You're sounding like a sly ol' Moderator there, Perry. :-) Izzy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, although I did see a three musketeer movie once in which King Louis did exactly the same thing. To which were you referring? :-) Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot of things through the years, and have used those ad hominem arguments to discount his prophetic position. That is not good debate style because even if he was a money-digging stone-peeping plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those things should have no bearing on arguments about the mormon church. Perry >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600 > >I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those of >us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs against the >theologians, prophets, and kings of another's argumentation? > >Bill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Judy Taylor > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** > > > The problem here is huge since the person described below is not a >theologian. Rather he is a prophet/king > chosen by God whose recorded words are inspired by the Spirit of God. >Big difference. jt > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: > The Moderator responds > . . .those arguments, too, should have to >stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on Calvin. > > You don't say! Hmmmmmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would >render some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic >here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research, >contemplate, and address the substance of theological statements, instead >of dismissing them out-of-hand simply because the theologian seduced and >slept with another man's wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to >the front lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for it. > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** > > > > Bill, > > > > In TT we are trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional >in > > nature because of demeaning and hurtful statements, so it applies >directly > > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly engaging in debate. > > > > However, from a debating point of view if one chooses to bring in > > arguments made by another, say Calvin, those arguments, too, should >have to > > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on >Calvin. > > > > Perry > > > > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > >To: <[email protected]> > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** > > >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600 > > > > > >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for >the > > >great example to the rest of us. > > > > > >I have a question for you. You write that "Specifically, 'ad >hominem > > >argumentum', [which is what is mentioned on the TT discussions >guidelines > > >page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an argument by attacking >the > > >person rather than the topic, again, regardless whether it is true >or > > >false.' Does this apply only to the one with whom one is arguing, >or does > > >it > > >apply as well to attacks against the person of persons whom one >might > > >reference in constructing ones arguments. For example, a dismissal >of John > > >Calvin's views on election via an attack against him as a person, >i.e., his > > >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal of the content and substance >of the > > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated by supposedly corrupt Roman > > >Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of > > >argumentation on TruthTalk? > > > > > >Bill > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[email protected]> > > >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:03 AM > > >Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** > > > > > > > > > > TT members, > > > > > > > > I have been contacted by email privately and informed that my > > >referring > > > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. >After > > >some > > > > discussion back and forth, and some research, I am convinced >that it is > > >so > > > > and that I need to apologize to Dave. > > > > > > > > I previously thought that if one merely stated a belief about >someone > > > > that was true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon >doing a > > > > little researh I discovered that it does not matter whether it >is true > > >or > > > > not...an ad hominem reference is a comment "to the man", so >saying > > >anything > > > > about anyone personally, whether true or not, positive or >negative, is > > >an > > >ad > > > > hominem reference. If I were to say, "John, I really think you >are a > > >smart > > > > guy", that is an ad hominem reference, too, because it is >directed at > > > > someone personally. > > > > > > > > However, on TT I think it is a little more specific in that >TT > > >wishes > > >to > > > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem reference, that is, one that the >receiver > > >of > > > > the comment would find insulting. Dave indicated in a post that >he > > >thought > > > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad hominem reference. > > > > > > > > So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an > > >ad-hominem > > > > reference. > > > > > > > > The above is a very general interpretation of "ad hominem". > > >Specifically, > > > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which is what is mentioned on the TT > > >discussions > > > > guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an >argument by > > > > attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless >whether it > > >is > > > > true or false. > > > > > > > > Even though I am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to >making > > > > inappropriate remarks at times, and I welcome private email from >anyone > > >that > > > > would like to point out such comments. If we have only one >watcher, who > > > > watches the watcher? While I moderate the group, the group >moderates me. > > > > > > > > Perry the Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that >you may > > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > > >http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an >email to > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you >have a > > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you >may > > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > > >http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email >to > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you >have a > > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you >may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
