-04-18T16:26:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Like I said: I read the thread and I know you those comments were not the full extent of your participation. But I don’t share your assessment of his behavior and we generally don’t go for “he started it” and “he deserved it” around here. You’re expected to behave regardless of what someone else is doing. The BBQ Pit is there if you want it, but you can’t post that way in GD. I was just wondering why he got to break the rules. You justified it by saying I deserved it by saying > [@](#): > > 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. By this logic, “deserving it” flies around here. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/50 "2011-04-18T16:33:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > “Now?” Well, as it seems a pretty bright line violation, I assumed that it wasn’t in the past but since it was allowed, I assume it is now. You seem to disagree. Has it always been allowed since the “liar” nerf, then, to comment on someone personally and accuse them of dishonest behavior as their personality type? Is “you are not an honest debater” attacking the post or the poster? If it’s allowed then cool, I’m just wanting to verify that you can tell posters in GD that not just their argument is dishonest (which I thought was against the rules too) but that they, as people, are dishonest. ---
**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, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/51 "2011-04-18T16:36:03Z")
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7696990#post7696990](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7696990#post7696990) > [@](#): > > Hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender is a violation of our rules, as outlined in the Registration Agreement. > **[SDMB registration agreement as of 12/5/2005](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347160)** > > The agreement below spells out the rules by which SDMB users are expected to abide. Changes since the last version are indicated in bold. These changes affect the privacy policy. The rationale for these changes may be found in a separate post... > [@](#): > > You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or violative of U.S. law. But it’s OK to call Jews elitist bigoted racist whatevers or display blatant anti-Muslim sentiment or say that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Check. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/52 "2011-04-18T16:46:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not sure where he is getting that. There have been a number of threads in ATMB that have been closed down with the caveat “If you want to attack so-and-so (usually Dio or Der Trihs), take it to the pit. This thread is closed” when the “attacks” were “But they did it here, here and here.” posted by multiple posters. ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/53 "2011-04-18T16:53:56Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > So Marley, you are wrong. You did not answer my question to Irishman in post #37. Ah, I see - you’re asking about “you speak an untruth” vs. “what you said is not true?” Then I’ll agree pretty much the same thing. The unusual wording in “you speak an untruth” just makes it sound worse; I’ve never heard anyone say that. “What you said is not true” is fine, although being clear that the person is wrong rather than lying never hurts. **Irishman** is usually correct about these kinds of things, but I will point out that he’s not on the staff here. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > I was just wondering why he got to break the rules. And I explicitly already said he didn’t break the rules: > [@Marley23](#): > > Many of those comments are absolutely fine, and some aren’t friendly but are allowed. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Well, as it seems a pretty bright line violation, I assumed that it wasn’t in the past but since it was allowed, I assume it is now. I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Would you please explain? I’ve never seen any mod say “you are not an honest debater” is allowed. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > But it’s OK to call Jews elitist bigoted racist whatevers The OP never called Jews “elited bigoted racist [whatevers].” He asked if a certain behavior is elitist and racist. Although his question was related to a Jewish women he knew, he acknowledged that behavior is not unique to Jews. He _did_ ask if Jews, unlike other groups, got a pass for this behavior. “Jews are elitist bigoted racists” was **FinnAgain** ’s sarcastic paraphrase of the OP’s claim. And I moderated **FinnAgain** ’s comment because it was so over-the-top. Perhaps you agree with **FinnAgain** , but it seems to me that you’ve accepted his version of the OP’s contention at face value. That’s unfortunate and that’s exactly why I moderated his statement. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/54 "2011-04-18T16:57:29Z")
> [@](#): > > **Irishman** : You are permitted to state “that is false”, “that is wrong”, “that is incorrect”, “what you said isn’t true”, or any other variant of statement to declare the person’s comment untrue, as long as you do not imply the person is deliberately being false. That is my understanding also. But on the list of quotes from Dio, we find these two quotations that don’t pass muster: “I didn’t say any of these things and your distortion of my words is becoming dishonest. Please quit making up things I didn’t say.” “This is just a mishmash of more dishonest distortions, ad hominems and a demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend arguments.” Did these go unnoticed? Further, Marley, sometimes it is a very good idea to question motives. It is the _assigning_ of motives that is unreasonable. As for something being “unnecessary,” that’s not a requirement now, is it? We would disagree from Doper to Doper on what is “unnecessary.” ---
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/55 "2011-04-18T16:57:53Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > There have been a number of threads in ATMB that have been closed down with the caveat “If you want to attack so-and-so (usually Dio or Der Trihs), take it to the pit. This thread is closed” when the “attacks” were “But they did it here, here and here.” posted by multiple posters. I disagree with your interpretation. The threads were closed after the issues had been discussed and the threads themselves turned into a pile-on. And in any case this isn’t relevant to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/56 "2011-04-18T17:07:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Would you please explain? I’ve never seen any mod say “you are not an honest debater” is allowed. Sure. > [@why do jews get a pass when it comes to racism?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jews-get-a-pass-when-it-comes-to-racism/577370/151): > > I honestly don’t know why I bother. You poke a stick for the sake of a reaction. When things aren’t going your way, you change direction. It doesn’t matter. Making up words and putting them in the mouths of others is SOP for you, and yet you do it repeatedly. > > You simply aren’t an honest debater. You see the word “jew” and knee-jerk react immediately. Finn to the rescue! > > come on… say it. I know you are dying to! just get it out, and you’ll feel better. remember, bizarre, elitist racist, and…? Unless I missed it (possible, but unlikely) there was no mod note on that at any point. > [@Marley23](#): > > The OP never called Jews “elited bigoted racist [whatevers].” […]He _did_ ask if Jews, unlike other groups, got a pass for this behavior. “Jews are elitist bigoted racists” was **FinnAgain** ’s sarcastic paraphrase of the OP’s claim. This is simply not true. The OP argued, by analogy, that Jews who wanted to marry other Jews were elitist racists. "If I love you in every way but won’t marry you because you aren’t of the same religion, color, or whatever, doesn’t that make me an elitist and a racist by definition? " That was his explicit claim and he admitted it later on, as if it wasn’t clear enough to start with. > [@Marley23](#): > > And I moderated **FinnAgain** ’s comment because it was so over-the-top. Except it wasn’t. The OP argued that if he, as a white person, engaged in the same exact behavior he was describing, then he’d be an elitist and a racist. There’s nothing over the top in objecting to what the OP said. It certainly wasn’t “sarcastic”, either, and I’m still a bit confused as to why you thought it was. This is just getting silly. If someone stated “If I moderated in this manner, wouldn’t you think I was [insert pejorative]”, would you consider that to neither be a statement about a statement about your moderation, and that anybody who said it was, was using a “sarcastic paraphrase” that was “over-the-top”? ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/57 "2011-04-18T17:14:51Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > That is my understanding also. But on the list of quotes from Dio, we find these two quotations that don’t pass muster: > > “I didn’t say any of these things and your distortion of my words is becoming dishonest. Please quit making up things I didn’t say.” > > “This is just a mishmash of more dishonest distortions, ad hominems and a demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend arguments.” > > Did these go unnoticed? Fair enough. Yes, those are a bit over the line, and if **CitizenPained** had reported them at the time (six days ago and three days ago, respectively) I would have told both of them to back off. > [@](#): > > Further, Marley, sometimes it is a very good idea to question motives. It is the _assigning_ of motives that is unreasonable. That’s a fair point. In context, **CitizenPained** was challenging **Diogenes the Cynic** ’s motives and telling him to get out of the thread. > [@](#): > > As for something being “unnecessary,” that’s not a requirement now, is it? We would disagree from Doper to Doper on what is “unnecessary.” Yes, we will. Rather than simply asserting that **CitizenPained** messed up I am attempting to explain that she can make an argument that is every bit as good without the personal elements (which are against the rules in some cases, including “sanctimonious a-hole”). That’s what makes them unnecessary. ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/58 "2011-04-18T17:22:22Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Unless I missed it (possible, but unlikely) there was no mod note on that at any point. There was a mod note on it. I made this post the following morning in response to that comment and many others about you and **Diogenes the Cynic** > [@why do jews get a pass when it comes to racism?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-jews-get-a-pass-when-it-comes-to-racism/577370/182): > > That’s more than enough commentary about **Diogenes the Cynic** and **FinnAgain**. Drop it or take it to the Pit. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Except it wasn’t. We discussed this in another thread at the time. I’m not doing it again here. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/59 "2011-04-18T17:38:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There was a mod note on it. I made this post the following morning in response to that comment and many others about you and **Diogenes the Cynic** Eh… I figured it was a general note about Blake’s flaming. If you say also in application to SFP then okay, but [it is a little odd that you told him to knock it off or take it to the Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13655863&postcount=25) and then when he does the exact same thing, just ramped up and with a bit more flaming, roughly 12 hours later, you just repeat the same injunction. But okay. > [@Marley23](#): > > We discussed this in another thread at the time. I’m not doing it again here. You just brought it up here, out of the blue, apropos of nothing as the OP was making her own claims about what SFP was arguing. In point of fact, when **Citizen** just discussed SFP’s statements, you shifted focus onto me with an inaccurate claim about what I said, and essentially accused me of leading her astray and claimed that you’d moderated me in order to avoid that… and now you say you don’t want to discuss it? _You brought it up._ And no, we did not discuss it in another thread. [This is the thread, I think, you’re referring to.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603593) Nowhere do you actually address, let alone explain, why Jews who wouldn’t marry non-Jews were “elitists” and “racists” was somehow an inaccurate claim about his argument, let alone “over-the-top”. You also, at the time, stated that you moderated my comments because you thought that ‘excessive’ snark would provoke the OP of that thread into breaking GD rules, and not because I’d somehow trick other people. This is more than a little bit weird. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763/60 "2011-04-18T17:50:18Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You just brought it up here, out of the blue, apropos of nothing as the OP was making her own claims about what SFP was arguing. And I pointed out that her claim was wrong and resembled your post more than anything the OP actually said. Asking “if someone else did this, would it be elitist and racist?” may be assuming the conclusion, but it’s not the same as tarring all Jews with that accusation. For that matter I doubt that claim qualifies as hate speech in the first place. I should have stuck to that rather than inviting a tangent about another topic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-help-with-semantics-here/578763.md?page=4)