As regards this warning which was in response to this post I have two questions.
One more question, if you will. Why do you characterize one instance of a particular behavior as “insist(ing)?” cite
For the same reason that it’s not acceptable to refer to people as those who live under bridges. If we know what you meant, it’s still an insult.
I think he meant it in the persist connotation: ‘If you continue to…’
Other than that, I agree with the OP fully. I don’t see an insult there.
Oh, okay. Have some pearls, then.
Suppose I were to say to you, for example, something like “In debating with you I am reminded of the Biblical injunction against casting pearls before swine.” Would you think I was calling you a pig? Was Jesus calling those audiences pigs.? Or was he using a metaphor?
Had you stopped at
you would have been clever enough. It was the continuation to
that went up against the line. By dragging it out and suggesting the the unnamed (but clearly identified) poster was going to “root” for them, you took the comparison past the point of literary allusion and up against the fence of direct insult by impluying that that poster was, indeed, going to “root at” them.
I apologize for my flip response in the other thread, but I was distracted by off-line activities and did not realize that the link came here to the Pit.
It doesn’t matter what he thought they were, and it wouldn’t matter what you thought I was. What matters is whether or not what you say is an insult.
I see what you mean about being more clever. It was not my intention to make any other allusion than the literary one, but I do understand how you interpreted it. My apologise to mswas if he considers my post to be a direct insult.
Mmm! Snuffle, snuffle, snort.
Well that seems to be begging the question. Is it an insult simply because you say it is? Because I don’t see any other justification for making such a claim.
Even if he had said “You guys are a bunch of Pigs!” it would have been a metaphor.
Tell that to the Gadarene swine.
This is going too far.
We’re not allowed to use the “pearls before swine” metaphor anywhere but the pit?
That’s ridiculous. “PBS” is an old standby, metaphorwise. Has any mod ever objected to its use before?
Frankly, I’d love it if everybody who posted here wrote as if they were submitting to the NYTimes Letters page, and maintained a rigid decorum; I think a great deal more communication would be accomplished.
But the rules here are more lax than that, and included (I thought) room for such “insults” as the great Pearls Before Swine metaphor.
TnD, seriously, what’s next? Sisyphus to be banned as a metaphor? Faust? Can we get a list of approved metaphors?
The absolute injunction of any sort of hint even leaning in the general direction of what may be considered an insult if you tilt your head just right is ludicrous around here.
AGAINST.
I’m sleepy. Good night.
Apparently, some people think it is forbidden to read explanations that are given, just so they can criticize what has not been said.
::: sigh :::
Cast where they will rooted at and ignored, I’m afraid.
Well, let’s bring it back to the OP. When you alluded to the PBS metaphor in the other thread, was it your intent to imply that those people you were referring to were no better than swine, who couldn’t appreciate your pearls of wisdom?
Contrapunctual’s allusion can indeed be interpreted as an insult. It can also be interpreted as his opinion that Sentient’s Meat’s point will be simply ignored in the way that pigs do not agree with humans on the value of pearls.
I’ve read tomndebb explanation - and his point is not without merit. But the ultimate question is: was a rule clearly broken? Or was Contrapunctual’s addendum merely more information so the subtlety of the allusion wouldn’t be lost? If he had stopped at the world “pearls” I may not have picked up on the allusion. By going further is he not merely adding clues for the slow like me?
This is a TIAT (tempest in a teapot) but if the protocol is first warning then ban, I believe it’s important to fully clarify this. Split hairs aside: Was that an official warning? Is that the type of behaviour that is tantamount to being banned?
Or more likely, was it a pre-emptive strike at an ambiguous post, just to be sure the ambiguity doesn’t resolve to a broken rule?