So you seem to say that you don't bring up things from other threads but then go on to say that you do but you keep it in context?
Not exactly, no. As a general rule I don't bring in stuff from other threads. It's very rare if I do. I try my best to make it a point not to, because unless all readers at all times are familiar with those other threads, it makes no sense to do so. It's the exception to the rule when I do that, and I do it not to attack someone. But on the rare occasions I may do it, it's (virtually) always within the context of the current topic of discussion.
You mean like accusing someone of being prejudice based on previous posts when it had nothing to do with the thread?
No, I accused someone of being prejudice based on their own words in that current thread, and referenced additional threads as a pattern of prejudice. I didn't launch an attack on anyone using information from an outside thread.
Yes, it is my opinion, as well as the opinion of the others who enforce the Code of Conduct.
but now I know that telling someone "the endless sniping and namecalling aimed at *****[based on nothing but clickbait outrage 'stories'] is insulting and uncalled for. And way past tiresome and immature. And sad and bitter, too." or something along those lines next time I don't agree is fine.
That's Cheri's opinion. And there's no attack on anybody in that quote. The endless sniping and namecalling aimed at liberals is, according to the Code of Conduct, trolling. Trolling is, for many people, insulting, uncalled for, tiresome and immature and sad and bitter. What's your point?
I'm not sure how that couldn't be viewed as an attack. It is directed at the poster, off topic, and brings up stuff from other threads. Oddly enough that's what you are complaining about me doing.
I'm not sure how it could possibly be viewed as an attack, since in order for it to be an attack it has to be an aggressive action. There's nothing aggressive in her post. And nothing in it brings up "stuff" from other threads. All she did was note a repeated pattern of that type of posts by the poster. She didn't reference anything specific and then use it to attack (remember, aggressive in nature) the poster. You, on the other hand, put words in her mouth and then used those words to attack her.
You absolutely have and I remember it being an issue brought up before.
OK, fine. Post three links to posts that I made to defend Cheri when she got in too deep and I didn't follow the Code of Conduct. Otherwise you're just flapping your gums in a pissing contest with a Moderator.
She brought up posts that had nothing to do with this thread to go off on a tangent and direct comments at the poster.
Which posts, exactly, did she bring up?
I brought up the other comments because it is a pattern that has developed, just like some people that go after liberals have a pattern.
Referencing other threads is fine, but referencing them as ammunition to attack someone simply because you don't like their posting style or what they post is an aggressive action which violates the Code of Conduct.
Right. So she has no history of doing just that? I really don't want to know about your private conversations with her. That's your personal life but it makes sense that you would go after someone that replies likewise to her remarks rather than her.
Your reply violated the Code of Conduct. Hers did not.
She brought up posts from other threads and made her point that she was tired of him liberal bashing. I did the same.
Again, which posts, exactly, did she bring up and use to attack Leo? See, no matter how many times you say she brought up stuff from other posts, it won't make it true.
Maybe if you didn't try to read things like that it would make more sense. Read them as written. There was a pattern set that I followed. That doesn't mean that I am not taking responsibility it means that I followed an established pattern and explaining why I thought it was OK.
Oh, I read them as written. You wrote them to rationalize and justify ("why I thought it was OK") to attack an EO member.
There is a history of it but you can deny it if you want.
You made an accusation without proof. The burden of proof is on you. It may be your opinion that I treat her with kid gloves, and that's fine, just don't state it as fact. Particularly as it's not true.
I really don't care if you address it publicly but it just seems that you would develop a pattern to avoid confusion. I felt the door was opened for my comment based on her comment. Her comment was directed at the poster and brought up posts from other threads. My comment did the exact same thing but you want to call it an attack. I simply pointed out that the same thing was being done by her. That's not an attack but simply pointing out an observation that seemed funny. There was no name calling or personal insults.
See what happens when people reply to the poster instead of staying on topic and replying to the post? We get 25 posts of pure crap and a member gets a Point Infraction that could lead to a lengthy ban. There's no reason for it. Whenever you go off-topic to attack a member, nothing good ever comes of it. It takes up screen and server space and wastes the time of Moderators and Administrators. You attract the wrong kind of attention from Moderators so that now your future posts will be more closely scrutinized to see if they can be construed as an attack, regardless of whether they were or not, all because you want to give Cheri a hard time for some reason that's beyond us all.
Cheri (as many people have) has made some pretty "out there" comments, and has gotten things wrong. Yes, it can be annoying when in the middle of a discussion on Pop Tart Guns she brings up CEO salaries and corporate welfare and the lack of high quality childcare on board F-16 fighter jets. There's nothing wrong in addressing those comments. You can even do it using snarky comments. Just stick to the issues.
