Steve did not commit an ad hominem
All he said was:
1. Doug was a moderator and not responsible for vetting all content (that
would be rather difficult because Doug has to go outside and work). This is
basically a factual statement.
2. He said Doug was not a therapist, which is also probably a factual
statement. Then he expressed an opinion that you had personal issues with
anger. This may or may not be true. But his short post was not concerned with
any argument you made supporting some position, so it is not an ad hominem. Ad
hominem refers to logical argumentation as was discussed in post #416814. With
out supporting arguments an opinion is just that, a surmise. Based on your
response, I think Steve's surmise has some merit, but that is still an opinion.
Nobody knows exactly what a person's inner emotional state is, but people do
make judgements based on the perceived outer behaviour of a person, gestures,
what they say, how they say or write.
Your response to Steve appears to be what is called a diatribe which is
defined (courtesy of google.com):
A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
synonyms: tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation,
broadside, fulmination, condemnation, censure, criticism.
Now that sounds like someone who is angry, that anger directed at Steve in
this case. This pretty much looks like a personal attack, whereas Steve, it
seemed to me (opinion), was just making a suggestion. If any one has violated
the guidelines here in this exchange, you have.
I have to admit though, it is very entertaining. People to not require a Ph.D.
to determine whether they think someone is angry or unbalanced, though
eventually other factors may intervene for that someone, such as law
enforcement officers or medical professionals working in the area of mental
health.
If I were to comment on 'your case', I would have the opinion you have low
self esteem, that you blow up some simple comments into a vast conspiracy
against your person.
---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote :
Steve, You are labeling me as someone with stored up anger....."to whatever
degree"....and for a large part of my adult life.
This is an ad hominem -- in a public forum.
How so?
Quite simply I have not reported (here at FFL or elsewhere online) my inner
emotional states throughout my life with any detail such that a, what?, couch
psychiatrist?, can insinuate about my past or present or future emotional
states.....let alone present a logical assembly of my posts that would
demonstrate to a scientific prognosticator enough information for that
"decider" to say, "Oh, yeah, that kind of mind, piss on it, that anger just
clouds his judgment and it's just not worth dealing with this fuckwad."
Yet this is exactly the intent of your post. You with no credentials are
asserting something untrue about me.
This is a foul accusation about me. I protest to Doug.
Doug? There are not enough facts in evidence that I am someone with stored up
anger -- which is merely code for "might blow at any minute." My online
history is checkered with every manner of emotionalism, because I'm a writer
and give myself permission to be silly, satirical, rude, outrageous, poetic,
raw, real, fake OR WHATEVER. To interpret who I am from my online posts would
require a PhD jury to authenticate some candidate's findings. AS FUCKING IF.
This is an outrageous smear job by any decent minded regard.
Aaaaaaaaand, further, the question: "Does that make sense?" is clearly another
attempt to present the concept "Edg is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fucking
stupid, you have to treat him like child, and always double check what's going
on in that little noggin' of his."
It is this sort of tactic that everyone here understands for what it is: plain
old trolling -- with a smirk that assumes there's denial ability to shield all
protests. "What? I never meant that. Why how dare you accuse me of having
such a low intent." -- like that. Like fucking that. That's the tactic -- to
me, it's Gestapol shit.
Now, in the past, I would enter into a delightful tirade of withering
statements about you, personally, that would leave stains on your soul, but
DOUG IS WATCHING, so I won't.
But you have violated the intent and spirit of the guidelines -- IN MY OPINION,
and I call for Doug to arbitrate this issue and give us the benefit of his
wisdom -- here in the public forum where the "act" occurred. Let's see if you
have, indeed, befouled our pristine and new intent to be civil here, or if I'm
mistaken and, truly, everyone thinks I'm way over the top in my interpretation
of your below text.
---In [email protected], <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
He's a moderator Edg, not responsible for vetting all the content that passes
through here in terms of its future efficacy. Or present efficacy for that
matter.
Nor is he a therapist to help you process whatever anger you have stored up
from what appears to be a large part of your adult life participating in this
movement.
Does that make sense?
