Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Civility

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:56    Since this sort of exchange has happened to me before ( in the AFDave thread) I'll throw my two cents in. This is what I wrote at that time, about some "mystery complainant" who had e-mailed a moderator:   Quote 1) I've made a point of actually keeping accounts on the language that I've used since I VOLUNTEERED to tone down my use of "profanity" ---and the WORST thing that I've said since then was "calling Dave "fecal slime" for deliberately skewing my statements on chess-playing computers and saying that I somehow claimed natural selection was "intelligent." Last that I looked, "feces" wasn't "obscene" 2) I don't view my deliberate use of insults as "madness" nor does the use of any profanity neccessarily indicate "anger." I take issue with anyone small-minded enough to claim this. 3) The mystery e-mailer uses " you can bet your ass" while bemoaning the use of profanities? 4) The e-mailer expresses concern simultaneously that lurkers may misinterpret Occam and myself...then states that lurkers have " by and large decloaked" so (apparently) the thread should be closed due to lack of ...what, readership? And the e-mailer is "concerned" about non-existent readers?  If there's so few readers, then why be concerned about how a few may interpret my use of insults? And why should I care if Dave will carry my insults about as indictments of how mean scientists are? IF a person is so stupid as to accept Dave's word for things, WITHOUT looking at the data, then that person isn't going to be amenable to any kind of rational persuasion -- I give you Dave as an example of that. 5) IF any of my colleagues or friends DELIBERATELY went about lying, weaseling, using the tactics Dave has here, you can bet **your** ass I would use harsh language to express my displeasure. 6 ) I agree that words have meaning and there are many types of verbal aggression, ranging from slight disparagement, slurs, to outright "vile" language...but WHAT terms are considered "vile" vary from context to context both geographically and temporally. Shakespeare is replete with outright vulgarities ("bescumber, "pizzle," coynt" ) The Bible contains terms and images ( "Song of Solomon" anyone?) considered obscene and blasphemous at many time periods ( including DIRECTIONS to eating shit) . There is a huge degree of arbitrariness about what IS vulgar and what is not--If we were consistent, yelling 'Angels!', 'Mucous!', and 'Birthing!' would be just as bad as saying "Christ!", shit! or Damm!". During the Victorian period, a LEG was "vulgar" and a gentleperson spoke of a piano "limb" -- I'm sure you would be thrown out of a party if you even said "groin," yet today this is seen as quaint....which itself ( the word "quaint") meant "cunt" in Shakespeare's day (Chaucer used it as well). So, today, what IS profanity and blasphemy? "Damm","Crap" "bitch" and other terms are found in all mass media. But people are interested in POWER, so they try to control language, as Orwell pointed out. What are the effects of this? Well, there are over 400 instances of book censorship reported each year to the American Library Association...because of "vulgar" ideas and words. Look at the example of censorship in Panama City, Florida, where "not too long ago, the grim children's book , "I Am the Cheese" by Robert Cormier, and also "About David" by Susan Beth Pfeffer... were targeted by censors for being "depressing, vulgar, and immoral." They were banned from the curriculum. But this was just the beginning. One year later, 65 further books were removed from the curriculum and from classroom libraries for being "vulgar," "obscene," or "sexually related." Among the affected works were three works of the American canon: "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, Stephen Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage," and John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -along with "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Bronte and four of Shakespeare's plays... They were only protecting, they felt, impressionable young Floridians from Shakespeare's "lack of moral tenor." Three other Shakespeare plays were on their hit list as well: King Lear, The Merchant of Venice, and Twelfth Night." ( Quoted from http://www.macondo.nu/Hemliga/hemliga_extra_Garret.htm) 7)  I realize that people have their own ideas of propriety. I realize that they want to put on the best possible face to informal forums like this, but THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE. Neither I nor anyone ELSE here represents " all scientists" or "science" in general, and anyone stupid enough to think so is simply too stupid to care about. I also realize that people who view my RECENT use of language as somehow unbearably or degradingly obscene ...are not going to be mollified by any of the points I make here...they can argue that ANY vulgarity denigrates science and would cause the fundamentalists to cry out( yet Cheney and Bush use "a$$hole" and "fuck" in other arenas without any great outcry from the religious right). That leads me to my last point...hypocrisy I don't believe that terms for sex or bodily functions are "obscene" People try to control the language of others to control PEOPLE, and I'm not real fond of that. The most common objections to "vulgarities" or "Profanity" is that  ( as the emailer above claimed) it's "uncivilized" yet it's present in all civilizations, bar none. I would argue that a CIVILIZED person would prefer to use vulgarities to actual violence or even INDIRECT actions leading to harm, such as firing a worker or banning them from a Mormon church,for example,  and I sure as he11 would have preferred Bush to cuss out Saddam rather than attack him, but I suppose the emailer is looking for a perfect world, in which no "offensive" language is ever used as insult...yet even the Victorians couldn't eliminate it, or the hypocrisy that follows it. The Victorians initially saw no vulgarity in child labor and tenements, and were quite fond of jabbering on about "wogs"  but G_D forbid anyone should mention a bull ("male beast" was preferred) So where does it end? It doesn't so far as history as shown. Ever. People will argue profanity  "looks bad" ...but then the question becomes WHEN? WHERE? If I use"fecal slime" and not "shit stain" that's okay?  If i say it in French? Tagalog? If I say "FECES" that's GOOD...FOR NOW, but eventually, should that be tossed out, too? I ALWAYS have given substantive arguments ALWAYS, and I have also "cussed" and I'm not real impressed with ANYONE that cannot separate out the two and only seeks to control language " for appearance's sake" Others would argue that it's "for the children's sake" that we need to censor the use of language deemed inappropriate... and I'd argue that's nonsense too. We lie to kids every day in this and all other human societies. To claim that children would be harmed by ordinary vulgarities is simply a means of keeping control over children and not allowing them to face the world in which Bush and Cheney DO use such terms, and it's found on the radio and television and newspapers and books. The age for this to be explored is up to each parent, but I have no problem in discussing these topics with ANY kids. There is a happy medium here and I DO have to seek balance--which is PRECISELY why I "toned down" my language for well over 90 "pages" of this thread, even though I wasn't directly asked to. I'll be happy to be left out of the e-mailer's complaints, too. Finally, I'd like to leave on this note: Banish the use of those four-letter words Whose meanings are never obscure. The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds Were vulgar, obscene and impure. But CHERISH the use of the weak-kneed phrase That never says quite what YOU mean -- Far better to stick to a hypocrite's ways, Than be vulgar, or coarse or obscene. *********************************** I don't have a lot of patience with the kind of blithering, sanctimonious, hypocritical Grundyism that the emailer laid out. If this were a FORMAL forum, I might have never even used "fecal slime" but I wasn't aware that at least one person here found that so offensive that they were ready to get the vapours. I realize that you're interested in HOW Avocationist ticks, Demallien, but it seems to me that we already have moderators that can be appealed to rather than try to demand that others follow our personal dictates. It also strikes me as control-freakish to insist that people follow one's own notions of propriety, which can vary wildly. It also seems apparent to me that this can be an unending game of finding "offense" in any least unintended insult or use of "offensive" language and reporting it. I also note that while I was unfailingly polite to Avocationist, she was impolite to me by using crass generalizations and insulting me and my dear, dear umm.."friend" (okay, she's VERY near and dear to me)   Serendipity here:   Quote It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here. I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage. Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48209  (note that is page two of this thread) Now, if I were a control freak, I could have started screaming then for a moderator to chastise Avocationist... but being tolerant, I decided not to bother...particularly since I can certainly do better at insult and invective than she can. Here (again, second page of this thread) Avocationist claims that somehow I was tossed from UD twice because I was in error: Quote Deadman, People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. And it goes on and on. She avoided every major point and wants to fade into ambiguity and b-s while it's obvious that she knows nothing about the science topics she's dealing with. She insults and uses "cussing" as well (she used the word "shit" on page 4, I believe)... she eschewed  directly answering direct polite questions, and **I** was unfailingly polite. I did that as an experiment, by the way. And I don't find anything wrong with calling her a lying little ___ (fill in the blank) at all now, but you do, Demallien. So complain to a moderator. Again, that's just my two cent's worth and I'm not trying to personally offend you, Demallien...I'm just suggesting that your course of action may not have been all that effective, either. And I don't excuse Louis at all, he's almost as abrasive as I am. Okay, he might be worse, but that's neither here nor there. He smells funny. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:57    ####, I've got to start remembering to edit the quotes before hitting "add reply"....

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:59    Demallien, I don't need to bluff, since post #1 I've been totally upfront about that which I consider to be important. Like I said I'll answer your questions when you a) answer mine and b) deal with my argument as it is. Until then there is no point answering your questions because you won't understand the answers just as you don't understand my arguments now. I can't help that, that's YOUR issue, not mine. Waving the relative importance of the two issues aside with a cheeky handwave is not the same as dealing with them. The question is precisely about the relative importance! I already know you don't like dishonesty etc, you've said as much I'm asking a different question you seem reluctant to answer. I wonder why. DO you see a trap that isn't there? Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:03    Quote Okay, he might be worse, but that's neither here nor there. He smells funny. I am worse dammit! What were we talking about? Oh and that smell: soap. Familiarise yourself with it, forthwith, if not fifthwith. Or at least a powerful eau de cologne, although why anyone would want to smell like a German city I have no idea. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:12    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,05:56) I'm not the kind of person that goes running to the teacher when I have a problem with someone, deadman.  If I have a problem, I will attempt to resolve it with that person first, as an adult.  It is only after an attempt to talk through the problem fails that I would go to the moderator.  Ask our moderator, I'm sure he prefers my idea to yours - he doesn't want to be continually having to sit in judgement of people on this list. But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word).

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:18    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,05:59) Demallien, I don't need to bluff, since post #1 I've been totally upfront about that which I consider to be important. Like I said I'll answer your questions when you a) answer mine and b) deal with my argument as it is. Until then there is no point answering your questions because you won't understand the answers just as you don't understand my arguments now. I can't help that, that's YOUR issue, not mine. Waving the relative importance of the two issues aside with a cheeky handwave is not the same as dealing with them. The question is precisely about the relative importance! I already know you don't like dishonesty etc, you've said as much I'm asking a different question you seem reluctant to answer. I wonder why. DO you see a trap that isn't there? Louis Louis, I've answered your questions.  I can't respond to your "argument", because it's never clearly stated anywhere, and even if it where, it probably doesn't interest me greatly.  But sure, put in a clear concise statement of what this "argument" and I'll have a bash.  In the meantime, I repeat: 1) Was Lenny abusive in the Avocationist thread, and 2) If so, do you believe such behaviour is acceptable or not. Come on Louis, what are you hiding?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:24    Quote But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word). Actually, I didn't say that. The crux of my argument was that one should go to the moderator and not try to get compliance with their personal notions of propriety first, particularly when such notions vary wildly. And I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk. Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:24    Quote Louis, I've answered your questions.  I can't respond to your "argument", because it's never clearly stated anywhere, and even if it where, it probably doesn't interest me greatly.  But sure, put in a clear concise statement of what this "argument" and I'll have a bash.  In the meantime, I repeat: 1) Was Lenny abusive in the Avocationist thread, and 2) If so, do you believe such behaviour is acceptable or not. Come on Louis, what are you hiding? The argument isn't clearly stated anywhere? Wow! So many people seem to be able to understand it and yet you don't. Try reading this whole thread, it's only 3 pages I'm sure you'll manage. If you do so without the red mist before your eyes I'm at least relatively confident you'll understand where I (and indeed many others) are coming from. As for hiding something? Nope, sorry. Just unwilling to be dictated to by someone who manifestly cannot read for a modicum of comprehension, or who is manifestly unwilling to try. I don't know which it is, but it's one of them. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:30    Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not.  Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear. And you still haven't answered my questions...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:34    Deadman, This is my area of confusion also. Demallien seems either incapable of reading, or being unwilling to read, a relatively simple (and in no way hidden or cryptic) argument. He/She/It seems very easily offended and insulted, reading interpretations into people's comments that simply and statedly are not there, whilst at the same time making wild and at least potentially offensive (certainly derogatory) statements about those people. It seems there is a poor degree of ability for self analysis there. You've noticed a similarity with Avocationist, I've noted one with GoP. Like I said before I'm happy to be wrong (note how easily this comment will be missed), dammit I HOPE I'm wrong, about sock puppetry, but let's be honest, it wouldn't be the first or the last time I was right about it. That's the problem with net discussions: too anonymous, too distant, no consequences. I think the number of olive branches I've extended already would give any reasonable individual pause, apparently not. I wonder why. Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:36    Out of curiosity (and from the other thread which I interact under Fractatious and Serendipity), but that Dem your first post actually had nothing to do with the topic of ID (I could be wrong and will happily look back over that thread) and now its led to this thread (which was nice of Louis to do). However, the other thread started with "ID and support of it". From my point of view this is merely emotive diversion - if there is a real issue with posts and individuals - that would be something better taken up with the moderators.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:36    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:24)   Quote But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word). Actually, I didn't say that. The crux of my argument was that one should go to the moderator and not try to get compliance with their personal notions of propriety first, particularly when such notions vary wildly. And I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk. Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" And you haven't answered mine, "demallien" Your orthography/grammar and "tone" are all amusingly similar to Avocationist. Why do you think that would be? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:41    No Louis, I'm not GoP, I'm me.  You asked a while back if I'm British.  No, I'm Australian, living in Paris... But if you think I'm GoP, please, why oh why oh why have I been posting all of those pro science/evolution posts?  Have a squiz on the PT blogs for example, or even just have a look at my earlier posts on the Avocationist thread. Anyway, why don't you just ask the moderators to confirm my IP address is not shared by GoP.  I'm sure they'll be happy to confirm...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:46    Quote Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not. Erm sorry, just where have I said this? Thus far I have, quite deliberately, made no comment about whether or not I consider Lenny's "abusive behaviour" "acceptable" or otherwise. Quote Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear. And you still haven't answered my questions... And I say again: READ.THE.THREAD. I know it's more than two sentences, and I know it's a fag to do it, but since I consider you to be an intelligent adult capable of reasoned argument I'll cheerfully accept an "Ok, it'll take me a while, can I get back to you?" with an equally cheerful "Of course Demallien, you take all the time you need. Look forward to discussing it with you". As for your questions, like I said, I'll cheerfully answer them when you a) answer mine, and b) deal with my argument as it is. The reason I ask this is because, at the moment, based on your current erroneous assessment of my comments I have no hope that you will understand the answers I give. Why waste both our time going over old ground for a fourth (??) time. You demonstrate you understand what I'm talking about by going away and reading it, I'll answer your questions. Deal? Oh by the way, your real name wouldn't be Alison would it? Just curious, nothing implied, just asking. Louis Added in edit: P.S. I am EXTREMELY happy to take your word that you are not GoP. I am equally EXTREMELY happy to note that you are not GoP! I should stress this happiness is entirely altruistic, I am happy FOR YOU! LOL. BTW I said I noted a similarity, not that you WERE absolutely GoP. Please learn to tell the difference between an absolutist statement of belief or fact and a proposition. I am very pleased to be wrong about my suspicions. I apologise for any and all offense caused by even asking the question. -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:47    Hi Louis, I mentioned to Deadman some stuff I picked up. Like the point that Dem joined under a week ago. Also that the structural pattern is similar. I have a habit of making comparisons because thats what I'm paid to do - I am paid to detect patterns in human behaviour, and notice nuances. That aside (and easily equated to personas again) its successfully brought the other thread to a stand-still - for now. So perhaps Dem's complaints can be taken up by the moderators. Just a thought.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:48    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:36) And you haven't answered mine, "demallien" Your orthography/grammar and "tone" are all amusingly similar to Avocationist. Why do you think that would be? Oh, I didn't answer the question because I thought the question was rhetorical.  Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot".  Note, I use English spelling of words, Avocationist uses American spelling.  I post during European daytime, Avocationist posts during the american daytime.  Do the sums...

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:49    "squiz" is the first aussie slang I've seen you use, demallien...and it's interesting that you used it right at the same time that you say you're australian living in paris...as if to "confirm" that. What threads did you post in at PT, demallien? I'd like to take a look at those. Avocationist used American orthography? and you chose to insult me again? tsk -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:58    Fractatious, I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument. If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind. Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:59    Whether or not I think you're a puppet is irrelevant to the immediate discussion, demallien...what is relevant is that you insult in the same manner you decry, even insulting avocationist...as in this bit: Quote You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4215;p=48355 Just as you insulted me for my civil queries statements/here. Then you go running around trying to dictate how others should comport themselves? Pfft. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:01    Quote because you're a blithering idiot AIIIIIIIIIIIII ABUSE!!!!! ABUSE!!!!! ABUSE!!!! Hmm pottle ket black? Something like that. ;) Louis P.S. I should perhaps make it clear that I don't really think this qualifies as abuse. Deadman clearly is a blithering idiot and smells a lot worse than I do. And I've had his mum, and she was rubbish. And all my friends have had his mrs and she was rubbish too. BLAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAEURGH! Ok no more drinking at lunchtime for me! See under H for humour. -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:03    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:49) "squiz" is the first aussie slang I've seen you use, demallien...and it's interesting that you used it right at the same time that you say you're australian living in paris...as if to "confirm" that. What threads did you post in at PT, demallien? I'd like to take a look at those. Avocationist used American orthography? and you chose to insult me again? tsk You see deadman, as I've explained previously, I don't take kindly to accusations of dishonesty.  Expects insults in return. Yes, Avocationist uses American spelling, at least, when I stepped back to have a quick look, I found that she wrote "honorable" not "honourable".  I'm sure there are other examples, but I honestly can't be bothered looking... As for my posts on PT, feel free to Google "demallien pandas thumb".  You'll get plenty of hits.  Actually, I just checked - you'll only get a few hits: lazy google!  Anyway, they should be enough to add a bit of credence to my identity... I don't have to prove who I am deadman, and anyway, I don't see any way of actually convincing you whilst our conversation remains in the virtual.  I've asked the moderator to confirm that my IP address is not the same as those of Avocationist and GoP.  With a bit of luck, he'll give us an answer.  If not, you can always try asking him to do the verification yourself...

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:05    Quote Added in edit: P.S. I am EXTREMELY happy to take your word that you are not GoP. I am equally EXTREMELY happy to note that you are not GoP! I should stress this happiness is entirely altruistic, I am happy FOR YOU! LOL. BTW I said I noted a similarity, not that you WERE absolutely GoP. Please learn to tell the difference between an absolutist statement of belief or fact and a proposition. I am very pleased to be wrong about my suspicions. I apologise for any and all offense caused by even asking the question. Note this I added in edit Demallien. Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:07    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,23:58) Fractatious, I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument. If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind. Louis Louis, I'm not complaining about the disruption - considering the lack of substantiation on the other thread by Avocationist dispite the numerous requests - something had to give. But thank you for considerately pulling the "dispute" onto this thread, therefore laying the foundations for me to reintroduce the original topic back onto the thread. I moderate an AvC email group. Because of the nature of the group complaints sprout their heads. Merely a warning towards the diversity of content, and also that people are not forced to read and/or post assists in the area of "complaints". Also being an email discussion group, I encourage people to use their spam filters. I am not sure if these boards have any such facilities - if they do, they should be stressed. However I am now curious as to what is termed as "abuse".

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:09    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:59) Whether or not I think you're a puppet is irrelevant to the immediate discussion, demallien...what is relevant is that you insult in the same manner you decry, even insulting avocationist...as in this bit:   Quote You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4215;p=48355 <sigh>Explain to me how the quote is an insult deadman.  If I had said for example "You are a goose" now that's an insult.  If I say "You make yourself look like a goose", that is an observation. On the other hand, calling you a blithering idiot in response to falsely saying that I'm lying seems like a) an insult, and b) a completely reasonable response.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:10    There is a "report this post to the moderator" under people's messages. If one is not happy - regardless of what they define abuse to be - they should use it. Just a thought.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:10    Quote You see deadman, as I've explained previously, I don't take kindly to accusations of dishonesty. I hadn't insulted you before you insulted me, ---------- and I didn't accuse you of being similar to avocationist until after you had insulted me by presuming to know what I thought :   Quote You too feel that it's your right to abuse people Try again for an excuse. More importantly, demallien, this goes to the core of what I said earlier. You view direct cussing as demeaning and insulting, but you view snide asides and veiled insults as acceptable. You find it unacceptable that others insult, but you see fit to do so even when you have not been directly insulted yourself. The best you can say is that I "questioned your honesty" and you respond in a manner much like Lenny. tsk, tsk, demallien -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:11    Fractatious, I doubt we'll ever know what abuse is! Louis -------------- Bye.

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:17    Well this is hardly a formal debate with a mediator to assure opponents are kept on track. If it were, I'd be laying complaints about every ID'er I encounter based on "lack of education" and "wasting time" because they end up getting a FREE education (unless there is a way to charge them for condensing 6 years of biology into single threads). "How DARE you abuse my TIME" I also consider Benny Hinn's hair to be abusive.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:17    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:30) Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable. I have not been "abusive".  I have been TRUTHFUL.  Avo ***IS*** a pig-ignorant uninformed dolt who should get her uneducated ass to a library and learn what she is talking about BEFORE she talks about it. Sorry if Avo doesn't like it. Sorry if YOU don't like it either. (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:18    By the way, I should note that I view Lenny as merely honest in his use of language. I view you as a sanctimonious hypocrite, though, demallien--beyond merely being a blithering idiot...and that's just an observation, not an insult :) -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard