Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 586 of 683 (667386)
07-06-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Modulous
07-06-2012 12:47 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Crashfrog has more or less decided to dedicate a whole post to his claims of my dishonesty.
You asked me to substantiate my claims of your dishonesty. I did so. Now you're complaining that I did?
Look, Mod, as I told you, I'm not the one who made the thread about who is honest and who is not. And I'm certainly not the one whose dishonest conduct is an obstacle to discussion.
It seems as though he intends to discuss nothing else for the remainder of the discussion until I promise to stop it.
So then the "discussion problem", here, is that you won't stop? And that's somehow my problem?
If, for example, crashfrog is allowed to put forward his best case for my dishonesty (or perhaps if he replies before moderator intervention occurs), which I am content with him so doing, I will present my rebuttal and we can call it a day.
How is that fair? If you use your "last word" to further prevaricate, misrepresent, and lie, how is it fair that I wouldn't be allowed to correct the record?
I am aware it's the coffee house and everything, but I'm thinking there are limits and someone might judge this to have gone beyond them.
Yes, there are limits, and opening misrepresenting the arguments of your opponent, denying that you are doing so, and then complaining in another thread that the evidence you asked for was presented certainly, in most people's judgement, would exceed those limits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Modulous, posted 07-06-2012 12:47 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by Admin, posted 07-07-2012 9:01 AM crashfrog has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 587 of 683 (667427)
07-07-2012 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 586 by crashfrog
07-06-2012 3:37 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Hi Crash,
In my opinion, charges of dishonesty or any other human foible are a distracting off-topic debate tactic. Please keep them out of the discussion threads. This thread is the proper place for such complaints.
Also in more of my opinion, you're already a strong and very effective advocate for your positions. You don't need such tactics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2012 3:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2012 10:26 AM Admin has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 588 of 683 (667510)
07-08-2012 6:30 PM


boothiim
I say we grant his request before he causes trouble.
bootmii

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by fearandloathing, posted 07-08-2012 6:36 PM Jon has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 589 of 683 (667512)
07-08-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by Jon
07-08-2012 6:30 PM


Re: boothiim
To be fair a screen name means nothing, if he or she is a trouble maker then we should wait for the trouble before condemning them. JMHO

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by Jon, posted 07-08-2012 6:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by Jon, posted 07-08-2012 6:43 PM fearandloathing has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 590 of 683 (667514)
07-08-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by fearandloathing
07-08-2012 6:36 PM


Re: boothiim
May the intellectual blood of those he insults be on your hands...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by fearandloathing, posted 07-08-2012 6:36 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by fearandloathing, posted 07-08-2012 6:51 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 593 by ringo, posted 07-09-2012 1:10 PM Jon has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 591 of 683 (667516)
07-08-2012 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Jon
07-08-2012 6:43 PM


Re: boothiim
You might be right.....but to be fair I'll risk it, If they are trouble then it might be entertaining, but they won't last long.
I might get suspended for responding to your post.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Jon, posted 07-08-2012 6:43 PM Jon has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 592 of 683 (667535)
07-09-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Admin
07-07-2012 9:01 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
In my opinion, charges of dishonesty or any other human foible are a distracting off-topic debate tactic.
I agree; dishonesty and misrepresentation are also equally distracting and off-topic. I'm happy to participate in threads that are free of them.
Please keep them out of the discussion threads.
Well, I can only control my own behavior. I can't stop others from behaving dishonestly or introducing dishonesty as a topic, as happened in the thread being discussed. But, I'll try to do more.
You don't need such tactics.
Well, I don't consider it a "tactic"; I just find that discussions are more effective and fun when people approach each other honestly instead of misrepresenting their opponents, falsely claiming "misunderstandings" when what has actually occurred is a complete reversal of position, etc. Underhanded stuff. Pointing it out isn't something I do to advocate my position, it's something I do because I don't like it.
But I guess I shouldn't try to moderate. Not really my place, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Admin, posted 07-07-2012 9:01 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Admin, posted 07-09-2012 6:12 PM crashfrog has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 593 of 683 (667548)
07-09-2012 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Jon
07-08-2012 6:43 PM


Re: boothiim
Jon writes:
May the intellectual blood of those he insults be on your hands...
He's welcome to (try to) spill my intellectual blood. It grows back surprisingly fast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Jon, posted 07-08-2012 6:43 PM Jon has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 594 of 683 (667581)
07-09-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by crashfrog
07-09-2012 10:26 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
crashfrog writes:
Well, I can only control my own behavior. I can't stop others from behaving dishonestly...
You first mentioned dishonesty in reference to Catholic Scientist and Modulous in Message 150, then you continued on that theme in Message 163 and Message 170. At least in part it seemed to derive from your belief that a difference of opinion about the value of unpaid experience actually boiled down to equivocation and that that was dishonest.
...or introducing dishonesty as a topic...
In your view, defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is introducing a new topic? "You're being dishonest, sir!" "I am not being dishonest." "Now you're changing the subject." Seriously?
If you believe so strongly that others are being dishonest that you just can't keep it to yourself then my advice is just don't participate because in the eyes of moderators it looks like you're getting personal in order to distract attention from weaknesses in your position.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2012 10:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2012 1:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 596 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2012 7:17 AM Admin has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 595 of 683 (667590)
07-10-2012 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by Admin
07-09-2012 6:12 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
I haven't been paying attention to this thread and I offer no opinion on what has been happening there, but IF the charges of dishonesty are unjustified - it would not be the first time for Crashfrog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Admin, posted 07-09-2012 6:12 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 596 of 683 (667593)
07-10-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by Admin
07-09-2012 6:12 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Percy, you're misrepresenting my remarks.
You first mentioned dishonesty in reference to Catholic Scientist and Modulous in Message 150,
Yes, but it's CS who introduced the topic, in Message 102 and earlier.
Like I said, I'm not the one who made dishonesty a topic of the thread. I didn't introduce that topic; CS did.
In your view, defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is introducing a new topic?
That is not my view, and you've quoted me out of context in order to misrepresent my remarks to present that as my view. As I said, I'm not the one who introduced dishonesty as a topic. I can't control what topics others choose to introduce.
If you believe so strongly that others are being dishonest that you just can't keep it to yourself then my advice is just don't participate because in the eyes of moderators it looks like you're getting personal in order to distract attention from weaknesses in your position.
At your request, I'll no longer discuss Mod's dishonesty in that thread. But, again, I can't control the actions of the others who chose to make dishonesty a topic of that thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Admin, posted 07-09-2012 6:12 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 9:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 597 of 683 (667599)
07-10-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 596 by crashfrog
07-10-2012 7:17 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Hi Crashfrog,
Okay, have it your way, you didn't do anything wrong. Please don't do it again. And...
crashfrog writes:
That is not my view, and you've quoted me out of context...
...please stop trying to lay the blame at everyone else's door but your own. I did not misrepresent your views or quote you out of context. No one attempted to introduce dishonesty as a topic. The concept that defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is the equivalent of introducing a new topic is wholly your own.
crashfrog writes:
At your request, I'll no longer discuss Mod's dishonesty in that thread...
That's not necessary. When I made my moderator comments I failed to notice that AdminPhat had already moved the thread to Free For All, so my comments don't apply. And Modulous says he has no objections to an unmoderated thread. CS hasn't said anything, so I assume it must be okay with him. Have at it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2012 7:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2012 10:51 AM Admin has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 598 of 683 (667604)
07-10-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 597 by Admin
07-10-2012 9:32 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
I did not misrepresent your views or quote you out of context.
How can you make that claim, when you quoted a sentence fragment and then attributed to me a view I do not hold?
I'm prepared to accept that it was an accident or misunderstanding on your part, even that it may have been caused by unclear wording on mine, but how can you claim that it didn't happen? Where's the part of Message 592 where I claim:
quote:
defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is introducing a new topic?
Or was it not your intention to attribute that view to me?
That's not necessary.
Very well, then; if no one objects I'll continue detailing Mod's dishonest quote manipulations in that thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 9:32 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 599 of 683 (667616)
07-10-2012 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by crashfrog
07-10-2012 10:51 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
crashfrog writes:
I did not misrepresent your views or quote you out of context.
How can you make that claim, when you quoted a sentence fragment and then attributed to me a view I do not hold?
So what is the view you *do* hold? That CS and Mod really wanted to discuss dishonesty and so they tried to turn the thread into a discussion of dishonesty? That makes even less sense.
Very well, then; if no one objects I'll continue detailing Mod's dishonest quote manipulations in that thread.
And when they respond to your accusations of dishonesty will you again accuse them of trying to introduce dishonesty as a topic? If you were really interested in the thread's topic I would think that permission to discuss dishonesty would be of no interest to you.
Maybe I'm missing something, I see Panda has cheered your post, but so far you're not making any sense to me.
If someone's being dishonest or stupid or wrong or confused it is really only necessary to point out the facts. They speak for themselves.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2012 10:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Panda, posted 07-10-2012 4:16 PM Admin has replied
 Message 603 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 8:00 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 600 of 683 (667639)
07-10-2012 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by Admin
07-10-2012 1:58 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Admin writes:
Maybe I'm missing something, I see Panda has cheered your post, but so far you're not making any sense to me.
I agreed that you were misconstruing (but not intentionally) what CF had written.
But I was in two minds about cheering it - I still am.
I don't actually want to encourage debate in this thread, because I hope you all move on and get back to doing what you do best on this forum.
Please, go back to posting in the debate forums.
Watching 3 of the most interesting forum members waste their time and talent in this thread is depressing.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 1:58 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 5:52 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024