# Question about edited dickeries. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 6, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-edited-dickeries/466656 "2008-10-06T12:50:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 58
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2008, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-edited-dickeries/466656/58 "2008-10-07T19:28:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You were talking about the poster, not the post. We’ve always made that distinction, for example, in allowing criticisms of posts and arguments in Great Debates while not allowing flaming of posters. So now you’re telling me what I think? Q.E.D. isn’t allowed to guess what mods are thinking but you know what I’m thinking better than I do? How is that you can do that? Well, you answering that is pointless since I’ll have to go by your decision regardless. Either way, thanks for clearing that up for me. I so often am unaware of how I mean things. > [@Marley23](#): > > You’re not new here. There’s been a rule about not wishing death on _other posters_ in the Pit since time immemorial, and the exception proves the rule. It’s part of the same rule **AT** broke, it’s clearly written in the Pit rules, and you must know that, so I’m not sure why I have to explain this. That rule very specifically does not include non-posters, so wishing death on non-posters in the Pit isn’t an issue here. I guess you have to explain this (see how you can use sarcasm here and it’s not the Pit, neat!) because (once again) the decision you arrive at is (as you mention below) in direct opposition to Ed’s rule. Please don’t pretend that you’re enlightening me about anything here, what you’re actually doing is justifying your earlier explanation of why you feel his death wishes were irrelevant. In simple words, and I guess I’m not sure why _I_ have to explain this, you were aware that there is a rule about not threatening or wishing death on people and decided that AT’s threats and death wishes were justified because someone called his girlfriend ugly. > [@Marley23](#): > > That does contradict Ed’s remarks in the registration agreement. Maybe that part of the agreement should be amended, or maybe Ed is aware and the admins feel the registration agreement should be consistent about that, with exceptions made only in the Pit rules. That’s between you, Ed, and the other mods/admins. Until such a change is made, we (well, some of us) have to follow the rules as Ed has written them. > [@Marley23](#): > > I notice you left out the racial slurs which were key to this entire situation. That’s not an honest or faithful representation of what’s been discussed here. > > Hate speech has a specific meaning that deals with prejudice. One poster expressing his hatred for another poster is not hate speech and shouldn’t be described as such. I left it out because I never saw it before it was edited out. AT had already made his threats BEFORE **askeptic** pointed it out in post #114. Regardless of what AT thinks, saying that she is Asian in his original assessment of her “beauty” isn’t racist anymore than what was pointed out in post #184: > [@I sick of ralph124c and his stupidity.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-sick-of-ralph124c-and-his-stupidity/466321/184): > > Someone might have said, for instance Carrot Top looks like a “retarded Irish guy.” I see it in that the same light. So AT wasn’t aware of the edited comment EITHER when he made those threats. So, moot point. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-edited-dickeries/466656)._