I've received complaints about your behavior. In reading the recent threads, it's clear that several Vortex members have objected to your behavior, yet you ignored them. Are you new to Vortex-L? On this forum, dismissing complaints from other users is a major mistake.
And perhaps you haven't read the rules. Ad hominem attacks are banned here. Vortex-L is a continuing experiment in online community. It has few rules, lightly enforced. Normally members respond to each other's minor lapses, and the community is self-correcting. But if problems rise to the level where an offending member starts ignoring others' multiple complaints, I will step in. Enforcement usually involves weeks-long or permanent removal of the offending member to vortexB-L, where there are no rules at all. I see that ad hominem is not the only problem here. Let me make my opinion clear. Over the last decade I've entered into discussion with large number people on Newsgroups and even on Vortex who see nothing wrong with ad hominem. The common name for such people is "Trolls" or "Flamers." I've learned by repeated experience that one typical "troll ploy" involves dishonestly distorting a common word, then endlessly arguing about it. (Narrow exclusive dictionary definitions of words having multiple definitions in practice certainly qualify as dishonest distortion.) Your behavior in this thread very much resembles a classic "Troll Ploy." I'm well aware that Electrolysis has a definition broader than the non-tech dictionary definition "to electrically lyse." Ed Storms and others know the same. Most probably the researchers reading his paper's title are aware of the wider definition. Yet you honestly believe that Electrolysis has just a single narrow definition? I suspect otherwise. To me it appears that you're not trying to "help" Ed Storms at all, but using "help" as a dishonest masquerade while you strive to embarass him in public. But Ed Storms has no need to be embarassed, since his usage is not an error. A second problem. I note that initially you mentioned that Ed Storms' had made a serious error ...but then you refused to tell him what the error was. This is a tactic of dishonest debate I've seen more than once, a form of Troll grandstanding, though one less common than the longrunning arguments based on intentional word-distortion. This tactic has a clear purpose: to focus public attention on the one who employs it. It's appropriate to a political forum where dishonest manipulative tactics are the norm. It has no place in a scientific debate. That you used it sets off my alarm bells. A third problem. An honorable person with a legit correction would consciously attempt to AVOID embarrassment by communicating in a very brief message, or better yet, via private email. Doing it very noisily in public, over several days, in a thread BTW where you also used a number of small put-downs, adds up to a very serious ad-hominem attack. Those who objected to your behavior were in the right. Ed Storms deserves a major apology from you. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
