Personal Attacks

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:05 pm

compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:55 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:20 am wrote:
compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.


That too is ad hominem, in that it suggests I'm saying what I'm saying for a personal reason.


No, I didn't suggest that you were saying anything for a personal reason. I have zero idea why you, or anybody else, for that matter, say anything, and I'm not in the business of trying to divine your intentions.


Then why did you find it interesting to note which PERSONS seemed BOTHERED by something?

For the umpteenth time: I asked those questions because I don't understand the criteria you're using.

And you don't have to tell me not to use those words.

I already don't use them.


So every repetition of the caution has pretty much the same kind of psychologically self-reinforcing effect on all parties that asking someone when he stopped beating his wife might do.


You called another poster a douche a little over one month ago. I warned you about it, but didn't suspend you.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:04 pm

Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:05 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:55 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:20 am wrote:
compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.


That too is ad hominem, in that it suggests I'm saying what I'm saying for a personal reason.


No, I didn't suggest that you were saying anything for a personal reason. I have zero idea why you, or anybody else, for that matter, say anything, and I'm not in the business of trying to divine your intentions.


Then why did you find it interesting to note which PERSONS seemed BOTHERED by something?

For the umpteenth time: I asked those questions because I don't understand the criteria you're using.

And you don't have to tell me not to use those words.

I already don't use them.


So every repetition of the caution has pretty much the same kind of psychologically self-reinforcing effect on all parties that asking someone when he stopped beating his wife might do.


You called another poster a douche a little over one month ago. I warned you about it, but didn't suspend you.


Yes. I know.

If you can't comprehend that it's not only blatantly personally hostile for you to cite that as if it were characteristic when you yourself expressed astonishment over it at the time ,but also an officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power, I'm not interested in giving you any further opportunities to prove it.

So thanks for your candor.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:06 pm

Do your worst, in case that needs spelling out.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With Love and Gratitude to Hammer of Los...

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:28 pm

compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:04 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:05 pm wrote:
compared2what? » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:55 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:20 am wrote:
compared2what? » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:37 pm wrote:
Bruce Dazzling wrote:In fact, I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed, simply because I can't believe that any of you are actually fighting to preserve the right to end intelligent debate by calling someone a dickhead, and that's exactly what it does. It ends intelligent debate.


That too is ad hominem, in that it suggests I'm saying what I'm saying for a personal reason.


No, I didn't suggest that you were saying anything for a personal reason. I have zero idea why you, or anybody else, for that matter, say anything, and I'm not in the business of trying to divine your intentions.


Then why did you find it interesting to note which PERSONS seemed BOTHERED by something?

For the umpteenth time: I asked those questions because I don't understand the criteria you're using.

And you don't have to tell me not to use those words.

I already don't use them.


So every repetition of the caution has pretty much the same kind of psychologically self-reinforcing effect on all parties that asking someone when he stopped beating his wife might do.


You called another poster a douche a little over one month ago. I warned you about it, but didn't suspend you.


Yes. I know.

If you can't comprehend that it's not only blatantly personally hostile for you to cite that as if it were characteristic when you yourself expressed astonishment over it at the time ,but also an officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power, I'm not interested in giving you any further opportunities to prove it.


No, it's blatantly personally hostile to call someone a douche.

On the other hand, my pointing it out now is simply a case of good timing, since you literally just got through telling me that you're not one of the name-callers.

C2W wrote:And you don't have to tell me not to use those words.

I already don't use them.


And again, I didn't suspend you for the douche comment. I simply requested that you "reign it in a bit." Another of my "officious, self-serving and petty abuses of power," I guess.

Incidentally, within a few days of the "douche" incident, you referred to a different poster (his screen name rhymes with MacFruiskeen) as an asshole, and I didn't suspend you for that either, but since you now seem to be committing suicide by mod, it should come as no surprise to you that I'm suspending your account for one week for your obvious personal attack on me.

And it just might be my last act as a mod here at RI. I really don't have the time or the patience any more for hours upon hours of cut and paste rhetorical gymnastics in order to accomplish something as seemingly simple as getting intelligent people to stop calling each other names.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:35 pm

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

nm - going to PM instead.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby OP ED » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:00 pm

that's depressing. OP ED didn't have any intention of its comments leading to the temporary demise of c2w. if this had been the case, OP ED has signficant enough attachment to her to have done so itself.

nor did OP ED wish for its comments to drive any particular moderator into mod-exile. especially not a moderator which, to the best of my recall, has never had particular issue and/or conflict with OP ED in the past.

OP ED truly finds the discussion of rules and their enforcement to be very fascinating and worthwhile. sort of a meta-dialogue about everything else we discuss here.

OP ED almost never violates the posting guidelines, personally. never even received a warning before. although OP ED admits it has a unique attraction to heated discussions and the realities of personalities often laid bare therein. (note how many troll-posters have been banned in threads which OP ED gleefully participated in)
[OP ED considers it one of its myriad functions in this life, to bring fire to those who wish to have it]

...

OP ED finds it interesting that you find its interest in this topic interesting.
[Of course, OP ED has been compiling lists of posters and their proclivities since 2005, and finds most of it interesting]
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby barracuda » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:13 pm

C'mon now - this is precisely why she was requesting that you define your terms here. Too much.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby OP ED » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:21 pm

indeed. OP ED finds it interesting that she was suspended for something not involving name calling.

OP ED does not yet understand this, but it finds it interesting.

[OP ED does not understand why she was suspended, given that she was apparently suspended for questioning the arbitrariness of suspensions]

[i am allowed to discussing posting guidelines here, right?]
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:05 am

I thopught I posted a rant last night getting stuck into Bruce. Its not here now. I probably fucked up posting it, but in it i questioned his judgement (rather harshly) and I'm gonna do it again (hopefully less harshly.)

Bruce suspending c2w was stupid. She accused you of petty abuses of power and you went and proved her right by indulging in one. What you did in that situation is an abuse of power, and its clearly petty

As was suspending 'Cuda for calling someone a dickhead after that someone behaved like one. Even tho 'Cuda went out of his way to edit the post and remove the term.

And it just might be my last act as a mod here at RI. I really don't have the time or the patience any more for hours upon hours of cut and paste rhetorical gymnastics in order to accomplish something as seemingly simple as getting intelligent people to stop calling each other names.


Intelligent people calling each other names is the least of the problems moderators have had to deal with here over the years. It should be very low on the priority list. There have been people who have come here and set out to drive contributors crazy, others have deliberately harassed members who are victims of some extreme abuse because they were victims of that abuse and speaking publicly about it. To stop them speaking out about it. Name calling is nothing compared to that.

(edited for punctuation)
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Canadian_watcher » Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:55 am

I see it differently than the last few posters. No surprise there.

Just because the discussion - the one in which c2w peppered the mod for precise explanations when none were needed, refusing to accept the mod's attempts to reconcile and move on (and maintain authority, which is necessary in mod-dom) - was about personal attack and name calling doesn't mean that the only reason someone might get suspended is FOR name calling or that type of personal attack.

I'm willing to bet that none of you have been in c2w's cross hairs, wherein she will write and re-write and edit 3 or four posts IN A ROW directed at you and demanding explanations to things you really owe no explanation for, all the while upping the emotional ante in wording that is almost impossible to follow, esp when it changes minute by minute, post by post, edit by edit. Let me tell you as someone who has received it many times from her that that tactic is a personal attack. She does it all the time. Mac hasn't even been back since the last time she did it to him.

Was Hugh suspended for 'personal attacks?' No. At least not every time. Same with me. I once was suspended for a week simply for writing a one word post: FFS.

Let the woman take her lumps for God's sake. She'll live. You'll live. this isn't a 'new rule' or a 'new way of doing things' unless of course you count the fact that c2w has forever gotten away with her behaviour and now she is not. that *is* new.

I *do* agree with this sanction. She was doing her crazy making. Just because she tried to get ahead of it by making allusions to 'petty abuses of power' doesn't mean that Bruce ought to have been trapped by it and tried to avoid applying the power he has.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:01 pm

Canadian_watcher » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:55 am wrote:Just because the discussion - the one in which c2w peppered the mod for precise explanations when none were needed, refusing to accept the mod's attempts to reconcile and move on - was about personal attack and name calling doesn't mean that the only reason someone might get suspended is FOR name calling or that type of personal attack.


Nonsense. Explanations are still needed. She was not trolling. She was attempting to ascertain definitions of the parameters of what constitutes propriety here in terms of speech, and what, exactly, the rules are. She didn't call Bruce a name, she simply described his behavior in the terms of her opinion of it. If he doesn't like that opinion or doesn't agree with it, fine, but to silence debate on the point by suspending her is simply laziness. This is a discussion board. There ought be no limits on the depth of discussion or level of disagreement that doesn't descend into clear and definable abusiveness.

(and maintain authority, which is necessary in mod-dom)


Fucking LOL.

I'm willing to bet that none of you have been in c2w's cross hairs, wherein she will write and re-write and edit 3 or four posts IN A ROW directed at you and demanding explanations to things you really owe no explanation for, all the while upping the emotional ante in wording that is almost impossible to follow, esp when it changes minute by minute, post by post, edit by edit. Let me tell you as someone who has received it many times from her that that tactic is a personal attack. She does it all the time. Mac hasn't even been back since the last time she did it to him.


You're intellectual inability to match wits with c2w is hardly the issue here, and let's hope that low bar doesn't begin to constitute some sort of boundary of acceptability.

Was Hugh suspended for 'personal attacks?' No.


Hugh was banned for very repeatedly and flagrantly breaking an extremely well-defined rule which had been instituted just to allow his continuing participation here. What is required here are some defined boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior which transcend "I know it when I see it".

I once was suspended for a week simply for writing a one word post: FFS.


That's simply a lie.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Canadian_watcher » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:21 pm

barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:01 am wrote:
I once was suspended for a week simply for writing a one word post: FFS.


That's simply a lie.


No, it is the truth.
You were the one who suspended me and subsequently lied about why.
I will not tolerate this from you or from anyone else. I will not be labeled a liar just because it suits your position.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:23 pm

Whatever. You were not suspended for that single post, and you know it. I call that a lie.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:11 pm

Cross-posting from here

barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:09 pm wrote:
Canadian_watcher » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:18 am wrote:un fucking believable.

this is a cult


Yes, it is a cult, a cult of appreciation of her clarity of thought, vividness of expression, research abilities, and dogged depth of logical argument that should be a defining characteristic here. This is a discussion board. If the mods, of all people, don't have the time or inclination to deal with rational and non-abusive discussion of the rules within a subforum which exists for that purpose and no other, and turn instead to circumventing that discussion by suspending the participants, there is a problem here. That is what is un-goddam-fucking-believable.


In this particular instance, C2W's "rational and non-abusive discussion of the rules" boils down to her putting words into my mouth, repeatedly accusing me of making a non-existent ad hominen attack on her, and repeatedly requesting that I compile a list of verboten terms, which, seeing as such a list may number into the thousands, I declined numerous times. And this all stemmed from my having the gall to suspend you (barracuda) for calling someone a dickhead.

After explaining multiple times to C2W that I did not make an ad hominem attack on her, that the meaning of my comment was simply that I couldn't believe that multiple posters seemed to be defending the right to call other posters names, and also after explaining multiple times that I wasn't going to compile a list of verboten terms, I boiled down my position to it's simplest terms one more time. That position is that no poster should engage in name-calling. I also suggested that everyone on this board is smart enough to know what "name-calling" means.

At that point, I was asked, yet again, to explain my definition of name-calling.

It was also at this point that I was informed by C2W that she doesn't need to be told not to call people names, because she doesn't engage in that behavior.

At that point, I reminded C2W that in the past 5 weeks, she had actually referred to two different posters as a "douche" and an "asshole." I also reminded her that she wasn't suspended for either of those incidents.

It was at this point, amazingly, that she made the "officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" comment, which was clearly an abusive comment.

That's the reality of what happened.

The short version is that I wanted to create a board as free of petty name-calling and personal attacks as possible, and I was using my limited moderator toolkit to attempt to change things around here for the better, but for whatever fucking reason, some of you seem to be opposed to that, and are willing to engage in endlessly exhaustive methods towards that end.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Personal Attacks

Postby Canadian_watcher » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:20 pm

barracuda » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:23 am wrote:Whatever. You were not suspended for that single post, and you know it. I call that a lie.


prove it then. put up or shut up.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Posting Guidelines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests