posted
[Computo] {[...] I'm not lecturing you, I'm trying to expand my point with reference to other forms of unregulated and perfectly workable systems, none of which are a "nonsense", or "petty". }
Faulty analogies, and not applicable to an individual instance of private property such as this one. Which you know already. I am able to assume that with reasonable certainty because you have completed a law-school education and a bachelor's degree, and would have been exposed to the scope, applicability, and limits of law as such, whether you took heed of these elements or not.
You also, again judging from lawyers I have known well, and your previous comments on "the rules," are making use of an all-too-common fallacy. If you have a big enough hammer of legal reasoning, every human activity looks like a nail that can be pounded upon in terms of legalisms. Including this message board.
Talking about "systems" gets you nowhere in examining how interaction is handled in a setting such as this. It's a matter of the founders acting in an objective manner, or not, with those using their small piece of private Net property. No relationship here is contractual (or tortious, involving damages if it goes awry), except Lightning Lad's with his Web server provider.
Legal or system analogies don't apply, even in regard to your analysis of the house rules. We have no laws, and this isn't a macro-sized system. We are Scott's and Gary's well-behaved (we all hope) family or house guests, that's the closest -- but still not quite accurate -- analogy.
As for "ad hominem insults," or "baiting," that calls for knowing details of "the man" involved, to properly allude to the meaning of that Latin phrase. Only a few of us have been around each other long enough (mostly on the old DC boards) to know very many personal details in this sense.
You apparently haven't, so the only basis for ad hominem here is to suggest that your profession -- about all we know about you -- discredits your argument. That hasn't been done by anybody. I came close in the comment about "what I've forgotten" above, but I immediately noted that I was using hyperbole.
I don't believe in sedate debate with an articulate opponent. When it can involve letting things fly, I let them fly. I don't insult, but I do often get exasperated, and I note that fact, rather than apply it in an attempt to score points.
As I am now noting it with you. As Minesurfer said, some of us who like to "talk" so much do indeed get paid, but only in psychic satisfaction. And only when it's making a useful argument or pungent turn of rhetoric. I'd say you and I have reached the limits here on both counts.
[ September 16, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Greybird ]
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: [Computo] {[...] I'm not lecturing you, I'm trying to expand my point with reference to other forms of unregulated and perfectly workable systems, none of which are a "nonsense", or "petty". }
Faulty analogies, and not applicable to an individual instance of private property such as this one. Which you know already. I am able to assume that with reasonable certainty because you have completed a law-school education and a bachelor's degree, and would have been exposed to the scope, applicability, and limits of law as such, whether you took heed of these elements or not.
Finally, you debate me with some real argument (setting aside the fact that you engage in ad hominem again, in attacking me and my background rather than the actual issue).
Aside from the fact that securities exchanges are private property, what makes you think that an unregulated system cannot be applied to private property? What is there inherent in private property that encourages regulation?
quote: You also, again judging from lawyers I have known well, and your previous comments on "the rules," are making use of an all-too-common fallacy. If you have a big enough hammer of legal reasoning, every human activity looks like a nail that can be pounded upon in terms of legalisms. Including this message board.
You're attacking me as a lawyer on the basis of your experience with them, not my argument as presented here. Ad hominem. (see below)
quote: Talking about "systems" gets you nowhere in examining how interaction is handled in a setting such as this. It's a matter of the founders acting in an objective manner, or not, with those using their small piece of private Net property. No relationship here is contractual (or tortious, involving damages if it goes awry), except Lightning Lad's with his Web server provider.
So you're saying the rules have no effect?
quote: Legal or system analogies don't apply, even in regard to your analysis of the house rules. We have no laws, and this isn't a macro-sized system. We are Scott's and Gary's well-behaved (we all hope) family or house guests, that's the closest -- but still not quite accurate -- analogy.
As far as I can see, you're saying the rules are not laws, or more precisely, contractual terms. I disagree. If I break the rules, I have been explicitly told that I can expect censure or warning. That sounds like a governing system - laws or rules, depending upon how you like to flavour your semantics - to me.
quote:
As for "ad hominem insults," or "baiting," that calls for knowing details of "the man" involved, to properly allude to the meaning of that Latin phrase. Only a few of us have been around each other long enough (mostly on the old DC boards) to know very many personal details in this sense.
No, it doesn't have to be sourced upon personal information. Check this out.
quote: You apparently haven't, so the only basis for ad hominem here is to suggest that your profession -- about all we know about you -- discredits your argument. That hasn't been done by anybody. I came close in the comment about "what I've forgotten" above, but I immediately noted that I was using hyperbole.
I don't believe in sedate debate with an articulate opponent. When it can involve letting things fly, I let them fly. I don't insult, but I do often get exasperated, and I note that fact, rather than apply it in an attempt to score points.
It wasn't point scoring. We are specifically told that we have to obey the rules, including respect, and that even a victim of an attack will get banned if he responds in kind. I perceived your comments as a personal attack, and certainly as disrespectful, and did not respond in kind. I obeyed the rules, and have treated your opinion with respect and restraint. You did not reciprocate.
You were not even censured, as far as I know, for your lack of respect. No one said, "Grey, pull your head in: he's said nothing more offensive to you than using the words "emotive" and "distressed" to describe some of your posts, while you have said that his posts are "nonsense", and "petty", and said "I have forgotten more than you'll ever know"."
Having said that, I have now received, to his credit, a very polite note from Kid Prime, addressing the issue with a decent attempt at objectivity (including of his own conduct) and a measure of even-handedness. He opines that one of your comments was "fairly weak" personal attack, but at least he impliedly acknowledges my point. He has promised to monitor this debate, but it seems the most he is willing to do is close the thread, rather than censure anyone. Although it took some prompting, I think he is now being responsible and fair, particularly in not strictly enforcing the rules (which, of course, serves my initial argument that strict enforcement is unfair). I also don't see any point in pursuing a complaint against you through any formal process, since I am clearly against such a mechanism. I think I've proved my point.
In any event, while you're certainly not contrite, you're being very civil and polite now.
quote: As I am now noting it with you. As Minesurfer said, some of us who like to "talk" so much do indeed get paid, but only in psychic satisfaction. And only when it's making a useful argument or pungent turn of rhetoric. I'd say you and I have reached the limits here on both counts.
Twice I've expressed disinterest in this topic, but twice you've tried to engage me on it with your opinion. If you think its reached its limit, then let it go.
Its a shame you and I have kicked off on the wrong foot, really. You do actually sound like an interesting guy. Never mind.
posted
A real lawyer message board is probably nothing but jokes because they have to be serious and weighty in their jobs all day.
We're off-topic here now; not disrespectful, I trust, but decidedly off-topic. So let's self-censure and get back to DA RULZ.
On the matter of arguments, respect, insults - personally, I don't apply black and white rules. It's not my place, ultimately, to apply any rules, since the authorities are the board owners (that's my "out") - but we are operating here to some degree as a self-regulating group. I say this in the sense that, when somebody gets insulted - such as Icefyre by Gossamer - and it continues - other members intervene and try to put an end to it. We don't have the power to ban somebody, but we can all condemn what we believe is inappropriate behaviour. And there's the dilemma.
Who judges what is inappropriate in such a self-regulating system? Social norms and standards? We've hardly been around long enough to have developed cohesive and reliable norms. When do you intervene? At the first hint of trouble, or do you hope (vain hope!) that it will pass, that someone was in a bad mood or drunk or something and will later apologize? Computo and Greybird appear to be working out some clarification and common ground for debate. What would have been served by bringing the gavel down earlier?
Some posters appear to regularly get into discussions that become insult wars - and my reaction is to let that slide, because "so-and-so is always like that" or "those two are always bickering".
I acknowledge that this sort of self-regulation is rife with problems because it is subjective and inconsistent and may well fail as often as it succeeds. I also suspect that it may only work with the threat of force behind it - the big stick of absolute authority.
In the real world, we appear to be trying to mediate disputes more and more, rather than go to court. Small claims (in North America anyways) are settled by a different process than criminal charges. I'm not saying that there aren't rules - or guidelines - for these, but that such disputes try to avoid going before the ultimate authority - the judge or judge & jury.
For myself, I honestly don't see a clear answer to the question of rules/no rules for a message board.
posted
I charge in 5 minute units. You don't want to know how much. I often comment that I couldn't afford myself.
quote:Originally posted by Triad Purple: Just imagine what a lawyer message board reads like!
They're boring. Why do you think I spend so much time on comic book boards?
quote: Computo and Greybird appear to be working out some clarification and common ground for debate. What would have been served by bringing the gavel down earlier?
Sort of my point. Such things tend to reach equilibrium (so long as no one starts running around making farewell speeches and locking down threads).
Anyway, I think everyone has decided to call it a day.
posted
Not quite. I have two others who still deserve a response.
[Fat Cramer] {[...] Computo and Greybird appear to be working out some clarification and common ground for debate. }
Not when someone insists that logical fallacies are present when they are not. Reflecting that someone's profession or preferences make a particular response unsurprising is not the same as contending that those qualities make a particular response invalid.
It's too easy to confuse personal criticism, which is indeed present, with making ad hominem fallacies, which are not present. At some point this betrays not merely a misunderstanding of such lapses in logic, but also a thin rhetorical skin.
{ What would have been served by bringing the gavel down earlier? }
Nothing. Which makes the emphasis on legalism about these forum rules doubly mysterious. It doesn't come to a point, except by splitting hairs that nobody wants to split -- prematurely, at any rate. Certainly not the LW.net founders. And it gives every indication of spoiling for a fight, rather than wanting discussion.
I initially got into this only to correct a misapprehension about my own actions -- for which, I'll point out, there still has been no apology. (Nor did I ask for one, yet many people are capable of realizing on their own when one becomes appropriate.)
And, as usual, I also ended up doing this to think out loud for a bit. Not to debate, as such. We haven't had very interesting grounds for that, aside from some fruits of sheer personal imagination. I don't debate such ghosts for long. Nor grovel before them with an expected act of "contrition." I have better things to do.
[MLLASH] { This is the funniest thread on the ENTIRE board!!! }
Is it, Lash LaRue? Do I go around making light of what gives you pleasure? Such as dozens of threads with nothing but flirting? This kind of reasoning -- conducted on its own terms, quite apart from the worthiness of the target -- gives me pleasure. Until the opponents talk in circles, anyway.
Maybe you deserve outraged censure from the founders, with their locking your head in the stocks so we can throw rotten cyberfruit at you, and being cruelly cast aside for your effrontery and lack of contrition? Hmmm? {rueful winking smile}
[ September 18, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Greybird ]
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Laugh Out Loud]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Lightning Lad]](graemlins/LightningLad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
