|
952. AceofSpades - 2/22/2000 6:19:52 AM
The obvious way to defeat an argument from authority is to demolish the authority himself, impugning his intellect and/or credentials by ridiculing them, most often using "personal information."
I say I'm a lawyer and I know X Law. SpuddyBoy counters: But you're an INSURANCE lawyer, and a bad one at that.
This is perfectly fair for SpuddyBoy to do. Indeed, my assertion more or less DEMANDED he make this sort of insult. 953. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:26:59 AM Seguine,
What matters is what promotes the interests of the forum while maintaining room for heated debate. I believe my proposal does this. Your interpretive latitude re the current rules, I believe, shortchanges the forum.
I am all for promoting the interests of the forum. One of the things I think essential to this forum is an atmosphere that does not encourage whining. Any rule that gives members the right to run complaining to Wabbit because of information they provided on this forum was used in a manner not to their liking is not in the interest of this forum, in my opinion.
Take the recent case with Pelle and Ace. Yes, they were kidding. So how would a newbie know when it was okay to use personal information? Oh, if you're joking, it's okay. But if you're serious and trying to be nasty, it's a bad thing.
But both uses of it involve "scouring Home and Garden" to find personal information. It's just how you use it. And who complains.
The interpretative latitude doesn't shortchange the forum. Wabbit could be far more ruthless if she deemed it necessary, and the rules support her if she needs the leeway.
954. Dusty - 2/22/2000 6:38:00 AM PelleNilsson
And have we seen these deeply personal relevations used to abuse these posters?
We have not.
Sorry, Pelle, a very heart-felt post, and I wish I could agree with you, but it isn't true. As I can personally attest.
It is because when all has been said and done we are a decent lot around here.
Generally, usually, almost always. But there are exceptions. Painful ones. 955. Cellar Door - 2/22/2000 6:38:13 AM I say I'm a lawyer
I say I'm a lawyer
I say "I'm a lawyer"
I SAY I'm a lawyer
I say I'm a lawyer 956. bubbaette - 2/22/2000 6:44:51 AM I say! I'm a lawyer. 957. Absensia - 2/22/2000 6:46:09 AM Me too! 958. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:46:28 AM I say that if someone doesn't remind me of the name of that damn cartoon character, I'm going to go nuts. The rooster. what the hell is his name? 959. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:47:02 AM Foghorn Leghorn.
Gawd, I feel better. Phew. 960. Toenails - 2/22/2000 6:47:30 AM
Hey, I'm a lawyer, too! Amazing! 961. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 6:48:17 AM I'm a pepper. 962. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 6:48:35 AM Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too? 963. PelleNilsson - 2/22/2000 6:49:02 AM Dusty
I'm very sorry to hear that. I hadn't noticed. Maybe one positive outcome of all this is that we should be more vigilant about these things. But I still don't think it can be codified in any meaningful way. It's more a question of the "sense of the community".
But it's late here and I need to think more. 964. Absensia - 2/22/2000 6:49:44 AM erm, what kind of pepper? 965. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:50:14 AM On a more serious note, couldn't a woman claim a personal information violation if they were called a hag or a cunt? A man complain if he is called a dick?
Or is their gender not personal information?
966. Indiana Jones - 2/22/2000 6:51:23 AM A doctor pepper, of course. 967. Absensia - 2/22/2000 6:53:11 AM hahaha, IJ...and I was thinking habanero. 968. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:53:31 AM But even if it is true that deeply personal revelations have been used against someone, why isn't that just a matter of abuse? If something is out of line, why can't it be handled on those terms?
Frankly, I think many people have had situations where personal information is used to smack them up and down. It's not fun. But I don't think it's something we can ban.
Also, Dusty, I don't think you count as a "meek" poster, which means that any situation involving you doesn't automatically rebut Pelle's point. Unless I misunderstood your post. 969. CalGal - 2/22/2000 6:55:51 AM That is not an insult, btw. And I don't think you're an egregious hardass who trods down a path on the bodies of beaten Mote members. But I understood Pelle's point to refer to the "meek". 970. Seguine - 2/22/2000 6:58:49 AM "And I'm not "spamming." I'm doing what people do on-line-- having fun with a fellow poster."
I certainly don't object to your exchange w/Pelle. I do find pointless any attempt to shout above the din caused by the avalanche of interpretive diarrhea you habitually exude.
When you stick to comedy, you're a gem, bucko. When you pretend to think, the room erupts like a grunting chorus of ticket holders at an Arsenio Hall concert. You spam. Any hope of post-pubescent dialogue must thereafter be abandoned by anyone with a life to lead.
Fortunately for my adversaries on the point of this discussion, I do have a life to lead and must now allow all reservations, idiotic analogies, false charges and comparisons, tendentious arguments, misrepresentations, and distortions of my argument to stand, to take root, and to overwhelm everything I've argued.
As it happens, this place has increasingly little part in my larger concerns; ultimately, as things proceed here, I expect it will have none. I've made my suggestions. Take them in part or in whole, or leave them, folks; and enjoy yourselves. 971. Toenails - 2/22/2000 7:09:01 AM
Is it just me, or does Seguine sound a little ...bitter?
|
