# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260/8 "2011-08-19T04:30:16Z")
Oops; perhaps my mistake. I was referring to chiming in with a different viewpoint or disputing Bricker’s post #41, which came pre-moderation: > [@Do the new tobacco warnings violate 1st Amendment rights?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/42): > > 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. His post seemed to (congenially) point out the arguing past each other problem, and in doing so he gave his honest, subjective interpretation of FinnAgain’s post–that his intended meaning differed from the plain language of his posts (eek, I’m trying to avoid delving in to the merits of the actual dispute, so here I hope I didn’t just mis-interpret Bricker’s post). I assume that before your moderation, had someone chimed in and said something like “no, Bricker, Finn clearly intended to say _X_,” that would have been fine. After your mod note, if someone wrote something similar, e.g. “I don’t Bricker’s summary of the situation (post #41) was accurate, because of _Y_,” would that gotten a warning for arguing a mod ruling, continuing a hijack, something else, or nominally acceptable? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marley-if-you-cant-moderately-honestly-then-recuse-yourself-or-respect-mahlays-authoritay/593260)._