Joined: June 2007
|Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:41)|
|Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)|
|I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,|
Oh, to be young and naive again...
Meanwhile, Sal responds:
|Regarding moderation and rhetoric.|
One rhetorical move is:
1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument
2. The Heckler gets himself tossed
3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures
Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".
Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum
My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.
I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.
I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.
Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.
Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.
Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.
I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight
To which I respond:
| I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.|
You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.
Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB