From: Dr Sebby (drsebby@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 03:10:52 MDT
....i dont know who is responsible for this recent turn of nastiness because
i havent been following this thread. but is it possible for us to not take
ourselves so seriously that we have to graduate to hate words again? my
encounters with it long ago left such a bad taste in my mouth that i would
do anything to avoid it. it has not helped the CoV at all...and the recent
break from it has been refreshing to say the least. can we not overlook
rudeness and avoid retaliatory verbage? deserved or not, the CoV as a whole
is the ultimate heir to our abusiveness of any a-holes within her hallowed
halls.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Hermit" <virus@hermit.net>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:21:02 -0600
[Hermit 4] <moved from end> But you inspire me. Pity you left it so late in
the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep
'Jonathan Davis' > /dev/null
[Jonathan 5] Surrender accepted.
[Hermit 6] No surrender given or implied. You received a (full response).
Something you seem incapable of doing. Your statement was not ad hominem,
but is a statement that you have deliberately projected a meaning which
could not be construed from what I said onto my words.
[Jonathan 5] <moved from end> This was written entirely in jest to mock your
style and methods. You may have detected an irreverent tone in this
response. It is the mirth that accompanies insight.
[Hermit 6] I'm not convinced that you have seen a thing. It would excuse me
from replying, only from your past behaviour, I know that you will then make
further invalid assertions about what that meant.
[Hermit 6] As a point of order, ad hominem is short for "argumentum ad
hominem", to "argue against the person." This can be through insult, through
inference, or even through false, or at least unsubstantiated accusations of
debating flaws. I can only engage in ad hominem against the person I am
debating/arguing with. I can say anything about anyone else I wish, and if
it is not true and is malicious, that might be slander, but it cannot be ad
hominem. I try to avoid ad hominem, even when the person I am arguing with
does it repeatedly, until it becomes apparant that they will not learn not
to. Then I respond in kind (if the forum provides no rules against it) or
call for sanctions if it does not. The CoV is a forum where we have recently
instituted such rules. You are verging on the point where I will call for
sanctions against you. As you appear incapable of identifying ad hominem
correctly, the response to you has been made on the BBS and ad hominem
identified in color. T!
o reiterate, please notice that ad hominem can only occur when I talk about
you.
The complete response is located at [ Hermit, "Re:virus: The Ideohazard
1.1", Reply #56, 2003-09-28 ]
(http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29259;start=45)
[hr]
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29259> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 03:11:41 MDT