Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:17:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> With the threading as broken as it is, this deep in a thread tree, it may be
> useful to quote enough of the post that you're replying to for us to find it.
> Or are you just ranting against John in general rather than at a specific
> post?
Did I break the threading by failing to quote the message? If so, then this
break is obviously my fault. I guess I would say that I am ranting against
John in general as well as at a specific post of his, but my initial message
was in response to 3688.
> I'd say that you may want to look in the mirror before complaining about ad
> hominems, frankly. But of course, you may not see it that way. I think one of
> John's points in his reply to you (or at least, I think it's a reply to you,
> threading is so broken I can't tell, I hope Todd puts that CNews fix in quick)
> is that attacks are in the eye of the beholder, what was written with one
> intent can be interpreted with another.
Can you point me to a specific post in which I mounted an ad hominem? I'd
be greatly interested to see it, if only so I can re-focus my rhetoric to
exclude personal attacks. If, however, you're referring to my "Liberama"
references--for which I've already acknowledged my error and apologized
(3634)--then I would argue that your definition of ad hominem is far more
sweeping than mine.
In any case, John has been directly insulting on numerous occasions, not
only to me, but also to Richard, Matt, and Jasper. For instance, he called me
an imbecile in 3535, called Matt a buffoon in 3534, deluded in 3539 and again
in 3550. Further, he has accused Jasper of going days without writing
anything intelligible (3164) as well as saying that Jasper "missed it all"
(3164), when in fact Jasper's opinion simply differed from John's. In
addition, John disparaged Richard's education in 3583 while claiming it was
"impossible for [Richard] to see it with your misconceptions of what
governments do," when Richard's view likewise differed from John's.
Clearly John has demonstrated little regard for his opponents, or at least a
culpable carelessness in his writing, flinging wild accusations and calling
upon us to "go back to square -37" because we "were already lost." Moreover,
he has all the while instructed us to "get real."
Am I incorrect in interpreting these as attacks? Are these simply John's
colorful way of interacting with those whose opinions he doesn't share? This
isn't a personal assault--I truly want to find out if I'm misinterpreting
John's message, or if there's really something to gripe about in his volatile
postings.
> Community minded individuals? Don't you think that's a bit rich? Who is "we"
> in this context? And how exactly is it that you're going to leap to John's
> aid? Give me a break.
> Frankly, this comes off as rather smarmy "pretending to offer help" while at
> the same time condemning the person you are commenting on. To this reader
> anyway. Eye of the beholder and all that.
I thought it was apparent that my post was intended with a healthy dose of
irony, but if you don't see that then perhaps I was unclear in my attempt.
> I have a lot of issues with John myself, but if you actually are sincere,
> wouldn't your message be better suited to email? (as arguably, would mine, but
> hey, you started it in public, let's see if we can finish it in public too)
>
> And if you are wondering if THIS missive is a personal attack, it is. It's an
> attack against your hypocritical "do gooder" mentality rather than against you
> as a person, but an attack nevertheless. Knock it off.
If my post is read as irony, then there is nothing hypocritical in what I
said. My "do gooder" mentality is itself a function of the irony of my
message, so your attack, as you call it, is somewhat misplaced.
However, you make good points, and Richard has already called for an end to
personal attacks. As a result, maybe I should just back away from this thread
for awhile...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| (...) Didn't say YOU broke it, merely that it is broken. "this deep in a thread tree" for various reasons, the reference lines being posted are truncated. Todd has a proposed fix to cnews that will compensate for (I think in most cases) other (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| (...) With the threading as broken as it is, this deep in a thread tree, it may be useful to quote enough of the post that you're replying to for us to find it. Or are you just ranting against John in general rather than at a specific post? I'd say (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
