Basically looking for some kind of ruling
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12773929&postcount=377
Basically, we were arguing in-thread about whether or not these parts of the post were flames:
I'm not going to respond to all of your idiotic comments, but let's examine a few gems.
If you wish to be an insensitive asshat, expect to be treated like an insensitive asshat.
And someone suggested we just post it on moderation and see what the mods think...
So that's what I'm doing.
Frisbeeteria
16-06-2007, 00:07
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12774847&postcount=393
The Cat-Tribe
16-06-2007, 04:09
Yikes.
I apologize for crossing the line. I think my remark out of context makes it seem like I am calling another poster an insensitive asshat when what I meant was that you reap what you sow. Poor phrasing on my part. Thanks for the warning.
On the other hand, I don't believe merely saying someone's comments are idiotic counts as a flame, does it?
The Cat-Tribe
16-06-2007, 04:14
While we are at it, isn't this comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12774714&postcount=386) flaming?
Lil' ol' Kitty-Cat obviously has more in common with the Columbia University disruptors than with rational adults. I expected nothing better ;)
Frisbeeteria
16-06-2007, 04:18
"Your arguments are idiotic" attacks the arguments.
"I'm not going to respond to all of your idiotic comments, but let's examine a few gems." seems pretty clear that you're attacking the poster for having those arguments.
It's a fine line, but I think you crossed it.
Frisbeeteria
16-06-2007, 04:19
While we are at it, isn't this comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12774714&postcount=386) flaming?
Yeah, but it's not actionable as one( by our typical interpretations).
Neither of you got a warning. How about we drop this?
The Cat-Tribe
16-06-2007, 04:32
"Your arguments are idiotic" attacks the arguments.
"I'm not going to respond to all of your idiotic comments, but let's examine a few gems." seems pretty clear that you're attacking the poster for having those arguments.
It's a fine line, but I think you crossed it.
Got it. Will be more careful.
Yeah, but it's not actionable as one( by our typical interpretations).
Neither of you got a warning. How about we drop this?
Sounds good to me. Thanks.