Announcing: A New Forum Just For The Malcontents!
Right now, I'm quite tired. I stayed up very late last night -- answering posts made by anonymous snipers -- and I only got three hours of sleep as a result. Now, I like this blog, and enjoy the give and take of a real debate, but, I like sleep even more. And I especially prefer sleep, over time wasted answering those who have no serious point to make, but merely wish to launch baseless attacks and heap ridicule on those who have real points to make, like me.
So, starting now, I'm cleaning up this place. There will be no more stupid, content free attacks made on anyone, regardless of the "side" they support. Nor will I tolerate foul language or gutter minded insinuations made about anyone who posts here. And, of course, if anyone posts an obvious libel, it will be promptly deleted from the blog.
I know this sounds like bad news for those various cowards who get such a thrill anonymously disrupting our attempts at serious discussion. But take heart, cowards of the county! I promised all of you "free speech." And that is exactly what you will get... just not on the "Giles Free Speech Zone!"
I've spared no effort to create an appropriate forum for those of you who wish to spend your time cursing, defaming, and sidetracking real debate. Want to be a part of my new forum? Well, all you have to do, is post something stupid or pointless here, and I'll quickly delete it, and repost it -- uncensored, and in all its glory -- at the new forum.
More rules, and explanation for these rules, will be posted in this thread later... as soon as I catch up on my sleep. Meanwhile, why don't you visit the new site -- The Mouthbreather Zone --- and see what a fine joint I've established for the unhappy folks who do nothing but complain here?
Oh yes... one more thing. As much fun as it sometimes is to verbally stomp on the cowardly anonymous posters who make hit and run attacks on me, I don't plan to engage in that sort of thing in the future. The new blog will simply be an online exile for the posters who refuse to obey the rules. An electronic "Siberia" for the mouthbreathers who have nothing better to do, than attempt to annoy people, and disrupt serious discussions. And by simply transferring their postings to the "Mouthbreather Zone" -- rather than rebutting them -- I'll have much more time to actually discuss the issues. And of course, more time to sleep... and that's a good thing!
So, starting now, I'm cleaning up this place. There will be no more stupid, content free attacks made on anyone, regardless of the "side" they support. Nor will I tolerate foul language or gutter minded insinuations made about anyone who posts here. And, of course, if anyone posts an obvious libel, it will be promptly deleted from the blog.
I know this sounds like bad news for those various cowards who get such a thrill anonymously disrupting our attempts at serious discussion. But take heart, cowards of the county! I promised all of you "free speech." And that is exactly what you will get... just not on the "Giles Free Speech Zone!"
I've spared no effort to create an appropriate forum for those of you who wish to spend your time cursing, defaming, and sidetracking real debate. Want to be a part of my new forum? Well, all you have to do, is post something stupid or pointless here, and I'll quickly delete it, and repost it -- uncensored, and in all its glory -- at the new forum.
More rules, and explanation for these rules, will be posted in this thread later... as soon as I catch up on my sleep. Meanwhile, why don't you visit the new site -- The Mouthbreather Zone --- and see what a fine joint I've established for the unhappy folks who do nothing but complain here?
Oh yes... one more thing. As much fun as it sometimes is to verbally stomp on the cowardly anonymous posters who make hit and run attacks on me, I don't plan to engage in that sort of thing in the future. The new blog will simply be an online exile for the posters who refuse to obey the rules. An electronic "Siberia" for the mouthbreathers who have nothing better to do, than attempt to annoy people, and disrupt serious discussions. And by simply transferring their postings to the "Mouthbreather Zone" -- rather than rebutting them -- I'll have much more time to actually discuss the issues. And of course, more time to sleep... and that's a good thing!
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 12:57 PM
18 Comments:
I'm no fan of censorship but realize that all privileges carry a responsibility. I applaud the new level of responsibility to be required of posters. Thanks for your efforts and dedication. Allen Barrett
Allen,
Thank you for your kind comments. With a little luck, this blog may become a more pleasant place to visit. Please let me know if you feel I'm using my censor's scalpel too freely, as I, like you, don't want to stifle legitimate debate.
very good it was getting old reading those stupid comments after a reasonable discussion...also could you check the last post under WAB: Financial Management Act Delays ...thanks
sign me as....
Head out of Sand (Finally)...lol
Kendrick..
Your use of the word "pleasant" is so amusing. Actually, it's more than amusing, because the tactics being used by "those who know best" are challenged by people like me.
Just what do you call "legitimate" debate? Are we who have a problem with all the accusations, name-calling, etc. not going to be allowed to post our points of view anymore? I wonder.
Kendrick;
I appreciate what you do, and thank you.
Although I lurk here almost every day, I've only replied two other times.
Once to the Ghost Town topic and once to another topic that I don't remember the subject to.
That one was to clarify that I would always post with my full name, Walter Wood, because someone else had used just "Walter".
I think that free speach is a right, but is also a privlege.
I'm also tired of the constant sniping, name calling, and generally useless posts by many who will not or cannot reveal their identies.
I hope you will send ALL of those posts to the malcontents blog.
That way we will not have to sort through the venom to read the posts of those that are trying to help.
Thanks again.
Walter Wood
Anonymous, August 05, 2007 8:18:00 AM, said:
Your use of the word "pleasant" is so amusing.
Why do you say that? I've been far more pleasant than the cowardly snipers who attack me. Check out the "Exposing the Income Tax Fraud" thread, if you don't know what I am talking about.
Actually, it's more than amusing, because the tactics being used by "those who know best" are challenged by people like me.
Look pal, why don't you stop "whining" about alleged "tactics," and start worrying about the truth. If I, or someone else posts an untruth, then by all means, point it out for the public to see. But, otherwise, I think you really ought to just keep your trap shut.
Just what do you call "legitimate" debate?
That's a fair question, and the answer will be made obvious when I get finished with, and post, the final rules for this blog. I'll get that done as soon as I can, but I'm not in any rush, because I don't want to make any rule that I wind up needing to change later. So, please be patient.
But here's a clue: the key word in "legitimate debate" is "debate." If you look at the ridiculous attacks made on me in the Income Tax thread I just mentioned, you'll see that none of them were an attempt to "debate" me. Stupid off topic posts like those do nothing more than divert real debate, and, in the future, such posts will be deleted and re-posted at the "Mouthbreather Zone."
Incidentally, if you have any ideas regarding what would constitute a fair set of rules, feel free to make a suggestion or two. I'll certainly consider anything that sounds appropriate.
Are we who have a problem with all the accusations, name-calling, etc. not going to be allowed to post our points of view anymore?
Want to give a specific example of what you're talking about? For instance, do you have a problem with my identifying instances where Roger Reedy has lied to the public, and then calling him a liar? If you do, then what would you suggest I say, in lieu of telling the unvarnished truth? I'd certainly like to hear your answer!
I wonder.
Take heart... you won't have all that long to wonder. And the bottom line is, I'm a reasonable guy, and you can certainly expect me to develop a reasonable set of rules. Just wait and see, if I don't do exactly that...
Praise the Lord, it is past time to to do this. Thanks!
Kendrick..
So I take it that any post you don't particularly like will be deleted and routed to another thread? Absolutely and astoundingly hilarious!
So much for a free speech blog. Laughable.
Walter Wood,
Thank you for your kind remarks. Inasmuch as I get many more viruses emailed to me -- I am guessing, from people who dislike this blog -- than I get praise posted in this forum, you can rest assured that they were appreciated.
I hope that my new posting rules will encourage more people to do as you have done, and post under their own name. Again, thanks.
Anonymous, August 07, 2007 7:03:00 PM, said:
So I take it that any post you don't particularly like will be deleted and routed to another thread?
Nope. Not even close. Do you think I "particularly like" the various nitwit posts that are claiming -- without offering any evidence, as is usually the case -- that I am "dangerous?" Well, I don't... and yet I haven't exiled them to Siberia, have I? Funny, huh?
Absolutely and astoundingly hilarious!
No, what is hilarious, is your belief (made implicit by your criticizing my new policy) that remarks such as were directed at me in the "Income Tax" thread, have some value, and deserve to remain on the blog. They don't. And in the future, if any such remarks are made, they will be promptly exiled to Cyber-Siberia.
So much for a free speech blog.
You don't seem to understand how "free speech" really works. This blog is my private property, and, as such, I have every right to determine what is posted here. I am perfectly within my rights to be the only poster, or to allow anyone and everyone to post here, or to choose some middle ground between the two extremes.
As owner/webmaster, I could, if I wanted, require everyone who wanted to post, to register with Google, and beg to be placed on a list of "approved" posters. I could, as did Penny Thoughts of the old blog, flip a digital switch, and require all posts to be approved by me, before they show up on the blog.
I am not a control freak... but that doesn't mean I don't have some standards. You and I both know that if I hadn't established a "PG-13" policy regarding profanity last year, this blog would by now be so filled with cuss words, that most decent minded people would simply refuse to log in and read it.
There are two types of people who post here: those who are interested in becoming informed and/or engaging in real debate on the issues... and those who simply want to prevent the truth from getting out and/or shutting down the debate. These latter people are known as disrupters, and every website that allows public comments generally has problems with them.
In my case, it came down to this: I realized I could spend my precious time writing about and discussing the issues that are important to me, or I could spend it by answering the idiotic attacks made by the disrupters. Check out the income tax thread, and you'll see what was going on...
The disrupters may not have the facts on their side, or morality or logic... but they were shrewd enough to figure out something that took me a long time to understand. Namely, they realized that they could spend about thirty seconds of their time posting some idiotic insinuation about me, and, in response, I'd be forced to waste an hour of my time slapping them down.
Presumably, if I didn't answer them in a prompt manner, they'd start shrieking in triumph that my silence proved they were right about me, much as someone did when I failed to immediately answer a poster on the issue of "how do you know things for sure." (Note: I'm still working on that... I don't trust my memory, and there' s some stuff on Bill Clinton I need to look up to make my case, and I just haven't had the time. Please bear with me... I'll get it answered soon enough.)
By making me spend hours answering their sleazy insults, the disrupters took away my ability to discuss the real issues. And, although I truthfully enjoyed putting my boot up their posterior (the "Income Tax" thread should demonstrate that they always got the worst in any exchange with me), the truth is, I just couldn't continue stomping on piss-ants. Because if I did, they'd simply post more thirty second hit and run jobs, and positively guarantee that I had no time left to write on the topics that truly mattered.
So, yes, this is still a free speech blog. As I've tried to explain before, although this blog is primarily for my free speech, I very generously allow others to post here, so long as they are willing to comply with a few very loose rules. As always, anyone who pines for the privilege to defame my mother, is free to start their own blog. Quite unlike the Lakes, if any of my "critics" actually does start their own blog, I'll be more than happy to help them publicize it.
Finally, I must point out that my creation of the new "malcontents" blog actually is a relaxation of my rules, rather than a further tightening of them. In the past, I simply deleted comments that were laced with obscenity. But now, if any of these are posted, I will simply move them from this blog to the other. In addition, whenever I transfer a comment, there will be a note in the thread "advertising" that a comment has been deleted by me.
So, whenever you run across the notice "comment removed by administrator," simply jump over to the "Mouthbreather's Zone," and see what it is that I've bounced. Honestly, what could be fairer than that? If you think my new policy in any way hinders freedom of speech, then you probably would also claim that, were a librarian to move a smutty book from the "kid's section" to the "adult's section," that she's engaging in "censorship." But that's just plain silly, and you know it!
Laughable.
No... what's laughable is that you are "whining" about a policy that you know good and well is not only reasonable, but also essential, if this blog is to avoid further degeneration into a cesspool. The bottom line is, if you don't like my new policy, you can simply leave... start your own blog if you like... I don't really care... but just either stop your incessant "whining," or leave. Thanks!
what i find interesting is that when the posters began to attack you more and more, you decided to remove their posts when one really struck a nerve. maybe now you know how others who have been constantly defamed on this blog feel, only they couldnt just hit the delete button. too bad you didnt see fit to remove what was being said about them, much of which is lies that some posters only claim to know for facts without any real truth to that. you sat by while people and families were humiliated by lies posted here, but let it be about you, and off they go!
and you finally admitted it--you support free speech as long as its yours! as you yourself said, its your free speech blog, and it doesnt matter what anyone says about someone you dont like or have a grudge against, as long as they dont say it about you. talk about hypocrisy.
What's a blog?
https://www.blogger.com/tour_start.g
I'm reposting the following from another thread, in hopes that the lame smear artists on this blog will read it, come to realize the idiocy of their off-topic posts, and make some sort of attempt to start dealing with the facts. -- JKM
Anonymous, August 08, 2007 7:18:00 PM, said:
Evidently you had a bad experience in school.
And evidently, you don't have the slightest clue as to the making of a logical argument! So let me offer you a free lesson in remedial logic, okay?
I've posted many, many facts in this and other threads -- such as a claim that Giles classroom teachers only get 36.4% of the money spent on "education" -- and yet, not one person has even attempted to dispute, let alone refute, the claims I've made. Without exception, every one of my "critics" -- and I use that term very, very loosely -- has simply tried to steer the "debate" away from facts and issues related to the subject being debated, and on to me, as a person, and my alleged deficiencies.
But that is a really, really STOO-PID way to try and engage in a "debate." It is, quite simply, childish in the extreme, and shows the utter intellectual impotence, of those who dislike what I am saying.
I am making many claims, on many threads, most of which would be considered "controversial" by the average person, and yet.... nobody on the other side makes any attempt to refute them. Instead, all you folks can do is sputter that I'm "an idiot" or "very dangerous" or the like.
But the truth is, facts stand or fall on their own, irrespective of who happens to bring them up in a debate. Thus, my factual claims are either right or wrong, and it simply doesn't matter whether I'm short or tall, fat or thin, black or white, happy or sad, married or single, gay or straight, religious or atheist, wealthy as Bill Gates or poor as Job's turkey, crazy as a loon or totally sane, educated in an Ivy League school or completely raised in the woods by a pack of wild timber wolves, and so forth.
NONE... OF... THAT... STUFF... MAKES... ANY... DIFFERENCE... IN... AN... HONEST... DEBATE... BETWEEN... GROWN-UPS... WHO... ARE... CAPABLE... OF... RATIONAL... THOUGHT!!!!!!!
Do you understand what I'm saying, or do I have to repeat myself, even slower and louder?
Tell ya what, I'll just turn over the floor to "Wikipedia," and see if it can drum some basic grasp of elemementary logic, into your apparently thick skull:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.
On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argument ad hominem is the converse of appeal to authority, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.
[herein ends Wikipedia extract]
If the above wasn't enough to make you "see the light," then there's much more -- including some pretty diagrams! -- right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominen
Please, for the love of God, give up the foolish and utterly lame use of ad hominen, and start dealing with the substance of the arguments I present here. Many thanks in advance!
At long last, here are the new rules!
The purpose of the "Giles Free Speech Zone" is to identify problems of concern to the people of Giles County, to discuss them in a gentlemanly and civil manner, while referring to the facts and giving evidence to back up whatever claims are made, making logical arguments that avoid any use of fallacy, and, hopefully, to come together in conclusion, and find a positive solution to the problem at hand.
Accordingly, all users of this blog are strongly advised to become familiar with the subject of "logical fallacies," which are listed and explained in many books on informal logic, as well as the at following websites:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
The use of any logical fallacy is to be discouraged on this blog. Anyone who resorts to the ad hominem fallacy, rather than arguing from the relevant facts, will see their comments immediately deleted and reposted at "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
Moreover, anyone who posts a complaint about one of their comments being transferred to the "malcontent's blog," will have their complaint deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
Anyone who attempts to annoy the Blogmaster by asking him the same question over and over again, even after it has been repeatedly answered in the past -- eg, "who has ever been hurt by the zoning plan?" -- will find their comment immediately deleted and reposted at "The Mouthbreather's Zone." Furthermore, any "civilian poster" who is asked a question which he believes has been fairly answered at least two times before, shall be entitled to file a complaint, which must point out exactly when and where the question has been previously answered. If the Blogmaster agrees that the continued questioning is being done in bad faith, he will post in the thread a "cease and desist" notice to the offending questioner. Should the question ever be raised again, in defiance of the "cease and desist" notice, then it will be deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
All posters should strive to remain on topic. The topic is indicated by the headline at the top of the thread. Discussion of the Blogmaster, other than perhaps to thank or compliment him, will always be considered "off topic" and result in such comments being deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone." Discussion of any other poster, especially if it verges on ad hominem, will also be considered "off topic" and will result in a warning from the Blogmaster. Anyone who subsequently ignores such a warning, will find their comments deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
All posters should strive to avoid the use of profanity, as well as sexual innuendo. The word "damn" -- and it's derivatives, other than the "God" version -- shall be acceptable. The word "hell" -- and it's derivatives, such as "hellfire" -- shall be acceptable. The word "bastard" shall not be used, other than in its literal sense -- ie, as a description of an illegitimate child. The "F" word, the "S" word, and other especially bad words, shall not be used. Nor shall "sound alikes" be used, as is common on network television nowadays. If it is absolutely essential to your point that you must use a prohibited word, please employ asterisks to obscure the bad language. For example, you could quote George W. Bush as saying, "The Constitution is just a G**damned piece of paper!" (Incidentally, the "Decider Guy" really did say that, in front of witnesses.)
Basically, I would like the language on this blog to be no coarser than was allowed on network television in 1970. If Archie Bunker could say it, then feel free to go and do likewise. Otherwise, please don't. The Blogmaster simply doesn't have the time to edit out foul language in posts; therefore, any comment that violates these profanity rules will be deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
All decisions of the Blogmaster, or any other official moderator he may choose to appoint, shall be considered final. Complaints about any official decision of the Blogmaster, or any other official moderator, will be deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
The Blogmaster reserves the right to amend these rules -- to add to them, or subtract from them -- at any time he chooses. If you have a civil suggestion about the above rules, please post it in this thread only. Please accept the Blogmaster's rules without complaining. Suggestions posted in the wrong thread, along with complaints of any nature, will be deleted and transferred to "The Mouthbreather's Zone."
The Blogmaster endeavors that "The Giles Free Speech Zone" be considered akin to the "Family Aisle" of a library. Anything that doesn't properly belong in the "Family Aisle" will be immediately re-shelved in the "Adult Aisle," which is better known as "The Mouthbreather's Zone." Please remember that, being allowed to have your say in "The Mouthbreather's Zone" is still free speech, and should be appreciated as a generous gift from the Blogmaster.
Anyone who feels overly burdened by the Blogmaster's "new rules" is, as always, welcomed to start their own blog. Meanwhile, here is some interesting material gleaned from the Net, relating to the conduct of a debate, that you may find of use. Consider it, not as additional "rules," but merely helpful suggestions:
Definition of Argument:
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate.
2. To prove or attempt to prove by reasoning.
3. To give evidence of your reasoning.
4. To persuade or influence, as by presenting reasons.
Synonyms of Argument:
Argue, quarrel, wrangle, squabble, haggle, and bicker.
These verbs are compared as they mean to dispute.
Argue - This implies intent to persuade an adversary in debate.
Quarrel - This stresses animosity and estrangement.
Wrangle - This refers to loud, contentious argument and squabble to minor argument over a petty or trivial matter.
Haggle - This specifies verbal bargaining usually over a price, in a petty way.
Bicker - This suggests sharp, recurrent exchange of remarks on a mean or petty level.
A. How to Agree Strongly with an Opinion.
1. I couldn't agree more!
2. That's absolutely true!
3 .Absolutely!
4. I agree with your point.
5. I'd go along with you there.
6. I'm with you on that.
7. That's just what I was thinking.
8. That's exactly what I think.
9. That's a good point.
10. That's just how I see it.
11. That's exactly my opinion.
B. How to Half Agree with an Opinion.
1. Yes, perhaps, however ...
2. Well, yes, but ...
3. Yes, in a way, however ...
4. Hmm, possibly, but ...
5. Yes, I agree up to a point, however ...
6. Well, you have a point there, but ...
7. There's something there, I suppose, however.
8. I guess you could be right, but ...
9. Yes, I suppose so, however ...
10. That's worth thinking about, but ...
C. How to Disagree Politely with an Opinion.
1. I am not so sure.
2. Do you think so?
3. Well, it depends.
4. I'm not so certain.
5. Well, I don't know.
6. Well, I'm not so sure about that.
7. Hmm, I'm not sure you're right.
8. I'm inclined to disagree with that.
9. No, I don't think so.
D. How to Disagree Strongly with an Opinion.
1. I disagree.
2. I disagree with your idea.
3. I'm afraid I don't agree.
4. I'm afraid your idea is wrong.
5. I can't agree with you.
6. I couldn't accept that for a minute.
7. You can't actually mean that.
8. I wouldn't go along with you there.
9. You can't be serious about that.
10. You must be joking.
11. It's possible you are mistaken about that.
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Stress the positive.
16. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
17. Concede minor or trivial points.
18. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
19. Watch your tone of your writing.
20. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
21. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
Note: You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone, even someone you know quite well. With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
kendrick,
Why don't you follow your own advice?
And while you are at it, can you keep your comments short.
Anonymous, August 11, 2007 7:50:00 PM, said:
Why don't you follow your own advice?
In what way have I not been following my own rules? I certainly have called some people idiots, but only after they demonstrated their idiocy, usually by namecalling me. And I've always argued with the facts, rather than slinging around ad hominems.
When somebody a week ago made a derogatory innuendo about my mother, I returned the compliment. Under the "new rules" my reply, like the comment that precipitated it, would have been "Mouthbreather Zone" material. But my posting was perfectly in adherence to the "old rules" that were then in effect.
Anyway, if I break the rules I've posted, feel free to jump in the thread and point my hypocrisy out. I'll stipulate that "pointing out the Blogmaster's violation of the posted rules currently in effect" will always be "on-topic." But, as always, please be specific!
Anonymous, August 11, 2007 7:52:00 PM, said:
And while you are at it, can you keep your comments short.
I'll do the best I can. But, please bear in mind that it takes longer to, for example, defend against the claim that you are "delusional" than to make the original hit and run attack.
If "debate" is reduced to the level of "did not" -- "did" -- "did not" -- etcetera... it can be done with very brief comments. But what would be gained from engaging in that style of "debate?" Not much.
Post a Comment
<< Home