Marley, if you can't moderately honestly, then recuse yourself. Or: Respect Mahlay's Authoritay!

[Marley23]

Here’s what I was moderating:

@FinnAgain

Lawyerball. Gotta love it.

@FinnAgain

Yet again, as that didn’t actually happen, your reliance on it remains less than persuasive. Unless, of course, your argument is invalid because you were riding on a unicorn while talking with an elf, in which case, okay, game on. […]

It was proven by the fact that the unicorn you were riding got into a fight with a gryphon, but then both of them got eaten by a dragon, and so I win.
Yes?

@FinnAgain

Yes, and your pet dinosaur ate my entire clutch of phoenyx eggs, no matter how stridently you deny it! Naturally, you’re engaging in some rather blatant cherrypicking. […]

Is that before or after your pixy army invaded my cerberus lair and made off with all their philosopher’s stones?

[…] Strangely, when it was shown that you were wrong and all of your arguments actually supported what I’d said all along, not only were they no longer probative but now we had to wait and see and then, lo and behold, my arguments vanished altogether and were replaced with “Teh Uber ICC, also I ride dinosaurs!”

Curiouser and curiouser.

@FinnAgain

Does Lawyerball have innings?

@FinnAgain

Retraction of your spurious claim yet? Perhaps coupled with an acknowledgement that not only did I not, ever, say that we can “merely point to the CC” but, in fact, from my very first post in the thread, I pointed out that one of the issues at play was precedent? Maybe even an acknowledgement that not only did I do so, clearly and unambiguously but for Notre to claim otherwise weakens his argument significantly, and that for him to deliberately cherrypick my post to exclude my explicit mention of precedent further weakens his argument as a reliable, trustworthy narrative? Maybe even that your repetition of his fiction as fact puts your argument in the same category as his, as even a cursory glance at my actual first post in the thread clearly shows that I mentioned precedent clearly and your snarky “FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did” is not only counterfactual, but counterproductive to honest discussion?

@FinnAgain

Also interesting that you’re reduced to more snarky bullshit.
[…]
Perhaps you should return to backing up Notre’s devastating critique of how very wrong I was about the proper care and feeding of rokhs and how to deal with the elephant carcases they discard, rather than addressing the fact that both you and he have wildly mischaracterized my actual argument, and blatantly cherrypicked in order to do it, and then refused to retract your clear and proven errors, thereby casting doubt on the veracity of any other statement or analysis you have made or will make on this topic?

So… forklift to get rid of rokh-leavings?
Or are you thinking maybe a bulldozer?

@FinnAgain

Disingenuous twaddle.
[…]fresh bullshit[…]
As your argument now consists of ad hominem bullshit about synesthesia and a claim that 3/5 of my first post talking about the precedent of warning labels somehow was unclear on the fact that the issue of precedent of warning labels was involved, and you still refuse to retract your nonsense about how I never even mentioned precedent, your new revelation should be treated as if it shares the veracity of your previous claims. And if you are in error, one should, perforce, expect that you will be just as quick to admit it.
Of course.
Of course.

Naturally though, as you’re wrong and playing some rousing Lawyerball from the facade of Non-Loud Disinterested Observer and arguing in the teeth of the facts, your renewed snark just goes to show that not only is your factual and logical argument bankrupt, but you will reduce your argument to this much instead of simply admitting you’re incorrect.

I think the mods are very patient with you when you resort to these kinds of tactics. We rarely even comment on them (you’re often giving no worse than you’re getting). Like I told you, your sarcasm and rudeness were out of place in this thread and they were detracting from the discussion. You and NotreDame05 were talking past each other and not disagreeing materially about anything, but you appeared to be deeply offended that he said your reasoning on the Commerce Clause issue was incomplete. Your reaction was far out of line with the offense. I do not believe your words were distorted or abused or that anyone flagrantly misrepresented your arguments.

Here’s why you were warned:

@Marley23

FinnAgain, this is not the forum for disputes about moderating.

@FinnAgain

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.

@Marley23

Have it your way: this is a warning for ignoring my instructions. I haven’t participated in this thread as a poster, so any claims I made about the posts were made only in the context of moderating them. The topic of this thread is the proposed cigarette warning labels, not my reading comprehension.

I asked you to stop disputing my intervention in the thread, you continued to do so. There’s no exception for disputing the factual basis of the warning instead of the decision.