The comment in question was directed at this statement:
That is post about a personal decision made. There is nothing separating the post and the poster. If you disagree with the post you disagree with the poster’s decision. The rule should not apply in such cases. The rule should only apply to ad hominem attacks when the poster attacked is not an element of their own argument.
Yes, that’s why I disagree with the interpretation upthread. That using a second person pronoun is what renders it an attack (where some rewording of it to exclude the pronoun is a-okay) is beyond nitpicky to me. It seems like a non sequitur.
I don’t see any real daylight between what I posted (which basically echoed what the poster actually said, adding “well, that’s good enough for me”) and the various “approved” rewordings.
FYI: Not the first time I kicked up a major shitstorm for expressing an opinion (yes, that one) most people don’t agree with, and it doesn’t really make any difference to them, here or in meatspace.
I know what I saw and heard, and how I chose to interpret it, and haven’t changed that opinion in over 30 years. Once again, YMMV.
Considering that this was just a pointless exercise in rules lawyering over something that was just a mod note to start with, and now we’re getting other old issues dragged into this thread, I think we’re done here.
If anyone has a compelling reason to re-open this, send me a PM. Otherwise, from where I sit, we’re done here.
Thread closed.