Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: What defines "reasonable restrictions"? [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)88. I'm sorry; I forgot to answer
"Abusive" indicates a violation of the rules of the website. If your characterization is accurate, why were the posts in question not deleted? Obviously you reported such a violation.
"Abusive" indicates no such thing. Consult any dictionary you please. Cite just one definition that refers to DU rules. Sophist.
Google's initial offering (emphasis mine):
Now.
"Extremely offensive and insulting"
"disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate"
Anyone got a magnifying glass handy?
Now, actually, at the time the posts in question (mine) were written, the rules read thus:
Now, you're telling me that a post that is "extremely offensive and insulting" passes that test?
I couldn't care less whether you report rule violations or not.
What you don't get to do is claim rule violations when no ruling to that effect has been made by the appropriate authority at this site.
I trust this will be of assistance.
"Abusive" indicates no such thing. Consult any dictionary you please. Cite just one definition that refers to DU rules. Sophist.
Google's initial offering (emphasis mine):
a·bu·sive/əˈbyo͞osiv/
Adjective:
Extremely offensive and insulting.
Engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty
Adjective:
Extremely offensive and insulting.
Engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty
Now.
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)
It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ...
It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ...
"Extremely offensive and insulting"
"disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate"
Anyone got a magnifying glass handy?
Now, actually, at the time the posts in question (mine) were written, the rules read thus:
Do not personally attack any individual DU member in any way.
Now, you're telling me that a post that is "extremely offensive and insulting" passes that test?
I couldn't care less whether you report rule violations or not.
What you don't get to do is claim rule violations when no ruling to that effect has been made by the appropriate authority at this site.
I trust this will be of assistance.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
107 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think banning third-trimester abortions is a reasonable restriction
Common Sense Party
Jan 2012
#67
You are challenging the most sacred, most liberal, most progressive, most important of all rights!
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#69
I asked that a few years back and got abusive and irrational hysterics in response
TPaine7
Dec 2011
#8
For the most part, I agree with you on these. Having to purchase a product to exercise a
SlimJimmy
Dec 2011
#24
You know if you worked at it ... just a little ... you could be even less informed
DonP
Dec 2011
#40
Not when it comes to Constitutionally protected activities. See "Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota"...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#54
It is when the taxes act to limit availability. And there are already taxes on guns and ammo.
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2012
#99
Well, I invite the advocates of reasonable restrictions to define that term
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2011
#18
You mean that CCW licenses should be honored universally, like driver's licenses...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#55
Yes, political surveys rarely contain validity checks to ensure that the answers are meaningful
slackmaster
Jan 2012
#101