Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: WC Moderator double standard exposed!

Expand Messages
  • val2160
    ... hominem, ... arguments ... because ... names ... wrote ... than ... you, ... is ... arguments ... RS ... that ... called ... the ... testified ... all ...
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 22, 2010

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
      > Here's a fresh holepost by the moderator:
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/16404%20>
      > Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:24 am
      > admin: ad hominem warning
      > Medgerton Howell, welcome to the discussion. On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:13
      > AM, you wrote:
      > > Tom,are you saying Peter S. Staudenliar's history is shit?
      > Making fun of another subscriber's name is an impermissible ad hominem,
      > besides being puerile. If you think something Peter has written is a
      > lie, challenge it directly.
      > -Dan Dugan
      > Moderator
      > This Howell character is a classic anthro-wacko and also a notorious
      > anti-Semitic holocaust denier, and resorting to name calling in that
      > forum is unintelligent.
      > That much said about Howell, here is the rub with moderator Dan Dugan:
      > How can anybody challenge something Peter S has written and say it's a
      > lie when it's expressly verboten? It's the censorship that prompted my
      > final and permanent departure from the WC nine years ago. Check it out:
      > <http://waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA0110.1.html>
      > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:14:10 -0700
      > From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
      > Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie about
      > RS exposed)
      > Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the
      > argument of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your arguments
      > to the issues being discussed.
      > -Dan Dugan
      > Moderator
      > Incidentally, it wasn't me who wrote the title of that thread, because
      > I've always had a habit of refraining from putting other people's names
      > in the title field; it's considered poor netiquette. It was Sune or
      > Dottie, don't remember. I only participated in a thread already named,
      > but everybody knows that PS is the worst violator when it comes to
      > putting people's names in the titles, mostly subtly derogatorily. But
      > there was a Sarina McDonald who thought the title was mine and who wrote
      > to Dan:
      > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:47:14 -0700
      > From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
      > Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
      > about RSexposed)
      > *cringe*
      > The recent carping about your moderating skills (or lack thereof) has
      > bothered me, Dan, because I think you have always given us a lot of
      > freedom to... well, to bitch. You've always just let everyone hash
      > things out, and didn't step in to moderate unless it got really ugly.
      > You've been fair, too - only seeming to favor Critics slightly more than
      > DoF's (which I think is appropriate, considering this is the "Critics
      > List").
      > But I am amazed that Tarjei's subject line warrants a warning from you,
      > when Peter Zegers' post titled "Mr. Straume is a liar," (in which he
      > states, "Straume is now really going insane,") did not! This, to me, is
      > far more offensive.
      > Tsk, tsk. You're giving DL more to complain about - and, other than
      > lodging my own complaint just this once, I've had enough complaining!
      > Then again, I AM suffering from PPD (no, not Post Partum Depression -
      > Post Partum Dementia!), so perhaps I just missed your Admin warning?
      > I hope so.
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      > Sarina "If you think this is picky, you should talk to my husband!"
      > McDonald
      > Here is my response to Dan, which is also my final post to the WC, my
      > goodbye-message:
      > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:00:29 +0200
      > From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
      > Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning (Re: Peter Staudenmaier's lie
      > about RS exposed)
      > The moderator wrote:
      > )Tarjei Straume, it is not acceptable on this list to refer to the
      > argument of another subscriber as a lie. Please restrict your arguments
      > to the issues being discussed.
      > )-Dan Dugan
      > )Moderator
      > The issue being discussed is whether or not it is a lie to state that RS
      > told his listeners in Oslo that the Aryans are a _superior_ race.
      > But you've made up a new rule: You're saying that this issue is not an
      > acceptable topic of discussion. You are telling me that it is not
      > permitted to say that a claim made by another subscriber is not true.
      > When I re-subscribed to this list in May, the issue defined above was
      > one of the main issues I wanted to comment on.
      > In other words, I have no more business on this list after your gag
      > order. The only reason I'm not unsubscribing myself this evening is that
      > there are third parties involved who want me to post some URL-links
      > first.
      > Your above post does not qualify as an "ad hominem warning" because it
      > is about my comment on a statement, not on a person. It should be called
      > an "ad statementem" instead - a new offence.
      > You apparently cannot tolerate the discrediting of your pet theory
      > concerning RS and Nazism, and for this reason, it seems, you modify the
      > rules for acceptable list behavior at your pleasure.
      > This kind of list administration makes it impossible for me to
      > participate any further, so I will promptly cease to post here.
      > --
      > Tarjei
      > http://uncletaz.com/ <http://uncletaz.com/>
      > I should also give credit where credit is due with regard to Dan Dugan:
      > He has always been a gentleman; the late Paulina Leonard also testified
      > to that, and he has a standard of civil communication that we could all
      > learn from. So as moderator, Dan strives to hold his forum contributors
      > to a certain minimum of that standard, and that's commendable. (On the
      > AT we've never had any rules.)
      > That much said, the unfairness, contradiction, double standard and
      > unreasonableness inherent in my last exchange on the WC should be
      > obvious. It's unfortunate that this comes to light now in an exchange
      > with someone who must be characterized as an anthro-wacko (Howell),
      > because nothing is wackier than holocaust denial. To say that the
      > holocaust didn't happen is unpleasant and immoral imho, in spite of its
      > political abuse by Israel beginning in the early sixties, and in spite
      > of my opinion that it shouldn't be a criminal offense like it is in
      > Europe, because it only makes martyrs out of those wackos and gives them
      > unnecessary media coverage.
      > What's interesting, however, is that holocaust deniers call themselves
      > historical revisionists, and they're sometimes academics like David
      > Irving, who has been described as the most skillful preacher of
      > Holocaust denial in the world today. Peter S is also skillful in his own
      > way, he calls his deceitful nazification of anthroposophy and of Rudolf
      > Steiner himself, "historical revisionism," and if he's not a liar, he is
      > just as wacky as Howell and Irving. And by giving this immoral and
      > unpalatable historical revisionism an academic coloring, he is Dan
      > Dugan's wet dream come true, which is why the latter has been so
      > protective of him. PS can insult people all the time, say they're
      > unintelligent illiterates with mental defects as long as they're either
      > anthroposophists or esotericists, but if anyone says that a statement by
      > PS is a lie, the moderator cries ad hominem. Gitautahier. That's why
      > we're sending Der F├╝hrer's greeting to the Abyss this year, so they
      > can enjoy it together with a wacko of their very own ilk, namely Howell.
      > They can go around the Christmas tree and sing with their beloved Adolf.
      > Tarjei

      I think you are confusing the violation of a rule with the violation of a standard.-Val
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.