RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Civility, What is it and when to use it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:05   

h word?  Come on, did you not sleep last night?  What h word is censored here?

Actually, how come the swear words are getting through?

As for lying creationists, with regards to TiS, I like to inquire about how come the essay on horse evolution on their website is functionally equivalent to a creationist essay available on the web, only its had references to the flood etc removed.  If that isnt dishonest, I dont know what is.  So far the person I've asked this of has not replied.

Finally, given what we use them for, and often seem obsessed with using them, why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:09   

Quote
h word?  Come on, did you not sleep last night?  What h word is censored here?


Oops. Erm, as it happens no I didn't sleep very well, but it was inexcusable of me to forget the h word. Thanks for the reminder.

Quote
...why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names?


Not a clue. I've never understood why sex is "naughty" either. If you based your ideas on TV/film you'd think it was perfectly ok to give someone a baseball bat to the back of the head but an orgasm is a total no no. Go figure. Probably something to do with the French.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:14   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,10:09)
Probably something to do with the French.

Louis

H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.
*waves 2 fingers and goes to practice archery*







Only kidding.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:42   

I thought it was our "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity" kind of protestantism that did it.  
Then the USA'ians took it over and mutated it into its modern forms.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,12:16   

Stephen,

Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this

Quote
H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.


isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified.

The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,12:40   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,12:16)
Stephen,

Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this

   
Quote
H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.


isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified.

The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel.

Louis

Pfffft! In the words of the good duke Wellington "death to the French!" Confound them, #### your eyes!


and any other "Johnny Foriegner" too. Including the #### uppity colonials on this board.

/Lord Errington-Smythe (1st chief biggot)

See how Civility I can be? Not a single F word.

EDIT: Except for French of course.....curses!
EDIT2: and Foriegner....curses squared.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,13:17   

Re "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity"

Does that have something to do with flagella being "designed"? ;)

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,15:06   

It was AFDave's continued practice of quote-mining to prove his points that turned his arguments into nothing more than grade school oneupsmanship.  A silly tactic that put me off replying to the rubbish he presented.

I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything (i.e. AFDave was not a "master of the quote-mined word" or "master of the creationist word definition").  In my eyes AFDave regressed as time went on.  His debating tactics were limited to begin with.  He presented hard data less and less as time went on.  When the board consistently beat his presented arguments to a pink mist time and time again then AFDave was left with nothing more than semantics and word games.  He dared not put forward any hard data to support his views because he knew the treatment that was in store for him.

I support steve in closing the thread, it wasn't adding anything to any discussion this forum is created for (it's impact to the forum was complete before UCGH I was finished).  And AFDave was duly warned to "improve" his game or face restrictions and/or limitations.  Unfortunately for AFDave, he couldn't improve or change his discourse so the threatened action was carried out to the letter.  I for one was hoping that AFDave could change his stripes, but he kept up his inane semantics and c&p crusade that didn't add any worthwhile discussion to the thread or to the board.

As for posting on the Bathroom Wall, at present I see the responders (troll feeders) as guilty as AFDave for the continued "discussion".  Treat AFDave on the Bathroom Wall like hereoisreal was treated on his own thread, ignore the itch and the itch should go away.  This tactic is unenforcable to everyone, but as more people stop responding then AFDave becomes more of a voice in the wilderness.

Does a creationist argument sound stupid if there is no one there to hear it?  Let's find out.

Mike PSS

  
ke.



Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:04   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,12:40)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,12:16)
Stephen,

Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this

     
Quote
H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.


isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified.

The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel.

Louis

Pfffft! In the words of the good duke Wellington "death to the French!" Confound them, #### your eyes!


and any other "Johnny Foriegner" too. Including the #### uppity colonials on this board.

/Lord Errington-Smythe (1st chief biggot)

See how Civility I can be? Not a single F word.

EDIT: Except for French of course.....curses!
EDIT2: and Foriegner....curses squared.

Well as GWB said "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur" so consequently we can blame them for screwing up the English language, making GWB a gauche petit Garçon, as well as making the English prudes       :O

And uppity colonials ? ......Ashes 5-0 maybe you're Lordship  shouldn't have sent your best ..er 'entrepreneurs' to The Provence of Georgia and then Botany Bay (snicker)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:21   

K.E.

Don't make me explain again what Test matches are a test of. ;-)

BTW well done. We were shocking. Ach how the mighty are fallen. But we will rise again, oh yes, we will.

Not for a while probably!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:29   

Quote (ke. @ Jan. 16 2007,03:04)
And uppity colonials ? ......Ashes 5-0 maybe you're Lordship  shouldn't have sent your best ..er 'entrepreneurs' to The Provence of Georgia and then Botany Bay (snicker)

Don't think I don't know what you are up to here. You are trying to prove superior sporting prowess for the side you support and are stooping to using facts.

You dastardly swine. All sorts could be proven if you use facts. Sneaky underhanded tactic.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:05   

As a soon-to-be resident of Aotearoa, Bay of Plenty region (what you pakeha bastards call New Zealand)...I have only one thing to say: Go All Blacks!.

This has nothing to do with the fact that my honey's brothers -- all six of them-- are huge Mo-Fo's that back the side, and they're not the biggest guys in the entire extended family. 157-167 cm, 113-122 kg seems the average. If you hear me screaming, send lawyers, guns and money.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:17   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,00:05)
... Go All Blacks!...

Yeh, all blacks. Go. In fact, bugger off. As far away as possible.


Ok Ok Ok I quotemined, distorted etc.
"C'Mon Wigan!" (but the 1980's cool Wigan, rather than the wasted remnant we have now).

EDIT: F'Kin antipodeans think they are goood just coz they win most competitions. Bloody Johnny upstarts the lot'a'ya!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,09:01   

Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien.

Louis

* Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,10:02   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,08:05)
As a soon-to-be resident of Aotearoa, Bay of Plenty region (what you pakeha bastards call New Zealand)...I have only one thing to say: Go All Blacks!.

This has nothing to do with the fact that my honey's brothers -- all six of them-- are huge Mo-Fo's that back the side, and they're not the biggest guys in the entire extended family. 157-167 cm, 113-122 kg seems the average. If you hear me screaming, send lawyers, guns and money.

Now, now supporting the All Blacks in NZ is PURELY voluntary. Doing it in Australia - a calling, for expat Kiwis, especially since it get up the noses of our colonial cousins. <snigger>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:34   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:01)
Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien.

Louis

* Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty.

Let's be fair to demaillen.  He/she is probably unaware of the history of Avo, and probably only wants to ensure civil discourse so that we remain above the fundies and their level (i.e. don't sink to their level.)  It's an important thing to remember, as I know that sometimes I step over the line and need reminding from time to time.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10375
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:43   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05)
... lawyers, guns and money.

I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2007,18:43)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05)
... lawyers, guns and money.

I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

Autodidact, IQ 150+ DaveTard?

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2007,17:43)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05)
... lawyers, guns and money.

I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

Warren Zevon, the immortal Warren's immortal song "Lawyers, Guns and Money". You're either very very young (anyone at all younger than I am), or, or, oh, heck, this is a thread about civility. . . go download the song and learn it. It comes in handy.

Ra-Ul

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,18:58   

Raul = correct, that was my reference. And a #### great song, exemplary of Zevon's genius.

edit: steve--I'm trying to locate if it has anything to do with Hunter S. Thompson, but it seems to keep coming back to Zevon more or less originating it as a catchphrase.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,19:00   

Quote
I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything


mastery of bation, perhaps?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,02:52   

OK, Ported from the Avo "thread":

Demallien 1

Cedric 1

Louis 1

Demallien 2

Deadman 1

Cedric 2

Louis 2

Demallien 3

Darth 1

Demallien 4

Louis 3

Demallien 5

Louis 4

GCT 1

GCT 2

SteveStory 1

Lenny 1

Demallien 6

Demallien 7

Demallien 8

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,03:05   

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 31 2007,17:34)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:01)
Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien.

Louis

* Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty.

Let's be fair to demaillen.  He/she is probably unaware of the history of Avo, and probably only wants to ensure civil discourse so that we remain above the fundies and their level (i.e. don't sink to their level.)  It's an important thing to remember, as I know that sometimes I step over the line and need reminding from time to time.

It's 'she'.  And I've been around on PT long enough to be well aware of Avocationist's history.  The thing is, in the recent thread, she has been polite, and as far as I can tell, honest.  Previous efforts should not be held against a person, when it's clear that they have ceased infringing.  Otherwise I would be obliged to treat Louis as a bullying git for the rest of his days...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,03:51   

Demallien,

Quote
OK, Louis, let's look at the "argument" then.  In gross terms, I called Lenny on abusive behaviour, and you butted in, and attacked me (well, originally just my critique of Lenny, but it's got steadily more personal the longer things have gone on) instead.  That, overall, Louis, is the "argument".  Everthing else is to be read in that context.

You're right about the quote I gave defending Lenny's annoyance.  You can infact interpret it very narrowly, as you propose.  Indeed, at first, that's how I interpreted it too.  But later on, with your own admission that you are downright abusive, and that you aren't going to apologise with that, plus the famous frying pan comment have caused me to re-evaluate the first quote more widely, with 'annoyance' becoming an euphimism for 'abuse'.


I think this first bit sums up your problem. You consider people's tone "abusive" if the word "fuck" (or whatever) is used, I don't. When I said I was occasionally abusive I wasn't defending outright abuse in the sense of your pub analogy, or even saying I do it (I don't) what I was talking about was that, as a fallible human being I am far from above calling a lying wanker a lying wanker should the mood take me (and additionally I could [and have] mount a relatively robust defense of said terminology). This directly implies that there must be some prior history of lying wankerism before the utterance is made. So no Demallien, I have NOT admitted to being abusive in the sense YOU mean it, I have admitted to being abusive in the sense I mean it, and have taken great pains to define what that is. Nice strawman, no dice.

Here's the full comment:

Quote
I agree with you that simply abusing Avo (or anyone like her) is not the way forward, and sorry but I personally have not SIMPLY abused anyone ever. Note key word. I might get extremely pissed off with people mincing about and being dishonest before you would do so, and I'll cheerfully hold my hands up to being an intolerant bastard on that front. And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts.


We can tell the part you quote isn't the full thing because, in the interests of naughty grammar, I started the section you quote with a conjunction, "and". The full quote rather molifies your use of it doesn't it? Not only that but it refers to my eplanation of what abuse is and isn't, something you continually miss.

Also you seem to be under the incredibly erroneous impression that you have been attacked personally. Need I point out the irony of this from someone who has called me a bully, insinuated that I am a coward (with no basis in fact might I add), said I'm condescending, aggressive (hold my hand high up on this one! ), judgemental and snide. I could take offense if I were a sensitive flower! Luckily I'm not. This again is I think your reading of "tone" as you wish to see it, not (perhaps) as it is. Granted I am far from above sarcasm, but when, after going around this I think three times and you STILL are pulling a Humpty Dumpty (words mean whatever I say they mean) my patience, such as it is, is being tried. I have made it abundantly clear precisely what I mean by the word abuse (amongst other things), precisely what I consider abusive and precisely when and where I would or do use abuse. You are free to differ, but at least do so by answering the points and questions I've made rather than insisting your interpretation is the correct one and my own clearly stated one is not. The simple fact that you repeatedly infer that what YOU mean abuse to be (your, let's be honest, ridiculous and inaccurate pub analogy) is what I mean it to be when I have clearly stated that it isn't and defined what it IS doesn't fill me with any confidence that this is a productive discussion. Sorry if you don't like that.

The rest of your post is paranoid blither. Sorry, but it's just amusing. You seem to have taken massive umbrage at the question "are you an old friend Demallien?". Dare I say thanks for proving my point for me. You are so keen to see abuse and so keen to see hostility that you'll twist anything to be so. I freely admit to a degree of paranoia in even asking that question, but I'm also sad to say that I've often be proven right when I ask it. If have have unduly wronged you Demallien, then I apologise unreservedly. As a corrollary to that apology I will mention that your desire to see hostility where none exists and the manner in which you argue thus far does put me in mind of another poster. If my fallible human mind has made a connection and pattern which is false, then I can only say that I was wrong to make that connection and apologise.

As for ad hominem and my thinking you're a creationist, sorry but where have I done that (outside your interpretation of course)? I couldn't give a hoot if you are a creationist or not, I'm pretty sure that your evangelical atheist status and support of evolutionary biology is irrelevant to this discussion as indeed is mine. I'm chuffed we're on the same "team" but so what? Not only do I not think in "team" on this or indeed many other issues (I prefer to deal with people as individuals as far as is practicable). Would you like me to read a number of possible inferences into this particular comment of yours? Just to reiterate, ad hominem, where? Where have I made any argument of the form "Demallien (or anyone) is a nasty X/does nasty X/has nasty X and therefore his/her argument about unrelated topic Y is false"? Simple answer is I haven't. I don't expect an apology of course, just like I didn't expect one when you deliberately quote mined (yes that is taken out of context and inserted your own meaning)what I said about Lenny's justifiable annoyance (not abuse, there is STILL a difference). You even admit you were wrong to do so right before flipping back to justifying your "interpretation". Sorry chum, no dice yet again.

Frying pans. Now Demallien, like I said before you are a very uncharitable reader of what I wrote, it is just possible isn't it that I said what I meant (that the frying pan analogy was a cartoon, a humourous mental image like a Roadrunner cartoon)? If we really want to get all lit crit about the use of people's imagery might I draw your attention to your own comments re: dental rearrangement? I'm just curious to note that the first instance of what you in your own words consider abusive imagery was done by you. Personally, I don't consider that use of image abusive, but you do by the force of your own words. Dare I offer an OOPS on your behalf?

Oh and my writing lacks clarity? Perhaps you aren't sufficiently intelligent or well educated to comprehend the plainly written English word. This is, I will hasten to add, a possibility I don't even want to begin to consider, but if we are being honest it is at least at first glance a likely a possibility as my writing being obscure. I could make the comment that, since you seem keen to insist that what I mean by a term that I have clearly defined is what YOU mean by a term, less clearly defined if at all, that I have a degree of evidence to support this most unfortunate possibility. But then I'm more charitable than you, so I won't.

Perhaps Demallien, you might find I am eminently more reasonable if you assume I mean precisely what I say, rather than what you THINK I mean. That will also apply to your doubtless forthcoming character assassination based on my invidious and evil posts past.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:07   

OH and P.S. You have ignored repeated requests from me to answer a simple question:

Quote
That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?


Quote
Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying?


I also asked this same question with reference to the productivity of discussion.

This is not irrelevant and cuts to the very heart of why I would defend Lenny's annoyance (and perhaps even how he has expressed it, this is a separate issue as I remind you frequently) and decry someone else's dishonesty. Here's another analogy: in a war torn city my army had just conquered I would shoot those soliders who raped and merely punish those soldiers who looted. This is becaue I am explicitly making the value judgement that rape is a more severe crime than looting. Perhaps this is an imperfect analogy. On a message board such as this I consider dishonesty, willful ignorance (not mere default ignorance) and obfuscation as VASTLY more a hinderance to civil, rational, informative, productive discourse than any amount of what you might consider "abuse" (excepting the one straw scenario you make of the second a creationist enters a room someone yells "ARGH BLOODYFUCKCREATIONISTCUNTBUBBLESCUMBAGCUMSKIPBLEARGHH" which we both agree is not very useful and bloody horrible).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:20   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,03:51)

Louis, I'm not going to waste people's time trying to argue the difference between what you have written, and what you have meant.  Suffice to say, considering your objections to my interpretations, that there is apparently a great difference between the two.

This whole discussion has come about because I told Lenny to cool it on the abuse, and you jumped in to defend him.  Let's cut to the chase Louis.  Answer me these following, simple, questions:

1) Do you think that what Lenny has written on the Avocationist thread is abusive or not?

2) If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think that such abuse is acceptable on this forum.

This is my only point in this entire farce.  I've had a gutful of you launching strawmen (don't challenge me on this one Louis, I can give you at least three from your last post alone), making insinuations against my honesty, and your suggestions that I don't know how to read.  Come on Louis, instead of dancing around with ridiculous hypotheticals, how about you tell us exactly where you stand on Lenny's actions ion the Avocationist thread.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,04:07)
OH and P.S. You have ignored repeated requests from me to answer a simple question:

 
Quote
That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?


 
Quote
Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying?


I also asked this same question with reference to the productivity of discussion.

This is not irrelevant and cuts to the very heart of why I would defend Lenny's annoyance (and perhaps even how he has expressed it, this is a separate issue as I remind you frequently) and decry someone else's dishonesty. Here's another analogy: in a war torn city my army had just conquered I would shoot those soliders who raped and merely punish those soldiers who looted. This is becaue I am explicitly making the value judgement that rape is a more severe crime than looting. Perhaps this is an imperfect analogy. On a message board such as this I consider dishonesty, willful ignorance (not mere default ignorance) and obfuscation as VASTLY more a hinderance to civil, rational, informative, productive discourse than any amount of what you might consider "abuse" (excepting the one straw scenario you make of the second a creationist enters a room someone yells "ARGH BLOODYFUCKCREATIONISTCUNTBUBBLESCUMBAGCUMSKIPBLEARGHH" which we both agree is not very useful and bloody horrible).

Louis

I didn't answer the questions because they are strawmen Louis.  You are offering a false choice between accepting lies, or accepting abuse.  I have never claimed that I thought lying was acceptable, and I choose to accept neither.  

But here's the thing: lies are not so easy to be sure of.  Unless someone blatantly contradicts themself with provable intent to deceive, or mistates a known factwith provable intent to deceive, you can't know someone is lying.  Abuse on the other hand is there before our eyes.  It can, and in my opinion should, be policed.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:41   

No Demallien, they are not choices or strawmen. As I've repeatedly said this, for me, isn't just about what Lenny said to Avo, it's about a bigger consideration. How can they be strawmen if they are my opnely stated intent from the word go? Wow! Way to go. It is a simple question (actually two) which do you consider ruder, dishonesty or abuse, and which do you consider less conducive to productive discussion, dishonesty or abuse. It's not an either/or or black/white question it's a question about where YOU personally place the two naughtinesses relative to one another. So even your "interpretation" of  very simple questions is paranoidly seeing hostility where none exists.

Yet again I note that you are insisting that what YOU think I mean is what I mean when I've said it really isn't.

I'll tell you what Demallien, I'll answer your questions when a) you answer mine, and b) you deal with my argument as it is, not as you think it is. I am not responsible for your strawmen, sorry.

Louis

P.S. Let's just remind you what you are objecting to (added in edit)

Quote
He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo.

Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous.

Eh, but what do I know.

Louis


--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:49   

Actually, scratch all the above, I've got a better idea.

In the interests of a productive and civil discussion where no one is called a bully or has their ability to read for comprehension questioned (or what have you), how about we try this:

Demallien: you define what you mean by abuse, with examples. I'll do the same. Sound fair?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:54   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,04:41)
I'll tell you what Demallien, I'll answer your questions when a) you answer mine, and b) you deal with my argument as it is, not as you think it is. I am not responsible for your strawmen, sorry.

Louis

P.S. Let's just remind you what you are objecting to (added in edit)

Quote
He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo.

Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous.

Eh, but what do I know.

Louis

Yes, they are strawmen Louis.  The discussion has always been about Lenny's behaviour.  You chose to reply to a post that talked explicitly and uniquely about Lenny's abuse of Avocationist.

And, in case you missed the obvious, I've already answered your questions.  If I haven't been clear enough, I'll answer them again, so that the slow of wit can keep up:
Neither lying, nor abuse is acceptable.  As neither is acceptable, the question of which is "worse" is completely redundant.


Now, how about you answer mine.  Or are you going to try and bluff your way out again?

  
  207 replies since Jan. 13 2007,18:44 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]