tomndebb, bring it!

Just kidding, as this isn’t a pitting, but simply a question for the mods about the GD “attack the post, not the poster” rule.

In this thread, RedFury stated:

While it’s a generic attack on FinnAgain’s posts about a specific subject, it still seems like it’s an attack on the post(s), not the poster. There are posters who appear to go completely insane when it comes to a given specific issue (I’m not particularly interested in accusing Finn of this, as I’m just using RedFury’s apparent take on things as an example), but seem completely rational in all other areas. I’ve always sort of assumed that noting this would be an attack on the argument, not the poster, as it’s basically saying that their arguments on this particular subject are crap, for one reason or another.

I admit that the generic nature of the attack on the argument makes it a tough call. I also understand the fact that one can avoid providing evidence for calling the argument crap by using this method. Even with that, it seems perfectly allowed for me to say “Your posts in this thread have all been shit” without providing evidence, and this just doesn’t seem that different.

You leave our our Mods alone! They try so hard…(sob)…they give and they give and you just (blubber, sob) tear them down!..

There, there, sweetheart…it’s okay. Really, it is.

Here’s a hanky and some fresh eye makeup.

There now, that’s a good boy.

To be fair, I hardly try at all. A monkey could do my job.

Seriously, I’m just randomly mashing buttons over here.

It tickles when he does that.



tomndebb gets cheated out of pitting points yet again!

Well, that explains a lot.

But are you mashing them with your prehensile tongue?

Let’s just say Buttons ain’t complainin’.

tomndebb is without a doubt the worst moderator here.

He is unfair, and wields his “mod-power” here with a power-high.

His posts never make any sense, and his arguments are simply circular logic and strawmen.


He usually spells correctly, though.


PS - I find it vaguely unsettling that the ad at the bottom is "Undo Circumcision Damage - The Your-Skin Cone will make you supple and sensitive like uncut men

“Finn writes edicts from a lofty perch.” is an attack on Finn. That’s because “Finn” is the subject of the sentence. “Finn’s posts are edicts written from a lofty perch” is what you’re looking for.

A general comment that a specific poster will not ever behave in a rational, (or, at least, unemotional) manner is an attack on the post?

That thread has already got emotions running high. I would just prefer that the emotions be directed against Carter or Shin Bet rather than other posters.

I got “Are you George W. Bush?” as an ad. That’s more than “vaguely unsettling”: have they finally worked out who I really am, and that it’s my evil twin Henry X. Bush occupying the White House?

On a specific subject, yes, but that’s just my opinion. There are people (hell, I’m probably one of them) who are perfectly rational in just about any area, but have one “hot button” which seems to turn them into insane lunatics. Again, I definitely understand the other side of the argument, and agree that RedFury should have been more pointed in his attack.

That’s certainly true, and I don’t have a big issue with enforcing the rule in the manner you did. Thanks for the clarification!

Do I have to call you a big weinie, since everyone seems to want me to make this a true mod pitting? :smiley:

That’s not true! I heard someone say you do the work of two men*.

*(Specifically: Laurel & Hardy)

Meh. I have no truck with Tom for issuing the warning. Although my intent indeed was to attack Finn’s usual diatribes on Israel, I can certainly see how the post didn’t parse that way.

If there’s a next time, I’ll kindly ask Lib to edit my post before sending it.

I know you’re a painfully stupid frothy moron, but the way you attack a “diatribe” is with facts, not your normal drooling spew. I know, I know, in your tiny angry little mind, slinging ad hom fallacies is a debate. I understand that, in your vast angry stupidity, calling someone a “zealot” or adding in your little pinches of racism and calling someone a “Jewish zealot” amply refutes their facts. Your general pattern, of course, is to provide either some nonsensical pablum (like your moronic act of citing an article critical of Carter without addressing a single factual claim in it, just adding your normal angry-moron-spew to it), or to make unfounded ad hom slurs, and then slink away like the cowardly stupid fuck you are, when you’re actually challenged on the facts. If I remember correctly, cur, your normal MO is to whine about how, when your facts are shown to be bullshit, you don’t have to rebutt or retract, because your opponent is such a “zealot”, you coward.

That’s why you’re a fucking moron.

Glad I could clear that up for ya.

That’s the “thunder” I was talking about in the original post, Sophistry and Illusion.

Thanks for coming in right on cue, FriendFinn. Oh, and keep defending war criminals, you seem to have a future in that particular field. Just make sure you use a plastic shield over your keyboard as to protect it from all the foam and spittle. :stuck_out_tongue:


ETA-I’d be honestly worried if someone like you didn’t consider me a “moron.” So thanks again.

Do you feel better now, Finn?