Sure, sorry I didn't read through all the posts when I slipped that one in as a reply. Thanks for the intervention!
On Mar 3, 5:18 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Slip, let it go, and let's get back to our regularly scheduled programming. > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wasn't "Replying To Any Argument" and "Did Not Attack Anyone"!!! > > Wasn't even "Debating Anything"!!! > > > On Mar 3, 12:58 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You can't pass the buck with finger pointing or being rude to me. > > > Follow the guidelines and no name calling: > > > > Ad hominen should be avoided and, in the most serious circumstances, > > > could see you moderated or banned. Wikipedia defines ad hominem as > > > "replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to > > > a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, > > > rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing > > > evidence against the claim. > > > Debates about a person's deeply held values, beliefs, or way of life, > > > should be tempered with a high level of respect and civility. These > > > debates have been some of our most interesting over the years, and > > > they work, or not, based upon the level of mutual respect and honesty > > > extended by each side. If your motive is to ridicule members, or > > > spread bad feeling, please do not bother to post. > > > We've tackled a fair few sacred cows over the years and these are > > > always interesting discussions. However, by their nature, these > > > debates are very likely to stir up emotions. Please accept that the > > > world is full of people with radically different opinions to yours > > > which they hold equally as strongly. Mind's Eye is a forum for you to > > > interact with such people and learn more about them. It is not a forum > > > for you to attack them, even if they are "pro abortion baby killers", > > > "neo-con nutjobs", "pinko liberals", "sinners", or even British. All > > > of the above miscreants are welcome. > > > > On Mar 3, 12:09 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It is not an interpretation of anyone's character, it is not a > > > > diagnosis or psychological evaluation. > > > > > Shades of color thread: > > > > > Pat to Fiddler: > > > > "Then, as an old friend used to say, "You're wired weird". Have you > > > > passed that trait onto any children or do you know, yet? " > > > > > Is Pat making a diagnosis of Fidd, placing him into a psychological > > > > category? Pat used "quotes" too, at least I used the word "MAYBE". > > > > > I can find more examples of ad hom that you seem to ignore. > > > > > You want to follow me to the bathroom too molly, make sure I pick up > > > > the seat? > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:19 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The point is, Slip, that this is YOUR interpretation of a persons > > > > > character. None of us is here to label the others with diagnosis or > > > > > psychological categories. Doing so is ad hom. Attack the statement, > > > > > not the person. > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:07 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Calling someone an idiot and suggesting that someone might feel > > like > > > > > > one are two distinct applications the later of which would not be > > > > > > considered ad hom. > > > > > > > The disposition of being Homophobic does not necessarily have to be > > > > > > interpreted as derogatory. Your interpretation is incorrect. > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 9:37 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Respect is never a waste of time, Slip. Name calling is not > > allowed > > > > > > > in here. Saying: "Maybe he feels like an idiot," does not mask > > the > > > > > > > name calling, nor does, "Maybe he got a bit homo phobic" Knock > > it > > > > > > > off. > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:21 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well I hope you can see that it is not in the least ad hom and > > > > > > > > regardless of the ridiculousness of your post I'll waste some > > time > > > > > > > > responding to it. I would also like second and third opinions > > on this > > > > > > > > by Chis and Ian. > > > > > > > > > homo-phobic is a "Viable" reference term: > > > > > > > > > homophobic - Definition > > > > > > > > [hṓmə-fṓbē-ə] > > > > > > > > (n.) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. > > > > > > > > (n.) Behavior based on such a feeling. > > > > > > > > Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary > > > > > > > > > or if you prefer Webster: > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\ > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > Date: 1969 > > > > > > > > : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against > > > > > > > > homosexuality or homosexuals > > > > > > > > > In case you hadn't noticed during your zealous perusing of my > > post for > > > > > > > > picayune infractions of ad hom, the thread had gone from body > > > > > > > > consciousness to homosexuality. > > > > > > > > > My post "IS" tied to Manfraco's as he says: "Anyhow this > > tread was > > > > > > > > not exactly started to talk about homosexuality, > > > > > > > > it was started to talk about consciousness and Slip would like > > to go > > > > > > > > back to talk about consciousness,........" etc, > > > > > > > > and the term was used in reference to RP in that "MAYBE" > > he.....etc. > > > > > > > > in light of the thread diversion. > > > > > > > > > We are not all A level logicians in here and most use terms > > rather > > > > > > > > loosely. I think it would be a fair statement that I never > > attack > > > > > > > > anyone unprovoked. This is a waste of time and interferes with > > the > > > > > > > > flow of thought that produces good dialogue in threads. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 8:03 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I hope you can see that your statement "Maybe he got a bit > > homo > > > > > > > > > phobic" is an ad hom, as it is not tied to any statement by > > Manfranco > > > > > > > > > in your comment, thus only related to the personal "he" on > > the > > > > > > > > > sentence. If you feel that particular statements he has made > > can be > > > > > > > > > categorized as such, pointing them out along with a > > defination of your > > > > > > > > > term and a request to further explain would be more in the > > spirit of > > > > > > > > > dialogue and less of a character slur. Please keep personal > > attacks > > > > > > > > > in check, even when the topics are as touchy as this one. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 10:32 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ya mon frac, consciousness and the consciousness of dreams, > > much > > > > > > > > > > better. > > > > > > > > > > > It looks as though Mr. Parker has left for the duration of > > the > > > > > > > > > > thread. Maybe he got a bit homo phobic, :-) > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 3:41 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee, it seems to me that we agree in general terms about > > > > > > > > > > > homosexuality, except that we have a different opinion > > about it, you > > > > > > > > > > > seem to welcome homosexuality with open arms, whereas I > > accept it just > > > > > > > > > > > because it cannot be avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow this tread was not exactly started to talk about > > homosexuality, > > > > > > > > > > > it was started to talk about consciousness and Slip would > > like to go > > > > > > > > > > > back to talk about consciousness, which could be very > > interesting for > > > > > > > > > > > me, as I am interested in personal consciousness of > > dreams, the cosmos > > > > > > > > > > > the afterlife and religions, which are all part of our > > body > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 10:02 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I really didn't say that at all Frank, I merely > > asked you to > > > > > > > > > > > > consider it a possibily in light of your assurtion that > > mother nature > > > > > > > > > > > > must do all she can for the survival of the species, > > and anything that > > > > > > > > > > > > runs counter to that cannot be 'natural' > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave you an example where not breeding was the best > > thing for the > > > > > > > > > > > > survival of the species, and if mother nature governs > > the nature of > > > > > > > > > > > > man, then homosexuality via a process of Darwinian > > evolution must (in > > > > > > > > > > > > the context of this example) be considerd as an > > evolutionary plus, > > > > > > > > > > > > thus my 'more evolved' question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do notice BTW that you did not answer my question re: > > hetrosexual > > > > > > > > > > > > sex and masterbation for pleasure, would you also see > > these as > > > > > > > > > > > > 'unnatural'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Feb, 21:17, Manfraco Frank Elder < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK Lee I see your point there, but to say that the > > homosexuals are > > > > > > > > > > > > > more evolved that the rest of us is an exaggeration, > > for me it is only > > > > > > > > > > > > > a way for Mother Nature to adjust the imbalance which > > herself/itself > > > > > > > > > > > > > created, which gives us all that extra drive about > > sex, when to > > > > > > > > > > > > > propagate ourselves half as much could have been > > plenty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 9:29 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then dwell on this one sir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is true that the earth is going to double its > > population in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next 20-30 years, then for the survival of the > > species it may be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better not to propogate our species. Ummm perhaps > > we should all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > endulge in only homosexual sex for the survial of > > the species. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps those that already do so is Mother Natures > > way of giving us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all a clue, and these people are in fact more > > 'evolved' than the rest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 Feb, > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
