The Offending Posts Commentary Thread

[Enhance]

But now my real question. I tried to take the edge off in my response to Apsu by giving him the benefit of the doubt. What he posted was ludicrous and I figured he was likely using pardoning a cowardly murderer as a way to whine a bit more about Biden pardoning his son. Would it have been any better or different if I had simply said “anybody that actually believes this is a POS”? That is exactly what I meant and believe. Or should I have to coddle the dips#!t because being blunt and honest is too mean?

In all seriousness, the bolded I would say is not any better. People have been warned/suspended for similar attempts at wordsmithing in the past.

In most cases, there really isn't that much variability between someone saying "You're a POS," "Are you a POS?" or "anyone with that opinion is a POS." The last example has been attempted many times, but again, the messaging/implication there is obvious when it is clearly made in reference to specific conversations or posters. In this case, it would've been pretty obvious what message was trying to be conveyed.

The best way to deal with disagreeable opinions is to either a) ignore them or b) keep the reply specific to the disagreeability of the opinion. For example, Apsu's post was pretty bad, but there were ways to attack the ridiculousness of it without bringing his character into it. For example, you could've said "Is this sarcasm? A failed attempt at humor? If not, that's an awful opinion and it's ridiculous to think that's OK" or something along those lines.

I get it. It doesn't have quite the same firepower or satisfaction, but it would've kept you off the radar.

 

[JJ Husker]

In all seriousness, the bolded I would say is not any better. People have been warned/suspended for similar attempts at wordsmithing in the past.

In most cases, there really isn't that much variability between someone saying "You're a POS," "Are you a POS?" or "anyone with that opinion is a POS." The last example has been attempted many times, but again, the messaging/implication there is obvious when it is clearly made in reference to specific conversations or posters. In this case, it would've been pretty obvious what message was trying to be conveyed.

The best way to deal with disagreeable opinions is to either a) ignore them or b) keep the reply specific to the disagreeability of the opinion. For example, Apsu's post was pretty bad, but there were ways to attack the ridiculousness of it without bringing his character into it. For example, you could've said "Is this sarcasm? A failed attempt at humor? If not, that's an awful opinion and it's ridiculous to think that's OK" or something along those lines.

I get it. It doesn't have quite the same firepower or satisfaction, but it would've kept you off the radar.

Thank you for the clarification.

I guess this one just caught me off guard. I think I’ve done pretty well lately avoiding stepping over that line. You may think I knew better in this case, and maybe I should’ve, but I really didn’t think it would or should rise to a 2 week ban. Live and learn I guess.

As long as everyone thinks I called him a POS, I guess I can own it  :lol:   I’ll just be sure to do it more directly in the shed in the future.