|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:14 pm Post subject: Inappropriate Choice Of Words
|
|
|
An open question to the administrator.
Do the "Golden Rules" apply to the administrator too or just us peons who post?
The Golden Rules
3.) Avoid personal attacks. A good flaming can be fun and can also be necessary sometimes but let's try to attack the idea and not the person. Excessive flaming will not be tolerated. If you must have it out with someone, take it to email.
I would argue that the use of the word "retarded" would fall under the category of "personal attacks". Review the remarks made by the administrator and you will see him use this term multiple times to describe an individual or to question their intellegence.
I personally find that offensive and totally inappropriate.
Footsoldier
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Ok, then "argue" it.
edit: and as per the PG, THERE'S NO NEED TO YELL. All-Caps posts are annoying and generally regarded as rude.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
What? No apology? Imagine that.
FS
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:35 am Post subject:
|
|
|
sleK... I will be more than happy to fix my mistake if you can tell me if it's possible to edit a thread title once it's out there.
How about you? Care to "fix" your own Golden Rules violation?
FS
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:21 am Post subject:
|
|
|
You have yet to "argue" that it is, indeed, a rules violation.
Though I'm not surprised that you fail to comprehend this (continually), simply asserting something doesn't make it true.
Ironically, your failure in this regard further justifies my use, and the accuracy, of the term that you have taken issue with.
Who didn't see that one comin'?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
sleK....
YOU repeatedly in the "Politics" thread referred to other posters as "retarded". You resorted to personal attacks when someone posted something you didn't agree with.
Calling someone a name.... particularly a name that describes someone's dissability is especially distasteful. It reflects a lack of respect for another human being and it specifically violates the third of YOUR rules.
On top of that, it appears you don't even have any remorse for having said it...... not once but multiple times. You don't set a very good example, or maybe, you just set the rules for everyone else and consider yourself above it all.
Your own words found in your own rules are the best argument there is. It's not my interpretation, it's right there in black and white. Go back and review your own words in your posts and then apologize to all of the learning disabled people for your ignorant and boorish comments.
Footsoldier
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
kanaka
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Footsoldier, I did not see you coming to my defence during the past eighteen months when I was being called every bloody name in the book by two individuals, neither of whom are here now. In fact, no one came to my defence. Had you been on my side of the debates, you would have been crying foul a year ago. That is what your side does, very conveniently. They gnaw and bite and pinch and gnaw some more, like little gnats, with their insults and name calling. Then, after incredibly long periods of such abuse, when the other side finally says "enough, you ba$tards", your side runs to the supervisors crying "teacher, teacher, the bad words, the bad words *sniff*shiff*".
I'm not coming to anyone's defence here. I'm just watching from the sidelines to see how it feels. You can have your thread back now.
Regards
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:38 am Post subject:
|
|
|
K..... this kind of namecalling has no place here.... regardless of who is doing the namecalling.
In your case, those members were just as wrong for saying those things to you. I am not familiar with the situations you site but if you say they occurred I believe you.
If the leader establishes the rules, and is quick to point out the failures of others when they break them, then the leader should also follow them, don't you agree?
Footie
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
First, let us examine the term "argue":
| Quote: |
- To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
- To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
- To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
- To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
v.intr.
- To put forth reasons for or against something: argued for dismissal of the case; argued against an immediate counterattack.
- To engage in a quarrel; dispute.
|
Now let's acknowledge your apparent willingness to "argue":
| Quote: |
| I would argue that the use of the word "retarded" would fall under the category of "personal attacks". |
Now, let's examine your "argument" and see how it measures up:
| Quote: |
| YOU repeatedly in the "Politics" thread referred to other posters as "retarded". |
In some cases, certainly. In most cases, however, I think that you'll find that the term was used in reference to ideas, tactics, and behaviour.
| Quote: |
| You resorted to personal attacks when someone posted something you didn't agree with. |
If, indeed, the term was used in reference to ideas, tactics, and behaviour, then it is, by definition, not a personal attack.
| Quote: |
| Calling someone a name.... particularly a name that describes someone's dissability is especially distasteful. |
In your opinion perhaps. My opinion dictates that "retard" is a descriptive term generally used to denote actual mental retardation like impaired learning, social, and vocational abilities.
| Quote: |
| It reflects a lack of respect for another human being and it specifically violates the third of YOUR rules. |
The disrespect was intended, you'll get no argument there. However, given the context of the thread that the term was used, you'll have to explain how perpetuating ideas, tactics, and behaviour that are, in essence, responsible for the needless deaths of thousands of innocent civilians to spite, and to ignore, reams of clear and factual information that, at minimum, raise a number of questions, is worthy of my respect.
As far as the rules are concerned, you have yet to demonstrate any violation and I encourage you to try.
| Quote: |
| Your own words found in your own rules are the best argument there is. It's not my interpretation, it's right there in black and white. Go back and review your own words in your posts [...] |
Nope. As you've claimed you "would", that's your job. Make your case or STFU. :)
***
Now let's see if you actually "argued" anything.
Your original claim was:
| Quote: |
| I would argue that the use of the word "retarded" would fall under the category of "personal attacks". |
Well, as it turns out you've only indicated that you don't like the term "retard" despite its accuracy.
Instead of supporting your claim by providing evidence or by presenting reasons you've simply reworded the same assertion you made in the opening post.
Thus you've only proved that you're incapable of "arguing". And that this entire exercise, like every other thread where your inability to comprehend such simple concepts is evident, is retarded.
However, like I mentioned in another thread, I am here to help. So, let me show you what you need to do in order to make your case:
- First you need to examine the relevant rule from the PG:
| Quote: |
| Avoid personal attacks. A good flaming can be fun and can also be necessary sometimes but let's try to attack the idea and not the person. Excessive flaming will not be tolerated. If you must have it out with someone, take it to email. |
Pay extra special (as in "needs") attention to the language as its intent is very explicit and straightforward.
Then you need to take some examples of my use of the term "retard" and demonstrate, point by point, how each example violates each of the individual provisions set forth in that particular rule.
Then sit back, relax, congratulate yourself for completing your first real "argument"
and wait for my response.
Note, that I'll be out for the evening so my response may not be immediate. I will, however, have access available so I may check in.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:41 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Even though I just woke up from a good night's sleep, I'm exhausted having read your epistle designed to justify your boorish treatment of others.
You didn't dissapoint. You trotted out one of your typical responses, microscopic analysis followed by a long-winded commentary, when a simple "it was wrong to use that term when I referenced another" would have sufficed.
In doing so, you missed the entire point of this thread. It's about showing respect for others, even those whoose opinion may differ from yours, and following the Golden Rule you yourself laid out as the standard.
Most certainly had I resorted to the same namecalling tactics, you would have been right there waving your rules in my face. Rather hypocritical wouldn't you say?
Footsoldier
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| a simple "it was wrong to use that term when I referenced another" would have sufficed. |
I don't believe it was wrong at all. So I have no reason to admit such a thing.
The fact is, if you are going to act like an idiot, you are going to get treated like an idiot.
If you don't like it, smarten up.
| Quote: |
| It's about showing respect for others, |
Your behaviour here, particulary in schmolitics topics, is not worthy of any respect whatsoever.
| Quote: |
| and following the Golden Rule you yourself laid out as the standard. |
As has been pointed out to you many times over, simply repeating the same rubbish over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
You need to learn to support your allegations and you need to learn to support your opinions when they are challenged.
Thus far, you have categorically failed to support almost everything you have stated.
This entire thread demonstrates nothing other than the fact that you are, indeed, nothing but a blowhard. All bark and no bite.
You couldn't even provide support for the very premise of this, your own thread.
Tis true! Despite being given a number of opportunities, you haven't provided a single iota of information to support your claim that I have somehow violated the PG.
| Quote: |
| Most certainly had I resorted to the same namecalling tactics, you would have been right there waving your rules in my face. Rather hypocritical wouldn't you say? |
Patently false and utterly stupid of you to suggest.
page 4:
In this example you found yourself, as usual, completely lacking the faculties required to dispute anything I had said. So, what did you do? You inferred that I was both a Nazi and Hussein sympathizer.
Did I wave the rules in your face? No. I didn't. I simply yawned at your typically retarded behaviour.
You did exactly the same thing on page 6 as well.
Did I wave the rules in your face? Again, no. I didn't. I challenged your retarded remarks. And just how did you respond to my challenge?
Well, you simply demonstrated your piss-poor comprehension by responding to only one point, out of a possible 11, completely out of context.
My patience has run out Footsoldier. Your retarded behaviour has wasted too much of my time and too many of our resources already.
This is your final warning. Clean up your act and start playing by the rules of the game or you will be banned, permanently.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|