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

Personal attacks -- or not

Expand Messages
  • shepherdmoon
    ... While Phil s Block-headed ignorance about biology is, as I have ruled in similar cases in the past, not a personal attack (except in a comparatively
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      How do you figure this one from the CED moderator:

      ---
      While Phil's "Block-headed ignorance about biology" is,
      as I have ruled in similar cases in the past, not a
      "personal attack" (except in a comparatively trivial
      sense), I agree it is not "civil conversation".
      ---
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9503

      Could someone explain to me why "Block-headed ignorance about biology"
      is not a personal attack? What does "except in a comparatively trivial
      sense" mean?

      Notice also the part from Skell's reply not quoted in the moderator's
      excerpt:

      ---
      Look in the mirror. You would
      try the
      > patience of a chunk of granite.
      ---

      That sure sounds personal to me. Asking someone to look in the mirror
      is asking them to look at themselves, i.e., that the problem is with
      who they are, not with the argument they are making.

      Note also "joshuaschroeder"'s admirably restrained reply:

      ---
      I fail to see how this is in any way sticking to the issues, Phil.
      While I never attest to being an expert in biology, I do have the
      ability to evaluate, follow logical arguments, and maintain civil
      conversation. I'm not sure why you think it justified to engage in
      personal attacks. I was under the impression this list was designed to
      avoid just that.
      ---
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9501

      Seems like a reasonable response. Yet the CED moderator chose to tell
      both writers to "take a break from debating each other." This nicely
      lets Skell off the hook.

      Each time I dip back into CED I am amazed anew by the apparent bizarre
      distortions involving the (alleged) rules of debate. But perhaps I am
      missing something here. Can someone help me understand?

      Thanks,
      Shepherdmoon
    • distazo@aol.com
      Shepherdmoon: Each time I dip back into CED I am amazed anew by the apparent bizarre distortions involving the (alleged) rules of debate. But perhaps I am
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Shepherdmoon:
        Each time I dip back into CED I am amazed anew by the apparent bizarre
        distortions involving the (alleged) rules of debate. But perhaps I am
        missing something here. Can someone help me understand?

        John:
        I don't think you're missing a thing, Shep. Jones lets Phil slide by with his insults because that is exactly what CED is about -- insulting evolution and its proponents. Steve admits just enough to give Phil a pass, whereas if Schroeder had come back in kind (or even anything remotely indignant, I expect) Steve would have landed on him like a ton of bricks.

        It's always amusing, as well as frustrating, to read the archives at CED and see the bias present in the posts for the creationist viewpoint, even though it purports to be a balanced list. Some other lists that I'm a member of handle this by having two moderators, one for each viewpoint. However, I'm sure Steve would have no part of that -- it would disrupt the "big fish in a little pond" scenario of his list.
      • jdbeadle@hotmail.com
        ... biology ... trivial ... Phil is given extra lee-way from Joe-Average CED member and certainly more than the pro-evolution people. That s cause Phil for
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "shepherdmoon" <shepherdmoon@y...>
          wrote:
          > How do you figure this one from the CED moderator:
          >
          > ---
          > While Phil's "Block-headed ignorance about biology" is,
          > as I have ruled in similar cases in the past, not a
          > "personal attack" (except in a comparatively trivial
          > sense), I agree it is not "civil conversation".
          > ---
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9503
          >
          > Could someone explain to me why "Block-headed ignorance about
          biology"
          > is not a personal attack? What does "except in a comparatively
          trivial
          > sense" mean?


          Phil is given extra lee-way from Joe-Average CED member and
          certainly more than the pro-evolution people. That's cause Phil for
          the most part is a SEJ brown noser. Not that Phil intentionally
          brown noses Steve because he likes the smell of Jones's ass but
          because they share a common desire to discredit evolution. The aim
          for Phil is a scientific one and the aim of Jones is to make himself
          feel comfy that he's founded in his Christian belief system.


          >
          > Notice also the part from Skell's reply not quoted in the
          moderator's
          > excerpt:
          >
          > ---
          > Look in the mirror. You would
          > try the
          > > patience of a chunk of granite.
          > ---
          >
          > That sure sounds personal to me. Asking someone to look in the
          mirror
          > is asking them to look at themselves, i.e., that the problem is
          with
          > who they are, not with the argument they are making.
          >


          I got the boot for "kiss my ass" - which was my third strike.
          Unless my ass is unusually revolting and I feel it is actualy quite
          a nice ass it's hardly a personal attack. More like a tantrum on my
          part. But since it had "vulgarity" and I wouldn't apologize for it
          (because that would be dishonest and a breach of CED) - Jones found
          the way to checkmate me in my Catch-22 situation. He often goads
          people to make just a mistake... where they snap and then either
          have to grovel for it or be banned (sorry moderated indefinitely).


          > Note also "joshuaschroeder"'s admirably restrained reply:
          >
          > ---
          > I fail to see how this is in any way sticking to the issues, Phil.
          > While I never attest to being an expert in biology, I do have the
          > ability to evaluate, follow logical arguments, and maintain civil
          > conversation. I'm not sure why you think it justified to engage in
          > personal attacks. I was under the impression this list was
          designed to
          > avoid just that.
          > ---
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9501
          >
          > Seems like a reasonable response. Yet the CED moderator chose to
          tell
          > both writers to "take a break from debating each other." This
          nicely
          > lets Skell off the hook.

          Well, Skell is kissing his ass... I guess Steve likes to have his
          kissed but isn't interested in doing the same. Not that I ever
          really wanted his lips on my hiney - damn literalists!!!


          >
          > Each time I dip back into CED I am amazed anew by the apparent
          bizarre
          > distortions involving the (alleged) rules of debate.


          It is truly fascinating I feel.


          But perhaps I am
          > missing something here. Can someone help me understand?
          >


          Jones is a functional loon pompus windbag who isn't at all
          interested in the truth - just promotions of his take on it. He
          runs the show and uses the skills he's developed as a anal-retentive
          compulsive freak to do so. Hell, NOW THAT IS a personal attack! I
          really think he believes he's fair. I guess if that is the case
          their isn't much that will change the odd moderations and whims of
          the fascinating Steven Jones!


          > Thanks,
          > Shepherdmoon

          Aren't you Andreas? ;->

          jb
        • Daniel
          ... biology ... trivial ... moderator s ... mirror ... with ... designed to ... tell ... nicely ... bizarre ... am ... Yes Shep I think I can help you see the
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "shepherdmoon" <shepherdmoon@y...>
            wrote:
            > How do you figure this one from the CED moderator:
            >
            > ---
            > While Phil's "Block-headed ignorance about biology" is,
            > as I have ruled in similar cases in the past, not a
            > "personal attack" (except in a comparatively trivial
            > sense), I agree it is not "civil conversation".
            > ---
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9503
            >
            > Could someone explain to me why "Block-headed ignorance about
            biology"
            > is not a personal attack? What does "except in a comparatively
            trivial
            > sense" mean?
            >
            > Notice also the part from Skell's reply not quoted in the
            moderator's
            > excerpt:
            >
            > ---
            > Look in the mirror. You would
            > try the
            > > patience of a chunk of granite.
            > ---
            >
            > That sure sounds personal to me. Asking someone to look in the
            mirror
            > is asking them to look at themselves, i.e., that the problem is
            with
            > who they are, not with the argument they are making.
            >
            > Note also "joshuaschroeder"'s admirably restrained reply:
            >
            > ---
            > I fail to see how this is in any way sticking to the issues, Phil.
            > While I never attest to being an expert in biology, I do have the
            > ability to evaluate, follow logical arguments, and maintain civil
            > conversation. I'm not sure why you think it justified to engage in
            > personal attacks. I was under the impression this list was
            designed to
            > avoid just that.
            > ---
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/9501
            >
            > Seems like a reasonable response. Yet the CED moderator chose to
            tell
            > both writers to "take a break from debating each other." This
            nicely
            > lets Skell off the hook.
            >
            > Each time I dip back into CED I am amazed anew by the apparent
            bizarre
            > distortions involving the (alleged) rules of debate. But perhaps I
            am
            > missing something here. Can someone help me understand?
            >
            > Thanks,
            > Shepherdmoon

            Yes Shep I think I can help you see the light. It is all in how one
            defines the "truth".

            Let us take a look at the reality of the founder of SEJism:

            Well start with the opening paragraph of the description for the CED
            list:

            "This list (CED) is for sharing and discussing creation, evolution
            and design issues, with the aim of converging on the truth. Truth-
            seekers from all positions on those issues are welcome."

            In this cas each of you is assuming quite a bit about what Mr. Jones
            means by "truth" and "truth seeker". You no doubt assume a
            dictionary like definition of "truth". You assume that what is the
            truth has yet to be established (be it evolution or creation; theism
            or atheism) and such is the point of debating, to establish what is
            true. However on CED the moderator has already established what is
            true, that being Christianity and the moderators own beliefs in
            progressive creation.

            Now if you consider the above paragraph in this context, you begin
            to see that certain elements are not welcome on CED. Basically the
            element found on this anti-CED list. You are not "truth seekers" in
            the CED sense of the word.

            By this same definition Phil Skell is a "truth seeker" and Joshua is
            not. This explains the differential treatment that you people are
            complaining about. Steve Jones' primary interest is defending what
            he considers the "truth". There is no debate about what is "truth"

            If everyone on that list is a "truth seeker" then Steve Jones had
            achieved his goal of "converging on the truth". I take this to mean
            that his goal is the promotion of Chritianity and his progressive
            creation beliefs.

            The way CED may not be fair to certain views (people), but that is
            life for you.

            Dan (the all knowing)
          • jdbeadle@hotmail.com
            ... The only way to converge on the truth is to first start out with an agreement about chickens. This has not been done yet. When this is done we can start
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 27, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel" <dgeding999@y...> wrote:
              > This explains the differential treatment that you people are
              > complaining about. Steve Jones' primary interest is defending what
              > he considers the "truth". There is no debate about what is "truth"
              >
              > If everyone on that list is a "truth seeker" then Steve Jones had
              > achieved his goal of "converging on the truth".


              The only way to converge on the truth is to first start out with an
              agreement about chickens. This has not been done yet. When this is
              done we can start to converge. We must take this matter one step at
              a time.

              jb
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.