One person's idiocy is another person's epiphany. See Mullah Nasruddin, and the Sufi riddles for more on that. Your lack of appreciation of the idea, or the delivery method of the idea, does not justify your characterization of any poster as idiotic or lamebrained. I don't know what to say to make this any more clear.
Perhaps you don't understand why this is a fallacy. It's multi-faceted: 1. You have not addressed the quality, or lack there of, in the idea (or non-idea circular talk) being presented. This is a failure in YOUR argument. "You're stupid" is not a rebuttal. 2. You have no idea who Tinker is IRL. You only address the character Tinker on the list. Your personal characterizations, then, are utterly baseless, beyond what YOU perceive based on a series of debates in which you are opposing parties. Again, this is a failure in YOUR position. Tinker could very well be a PhD in Socio. Anth. writing a paper on the nature of religions, and how little it takes to start one. He could have a 190 IQ, a $250K tenured position at an Ivy League Uni, a smoking hot wife and two kids who love him dearly. The NYT just raved that his last novel was "dynamic, brilliant...the clearest insight into the human condition in the last 100 years..." ...and here you come calling him a lamebrained idiot. Who's wrong? Ad Hom's are for those who are incapable of formulating a real position, rebuttal, statement. They are a sign of weakness in intellect and understanding, above and beyond being uncivil and rude. They are, above all, irrational. No amount of justification makes them OK here, and certainly not in the same breath as an apology. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Neither one of us practice ad hom attacks on a regular basis or even > irregularly. But occasionally there comes a time when one's rubber > band snaps at the idiocy and lamebraindedness of some posters and we > do something stupid. I apologize for it but after all, it's only > human. > > On Aug 6, 12:26 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Way to go? Really? Exactly how many times and ways do we have to define > 'ad > > hominem' before the definition sinks in? > > > > Slip, your entire paragraph is in blatant violation of our posting > > guidelines, and to tell the truth, I'm kind of tired of having to use the > > phrase "posting guidelines". I'll say it one more time: THE IDEA. NOT > THE > > PERSON. > > > > Here's an example: > > > > GOOD: Slip, your post's content was entirely unacceptable. The usage of > > perjoratives which directly target the speaker are clearly against our > > rules, and it's beyond baseless...hell, I'd call it one giant flying leap > of > > an assumption to take someone's recycled altruisms and pseudo eastern > > mysticism and correlate them to a cult leader. The complete lack of any > form > > of logic or rational thought in this post borders on incoherent > misanthropic > > venting. Surprising, given some of your previous insights. > > > > BAD: Jesus christ, Slip, what are you fucking retarded? How many goddam > > times do I have to say we don't tolerate ad hominems on this board before > > people take this crap seriously? Do I just have to start dropping the ban > > hammer everytime some ass clown like yourself pops off wise because they > > don't see the point of another member's philosophy? You act like a > freakin > > five year old ADD class clown fartin in school for laughs! > > > > See the difference? Tinker has been put on moderation for ad hom. Others > > have been warned. You've been warned now too. It's one thing to have a > > posting style which aggressively challenges AN IDEA. It's another > entirely > > to directly and specifically berate a person, in no uncertain terms. > > > > Applauding it is no better, Gruff. Can we all go back to being grown ups > > now? > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Heh heh heh. Way to go Slip. <applause> What poor Tink denies > > > vehemently is that it's about him and nothing but him. When he > > > realizes that and perhaps changes his message he may begin to get some > > > interest that he can hold on to. > > > > > On Aug 3, 9:18 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Come on Tinker!! Your another wannabe evangelist purporting to have > > > > some secret knowledge that people can ascribe to. You are nothing > > > > more than the inception of a "Jim Jones", "Rev. Moon" style persona. > > > > You have nothing, never gave us anything, talk in circles fast enough > > > > to cause a cyclone and lead on the new comers with your smoke and > > > > mirrors amazement. Did you ever work at a carnival? I think you > would > > > > be real good at it. You have been here long enough to see you haven't > > > > reached first base. You have a bit of knowledge? ssssssssssssh! > > > > Don't let anyone know! It's a big secret! > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > BB, I have a bit of knowledge. > > > > > That is all that is necessary to "promote it". > > > > > > > I don't believe you have any understanding of how the fear of the > > > > > unknown affects you. That's another subject and it is 'not simple'. > > > > > > > It's not that I'm enjoying anything, the awesomeness activates the > > > > > fear of the unknown. > > > > > > > "Teach the World a Word", Means establish a point of common > > > > > understanding as the beginning point of Unity. > > > > > > > That is the explanation. That is all of it. Quit trying to make it > > > > > something confusing. > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:35 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:22 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > BB, I am not in any "state". > > > > > > > I simply have a working model of the force (of god/energy) > relative > > > to > > > > > > > the Society of Earth. > > > > > > > > But if you are not "in it" and "using it" and "understand it from > > > that > > > > > > perspective" then how can you promote it? > > > > > > > > > The reason you are not seeing it is the fear of the unknown > causing > > > > > > > confusion. > > > > > > > > I admit that the fear of the unknown is something I do not feel > that > > > > > > comfortable with. On the internet I don't have much fear in > > > > > > expressing myself, but in real life I am much more timid. > > > > > > > > > This shit is awesome!!! It's fantastic, incredible and > unfucking > > > > > > > believable. > > > > > > > > I am so glad you are enjoying it. > > > > > > > > > What I am proposing is very simple, "Teach the World a Word". > > > > > > > Why are you so confused about it? (see the paragraph above :-)) > > > > > > > > Because I have no idea why "teaching a word" is such a monumental > > > > > > thing. It is nice to learn a new word, but I can thing of a > thousand > > > > > > other things that would have more "impact" on people. You may > see > > > > > > it, but I don't. I am the type of person that needs > explanations. > > > > > > The clearer the better. Examples seem to work really good for me. > > > > > > Maybe not for you. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
