# tomndebb, clarification if you will **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 7, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518 "2005-12-07T16:32:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/1 "2005-12-07T16:32:06Z")
As regards [this warning](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6873643&postcount=176) which was in response to [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6873362&postcount=175) I have two questions. 1. Am I to assume name-calling is allowed if I am just more clever about it? 2. Why does this even constitute name-calling? I am sure you are much more familiar with the reference than I am. [Cite](http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/donotcastyou.html) Was Jesus name-calling? Is **mswas** a receptive audience, or not, would you say? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/2 "2005-12-07T16:37:35Z")
One more question, if you will. Why do you characterize one instance of a particular behavior as “insist(ing)?” [cite](http://www.bartleby.com/61/38/I0163800.html) > [@](#): > > insist > > SYLLABICATION: in·sist > PRONUNCIATION: n-sst > VERB: Inflected forms: in·sist·ed, in·sist·ing, in·sists > INTRANSITIVE VERB: To be firm in a demand or course; refuse to yield: insisted on giving me a second helping. > TRANSITIVE VERB: To assert or demand (something) vehemently and persistently: We insist that you accept these gifts. > ETYMOLOGY: Latin nsistere, to persist : in-, on; see in–2 + sistere, to stand; see st- in Appendix I. > OTHER FORMS: in·sistence, in·sisten·cy —NOUN > in·sister —NOUN > in·sisting·ly —ADVERB ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/3 "2005-12-07T16:41:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/4 "2005-12-07T16:42:53Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > One more question, if you will. Why do you characterize one instance of a particular behavior as “insist(ing)?” [cite](http://www.bartleby.com/61/38/I0163800.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/5 "2005-12-07T16:45:06Z")
> [@ThePCapeman](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/6 "2005-12-07T16:51:00Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > 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. 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?](http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/M0247700.html) > [@](#): > > SYLLABICATION: met·a·phor > PRONUNCIATION: mt-fôr, -fr > NOUN: 1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world’s a stage” (Shakespeare). 2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler, New York Times Book Review November 23, 1986). > ETYMOLOGY: Middle English methaphor, from Old French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, transference, metaphor, from metapherein, to transfer : meta-, meta- + pherein, to carry; see bher-1 in Appendix I. > OTHER FORMS: meta·phoric (-fôrk, -fr-) , meta·phori·cal —ADJECTIVE > meta·phori·cal·ly —ADVERB ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/7 "2005-12-07T17:26:38Z")
Had you stopped at > [@](#): > > Pure gold. Or pearls, if you will. you would have been clever enough. It was the continuation to > [@](#): > > Cast where they will **rooted at** and ignored, I’m afraid. 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**. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/8 "2005-12-07T17:36:34Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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?](http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/M0247700.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/9 "2005-12-07T17:37:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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**. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/10 "2005-12-07T21:04:18Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Oh, okay. Have some pearls, then. Mmm! Snuffle, snuffle, snort. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/11 "2005-12-07T22:03:33Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/12 "2005-12-07T23:43:14Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Was Jesus calling those audiences pigs.? Or was he using a metaphor? Even if he had said “You guys are a bunch of Pigs!” it would have been a metaphor. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/13 "2005-12-08T01:39:37Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Even if he had said “You guys are a bunch of Pigs!” it would have been a metaphor. Tell that to the Gadarene swine. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/14 "2005-12-08T06:18:56Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/15 "2005-12-08T08:58:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/16 "2005-12-08T09:14:45Z")
AGAINST. I’m sleepy. Good night. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/17 "2005-12-08T15:15:43Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > This is going too far. > > We’re not allowed to use the “pearls before swine” metaphor anywhere but the pit? Apparently, some people think it is forbidden to read explanations that are given, just so they can criticize what has not been said. _::: sigh :::_ ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/18 "2005-12-08T15:27:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Apparently, some people think it is forbidden to read explanations that are given, just so they can criticize what has not been said. Cast where they will rooted at and ignored, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/19 "2005-12-08T15:31:23Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518/20 "2005-12-08T17:48:04Z")
**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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-clarification-if-you-will/334518.md?page=2)