Agreed. On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:56 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> Note to both RP and Gruff: > > You both are intelligent and valued posters here. And, for the obvious > reason(s), we at ME have a specific list of posting standards… one of > which is to not use ad hominem attacks no matter how carefully > veiled. > > As moderators, we can and surely do miss and/or overlook some > infractions. > > In the current fray, I ask both RP and gruff to cease any attacks > against the other’s person … in any way at all… and return to what is > a great thread otherwise. > > As an additional comment, for those who don’t know it, attacks against > the person (ad hominem) may or may not be grounded in perceived truth, > so this fact alone does not justify doing so. > > > On Aug 18, 10:23 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > "... On Aug 18, 9:01 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: ..." > > > > > I'm not concerned with your assessment of someone else's intentions, > and > > > argumentum ad populum is beneath you. It is neither your > responsibility, nor > > > acceptable in this venue, for you to try and play honor police, > especially > > > given the unmitigated gall of your assumptiveness. Who are you to claim > to > > > know the intentions of a stranger, participating in a conversation in > an > > > online forum? Are you God? I might be led to believe so, given the > avowed > > > veracity of your knowledge of the internal workings of others. > > > > RP Singh August 15, 7:14am "There are no gods..." wherein he exhibits > > the gall to tell me what I do not understand because I am not used to > > thinking a certain way and implies that I am ignorant and obtuse. > > > > RP Singh August 15, 11:09am "Dear Gruff, I am much impressed by your > > knowledge and application. You are an intelligent man and think you > > will be able to understand what I have to say" Herein he acknowledges > > that I am intelligent then goes on to assume certain things about me > > that he has no basis for stating. He also directly implies that no > > one here on ME is sufficiently intelligent to understand him. He > > makes no conditional statements in this post. All this statements are > > arrogant and full of himself. > > > > RP Singh August 15, 6:41pm - Herein RP makes several absolute > > statement that are not. > > > > Rigsy01 August 16, 5:42 am - Herein are made several absolute > > antagonistic statements based on personal knowldge of me she acquired > > elsewhere. > > > > Gruff August 16, 12:35pm - Herein I contradict a couple of RP's > > absolute statements with supporting evidence and ask him a simple > > question in return. > > > > RP Singh August 16, 7:11pm - Herein I am told that I am arguing as > > thought I had all the answers, that all my arguments are baseless > > (assuming a foundation which is completely in error). He also answers > > my earlier question with a question tied to an insult that my > > reasoning is bullshit and that I have failed to understand him. Then > > he concludes by saying that I am not intelligent. I consider this to > > be his first attack. > > > > Gruff August 17, 12:32am - Herein I respond to his attack and use such > > conditional terms as "it seems..., you seem...., I think..., I don't > > think..., I believe ..., and point out his arrogance and the reality > > of what we know. Then I warn him that unless be begins to respond > > with civility and rational discourse I will no longer respond to him. > > (Disclaimer: However I did respond further on when his statements > > seems so absurd and attack-like that I could not refrain. My fault. > > I should have continued to ignore him the way I do others who are of > > the same ilk.) > > > > Gruff August 17, 9:23am - Herein I respond generically with > > definitions of oblivon and the statement that for some oblivion is as > > ignorance -- bliss. This is in response to his post to Slip on August > > 17 at 6:07am. > > > > If you doubt -- as you seem to -- that RP does not talk in absolutes > > as if he knows everything, I refer you to RP's post to Slip on August > > 17 at 10:28am wherein he speaks as if he were a god or a prophet. He > > is neither. > > > > RP Singh August 17, 10:33am - Herein RP states flat out with absolute > > authority that I do not believe in a soul and implies that I will die > > in ignorance. Even Deane Kellison opines that his words are > > uncharitable. If this is not an attack, I don't know what is. > > > > Gruff August 17, 7:58pm - Herein I finally break my civility with my > > statement that RP does nothing but display his own ignorance and > > intolerance, both of which he has accused me of more than once. > > > > Gruff August 18, 2:50am - Herein in response to Slip's comments about > > RP, I state that RP's arrogance and disdain are untouched by any sense > > of humility or respect for anyone else. > > > > Then you accuse me of being denigrating and belittling all through > > this thread. I think you are either biased against me or in favor of > > RP but it seems clear that you have not read this threat with an > > unbiased eye. > > > > Molly August 18, 8:59am - Herein Molly jumps in at an opportunity to > > make false accusations which I suspect are based in an earlier > > disagreement with her last year. I believe she is being very > > disingenuous based on prior animosity at my expose of her marketing > > herself here on ME. > > > > Then you jump back in the fray stating that I make "absolutist > > statements" regarding another's intentions. Please respond in kind > > and point these out to me? If you can. > > > > You further accuse me of theatrical tricks, melodramatics and a > > deliberate display of emotion for effect with exaggerated, > > overemotional behavior calculated to elicit a response seemingly based > > on my statement that in politics it is a fallacy to not respond to an > > attack. I'd appreciate having these histrionics pointed out > > specifically. > > > > Beyond this, I've been threatened with banishment before by the very > > people with whom I have disagreed. Do as you will. I will continue > > to be as I am. If you value my input, then correct the people who > > deserve correction. Otherwise, ban me. I sincerely believe my > > behavior has been -- for the most part -- not only acceptable but my > > responses enhance the relevancy of this forum. >
