Let’s discuss it mano y mano, instead of man to mod.
Tell me that this comment
from here, would have been accepted by you if anyone else had said it in GD.
Or does the cheeky wink at the end make it permissible?
What’s the problem? Marley23 said the guy’s findings were garbage. That’s attacking the post, and not the poster, as is proper in GD.
So, lead by example and attack the post in a manner befitting how you would like to see GD functioning.
“Your argument is garbage” is surely not the sort of comment you want from a moderator in GD, is it?
If he is so disinterested that he can’t offer a more substantial rebuttal, he should have kept his nose out.
If he’d said "Your argument is garbage and here is why… ", I’d have had nothing to complain about, and when I mentioned it, he should have replied, “I know, it was bad form.”, but instead he had to go shining up his boots and donning them.
Meh. The OP in that thread dripped with crazy. It didn’t really deserve a carefully thought out response. Frankly, “Bull Shit” would have been a perfectly adequate rebuttal.
Yup, nothing wrong with that. I’ve said much, much worse things about someone’s argument in GD, and have never even been warned.
We’re discussing moderation, so I’ve moved it to ATMB. I’m happy to explain my view on the rules, but I’m not interested in going mano a mano. (You wanted pompous, you got pompous.)
Yes, it would have. It’s a description of an argument and it’s not a personal insult. Here are a few recent usages that did not receive a warning.
I also did a review of the Mod forums and did not find any warnings for describing another poster’s argument as garbage. So I think I’m on firm ground in saying that it’s definitely allowed.
ivan astikov, did you read more than the last few posts? I posted six times in that thread before I (accurately) described the OP’s theory as garbage. The other six posts, as well as the one you’re objecting to, all dealt with the merits of his argument.
Yes, but you aren’t a moderator who normally frowns on that sort of intellectual laziness.
I read the entire thread. Your 6 posts contained a lot of opinions, a couple of demands for citations, a couple of pertinent questions and a hyperlink to some paintings of Jesus, whereas, whatever their merits, the OP out-cited every other contributor to the thread put together.
OH NO you dint! You’re accusing him of doing something he FROWNS on?
Snap!
Citing bullshit to support bullshit doth not a winning argument make.
I’m just scratchin’ my head about why ivan astikov feels the need to ride to Egmond Codfield’s rescue. It’s not like he’s (Egmond Codfield, that is) interested in being a Doper.
Your OP is garbage.
Regards,
Shodan
I appreciate that. But by the time I said that, the OP had made about 40 posts in support of his theory that 16th to 18th century European monarchs were secretly black. None of his evidence held up to even a little scrutiny, and he was dodging a very basic question from me. Most of his cites were links to pictures that did not explain or support his theory, and the arguments he gave to back up the theory were either equally unsupported, or made even less sense than the theory itself (all whites are descended from albinos? The royal families kept their blackness secret, but they commissioned art depicting Jesus and Mary as black, and had no use for a white Jesus, but plenty of artists depicted him as white?). So by that point I don’t think it’s intellectually lazy to call it garbage.
Nor does “Your argument sucks”.
Explain to the OP and interested onlookers “Why it sucks” and don’t assume everyone has the same knowledge of history and any other factors involved, that you have.
Remember that old “fighting ignorance” rally cry?
It was his first thread, offering an intriguing, if off-beat idea and I wanted to see it countered in the detailed style I’m accustomed to on the Dope.
Because all conspiracy theories need to be derfended from the likes of the rationalists and skeptics that thrive on this board.
And so is your opinion… ner ner!
It’s mano a mano.
Too late.