I didn’t claim “he said” it.
No, “imagined” implies it was not a good inference from his actual words. I responded to the clearest literal interpretation. Interpretation is not imagination.
Not explicit =/= different meaning.
Like I said before, that’s your privilege.
…but Gods forbid us posters get uppity and do exactly the same thing…:rolleyes:
I didn’t have a particular “history of animosity” with that poster. Before that post, obviously. But I was quite familiar with his stances on things.
*Now *who’s putting words in whose mouth?
Naah - consistency would be making this one a warning.
I’m not arguing that my warning wasn’t valid. I said “Fuck you” to someone in IMHO, after all. Justified as it was, it was against the rules.
I *am *arguing that the reasoning given why *this *isn’t a warning is post hoc bullshit.
By your definition, you just put words in his mouth (he didn’t state is was “based on personal animosity”). It was an interpretation, which is necessary for much of communication. Just like your interpretation that he meant that his angry response was “based on personal animosity”.
It really is possible to interpret something in different ways, and that doesn’t necessarily mean putting words into someone else’s mouth.
(Cue for a long discussion about what it exactly means to “put words into someone’s mouth”)
Fine. That means you agree that he put words in the other poster’s mouth (to put words in your mouth).
But “interpreting it” means that the poster said something different than he actually said. So you agree that the poster’s literal comment was different from what was attributed to it.
Hi. Well, I’m glad the conversation has shifted away from me now. 
Listen, what I said was wrong and I admit it. Had I been given a warning I would have agreed to it, but a mod note was sufficient for me to take a step back and calm down.
The OP of that original thread, to which I replied, has a transgender step-son. I have a transgender daughter. The OP and I sometimes communicate via other media and as you can imagine some of this stuff regarding homophobia, etc. is quite real to us and downright hurtful to experience.
Mea culpa. I shan’t do it again and once again, I apologize. Thank you engineer_comp_geek for your patience and understanding.
And weirdly, just as I was about to post to this thread, as the OP of the thread that is in question, Leaffan posts. I disagree with Leaffan about many aspects of politics, 9Plus, he’s a Toronto Maple Leafs fan…I live in Vancouver…) but I respect him because he is upstanding in his human rights stances, immigration, rights for the transgendered, etc.
I was concerned when I saw Leaffan’s post I did not want him to go to SMDB jail, get warnings etc. I messaged him privately. I saw it was a Note, and I was confused but relieved.
Anyway, carry on with your hijack.
Statement quoted : ten more years of Apartheid would have been a good thing.
Statement actually made: the final ten years of Apartheid aren’t a good reason for disliking Reagan.
Yeah, I see a huge distinction there. Bad boy for misquoting him.
Interpretation is about what was meant, not what was said. He said X – by saying X, I think it’s clear he meant Y.
But that’s not really the meat of why I challenged you – I challenged you because you said MrDibble made a false statement about that other poster. Unless you can read minds, you don’t know that either. You might think he interpreted it wrong, but you can’t know for sure (and neither can he). Since you’re a moderator, I think that’s an important distinction to make.
Also, I wanted to make it clear that MrDibble isn’t the only one who interpreted those words as he did. Reasonable people can disagree on such things, and IMO reasonable people are disagreeing in this case.
That’s a bad argument. Explaining something simply means that you don’t think the person you are explaining it to understands. It’s extremely common that what is obvious to one person is not obvious to another. I’ve had to explain post that were obvious to me several times.
MrDibble is the closest thing on this board we have to an expert on Apartheid, as far as I know. He lives in the area where it happened, and is himself black. He is also well educated, and is an online activist, and thus experiences the tactics of the other side a lot.
It’s entirely expected that he would notice something that you guys wouldn’t related to the subject, and then have to try and explain what is obvious to him.
I’m not Black. I’m Coloured.
Me too. I’m sort of a beigy-pink.
You’ve just got to use the “u”, don’t you?
It’s a proper namefor the ethnicity, it’d be wrong to spell it “Colored” even if you’re an American. Even Wikipedia gets that.
Ouch. I did not know that.
Sorry. We coul?
Mr. Dibble, does Coloured have a negative, positive, or neutral connotation? I was in South Africa during Apartheid (1982) & heard the term a lot & as an American (who would also be classified as Coloured under SA’s definition), I found the term to be quite offensive. So I’m curious as to how it is perceived today.
It’s completely neutral to most people. Some people do prefer other terms, especially when they can be certain of more specificity, but most Coloureds can’t, and don’t care. The term’s never carried the offence of the American “colored folk” here, there were much worse terms for that (hence my problem with the username Hottentot Venus a few years ago) plus it was never applied to Black people, so wasn’t really the same usage as “colored”.
I agree. I think his interpretation was correct.