Ted Hoffman

I agree, but then again, there are several things that have no place in a serious discussion. In fact, there are several ongoing discussions that I would say are not serious themselves, so the term "serious", IMO, does not carry much meaning in the current context. The correctt thing, IMO, is that the mod should not step in unless forum rules are violated.

Amaleq13

IIDB rules are not that restrictive with regard to moderator action. Even if we disagree about the insulting nature of the label as it was used (though I'm not sure how one could argue that given it was offered as a basis to ignore the individual's argument), it is obvious that use of the term served no purpose in the discussion except to create a derailing tangent.

That, alone, is sufficient reason for an in-thread warning to avoid the nonsense and stick the facts.

rlogan

Gosh, we have "JMythers" and other labels used without offense (I think) too.

Some posters are using the apologist = retard relation.

But it isn't always applicable.

:angel:

Ted Hoffman

I find the whole thing capricious - even what qualifies as nonsense. But I guess that is just how it is. Other than this "apologist" incident, I think you guys are doing a great job. Its water under the bridge now. I will just take this as a message that the use of the word "apologist" to refer to another poster is against forum rules and move on.

Amaleq13

IMO, it isn't so much against the rules as it is irrelevant in a rational discussion and highly likely to generate a derailing tangent. If you believe your opponent's arguments are based on faith, calling him an apologist does not establish this fact with evidence but accusation. Present the evidence (or lack thereof) and allow readers to draw their own conclusions about the individual's motives.