This is beyond the pale.
On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Actually my memory was somewhat clouded by latter blog entries by
Krivit, that were more problematic, arrogant and insulting.
.
I don't know what this is about. I do not read Krivit's blog
regularly. I am sorry to hear your memory is so clouded.
.
Preliminary report was somewhat ok written, although there was deeper
layers in the report, but of course you are blind for them, because it
would require some comprehension of text as a whole.
.
It should be easy to pick out ad hominem attacks since the volume of
material is large.
.
Levi's response underline quite clearly his feelings toward the
report:
"Given that you omitted portions of information you had, insulted me
(and my University) trying to say that I’m not knowledgeable enough in
my area, tried (just tried) to scare me and put me under psychological
pressure in order to obtain so far undisclosed data, I will not send
you further information."
.
I don't know anything about that.
.
Therefore I would say, if you get this kind of response, there is
something non-objective written. And indeed there was. As came quite
clearly on latter messages by Steven.
.
I asked for ad hominem examples, not insult examples.
.
Like I said. It is irrelevant how do you formally write something. All
that matters is what kind of thoughts you are conveying with your
text. There is no such thing as objective text if there is something
else than facts. And certainly here was presented mostly opinnions,
subjective observations, and impressions. When you are writing such a
text, then you must consider what kinds of thoughts they are
provoking. And indeed this is why Levi got insulted.
.
Are you talking about me or Krivit or the dozens of other people
extremely critical of the tests?
.
If you are denying this human part of interpreting test, then you are
proving my point, that your skills are not adequate to follow normal
human communication. Therefore I did not insult you, but I just stated
a fact considering your mental abilities. ^^
.
What human part of interpreting the test? Do you mean my criticism of
your post? Critcising a post and criticising a test are different
things.
.
I do not consider Rossi's responses either as appropriate. And they
are written by somewhat mentally unstable person. But You need to also
consider, that Rossi's response is interpreted and also mixed from
other people harsh criticism that he has faced by many self-important
"debunkers".
.
Why can you not stick to the issue? The issue as far as I am
concerned is the difference between ad hominem and insults.
.
I know this, because I too, too often are mixing and categorizing
critics and consider them as a single person. E.g. I have some times
wrote an angry message to you that you are not able to think straight
with your own brains, but you just leave Steven to do thinking for you
by your own half. Luckily I hope that I have deleted most of them
before sending.
.
This is unfortunate for you that you can not keep track of individual
comments. You have a poor computer system?
.
However, I am deeply insulted by your insult you have thrown against
me in various occasion. Especially that your brainless message that
ended up into Krivit's blog.
.
I have asked you repeatedly to be specific about what you find
insulting. By this I clearly mean what specific sentences and why
they are insulting.
.
You see, your insults got far more weight when they traveled outside
this mailing list.
.
I did not take them outside this list. However,surely you must
realize this is a public list, and all archived posts show up in
google searches.
.
Therefore you are lucky that you are living in the
other side of the Northern hemisphere, because if you were any closer,
I would have perhaps sued you. If there was not apology coming.
.
I do not react well to bullying.
I find this to be an insult me, to this list, and to my country.
Here we have freedom of speech.
I normally apologize for the smallest things. I have intentionally
not apologized to you because it appeared you were trying to bully me
into silence. This is why I asked for specifics about what offended
you. You have provided no specifics. I therefore conclude this is
general bullying on your part for my disagreeing with you so
comprehensively.
.
You must try to not to be a block head but try to understand what kind
of impact you your ideas what you are presenting have, to other people
around you. There are various aspects, and public insult is far worse
than private insult.
.
You still have not defined specifically what you find insulting about
my post.
.
You cannot hide behind formalism if your
intentions are malicious.
.
My intentions are not obviously not malicious. To what end would that
serve?
.
Also it is ridiculous to use formal
argumentation mistake as an argument, because there are no general
rules in argumentation.
.
No general rules??? How about specific rules? Gee, what are all
those latin phrases about??
.
But it is always depended on the context where
arguments are presented.
.
It? What are you talking about.
.
–Jouni
Ps. Still waiting an apology. . . .
P.S. Still waiting for (a) specific details on what you find so
offensive about my remarks and (b) specific occurrences of ad hominem
attack by Krivit ...
2011/9/30 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>:
These remarks provide an excellent pedagogical example!
Your argument below is an ad hominem attack. The statements:"you
that you
are not able for normal social interaction" and "you do not have
ability to
understand sarcasm or hostile intentions, if they are hidden
behind formally
correct language." are both attacks on the person, and not the
person's
statement. I am certainly capable of making such attacks, but I
usually
avoid them. At least I know when I am using ad hominem and when I
am not.
Ad hominem is a fallacious argument based an irrelevant attack on an
opponents ability to make an argument vs the opponents argument
itself.
On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
It is understandable, for you that you are not able for normal
social
interaction, therefore you do not have ability to understand sarcasm
or hostile intentions, if they are hidden behind formally correct
language.
See, no derogatory names used, but the content was EXTREMELY
insulting. At least it was meant as such.
Insulting comments and ad hominem are two different things.
Therefore your theory about ad hominem is flawed.
This is a fallacious argument, based on the false assumption that
ad hominem
and insulting comments are necessarily the same thing.
You really does not use derogatory names, such as "senile", "blind",
"idiot" in order to insult persons.
I did not imply using such names were *necessary*, only that the
use of such
names attacking the person instead of his arguments is
*sufficient* for an
ad hominem. Such an attack is not a logical argument.
Try to understand that. It is
completely irrelevant what words you are using, but only thing that
matters is how people perceive your writings.
You do not seem to understand the meaning of ad hominem.
Do you find this remark insulting? It is not an attack on you in
order to
discredit your argument. If it said you are too stupid or too
ignorant to
discuss logic then that would be ad hominem. Saying your remarks
indicate a
lack of understanding of a definition is not an ad hominem
attack. It is a
relevant statement based on the content of your argument.
If you did not meant to
be insulting, then it is your fault if someone feels your writing as
offending.
Some people take any disagreement as insulting. When the degree of
disagreement is extreme the insult is then extreme.
Most often the most insulting thing is that the one who is
writing is just ignorant and too stupid to admit his ignorance.
–Jouni
Insult, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. Ad hominem
is another
thing altogether. It is a fallacious form of argument.
I am still waiting for an example from you of Krivit using an ad
hominem
attack against Rossi and Levi. If you have none then your
statement, "...
Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi", is in error.
2011/9/30 Horace Heffner <[email protected]><:
On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
And Krivit started vicious ad hominem attacking against Rossi and
Levi. By for what reason?
Here the definition of ad hominem seems distorted. Criticizing
a paper
or
posting or experimental approach is not ad hominem. Calling
someone a
derogatory name, like "fool", "snake" or "clown" is.
Where is an example of ad hominem attack by Krivit? It may well
exist,
but
I don't recall seeing such.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
