Point by point
Jean Kerr, in her classic collection of humorous short stories Please Don't Eat the Daisies, remarked that her oldest son Chris drove her crazy with his extreme and specific challenges to the intent of her words. One exchange:
"Don't bang the table with your spoon."
"I'm not banging, I'm tapping."
"Don't tap the table with your spoon."
"It's not a spoon, it's a fork."
"Don't tap the table with your fork."
"It's not a good fork." Etc.
I see by your opposites argument that this debate by erosion style has not yet died. Therefore, to clarify:
1) Dictionary definitions don't mean anything.
That was never said or implied. What was said was that the dictionary is at best a general reference, a starting point, in much the same way as, say, World Book Encyclopedia is a general source.
The dictionary is not a reference for legal terms.
When using terms of the very specific meaning used in a legal document, the legal meaning is the only one. This is especially true when someone is making an accusation that can be construed as criminal. That kind of term was used in the exchange in question.
2) Unwritten rules as to when a moderator is speaking as a moderator are obvious.
This I find disingenuous in the extreme. Anyone who has been here for a while understands when someone is speaking as a moderator. More to the point, this very thing -- how to know when someone is speaking as a moderator -- was discussed to death before the moderator duties were parsed out, only, what, two months ago?
That should be obvious to anyone but a newbie.
Would it be better to have something defined and specified, and put in the User's Guide that maybe two or three people read anyway? Would having something written there make it more obvious?
3) Providing aid and comfort to the enemy has nothing to do with treason and no reasonable person would think otherwise.
Again, nothing of the kind was said. That's the legal (there's that word again) definition of treason.
However, there are legal issues raised by the use of that verbiage. "Providing aid and comfort" is very specific. Does the speaker have evidence of such specific acts? If not, is it reasonable or wise to cheapen the charge of treason by throwing it around willynilly? Is it appropriate to attempt to intimidate people by the use of a criminal accusation when they are in fact, legally, not guilty of the crime?
4) Freedom of speech means saying whatever you want with regard to your country true or false, but does not include calling providing aid and comfort to the enemy treason.
Freedom of speech protects political speech of all kinds. Freedom of speech does not protect the speaker in the case of false accusation of a crime, which itself is a crime. If someone has witnessed another citizen giving aid and comfort to the enemy, that witness has an obligation to give evidence against the alleged traitor, bearing in mind that "aid and comfort" have been defined concretely and much more narrowly than saying "The king is a fink."
5) Rules that apply to RL as a moderator don't apply to RS.
Robert has already apologized for any appearance of unclarity about which persona he used, even though it was clear to many people, including me. He has promised to be more careful. If the rules didn't apply, he would not have seen or acknowledged the need to say either of those things. That should be enough.
Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.
6) People who seldom if ever post on flame obviously read posts on flame.
How about this?: People who seldom if ever post on Flame, but who are told that a discussion of their remarks would continue at that location, may be able to find their way there if they so choose. Whether or not they make any remark during their visits, if any, is strictly up to them. That is, the absence of writing doesn't indicate an absence of reading, especially when one is told specifically where the conversation will resume.
These items are all the exact opposite of the points I was trying to make. Since you say my points were all wrong, are these all right?
The exact opposite of the points you were trying to make would be points that included a more detailed study of their content, not a photographic negative of the same image. Please don't mistake appearance for content.
OK so you voted.
Nobody voted. People expressed their opinions. Many disagreed with you. That doesn't make it a contest. That makes it a disagreement. However, if you're keeping score, I guess that makes it a contest to you.
We had an election in 2004. Democrats lost. You going to admit you were wrong on all those issues?
Issues? No. Tactics, yes.