MDMAlliance said:
Lafiel said:
Well, the first one is an ad hominem - I don't know what happend in that thread before, but while Deyons post wasn't very "nice", butting into the conversation to basically say "he is a troll" certainly was unneccessary, although I can't claim never to have done similar things. I guess I got away with it with "better" wording, but in hindsight those posts weren't up to my own standards.
The second one looks very clear to me, as I can only really read that as an insult directed at the person and not at the argument.
|
The first one I wasn't even talking to Deyon. I was just telling the person to ignore him because he was (earlier in the thread) intentionally making comments to rile people up. I wasn't calling him a troll, but saying his comments were troll comments (in the instances in the thread).
The second one was directed at his attitude. There are differences in all of these things, though either way saying if someone is acting like an idiot or saying they are an idiot they would take offense either way so I can see the reasoning behind the warning.
There's a difference, though. I wasn't doing what you were saying I was doing.
|
You see, saying/implying that somebody was regularly "trolling" like you did in that post ("this is Deyon we're talking about") really just is the same as saying "he is a troll". It doesn't matter that you said that to somebody else.
And in the second you wrote ",idiot." and not ",that's idiotic." or something along these lines. From my very shallow understanding of the english language the former is used to address the person, the later to address the attitude/train of thought.
