discussions and language

[Alex]

Ok, the following is a list of what I experienced AGAINST ME, as executed from the "three amigos" on the previous board I helped grow and now am no longer welcome on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was called a liar....

Perpetual bellowing on how I had damaged their "reputation"...

I was never given the benefit of the doubt, yet I always gave the benefit of the doubt.

If a post could be interpreted in more than one way...The three amigos ALWAYS assumed the worst of me, then they would accuse me of the three tactics listed above....

I was ridiculed by the three amigos, who would make off topic comments about me, than they would ridicule me for complaining about being ridiculed.

"Oh, you can dish it out, but you can't take it" was a standard line they used...Yet I never criticized others about how they spent their day.

Even though two of the three were the new kids on the block, they insisted on stating to everyone that something else existed that was superior to what the forum was about. They They then defended their claim that this was fact, not opinion. The final tactic invovled Defending the flaming claim by accusing the forum regular of attacking and defaming them who was just doing the right thing and reminding the new guys what the forum was about.

Witness the aggressor apologize for past conflicts to "wipe the slate clean". Witness the apologizing entity continue to harbor anger at the other person anyway, yet see them now feel empowered to new levels of arrogance because they apologized while you didn't.

Personalize arguments that in reality are concept based.

Push the "Personal Attack Syndrome" even if the discussion is truly concept based.

Offer something "romantic" to the "forum at large" to get a slight "swing" vote your way...

Create Faux Personalities who take your side while continuing to criticize the other side.

Appear on a forum completely oblivious to the main contributors or what the forum is about and fire away, making the forum entirely what you want it to be.

(I did this one occasionally too, but usually it was obvious, and NEVER was it designed to impugn the purpose or namesake of the board)

If I tried to re-explain a position, I was accused of changing the subject.

Watch others make meaningless apologies, then attack me for never apologizing...

Never complement me, then ignore any complements I make toward them.

Non-Communicative Moderator who believes they communicated when in actuality they did nothing.


---------------------------------------------

That was therapeutic!

And makes me wonder why I didn't leave before I was forced out....oh yeah, I did more work than anyone else there getting the membership to grow.




[This message has been edited by Alex (edited November 05, 2001).]

[SHATOUSHKA]

wow!
when you said you knew me...i didn't think you were serious!!!!

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~

General Philosophy

[Alex]

Ok, you're scaring me, cuz I think you're partially serious.

------------------
Alex

[Buckminster Fuller]

Any of the following:

http://<a href="http://www.geocities...LLACYS.HTM</a>

I refuse to engage in any of these, as such I have succumb to the ignorance of the majority to the existance of the known fallacy at various times. It's pretty frusterating to try and communicate in a forthright manner and be hit with ad hominem. On occasion I have had the thought that perhapse I should just learn how to openly attack the character of others as does every one else (it seems) and have dipped down into it myself but every time I have found it is somthing I just do not want to engage in . Strangly enough robin seems to enjoy using them.

------------------

[SHATOUSHKA]

are we all not determinists in some manner?
i would argue that we are.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~

General Philosophy

[Buckminster Fuller]

so, should I tediously point out ever tiny logical fallacy in robins statements as to prove my assertions? Personaly I dont think this should be necessary, nore would I consider it kind, and as I prefer not to engage in logical fallacy, I also prefer(yes indeed) NOT to engage in unkind behavior; I do not derive pleasure from the misery of others.


One thing how ever, Mr. robin has time and time again asaulted my character both directly indirectly, and failed to provide any solid irefutable evidence of his so called knowledge of my character time and time and time again.

I there fore make a formal challenge, and it shall stand.

I hereby challenge Mr robin to justify logicaly his assertions and implications on my character, moreover I go on record as blatently dareing him to do so with out commiting yet more of the logical fallacies he has already commited.

I believe it is gloriously safe to say (althought I do not deem to speak for the members of this board) that if he can not do so, or feels for some reason that logic (which is the root of reasoning) is not the way to go about determining such a thing, then perhapse I am not the confused one.


I would then ask that having completed and satisfied exaustively my afore mentioned requirments his justification for the repeted attacks on my character, and abuse of fallacy,
be judged by the members of the board, and a formal logical conclusion be made.


My challenge stands.

Once more , on a personal note to robin:
Please do not opt in favor of e-mail bombing me again, I found it dis tastefull and cowardly (just my oppinion) , furthermore it is unfriendly, and and inconveniant for me.
While it is true I can not prove you did it , I litteraly now NO ONE else who would do such a thing in my life.

------------------

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Robin:
Stirkes me a funny that you changed the wording on the apology one, as the last wordplay was quite striking, as from the Twidiot. The 'Meaningless' apology was somehting that I had been accused of, having previously humbles myself to apologise for what I had recognised as my mistake.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Funny, I thought it was confusing, that's why I "clairfied" them.


------------------
Alex

[Buckminster Fuller]

Wow thats a lengthy edit, do you always wait till people have replied to edit your comments?

that thing was like one paragraph the last time I saw it.


Further more it is totaly appearant that you can not grasp the entirety of my statments since you feel the need to break it down and destroy the obvious compound meaning.



[This message has been edited by Buckminster Fuller (edited November 06, 2001).]

[SHATOUSHKA]

*sheepishly raises hand*

i think the idea of a 'logical war' is a good one. i am quite bored here and frankly, this dialogue between the two of you is circular.

it would be nice if you both would cooperate in debating AN issue, not necessarily to see who is ruler, but to see logical and argumentative maneuverability(ies).

do i think that the above is possible? of course not. i can't imagine a thread where either posts that does not resort to trading licks. however, going with the buckminster's suggestion, i dare BOTH of you to this challenge:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> each of you will start a new thread on a certain UNANSWERABLE or unconfirmed issue.
<LI> the initial post will be just that, a post simply calling into the light a particular issue. of course in the initial post, it would be mandatory that you refrain from personal bias. just state the issue.
<LI> argue effectively. hell, can anyone here claim that GP doesn't need a prime example of such? lol.
<LI> refrain from personal remarks. unless the thread is in need of weighty persuasion, i would suggest against the lick trading. [/list]
do you both think this is a good idea? any objections?
i think that if both of you start your own thread (certainly within reasonable time), you both have control over the issue(s) being discussed. not only that, but you can begin on a subject matter that you both feel knowledgeable in. sounds fair.

as a side note, mr. robin, being thoroughly interested in the 'you've no proof for the existence of god' issue you brought up, i must ask you this:

you state that although you have no 'proof', you feel supported in 'consensus of belief'.
how does this turn itself into a 'fact of (your) knowledge'? when does the sheer support of a belief turn the belief itself into factual evidence?

just curious really.

i await responses from both of you.


------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~

General Philosophy

[Buckminster Fuller]

wow, I dont even have time to pick out and determine every fallacy preasant in that post; nor would I choose to if I did.

My challenge stands, if the members of the board so choose to judge the post made by you, Mr. Robin, then I believe I will have the conclusion I wish. as for your additude, I am not moved to angery replies so I will overlook the context in which it (your post) has been placed.

I would whole heartedly beg of the members of this board that they honestly take the time to determine the logical, or ill logical nature of Mr. Robins post, and attemp some sort of agreement. My oppinions are not of consequence and I would ask that the post be judged objectivly and with referance to specific preasance of fallacy (of which I know at least five to be preasent in repetition with in said posts).

I do not claim that I have not at times lowered myself to the use of fallacy, I am well aware of this ,I can only try to do better in the future to avoid this.

With all of that said in the most serious sense possible, I can only hope that the members of the board will aid me in coming to some resolution on what is actualy quite a serious issue. If I am judged to be the guilty party, I will leave, if Mr. robin is judged to be the guilty party he should be asked to leave, if we are both judged guilty then we should both leave, etc etc.


Sincerely,

the buckminster



------------------