--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > <snip> > > As an aside, to me, saying that another's post "has a logical > > fallacy", while meaning the same, per your usage, as "the poster is > > intellectually dishonest", it is far less inflamatory. And less > likely > > to raise hackles, set off flame wars, IMO. To the extent that all of > > us can use the least inflamatory words possible, and still get our > > points across, could help greatly in the effort to enable FFL to > > turn the cornor towards its more spakling past. > > Yeah, but intellectual dishonesty isn't always so > clear-cut as just a logical fallacy. And in this > case, it was used in service of a gratuitous insult.
So two wrongs make a right? In that i consider "intellectual dishonesty" an insult. And IMO, perhaps its use a bit lazy, since other less inflamatory forms of the same message could be constructed and conveyed. And would have perhaps avoided the long, range war, we just witnessed. > I don't think you're going to get very far by > advocating turning the other cheek here. Well, I hope I make some headway in help people to "not take the bait". Since doing so is childish and demeans them -- in many cases. > But if > you can stop the gratuitous insults, you'll stop > the insulting responses automatically. Yes. I am trying to stop the "sparks". And as a back up, when that doesn't work, i am trying to make people comfortable with, and less viscerally, lower reptile brain, reflexively reactive by, "not taking the bait". And I am working on a a bag of sticky purple smelly goop fallng out the sky on offenders when those two approaches don't work.
