# Marley, if you can't moderately honestly, then recuse yourself. Or: Respect Mahlay's Authoritay! **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 19, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260 "2011-08-19T01:46:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/41 "2011-08-20T17:23:59Z")
Your obsession with this issue just demonstrates that **Marley** was right to tell you to knock it off and doubly correct to warn you for your incessant griping about the “facts.” Get a grip. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/42 "2011-08-20T17:39:50Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And there’s also that point, that if Marley didn’t actually read the thread I have told you in multiple emails and private messages that I read the entire thread before moderating it, and I also told you that I read it again after you first protested this warning and that I hadn’t changed my mind. Maybe “reading” means something different to you than it does to me. You have now ejected thousands of words on a mod note that could be summarized as “cool it with the sarcasm” and a request to dispute my moderation through the correct channels. The initial moderation was entirely justified and was intended to smooth over some foolish and pointless behavior on your part. I tried to move the discussion past that and get it back to the actual subject of the thread. To put it mildly, you refused to take the hint. As far as the warning goes, this dispute is especially ridiculous because you were already protesting my initial mod note through emails and private messages. So there was little reason for you to post about it in the first place. Ignoring my second mod note was that much more ridiculous. In the thousands of words you’ve wasted on this non-issue, you have said nothing that has made me reconsider my decision. I understand that you feel you were only disputing my comment about **Bricker** ’s summary of the thread and not the actual mod note about your behavior (_except for the post where you disputed the mod note_) but since you were already discussing the moderation with me and with **tomndebb** , there was no reason to continue arguing about it in the thread, and the fact that I gave you an additional note about it should have been a hint that I also considered that side discussion to be mod-related and tangential to the thread. You can write War and Peace about this if you want, but I don’t have to read it. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/43 "2011-08-20T17:55:28Z")
Thank you all for coming; I didn’t know who else to call. Look: just brace yourselves, okay? I don’t know what it is or where it came from, but whenever you poke it, lots of words come out… ---
**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:** [August 20, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/44 "2011-08-20T18:10:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You don’t get to change the definition of “moderating” to fit your world view. Correct John, you do not get to. Moderating means to tell someone to change their behavior. Moderating does not mean anything at all that’s said in a post in which a mod engages in moderation. If a mod makes a Mod Note that says “Today is Friday and I’m tired of this shit before the weekend, so nobody else mention the film Showgirls as it’s too contentious” and someone responds “Actually, today is Thursday.” they’re not, in fact, discussing moderation. The moderation there is “don’t discuss Showgirls” not “it is Friday”. That your argument actually logically leads to the claim that “today is Friday” is an act of moderation shows that you are the one who has tried to change the definition of “moderating” instead of citing where Marley actually provided any moderation on whether or not I had to accept that something I said six times in separate posts, was never said. I also notice that you’d prefer to focus on this point rather than discuss the rather clear implications of a mod choosing to moderate for content if they didn’t read for content in the first place. Or why it was perfectly acceptable for Bricker to “discuss moderation” as long as he was using it as support for his claim that he was factually correct, but anybody who disagreed with him would’ve been Warned. Or what it says that Marley honestly believes that [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14151298&postcount=62)was a mere statement of facts and not a bandwagon fallacy argument-via-implication. > [@Marley23](#): > > Maybe “reading” means something different to you than it does to me. I already explained that. Reading does not mean “making the sounds of the words in your head”. By that standard I can read Korean. Hell, German too. Give me a few hours and I can “read” Russian too. If you read a 41 post thread and believed that something which was discussed half a dozen times was only “intended” to be discussed but was not discussed in actuality, then you read the thread in a manner similar to how I read Korean. And that should’ve been a good hint to you that you shouldn’t have attempted to moderate it for its _content_, even if you were dead set on moderating it for its tone. > [@Marley23](#): > > You have now ejected thousands of words on a mod note that could be summarized as “cool it with the sarcasm” and a request to dispute my moderation through the correct channels. What’s amusing is that you’ve just admitted that your actual moderation was “cool it with the sarcasm”, and thus disputing whether or not the factual claims you made, or whether or not Bricker was right because of those factual claims, had nothing to do with your moderation. The humor may be lost, however… > [@Marley23](#): > > As far as the warning goes, this dispute is especially ridiculous because you were already protesting my initial mod note through emails and private messages. So there was little reason for you to post about it in the first place. Indeed it is ridiculous, since I was disputing your actual moderation (remember, that thing that could be summarized as “cool it with the sarcasm”) in approved channels and not in GD, while I was discussing factual claims in the thread which were distinct from your moderation. > [@Marley23](#): > > In the thousands of words you’ve wasted on this non-issue, you have said nothing that has made me reconsider my decision. I know you’ve dug your heels in and won’t be budged, but read this thread a year from now and ask yourself how it is that you thought that something that had been discussed in half a dozen posts hadn’t been discussed at all but was only “intended” to be discussed. Then ask yourself if you hadn’t reasoned your way into a position in the first place, how could I have reasoned you out of it? By the way, not that the whole “TLDR” thing isn’t the height of reasoned, nay, quality posting, but can you perhaps shift to “stop using SAT words!” instead? Just for variety’s sake, you see. > [@Giraffe](#): > > What’s amazing is that **Marley** made exactly two posts in that whole thread before the warning, both clearly labeled **Moderating** , both of which **FinnAgain** argued with, and yet even that irrefutable fact can’t be conceded. What’s amazing is that you’ve decided to post something that’s clearly not true, and that doesn’t bother you. I already conceded the fact that I did, in fact, originally state that Marley’s claim that I was being overly rude was ridiculous. In this very thread. Being factually accurate shouldn’t be that difficult for you, Giraffe. But of course, Marley’s moderation, that I was to refrain from being “rude”, was no longer being discussed by the point where he claimed I was discussing his moderation. > [@Giraffe](#): > > "No, I wasn’t _discussing_ those posts, I was just pointing out how wrong they were and why I thus didn’t have to follow them. Can you be the poster to, finally, cite where Marley gave instructions that I was to follow that included how I was not to disagree with Bricker’s description of my own words? Because, of course, I did follow the actual moderation. And I haven’t argued that I didn’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/45 "2011-08-20T18:46:34Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Can you be the poster to, finally, cite where Marley gave instructions that I was to follow that included how I was not to disagree with Bricker’s description of my own words? Because, of course, I did follow the actual moderation. And I haven’t argued that I didn’t have to. Here it is. The first post you linked to in your OP, oddly enough. If you can’t see that it says stop pointlessly arguing with **Bricker** , then you’re not reading in English. > [@Do the new tobacco warnings violate 1st Amendment rights?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/60): > > **FinnAgain** , enough already. You are being unnecessarily rude and your comments about other posters have little to no basis in reality. I thought **Bricker** ’s summary of the situation (post #41) was accurate, and your last few posts have added a lot of unnecessary vitriol to this thread. Restrain yourself. If I’ve missed any subtle nuance in any of your posts that would explain precisely why you failed to comprehend this, it’s because I’m only off work until Monday afternoon, and don’t have time to read every word you’ve written. If you killed off a few major characters every now and then, you’d give George R R Martin a run for his money. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/46 "2011-08-20T19:01:04Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Correct John, you do not get to. Moderating means to tell someone to change their behavior. Moderating does not mean anything at all that’s said in a post in which a mod engages in moderation. This might be most hilarious example of demonstrating the point you think you’re disproving that I’ve ever seen. A: “You don’t get to define what moderation means.” B: “That’s right, _you_ don’t. Moderation means [insert definition of what moderation means].” [QUOTE=FinnAgain] What’s amazing is that you’ve decided to post something that’s clearly not true, and that doesn’t bother you. I already conceded the fact that I did, in fact, originally state that Marley’s claim that I was being overly rude was ridiculous. In this very thread. Being factually accurate shouldn’t be that difficult for you, Giraffe. But of course, Marley’s moderation, that I was to refrain from being “rude”, was no longer being discussed by the point where he claimed I was discussing his moderation. Can you be the poster to, finally, cite where Marley gave instructions that I was to follow that included how I was not to disagree with Bricker’s description of my own words? Because, of course, I did follow the actual moderation. And I haven’t argued that I didn’t have to. [/QUOTE] I know this won’t work, but what the hey. Here is the cite where Marley gave instructions that you were to follow. > [@Do the new tobacco warnings violate 1st Amendment rights?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/68): > > **FinnAgain** , this is not the forum for disputes about moderating. > [@Do the new tobacco warnings violate 1st Amendment rights?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/69): > > I have disputed, and clearly debunked, your _factual errors_. This is the forum for discussing those, as you claimed that Bricker’s obviously false claims were accurate. See, for instance, the dozen seperate cites of me doing something that Bricker claimed I did not do, and you agreed that I did not do. Moderate to your heart’s content, but you can not claim that factual claims are the same as moderation. Now, it’s true that **Marley** ’s instructions didn’t include “how [you were] not to disagree with Bricker’s description of [your] own words” but here’s the fascinating part: **that’s totally irrelevant!** Because even though you didn’t feel the instructions were fair, they were unambiguous: stop arguing with me about moderation in this thread. Responding to that instruction with further argument: immediate violation of said instruction. That’s it! That’s the whole thing. No need for a thousand more words of blah blah, it couldn’t be more cut and dried. ---
**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:** [August 20, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/47 "2011-08-20T19:29:06Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Here it is. The first post you linked to in your OP, oddly enough. Nope, not there either. The instruction was, as Marley just summarized, “cool it with the sarcasm”. Even in the original that you just posted, the instruction was that I was to stop “being unnecessarily rude” since my “comments about other posters have little to no basis in reality.” Those “comments”, as Marley clarified via PM, were what he read as accusations of game-playing and dishonesty. So not only am I actually reading English, you seem not to be. Or, to put a finer point on it, reading something that’s not actually in the English you quoted. Bonus points, however, for the creative (and original!) complaint about how awful it is to have to read posts that contain so many words that[they might take an average, non-exceptional reader](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.12.2890&rep=rep1&type=pdf) upwards of _an entire handfull of minutes_. Not that “lol, u rite lots of wurds, wordy mcworderson!” is not a biting, truly devastating criticism, mind you. Seriously though, try switching to “stop using SAT words, foureyes!”, just for variety’s sake. > [@Giraffe](#): > > Here is the cite where Marley gave instructions that you were to follow. > […] > stop arguing with me about moderation in this thread. You’re phoning it in by this point. Marley just admitted, right above, that the actual moderation was that I shouldn’t be so sarcastic. I wasn’t discussing that. Therefore, I didn’t violate any instructions since I was discussing a factual analysis of my own words, not whether or not I should be sarcastic. This is basic. But feel free to avoid it if it means you can try to poke me with a stick some. And, naturally, "I also notice that you’d prefer to focus on this point rather than discuss the rather clear implications of a mod choosing to moderate for content if they didn’t read for content in the first place. Or why it was perfectly acceptable for Bricker to “discuss moderation” as long as he was using it as support for his claim that he was factually correct, but anybody who disagreed with him would’ve been Warned. Or what it says that Marley honestly believes that [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14151298&postcount=62) was a mere statement of facts and not a bandwagon fallacy argument-via-implication. " ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/48 "2011-08-20T19:34:32Z")
Here’s a hint: Anything and everything a moderate writes, in his function as a moderator, is “moderating”. Anything. Everything. You’re trying to slice a part of the mod note and say it wasn’t moderating. I can’t imagine where you get that from. ---
**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:** [August 20, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/49 "2011-08-20T19:47:35Z")
Well, you think it’s not absurd to claim that “today is Friday” is an act of moderation. Or if a mod says “You may not have the background to understand this because you’re from Australia, but Showgirls was a fairly contentious film in the United States and it’s a highly charged subject, so don’t discuss it in this thread.” and you respond “Actually I’m not from Australia” that not only are you discussing moderating, but you’re willfully refusing to comply with a moderator’s instructions by claiming that you are not, in fact, from Australia. That’s glory for you. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re trying to slice a part of the mod note and say it wasn’t moderating. One might even argue that the actual moderating could be summarized as “cool it with the sarcasm”. And if **that** was the case, then it might become clear that tangential comments weren’t part of the actual moderation. But, I mean, what are the odds that someone with the ability to know exactly what the contents of the moderation were would tell us that they were “cool it with the sarcasm?” \*Yet again I also notice that you’d prefer to focus on this point rather than discuss the rather clear implications of a mod choosing to moderate for content if they didn’t read for content in the first place. Or why it was perfectly acceptable for Bricker to “discuss moderation” as long as he was using it as support for his claim that he was factually correct, but anybody who disagreed with him would’ve been Warned. Or what it says that Marley honestly believes that [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14151298&postcount=62) was a mere statement of facts and not a bandwagon fallacy argument-via-implication. " \* ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/50 "2011-08-20T19:49:40Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You’re phoning it in by this point. Marley just admitted, right above, that the actual moderation was that I shouldn’t be so sarcastic. I wasn’t discussing that. Therefore, I didn’t violate any instructions since I was discussing a factual analysis of my own words, not whether or not I should be sarcastic. This is basic. OK, I’m going to try something. Can you answer two yes or no questions for me? Ideally, with literally just the words “yes” or “no”, but I’ll accept a “yes, but…[1000 words]” or “no, but…[1000 words].” Just try to make the first word of each response yes or no: 1. Did Marley issue a moderator instruction telling you to stop discussing moderation in that GD thread? 2. If yes, did your response to that post in any way discuss his moderation? Feel free to ask your own questions, but first please answer these questions, not other questions you feel are more relevant. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/51 "2011-08-20T20:17:36Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Well, you think it’s not absurd to claim that “today is Friday” is an act of moderation. Or if a mod says “You may not have the background to understand this because you’re from Australia, but Showgirls was a fairly contentious film in the United States and it’s a highly charged subject, so don’t discuss it in this thread.” and you respond “Actually I’m not from Australia” that not only are you discussing moderating, but you’re willfully refusing to comply with a moderator’s instructions by claiming that you are not, in fact, from Australia. > > That’s glory for you. Sure you can argue about it. You can do it outside ATMB and risk getting warned for doing so, or you can do it in ATMB and argue to your heart’s delight without risk of getting warned. > [@](#): > > One might even argue that the actual moderating could be summarized as “cool it with the sarcasm”. > And if **that** was the case, then it might become clear that tangential comments weren’t part of the actual moderation. But, I mean, what are the odds that someone with the ability to know exactly what the contents of the moderation were would tell us that they were “cool it with the sarcasm?” > > \*Yet again I also notice that you’d prefer to focus on this point rather than discuss the rather clear implications of a mod choosing to moderate for content if they didn’t read for content in the first place. Or why it was perfectly acceptable for Bricker to “discuss moderation” as long as he was using it as support for his claim that he was factually correct, but anybody who disagreed with him would’ve been Warned. Or what it says that Marley honestly believes that [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14151298&postcount=62) was a mere statement of facts and not a bandwagon fallacy argument-via-implication. " > \* I don’t really care to read through that whole crazy thread to figure out whether or not **Marley** ’s first mod post was factually correct. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/52 "2011-08-20T21:20:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Marley claimed that Bricker’s summary in post 41 was correct. That is, that I had merely “intended to say was that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever”, instead of actually having done so. > > However, starting in my very first post, I explicitly discussed how the precedent of placing warning labels on cigarette packs applied and that there was no material difference between a verbal or a pictoral warning. [In fact I either explicitly (or very, very clearly by implication) discussed that factor a total of six times in the thread by post 41](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14151465&postcount=64), which Marley claimed was accurate when it stated that I had only “intended” to discuss that issue. As much as you accuse others of cherry-picking their quotes, I’ve noticed that you left part of **Bricker** ’s post #41 out. Here is the complete quote: > [@Bricker](#): > > FinnAgain and NotreDame05: > > I think your dispute arises from the fact that you’re arguing different things, and I suspect it’s a lawyerese problem. > > NotreDame05’s point is correct: we can’t analyze this question by merely pointing out the Commerce Clause. > > FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did. What he intended to say was that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever. He did not intend to say that we can regulate labels solely because of the Commerce Clause. > > I think. It’s those last two words that are telling. **Bricker** didn’t say that you specifically said what you’re disputing; he seems to be saying that, given your posts and tone, that it’s fair to state that that is the way you feel. Small difference in the language, but huge difference in meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/53 "2011-08-20T23:20:25Z")
FinnAgain, unlike your posts on Israel which I can generally follow with no trouble, your comments in that thread read like the screamed invectives of someone in the throes of nicotine withdrawal. There was over-the-top snark from you, and incessant opaque sarcasm rather than clear re-stating of the relevant issues. You’re coming off badly here, and either need to drop it or say whatever you’re trying to say much more clearly. And much more briefly. I recommend dropping it. ---
**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:** [August 21, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/54 "2011-08-21T03:23:33Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > As much as you accuse others of cherry-picking their quotes, I’ve noticed that you left part of **Bricker** ’s post #41 out. No, I haven’t. He claimed that I merely intended to discuss the precedent of warning labels. I’d done so, in actuality, a half dozen times in separate posts. Saying that I probably feel that way but didn’t actually say it doesn’t change the fact that he’s claiming I didn’t actually say it. If anything it’s still condescending nonsense. > [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > screamed invectives I find it amusing when fairly mild posts, especially ones that I wrote while being amused by some fairly inept strawmanning of my position rather than at all angered, are described in such terms. It’s also interesting that some posters understood that I was being humorous and I didn’t need to restate anything since the thread was perfectly clear, and others thought I was deeply offended, and such. Of course, I did restate my position several times, and repeatedly pointed out that we had half a century of precedent allowing it, while challenging any poster to describe a material difference between words and pictures and why one would be permitted but another would violate first amendment protections. Ah well, such is life. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/55 "2011-08-21T05:10:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **Marley23** : In the thousands of words you’ve wasted on this non-issue, you have said nothing that has made me reconsider my decision. This is the kind of response that puts you in a bad light in these ATMB discussions, **Marley.** You think he’s wasted his words because you didn’t change your decision? He hasn’t wasted his words at all if it gave the questions raised a good airing And here, you don’t get to determine whether or not a complaint against you is a non-issue. Each of us may have an opinion about the call in the other thread, but this _is_ obviously an issue. I won’t express my opinion of whether or not you should have changed your original decision. But for you to read these “thousands of words” and not even _reconsider_ your original decision is arrogance. Before you became a moderator, I more often than not agreed with your general opinions. I harbor no personal ill will toward you. But you are unusually hard-headed. You also _appear_ to see yourself as above it all. These qualities do not serve you well as a moderator. (If you are not seeing yourself as a cut above the rest of us, you might want to pay more attention to your dismissiveness.) ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2011, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/56 "2011-08-21T12:51:35Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > But for you to read these “thousands of words” and not even _reconsider_ your original decision is arrogance. You’re interpreting “reconsider” in a overly literal fashion. Supposed I give someone an F on a report, and they then visit me in my office and offer multiple reasons (and 5,000 words) why they should get a C: –I don’t appreciate their depth of thought –I wasn’t clear in my instructions –Other people’s papers were worse. I might think about their points, and that could be viewed as “reconsideration.” But in truth the report was horrible, a clear F, and at no point did anything the student say seem like important new information. In such a case I could I say that nothing the person said made me “reconsider” my decision, and it would be a valid, if non-literal, use of the term. ---
**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:** [August 21, 2011, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/57 "2011-08-21T13:44:49Z")
Someone needs to do something about his diarrhea. It’s dripping from ATMB to the other forums. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260.md?page=2)