Seeking clarification on what qualifies as 'personal abuse'

Easy to wind up ≠ personally abusive.

You're just arguing semantics here, you've implied by your words that you believe the other poster is an unserious one.

This entire thread is about the semantics of what does/does not constitute abuse. I didn't imply any such thing, if someone inferred it, that's on them. I don't believe they are unserious, I am telling them that posting in the manner they do portrays them as unserious. There is a small, but significant difference.

The whole point of the thread in the first place is whether 'you are not being serious' is personal abuse.

You posted the definition of deliberately obtuse and said that I would be better off using that. I'm not, because being slow to understand, whether doing so deliberately or not, has nothing to do with what I was saying. It's completely irrelevant. You advised me to use a words that don't fit the definition of what I'm trying to say.

Since then, I have been speaking exclusively about the definition of intellectually dishonest. I've no idea why you are still clinging to the definition of a word which doesn't fit the bill.

I think the quote you referred to towards the end of your reply is, yes, a personal remark and could be considered abuse...

I disagree vehemently. Not all remarks about a person are personal remarks. And not all personal remarks warrant action. If anyone were to get a warning for such a comment, I'd gladly fight their corner, even if it was directed at me. Where is the line drawn? Any remark about a poster could be construed as abusive? I mean……

But that doesn't mean that you weren't guilty of it too, way back in the first instance that got this whole debate started.

This is you calling me guilty of something….by your own definition, this could be called personal and, therefore, abusive? Really?

Also, a person can provide reasoning for their point of view - and still overstep the mark with a personal remark. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Agreed. I wouldn't dare claim otherwise, so apologies if it came across that way. That's not what I was doing, however, not what I intended on doing and certainly not what the mod who issued the warning said. I was told that saying 'these (cited examples) are not the actions of a serious poster' was straight up personal abuse.

Nothing has dropped.

The definition you're using is not applicable to the meaning I'm trying to convey.

The definition your AI came up with is not correct for the words I used, so your advice to use it is misguided.

I'm not trying to say anyone is slow to understand.

I'm not saying they're being deliberately slow to understand.

I'm not saying they're slow to do anything.

You are. Incorrectly.

And you are advising me to do the same, also incorrectly.

That's not what I want to say, so I won't be taking your advice.

I don't think you've fully grasped that yet.

Maybe.

At the risk of repeating myself, though, being confrontational and/or using paragraphs and/or being argumentative does not fit the 'personal abuse' charge. Not even nearly. Plenty of posters do all three without reprimand.

I disagree with this also.

I'm not trying to redefine anything, I'm wondering about a mod's very, very loose definition of something which has long been established on this site, and asking if this is the new norm. It is they who are redefining 'personal abuse' in my mind.

You seem to be going to excessive length to justify and redefine things to suit your argument, to the point now where you won't even accept that someone was making a personal remark about you - because it undermines your own argument!

That isn't a personal remark, though? At least, not in the 'he deserves a warning' way, it isn't.

You've conflated a remark I made about your behaviour, with a personal remark about a person's character, again, for a second time. Those aren't the same things?

Yes, my entire point is that they're two separate things. I commented on the poster's behaviour, not their character, and cited the posts where the behaviour was exhibited, and said that wasn't the behaviour of a serious poster. This is 1 million miles away from dismissing someone or saying 'don't mind him, he's not a serious poster'. IMO, anyway.