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.
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.