tomndebb, clarification if you will

[Gangster_Octopus]

tomndebb you gave your explanation. Apprently, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, if you know what I mean.

[Nature_s_Call]

@Gangster Octopus

tomndebb you gave your explanation. Apprently, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, if you know what I mean.

I find that insulting to horses! Oh, wait… we’re in the pit. Carry on.

I wasn’t asking tomndebb to repeat his explanation of why he acted, rather to clarify: was that an official warning or just a ::tweet:: cut it out you rascals…

[Talon_Karrde]

@Nature's Call

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?

If it was just pearls, I’d probably think of when Jesus compared the Kingdom of Heaven to a pearl. Or wait, maybe he didn’t. I don’t remember. I know he told some story about a pearl.

Back in the days of Jesus, people viewed analogies differently, and wouldn’t have considered the “pearls before swine” an insult, but nowadays it would be.
At least, that’s how I understand it, based on the fact that things weren’t meant as literally as they are today.

[Contrapuntal]

@Ethilrist

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?

No. And it was one person, not people. And the pearls of wisdom were not mine, but someone else’s. Aside from that you seem to be spot on.

[tomndebb]

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?

No rule was broken and no warning was issued. When I issue a warning, I include language to that effect.

My actual statement was that the analogy should be carried no further, lest it step over the line. That thread has already gotten overheated once or twice and I don’t want to have to actually issue a formal warning after a real fight breaks out.

[Nature_s_Call]

Cool!