You don't know what you're talking about = direct insult?

So saying someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about is a “direct insult”? That seems a tad ridiculous. I normally would let this slide but I got a more valid warning just a few weeks ago so I thought I should question this less than valid one.

The civility bar in GD seems to be continuing its upward assent. I perceive that some longtime posters are finding themselves underwater.

I would hope that there would be some way of making CarnalK’s post more politely. For it seems legitimate to me to suggest that some directions in the conversation are more fruitful than others and that certain posters in a particular conversation are making lame points. Thread steerage, expressed in the manner of suggestion, can be constructive.
ETA: Maybe the mods should auction off indulgences. I kid!

Well sure there’s a more polite way to make my point, but I can’t imagine it would feel any less insulting. When you point out someone is spouting nonsense, it’s going to rankle.

Another white-washed OP in ATMB.

Nothing personal there, ri-i-i-i-ght.

Tell me, in what way is that addressing the post and not the poster?

Uuh, it was addressing the part of his post where he made clueless remarks about Turkey. How could it be directed at anything other than the contents of his posts?

I’ve never been able to respect rebuttals of that form. “You are clearly ignorant of this topic,” “You’ve obviously never read anything about this,” “If you’d bothered to learn even the basics,” etc. It’s usually not true anyway, and it’s an insulting form of rebuttal. It’s addressing the person, not the facts.

If it’s now against the rules…yay.

It wasn’t a rebuttal. Just saying.

Wanted to add: I guess my hurriedly typed title will throw off people who don’t click the link. I didn’t respond to the post I thought was clueless with this phrase. I said it later to someone else.

You’ll need to ask the mods, because they’ve said the same thing themselves before.

You’re correct that is was no form of actual rebuttal.

You spent half of that post directly accusing another poster - not his post - of being ignorant and not worthy of attention. In what way is that not attacking the poster and not his post? In addition, you didn’t even try to address or refute his post; you simply chose to announce to all and sundry that he wasn’t worth addressing.

The second half of that post addressed other issues into which the thread had moved on from ralph’s earlier post (he posted once in the thread). There was simply no reason for you to slap ralph before moving on to your point. It was insulting and dismissive and, as I said, you should know better.

I did address ralph’s post, in an earlier reply. In the post that got me the warning, I was responding to someone saying “hey, he brought up Turkey”.

All you had to do was say “Ralph124c’s posts appear to me written by someone who has no clue what he is talking about so you probably shouldn’t spend too much of your debating efforts on his account.”

Because intellectually honest debate requires sniveling dissembly.

Exactly correct. And telling another poster not to pay any attention to him makes it that much worse.

It says in the Registration Agreement that this board is for civil discussion. You are admittedly being uncivil and insulting. I’m not sure what your point is. It’s not like there isn’t a place on here to be as uncivil as you wish.

Well I don’t remember ever seeing a warning for being uncivil. Guess you guys are starting something new. Good luck.

Is it “civil” to continue to spew untruths (speaking hypothetically here, note) with the knowledge that the board rules will “protect” you from your spewing?

I find GD (and Elections) to be a rather uncivil place, for precisely that reason.

The surest way to deal with such a poster is to demonstrate that his facts are wrong by correcting them. It then becomes unnecessary to draw his portrait, other posters will be able to come to their own conclusions with no other guidance needed.

Thanks but you have not been paying attention. Most of the rules deal with some level of incivility.

Indeed. Things as far afield as ‘don’t call others liars’, ‘don’t insult’, ‘don’t troll’ and so forth are all stemming from needing posters in GD - and now Elections - to be civil and respectful towards each other. Without such both fora - where emotions tend to run high - would quickly collapse into insult-fests and snide comments would dominate. If we want to have debate and discussion we can’t have that.

I reported this in GQ, with nary a note from the mods:"Doctor Death is back to his old tricks. Make a ridiculous pronouncement, then spend days weaseling around to get out of it." civil and respectful??
Seems like some Moderators have considerably different standards than others.

Now, I agree CK’s post was a little bit too close to the line for GD, but it seems liek more of a Note thing, than a full out Warning.