I concur. To my ears, they all sound like personal attacks. All would tend to raise the hackles of the person at whom they are directed. None add anything of substance to a debate.
Glad to amuse you.
You might want to consider the fact that you are agreeing with someone who posts the refutation of his own nonsense.
Merry Christmas.
Regards,
Shodan
And it gets even funnier … 
Damn straight.
Not your brother - that’s the whole point, you Afrocentric airhead.
Yay! Xmas comes early!
Checks Forum.
You are lying.
The statement using “ratchet back” refers to the earlier Mod action telling everyone to cool down. It was not a statement on my activity in that post. Following that earlier Mod action, you attempted a hijack asking a spurious rhetorical question designed to pretend that you had not engaged in activity similar to that which I was telling all posters to abandon.
The statement that your dishonest “clarification” was bullshit was not a personal attack–it was a Moderator’s official observation regarding your behavior.
You may not be lying here, just incredibly self-involved and stupid.
If I tell all posters to scale back the hostility and you disingenuously reply that you had done nothing hostile and was I really placing a ban on some topic that was not even involved in the thread, my quoting your explicit expressions of hostility is nothing more than demonstrating that you had engaged in the overall negative behavior. It is hardly some sort of “ruling” that certain explicit phrases have been banned, either temporarily or permanently.
I get the impression from reading your stuff that the phrase “semantic bullshit” is nothing more than your catchphrase for “Fooey. I got caught saying something dumb one more time.” but whatever rocks your world, guy.
Actually, the only “ruling” that has been made among three separate Moderators over the course of a few days watching the consensus build in this thread was that the statement “You are a liar” would no longer be given a pass in GD. I, personally, am not making any specific rulings on a hypothetical situation on my own. We’ve been watching the thread to see whether any further clarifications are needed and what the opinions of the TM might be regarding those clarifications.
= = =
The declarative sentences “Poster X is an idiot.” and “Poster X is a liar.” have a nice parallel structure that makes the call fairly simple.
There is no similar parallel structure to “Poster X is lying.”
Is this statement an attack on the poster or on the argument put forth? I have seen both positions defended. Several posters in this thread have expressed various sentiments regarding a variety of expressions. It would be nice if everyone in GD simply behaved with the utmost civility at all times, but since that will not happen, we are looking for some consensus among the posters where they would like to see the lines drawn. We are not going to impose a rule hastily so that we can modify it four times before it begins to function well. If this this thread can carry on that discussion without being sidetracked by personal grudges, we may arrive at a decision sooner.
You said, very specifically, that the statement using “rachet back” was intended to include my reference to the OP as a “steaming pile” and my calling John Edwards an idiot. Those were the only two examples you cited.
Of course it’s not - you are exempting yourself from the rules you are setting for everyone else. That’s why it was hypocritical.
Horseshit. Pure, unrefined horseshit. I said, clearly and specifically, that I was calling John Edwards an idiot and an economic dolt. And I asked for a clarification if the rule allowing insulting off-board groups was being revoked.
My characterization of the OP in the thread was not a personal attack either. Yet you found it necessary to put a stop to it, for the sake of the debate. And then do the same thing, no matter the effect on the debate.
Emphasis added.
Again, your own words show that you are being other than factual.
You state quite clearly that you had imposed a ruling on behavior about which I asked. So my request for a clarification was not at all dishonest.
Merry Christmas.
Regards,
Shodan
You were the only poster who whined that you had not been doing anything wrong so I only needed to cite your open hostility to demonstrate that you had displayed hostility. Try to keep up.
I told others to avoid insults. I made a professional observation about your denial that you had hurled insults. Try to keep up.
And you posted that red herring for the sole purpose of pretending that you were not adding to the hostility of the thread.
I originally deliberately did not mention you or any other poster when I told everyone to ratchet back the hostility. I never singled you out and I never claimed that your particular actions were evil. I told everyone to cool off and only when you came whining in with your off-topic complaint did I point out that you had contributed to the situation.
No. You are revising history. My initial statement was
Which is a pretty clear statement that the “insults” were only limited in that particular thread (“in this thread” is repeated twice) and that I wanted the overall hostile tone to be cooled off. You replied with the self-serving
So you make a big deal about grabbing your knee and rolling around in front of the ref when the answer to your question is included in my same post you quoted. You then deliberately ignore that the rule was imposed for that thread only to make a fairly dumb observation that it would be bad to try to enforce it for the next many months.
To which you replied, again, with your self-serving
in which you make a point of pretending my point was not clear while further pretending that you had had no part in the general rancor of the thread.
That is the dishonest part on which I called you. And since you were interrupting the thread to make your whiny complaint, I called you on it in blunt language.
So, when Shodan and tomndebb are done with their pissing match, let’s not forget some remaining clarifications to be made. Please make a note of getting back to my post #135.
I’m sure that’s true.
What I don’t believe is that you have never in your life lied.
And I do not identify myself as a liar. I have lied (as has everyone, which is my point), but I do not believe that makes me a liar (again, that’s my point).
I nearly never lie at this point in my life, and when I do it is invariably to people I don’t know over things that aren’t important, just to simplify my life (for instance, lying to the DWP when I tell them I am my sister when I call about her bill on her behalf.)
I don’t think that kind of lying makes it accurate or meaningful to call me a liar. Because pretty much everyone tells little stupid lies like that. And I think most people have occasionally told a more significant lie over something more important, but don’t generally do that, and I don’t think it’s fair to use that to label someone a liar, either.
A liar is someone who lies frequently, easily, for their own gain or amusment, generally without concern or remorse over having done so, in my opinion.
And for the record, I can’t stand lying. It’s my #1 issue with people, so it’s not like I’m defending something here. It’s sort of because I have such a problem with it that I think it’s important to draw distinctions around the ways and reasons and motives and frequency of the lies that people tell.
I agree. Imputing motive isn’t the way to go.
To say someone is ‘deliberately’ misreading something, for example. Or saying someone is purposely misrepresenting something or lying, etc.
I think it’s much more useful for debate to just make assertions when appropriate about the truthfulness or accuracy of a given statement.
Disparaging a statement or belief seems okay. Disparaging the person isn’t.
It’s against the rules to say someone is trolling, isn’t it? That seems to be part of the philosophy of not imputing motives.
Nzinga, Seated – I like your name. 
True enough.
I’ll readily agree that that’s a better, more complete definition than mine. I was going for pithy, but you’re right, your definition is both more accurate and more relevant. I stand corrected.
Though I believe we have been on opposite sides of some issues in other threads, Shodan, I must agree with you on this statement given my own experience.
I’m glad to see you stand up for yourself.
Given the constant imputations of motive being made by one side there, I think it’ll be a while! :rolleyes:
I’ve had unpleasant interactions with this same moderator but you and I would probably be on the opposite ends of most every debate or issue if you’re a religious or conservative person given that I’m about as opposite of that as can be imagined.
I also don’t know if the ban was warranted because I haven’t researched all the posts, but all I can say is this: much as it pains me to ‘defend’ (so to speak) **tomndebb **in any way about anything, I can’t imagine his reason for banning this guy could be because the person is a “conservative poster” as you theorized.
I don’t know what the reason was, but I can’t imagine that could be the reason given how opposite I am from conservative and nonetheless falsely accused of motives that I don’t have in my posts and other hostilities.
I’ll add that the post you quoted from epithet was eloquent, IMO.
Thank you very much!
Can’t we at least say someone is lying to themselves? However will Der Trihs live without that?
Highly doubt anyone is intentionally misleading anyone else. Probably a case of mistaken knowledge. Therefore calling someone a liar is highly insulting.
How about calling them a sock puppet?
Regards,
Shodan