Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:13:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Could you clarify what you mean by "I will torch this forum" ? That's a
> rather worrisome remark.
It was just an oblique reference to what is termed a flame war. My point
was merely that if John was going to entirely avoid making any substantive
comments, and instead make only personal attacks. I would give him a flame
war the likes of which lugnet has never seen.
> As I said before this is a wasted breath exercise. • <SNIP>
> Nothing really new is being said, no one is being convinced.
Ultimately, the whole of lugnet and not just this particular forum is a
wasted breath exercise.
I am not sure that convincing anyone is necessarily the point. It's an
exchange of ideas. At that level, it can be productive and provide insights
into another's perspective. When it's just name-calling, as some seem to
delight in as their nearly only contribution -- well, it gets tedious beyond
words.
> If John is so intractable, my advice is to ignore him.
His intractable ideas I can stomach, if barely. It's all the other BS he
flings around that annoys.
I am beginning to think that what this forum needs is a moderator with some
feel for what "debate" is actually intended to be. Ad hominem attacks should
be generally discouraged, and as such pointed out when they are made.
I remain very annoyed at the recent trend of people making ambiguous
insulting posts, or flat-out personal attacks on a previous poster while
making no real contribution to the arguments being raised or discussed.
That anyone's sole reason for making a post should be to personally attack
another is really the limit.
I don't agree with everything Larry P. says, or what Scott A. says, or what
James T. says, or even what John N. says -- but I don't have to as long as
they have something to say beyond mere name-calling.
Y'know, I still feel unclear as to why Dan Boger called a post of mine
"scary." And maybe I am being overly generous, but I am willing to believe
that we misunderstood each other a nothing more. Subsequently he made some
statements about the M.E. situation, and I made some other statements, and
if you read them you might conclude that we disagree on certain issues.
Fine. I don't dislike Dan or his manner of discourse because of our
exchange of ideas here. Generally, he seems like a good fellow. But yes,
it would appear that we are in opposition as concerns certain political
matters. If I met him in real in life, I wouldn't hesitate to treat him
like a gentleman and I hope he feels the same way.
I defended Scott because despite the opinions of some, he does often make
interesting contributions here. Sometimes, he annoys. But I just don't
like the idea of people just flat-out insulting him, or anyone else for that
matter, as if that was somehow "Okay" -- esp. when that person has been
raising substantive points.
I have heard, and well believe, that the subject of the M.E. just makes some
people take leave of their senses -- that it actually makes them at least
temporarily crazy, completely unable to reason as they might normally. I
realize that it's a very HOT topic of discussion. That should give everyone
all the more reason to exert some caution when speaking of it. The last
thing we need is people making a bunch of personal attacks.
I called attention to the ad hominem attacks before, and I am not at all
sure that I shall stop doing so. Making such an attack should be like the
other in-joke in debate -- the one concerning the mentioning of Hitler -- if
you make an ad hominem attack you should be considered to have clearly run
out of ideas and lost the argument by default.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) Could you clarify what you mean by "I will torch this forum" ? That's a rather worrisome remark. As I said before this is a wasted breath exercise. Surely this will get me another (oh so useful) *sigh* from Scott, but in this case it is *all* (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
