# Looking for a clarification re Oprah thread warnings **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [June 4, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/looking-for-a-clarification-re-oprah-thread-warnings/498686 "2009-06-04T13:00:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/looking-for-a-clarification-re-oprah-thread-warnings/498686/1 "2009-06-04T13:00:20Z")
The other day CDH [pulled out his hickory switch](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11205641&postcount=86)and sent mod warnings to a bunch of us. I have no problem with the warning as [the thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519681)really was kinda-sorta getting out of hand, and I have to admit the OP’s “Yay Oprah, she’s the bomb! Anti-vax? Who cares… it’s Oprah! Yay Oprah!” attitude was driving me absolutely batshit. Here is what CDH said in this forum re comments > [@](#): > > #6 Yesterday, 06:56 AM > C K Dexter Haven > > Our rules are, and have always been, that you may attack what a person SAYS, but you may not attack who a person IS. Examples: > > - “Your comments are founded in ignorance” is fine. “You are an ignoramus” is not. > - “Your statements are obtuse” is perfectly OK. “You are obtuse” is not. > - “Your argument is not rational” is acceptable. “You are irrational” is not. > > The line may seem like a fine one, but it’s there all the same. It’s the rule from high-school debate: attack what the person says, don’t attack the person him/herself. Discussions can be as heated as you’d like, as long as they’re focused on the topic and not on the other poster. Here is what I said > [@](#): > > This is not the peddling of some spiritual goulash or new diet which people can take or leave at thier whim, this is a serious public health issue. Your tarring of people who take exception to the BS she is allowing to be peddled (and encouraging her audience to be “open minded” about) as “haters” speaks poorly to your choices of what you think is, and is not, important. You really think this anti-vax movement BS is some fucking joke? Vaccination has saved countless lives around the world and now you have a group of people trying to pin all sorts of negative consequences on getting vaccinated. Are their assertions proved scientifically in any way, shape or form. No. It’s an appeal to emotion because they “know” it’s true in thier hearts. > > This isn’t playtime re the anti-vax nonsense, and your airheaded “what’s the big deal, everyone’s a con artist” attitude about Oprah’s tacit promotion of this perspective is dangerously stupid. Is criticizing an \*attitude \*as airheaded and stupid a personal attack out of bounds with the rules? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/looking-for-a-clarification-re-oprah-thread-warnings/498686/2 "2009-06-06T12:23:48Z")
OK, sorry not to have seen this sooner, it’s been one of those weeks. The line is a thin one, and it’s unclear whether you’re calling the person stupid for holding an airheaded attitude. I guess that technically this one is on the line. I apologize for lumping it with the others, there were so many insults flying around that I must not have read carefully enough. I will eliminate your Official Warning. But I think it’s sort of one toe over a line. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/looking-for-a-clarification-re-oprah-thread-warnings/498686/3 "2009-06-08T01:19:11Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > OK, sorry not to have seen this sooner, it’s been one of those weeks. > > The line is a thin one, and it’s unclear whether you’re calling the person stupid for holding an airheaded attitude. I guess that technically this one is on the line. I apologize for lumping it with the others, there were so many insults flying around that I must not have read carefully enough. I will eliminate your Official Warning. But I think it’s sort of one toe over a line. No.. that’s OK the warning was needed for myself and everone else you pinged.