Personal Attacks

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, stillrobertpaulsen, Jeff

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby compared2what? » Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:34 am

Wombaticus Rex » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:03 pm wrote:
OP ED » Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:26 pm wrote:
so, this strictness based discpline is centered on the direct insults and/or usages of derisive terms of non-endearment?



Yes, as per the RI forum rules we try to make clearly and plainly available to everyone here....which, I guess, is why they're located in a subforum at the bottom of the main page.

We are of the belief that ad hominem attacks -- or as I now prefer to call it, derisive terms of non-endearment --


They're not the same thing, though.

...

I actually have the more or less the same question as OP ED, I think. Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?

Because it would be useful to know exactly which terms are prohibited, which potentially actionable, and which allowed, if so.

(For theoretical example :

    "Stop being such an "______."

    (a) asshole;
    (b) ass;
    (c) arse;
    (d) unpleasant person;
    (e) excremental opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

^^Are all, none, or some of those now always not okay by default?)
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Canadian_watcher » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:31 am

compared2what? wrote:
They're not the same thing, though.

...

I actually have the more or less the same question as OP ED, I think. Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?

Because it would be useful to know exactly which terms are prohibited, which potentially actionable, and which allowed, if so.

(For theoretical example :

    "Stop being such an "______."

    (a) asshole;
    (b) ass;
    (c) arse;
    (d) unpleasant person;
    (e) excremental opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

^^Are all, none, or some of those now always not okay by default?)


first of all, is this really the thread for this? would a PM maybe do, in this case, rather than belabour a point here?
second it's certainly interesting to note which posters among all that have commented here seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:43 am

compared2what? » 09 Jun 2013 15:34 wrote:
Wombaticus Rex » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:03 pm wrote:
OP ED » Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:26 pm wrote:
so, this strictness based discpline is centered on the direct insults and/or usages of derisive terms of non-endearment?



Yes, as per the RI forum rules we try to make clearly and plainly available to everyone here....which, I guess, is why they're located in a subforum at the bottom of the main page.

We are of the belief that ad hominem attacks -- or as I now prefer to call it, derisive terms of non-endearment --


They're not the same thing, though.

...

I actually have the more or less the same question as OP ED, I think. Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?

Because it would be useful to know exactly which terms are prohibited, which potentially actionable, and which allowed, if so.

(For theoretical example :

    "Stop being such an "______."

    (a) asshole;
    (b) ass;
    (c) arse;
    (d) unpleasant person;
    (e) excremental opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

^^Are all, none, or some of those now always not okay by default?)


I agree and what about links to this song.

Eh?

Eh????1??
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9326
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby DrVolin » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:31 pm

Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?


It won't be an issue if we stick to discussing topics instead of posters, as we should.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby OP ED » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:07 am

Col Quisp » Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:36 am wrote:This has to be one of the most interesting threads we've seen in a while. OP ED: glad to see you again! Barracuda: Your tarot card intrigues. That connection you made to halcyon and kingfisher is brilliant. HoL: is Grant Morrison a member of RI?


Quisp: thank you. sexy-minded as ever, i see.

[i agree with assessment of Cuda's brilliance]

i do not believe Mr. Morrison is a member of RI.

[although i've seen people here that i have also seen on several Morrison/Invisibles--related discussion groups, so it may be slightly possible that he has heard of this place]

[OP ED is a member of several such groups, though not an often contributer]

DrVolin » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:31 pm wrote:
Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?


It won't be an issue if we stick to discussing topics instead of posters, as we should.



it could be, when the topic is a poster and/or our interpersonal dynamics as a group, which is how i have so far interpretted the drift of this thread.


i should imagine such applications of severe forum protocols will be few and far between in actual practice insofar as they're supposedly designated for the purpose maintain civil interactions rather than curtailing legitimate debate and/or disagreement which are both inevitable and desirable.

someone correct me if there are too many assumptions in the above paragraph.

name-calling in certain contexts is quite acceptable in real world situations, as i'm sure it could be here, and these situations should usually be rather obvious in their intentions.

i barely make it through half a day without a loved one or another calling everyone in the room "bitches". etc. etc.

[part of this could be geographical]

btw, fish, i rather like your tarot. i've been working on a set of my own for well over a decade now and i highly doubt it'll ever be completed. but if you're interested in discussing hierophants in various positions, i'm more than happy to do so in my thread in the dumps, where it would be very much on-topic regardless of interpretations. we could even discuss some of the reasons why some would wish to find it offensive.

...
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby OP ED » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:15 am

Canadian_watcher » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:31 am wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
They're not the same thing, though.

...

I actually have the more or less the same question as OP ED, I think. Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?

Because it would be useful to know exactly which terms are prohibited, which potentially actionable, and which allowed, if so.

(For theoretical example :

    "Stop being such an "______."

    (a) asshole;
    (b) ass;
    (c) arse;
    (d) unpleasant person;
    (e) excremental opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

^^Are all, none, or some of those now always not okay by default?)


first of all, is this really the thread for this? would a PM maybe do, in this case, rather than belabour a point here?
second it's certainly interesting to note which posters among all that have commented here seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed.


that last bit. THAT is an ad-hominem attack entirely lacking derisive terms of non-endearment. sort of passive-agressive too, but that is neither here nor there.


the reason i bring it up is not because it personally offends me to see rules enforced, but that i wish to have as comprehensive an understanding of the rules as is possible before i play. that is just my nature. [i play the rules, not by the rules] i've been here a good several years now and while i've always gotten along with the majority well enough not to have ever had my own anger or trolling become an overt issue, i shouldn't like to see my streak ended because i failed to properly understand some technical issue with my grammar.

wiki wrote:Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:50 am

OP ED » Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:15 pm wrote:
Canadian_watcher » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:31 am wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
They're not the same thing, though.

...

I actually have the more or less the same question as OP ED, I think. Is calling someone a bad word now off-limits, irrespective of context and meaning?

Because it would be useful to know exactly which terms are prohibited, which potentially actionable, and which allowed, if so.

(For theoretical example :

    "Stop being such an "______."

    (a) asshole;
    (b) ass;
    (c) arse;
    (d) unpleasant person;
    (e) excremental opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

^^Are all, none, or some of those now always not okay by default?)


first of all, is this really the thread for this? would a PM maybe do, in this case, rather than belabour a point here?
second it's certainly interesting to note which posters among all that have commented here seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed.


that last bit. THAT is an ad-hominem attack entirely lacking derisive terms of non-endearment.


Yes, it is. Moreover, it's explicitly couched in terms that are designed to discourage/silence one side of the discussion. (Successfully, I might add, insofar as I sent my follow-up question to DrVolin via PM.)

Not that I have any complaints about it. It's a perfectly fine, in-bounds, and permissible thing to say, if you ask me. The thing I'm confused by is what made barracuda's comment worse. Or even different, functionally speaking: I mean, it seems to me that in the case of both posts, the import is clearly:

    "I find what was said here disagreeable and am willing to say as much without pretense."

(Or maybe "distasteful.)"

But whatever. I have a real, sincere and genuine question about what made barracuda's post offensive enough to constitute a violation of board guidelines. Because it's really pretty routine for on-topic discussions here (and substantive conversations everywhere) to include a little personal back-and-forth of that kind. So if it's mostly a question of usage, as it appears to be, I'd actually need to have those rules spelled out in order to comply with them.

Mods?


________________

ON EDIT:

This is NOT a statement for or against any post(s) and/ or poster(s) on personal or any other grounds. It's a real question.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 am

This thread was meant to be a show of support for a long-time poster who may be going through a difficult time. Please get it back on topic, or I'm afraid I will have to lock it, which, FFS, would really be a sad commentary on the state of this board.

In response to OP ED, this...

Canadian_watcher » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:31 am wrote:first of all, is this really the thread for this? would a PM maybe do, in this case, rather than belabour a point here?
second it's certainly interesting to note which posters among all that have commented here seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed.


...is not equal to referring to someone as a dickhead.

In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.

And yes, it has been one of the board rules for as long as I can remember:



As I recently said to barracuda:

You're all way too smart, and way too gifted as wordsmiths to simply call someone a dickhead. It's noteworthy, too, that when 'cuda got off suspension, he crafted a pretty brilliant response that would have been a great substitute for the one in which he referred to someone as a dickhead.

Over the past few months, mainly since the Boston bombing, there has been a proliferation of personal attacks and name-calling, and I want to put a stop to it because it doesn't promote rigorous intellectual debate, which should always be the goal of a site of this stature. RI has always been the cream of the crop among boards of this type, but lately, it's become more and more like a lot of the other sites out there which shall remain nameless, and a lot of that, IMO, has to do with the nasty personal interactions among the posters.

Please keep things civil and on-topic going forward, and again, let's get this particular thread back on topic.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Burnt Hill » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:06 pm

^ its not the enforcement of rules , its the selective enforcement.
Which possibly contributes to the proliferation of personal attacks and name calling- "well if he can get away with saying that to me, than wait till you hear what I have to say!" happens often on such threads- and then moderation ensues.
Consider c2w?s list- why is you are an asshole unacceptable, yet you are an arse acceptable?
Are well contrived personal attacks acceptable? Reading through, yes they are.
I understand at this point moderators don't read every word posted here, I wonder why not?
Or whether- shouldn't that be a goal?
I applaud the expectation of self-moderation, but we all have different levels of acceptance.
We need consistency.
Also no need to lock a thread that has evolved into something else, perhaps split it off in to two.

be well
h o l
:sun:
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:53 pm

Burnt Hill » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:06 pm wrote:^ its not the enforcement of rules , its the selective enforcement.
Which possibly contributes to the proliferation of personal attacks and name calling- "well if he can get away with saying that to me, than wait till you hear what I have to say!" happens often on such threads- and then moderation ensues.
Consider c2w?s list- why is you are an asshole unacceptable, yet you are an arse acceptable?
Are well contrived personal attacks acceptable? Reading through, yes they are.
I understand at this point moderators don't read every word posted here, I wonder why not?
Or whether- shouldn't that be a goal?
I applaud the expectation of self-moderation, but we all have different levels of acceptance.
We need consistency.
Also no need to lock a thread that has evolved into something else, perhaps split it off in to two.

be well
h o l
:sun:


Unless drew develops a robot moderator, there will always be "selective enforcement," also known as judgement, and as I indicated in my post above, our interpretation of the rules comes into play, and in every single instance, there will be posters who agree with our interpretations, and posters who disagree. That's just the nature of this business.

We (the mods) are just people with day jobs, and wives, and dogs, and groceries to shop for, and lawns to mow, and tomatoes to plant, etc. We can't be here all of the time, and we can't read every single post. It's just not feasible. This is why we ask that you alert us to potential problems via PM and/or the post-flagging function.

And taking c2w's list into consideration (as per your request), nobody has said that "you are an arse" is acceptable, unless I missed it. I certainly didn't say it.

You're asking for consistency and that's exactly what I'm trying to give you.

No personal attacks. Don't call anyone a dickhead, or an asshole, or an arse, etc. Just don't do it.

It you wish to discuss this further, please do it here in the posting guidelines forum.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Burnt Hill » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:43 pm

I could find fault and point out contradictions to most of what you posted above Bruce Dazzling.
But I don't, I know that a sense of understanding is essential because we are all the people you describe as We (the mods).
I often find myself caught between disappointment in a forum that could really fly with more appropriate moderation,
and gratitude that reason gets played out in an atmosphere benign that heavy hand.
I lean toward believing in a firmer, fairer hand to guide, but that's a reflection of my own needs, having been raised in a mother as Goddess family. My typical problem is an abhorrence to most spoken/written profanities, (especially when directed at me!) and my inability to ever "narc" on my co-conspirators.
And while I often see the (lack of) moderation as a weakness, the forum is still Jack LaLanne.
I know that when the mods do act I am usually in agreement.
Thanks for responding.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby brainpanhandler » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:32 pm

I feel our weaponized smilies have been contributing to the current outbreak of ill will. I find them disturbing and offensive.

I mean these are suggestions that what was said deserves derision and mockery, which hurts people's feelings:

:rofl2 :partyhat :ohno: :party: :farmer:

These are invitations to engage in a hostile manner:

:cussing: :bleh: :madtalk: :mad2

These are incitements to physical violence:

:banger: :dueling: :uncertain: :catfight:

And this one just serves to invalidate another member's emotional experience:

:smallviolin:

Anf the most nefarious of all? The suggestion of a group suicide pact:


:grouphug:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Burnt Hill » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

^ yes , lets have fun at the expense of anyone that reveals their hurt feelings.
That should be productive and helpful.
Smilies are equivalent to a Tarot card read? Isnt it a given that smilies are for the most part playful ?
I can see how The Hierophant reversed could be read as having negative connotation- considering when it was presented to the board,
and the circumstances at the time- did anyone really know what was/is going on with h o l ?
I don't support deletion or suspension or anything like that- but I do understand how someone else might get there.
Its worthy of discussion, not derision.
But yes, even smilies, depending on the intent behind them, can be hurtful.
Is emotion now considered a weakness?

on edit- okay it is funny too!- I just cant get past the fact it came to be because someone else was upset.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm

Bruce Dazzling » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:37 am wrote:This thread was meant to be a show of support for a long-time poster who may be going through a difficult time. Please get it back on topic, or I'm afraid I will have to lock it, which, FFS, would really be a sad commentary on the state of this board.

In response to OP ED, this...

Canadian_watcher » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:31 am wrote:first of all, is this really the thread for this? would a PM maybe do, in this case, rather than belabour a point here?
second it's certainly interesting to note which posters among all that have commented here seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed.


...is not equal to referring to someone as a dickhead.


No. One of them is ad hominem. And the other is merely a colloquial insult. There's a distinction.

In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.


That too is ad hominem, in that it suggests I'm saying what I'm saying for a personal reason.

For the record and your information both, I'm actually kind of offended by that. I'm asking because there's a distinction between insults and personal attacks:

It seems as though, in pretty much every argument I’ve ever had, at some point or another someone mistakes what an “ad hominem attack” or the “ad hominem fallacy” really is. It’s a pretty easy way to score rhetorical points, shouting about your opponents using ad hominems when really they’re just insulting you, usually in parallel to making an argument. It’s less easy to score said rhetorical points when someone else in the conversation actually knows the difference and is willing to point that difference out. This post is intended to be a go-to reference any time someone makes this mistake, so please, by all means, link it whenever necessary.

The term “ad hominem” is Latin, meaning “to the man”. It indicates that your argument is directed at the person making it, rather than at the argument proper. Most of the time, it refers to insults, as with the following cases.

An ad hominem fallacy is constructed something like this.

Premise 1: You are an idiot. (Unstated premise 2: Idiots cannot argue worth a damn, and are always wrong.)
Conclusion: Therefore, your argument about X is incorrect.

A “mere insult” packaged in with an argument is constructed something like this:

Premise 1: Your argument X is incorrect and fails on such-and-such grounds if fact Y is true.
Premise 2: Fact Y is common knowledge, easily demonstrated, and/or has copious proof as to its truth.
Conclusion: Therefore, you are wrong about argument X (and also, you are an idiot).

As you can see, merely insulting someone does not rise to the level of an ad hominem attack or fallacy.


More at LINK

So also for the record and your information both:

I am not bothered. What I am is confused. Because although the rule against personal attacks has always existed, colloquial, off-color insults of the routine, mild kind with which casual conversations among adults everywhere are littered have traditionally not been regarded as same.

As (in point of fact) they're not. Meaning "Slang insults are neither personal attacks nor ad hominem argument." It's perfectly okay with me if they're now off the table. But that's a new rule.

And yes, it has been one of the board rules for as long as I can remember:


No. I'll do a search if you insist.*** But a little occasional name-calling in the course of otherwise reasonable and justified commentary did not used to be an actionable offense.

I'm really irked with you for that interesting-what-SOME-posters-are-bothered-by approach, I've got to say. I virtually never use that kind of language when addressing others here or anywhere else in the world. So I have virtually nothing personal riding on this. I just want clarity.



As I recently said to barracuda:

You're all way too smart, and way too gifted as wordsmiths to simply call someone a dickhead. It's noteworthy, too, that when 'cuda got off suspension, he crafted a pretty brilliant response that would have been a great substitute for the one in which he referred to someone as a dickhead.


Once again: Calling someone a dickhead is not, per se, a personal attack. Most adults can easily sustain being called a dickhead without injury, as can most conversations.

Not that I'm saying that most can't also thrive without it. Obviously they can. I'm just saying: THAT'S NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.


Over the past few months, mainly since the Boston bombing, there has been a proliferation of personal attacks and name-calling, and I want to put a stop to it because it doesn't promote rigorous intellectual debate, which should always be the goal of a site of this stature. RI has always been the cream of the crop among boards of this type, but lately, it's become more and more like a lot of the other sites out there which shall remain nameless, and a lot of that, IMO, has to do with the nasty personal interactions among the posters.


I agree with you about that last part. I haven't noticed more name-calling or personal-attacking, myself. I would have said that there's been an increasing proliferation of tension, friction and heated dispute along what you might call party lines that regularly leads to personal resentment and bitterness being expressed.

Stopping the name-calling is fine with me. But I still both want and need an index of prohibited words and terms, if that's what we're doing. Because my understanding of what is and isn't a clearly offensive usage differs from yours. You're the boss. And I wish both to comprehend and comply.

I have no other motive, reason or agenda. Please advise.
Last edited by compared2what? on Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:48 pm

This...

No personal attacks.


...is not the same as this:

Don't call anyone a dickhead, or an asshole, or an arse, etc. Just don't do it.


Those are just words. It's how they're used that makes or doesn't make them part of a personal attack. So that's your rule. Which is -- AGAIN -- not bothersome to me. It's just opaque to me.

I would have said that "arse" was definitely always perfectly all right in a context where it was used as a synonym for "foolish person" in an otherwise generally civil exchange; and that "asshole" and/or "dickhead" were allowable on an infrequent basis in response to flagrantly nasty conduct, as long as the gist of the post was substantive.

So please provide an index of what's always/never/sometimes okay.

Thanks.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Posting Guidelines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest