It has been confirmed, via private message from tomndebb, that thisdoesn’t even merit a mod note in GD:
For the record.
Damuri Ajashi was attacking your post, not you. He called your argument retarded. He didn’t call you retarded. Not a personal attack per the rules.
That’s good news. I appreciate the consistency since such a comment would never have warranted a note for as long as I have been posting here.
It’s clearly an attack on an argument and not a poster. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way. But it’s long been policy here to tolerate some speech that might otherwise be seen as offensive in the interests of promoting debate and discussion.
That said…
At no point in your report do you mention anything about being offended and word choice. Your first report consisted of nothing more than, “Personal Attack”. Your second one was less enlightening that the first.
Did his second report say “Mostly Personal Attack” ? 
And there is sufficient precedent for issuing mod notes for the use of the word *retarded *when attacking a post.
Wait, what? The “attack the post, not the poster” is a distinction that you have mostly gotten rid of. When someone vehemently attacks a post, you often say it is a personal attack by implication.
Furthermore, I do not see how “retarded” furthers discussion. It has many synonyms–e.g. stupid, moronic, idiotic–and is considered a slur by quite a few people. And calling an argument stupid tends to not really promote discussion. It thus seems the least useful word to be allowed for “promoting debate and discussion.”
The aforementioned slur status (in that many people regard it as one) is also probably why the OP did not specify the problem. He thought it was obvious. I admit, I would have, too. It is the R-word. If a word has that form of circumlocution, it’s obviously a more offensive word than most.
In conclusion, I actually do tend to argue for precedent. But you are the one who generally doesn’t. You’ve set up your own criteria and changed how GD is moderate. So I am completely surprised by your response.
It is not consistent with how the board has been moderated lately.
And using it of a person would be a slur. But how do offend an argument?
Why, argument, what tangled syntax you have.
Your argument is ugly, can’t dress itself without help, and has the manners of a maladjusted orangutan
Hey, argument, if i was gonna break your balls, I’d tell you to go home and get your shine box.
Your argument’s mother wears army boots!
Your argument is not well-defined!
<tyrannosaur voice>Master? I just think this argument wasn’t thought all the way through.</tv>
Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
OH! Oh! I’m sorry! This is abuse!
I’m no fan of the word “retarded” being used in this way and while I may be personally bothered or even mildly offended, we’re not acting as editors here making sure everyone makes their most cogent arguments.
All three of us (and I assume Gaudere too) saw the report, and all independently came to the same conclusion. No moderation was necessary. Obviously there may be times when similar usage would warrant action, depending on context. This was not one of those times.
There’s a long history of mods accepting the transparent fiction of calling a post stupid to avoid calling a poster stupid, and also a long history of the mods not letting it slide. I can’t figure out any pattern except for what side of the bed the mod got out of that morning.
This is a long standing sore point. Could all the mods push their beds up against a wall so they have to emerge from the same side every day?
Wouldn’t help. We’ve have to sleep in the same bed for it to work.
Thanks, but no. God knows where the other two have been.
I find your collective decisions to be intelligent and well-mannered.
While we’re on the subject of retarded arguments, I’m wondering why this particular topic remains in GD… ?