Thanks — have you had a look at post 42? Now that is “making it personal”
You know, some people—no one here on FR, of course, but some people—might think that a distinction between (a) insulting through indirection, and (b) insulting directly, is either moronic or hypocritical. No one on FR would think such a thing, of course. Here on FR it is abundantly clear that a statement such as, “Cannibalism is part of the Catholic faith” is in *no* way insulting toward any Catholic, because no specific person is directly indicated.
Here it is obvious that a statement such as, “Do you know, a person could go mad, believing there is a conspiracy behind every corner... “They’re out to get me”...famous last words of a nut.” is in *no* way a statement that the person to whom the poster is speaking (a) is insane, (b) believes that there is a conspiracy behind (sic) every corner, (c) suffers from delusions of persecution (“They’re out to get me”), and (d) is a “nut;” which is to say, insane (again).
Everyone else in the known universe would take such a statement in exactly that way, but here on FR we know differently; we know that there is a clear distinction between insulting a person indirectly like that and directly insulting them, for instance by using the words, “you are (such and such).” The first type of insult is perfectly acceptable, while the second constitutes “making it personal.” Some people—no one here on FR, of course, but some people—might say something stupid like, “Since the person is equally insulted in either case, what’s the difference?” We know better, of course. We know that the indirect insult is perfectly civil.
Further, despite the fact that prefacing a statement with words such as “you know,” or “do you know,” is not an inquiry regarding the listener’s knowledge, but is rather shorthand for, “Are you aware of the fact(s) that…”, at least in the English language as spoken on planet Earth, here on FR those words indicate that whatever follows is a question—even when it is in the form of a statement. Of course, no one on FR would dream of pointing those things out, because to do so might give rise to the totally mistaken impression that the speaker is implying that the moderators are either biased or stupid, or both, and we all know that can’t be true.
Yes, it is a great comfort to know that, here on FR, anyone can say anything they like about us so long as they have their copy of “Quotes of Oscar Wilde” ready to hand, and so long as they are able to couch their insults as indirections that *seem* to be directed at no specific person (wink wink, nudge nudge). It is a great comfort to know that however obvious it may be that those indirections are in fact insults directed at a specific poster, the mask will remain in place, and no sanctions will be levied.
Some people—no one here on FR, of course—might go so far as to think, mistakenly and maliciously, that the level of the posts and the intelligence of the posters have declined markedly over the past ten years (What kind of loon would think that, eh?), and might—astounding as it may be, and remember that no one here on FR would think such a thing—think that the completely hypothetical and fictional style of moderating not described above was a major factor in that completely imaginary flight of those who make the totally unreasonable request of intellectual honesty in moderation.
Some people, eh?
But, if a person IS; then no doubt it will mean quite a lot to them!