Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

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. So then the "discussion problem", here, is that you won't stop? And that's somehow my problem? 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? 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I agree; dishonesty and misrepresentation are also equally distracting and off-topic. I'm happy to participate in threads that are free of them. 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. 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.

He's welcome to (try to) spill my intellectual blood. It grows back surprisingly fast.

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. 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.

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.

Percy, you're misrepresenting my remarks. 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. 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. 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.

Hi Crashfrog,Okay, have it your way, you didn't do anything wrong. Please don't do it again. And... ...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. 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.

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? Very well, then; if no one objects I'll continue detailing Mod's dishonest quote manipulations in that thread.

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. 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.

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.