Important Announcement: Temporary Lock on Politics, Evolution

[lkwdsteve]

Ban the violators.  It would save my space on my "ignore" list.  Currently, there is no fear of repercussions.

And he cannot even recognize he is one of the violators.  My lord ctc you are dense sometimes.

The words "you are"  followed by characterizations of the person you are talking about IS the problem in these discussions. Concentrate on the message being delivered and IGNORE the messenger as a person. You either agree with a message, or disagree with it, or agree/disagree with parts of it.

Discuss that and leave the personality, characteristics, associations, past practices, attitudes, behaviors, likes, dislikes, intelligence, biases, appearance, religion, or anything else about the background of the messenger out of it.

It's about WHAT is being said, not WHO is saying it.

Some may need some practice to alter past approaches to discussion. Others, unfortunately not enough, will not, as they studiously avoid personalities and concentrate on the message.

[lkwdsteve]

"BTW, it was truly not intended as an attack in any way.  It was simply a statement of truth.  How should I have said it?"

CTC offered a message. You disagreed with his message. You simply say that and leave out the "you are" part.

Being allowed to "say the truth", or what you think that may be the truth, about other posters leads to anarchy. Stick with analysis of the issues of the day.  Other members of the forum are never the issue of the day (unless we see one of them on CNN for some reason).

I don't think anyone will get banned for being liberal. But, they will get banned for persistent ad hominim attacks, I think. And that should happen after appropriate warning (which is what is happening here).

[SVV]

It is for precisely this reason that personal attacks, for instance, are prohibited.  Not because they aren't true:  the person you call a liar or an idiot may actually be one.

This statement by Ray should answer your conundrum Sparky.

[ctc]

Somebody is in blatant violation of forum rules, has been told about it, has been asked to abide by the rules, and then this individual continues to justify his conduct, rebel against mandates, and defy authority.  Just end it.  Ban him.  Don't argue, it isn't debatable.

[coachsparky]

It is for precisely this reason that personal attacks, for instance, are prohibited.  Not because they aren't true:  the person you call a liar or an idiot may actually be one.

This statement by Ray should answer your conundrum Sparky.

But I did not do those things.  I told ctc that he was being dense by not recognizing that he is one of the most regular violators of the rules too.  And now just above he lets loose with another one. 

[coachsparky]

"BTW, it was truly not intended as an attack in any way.  It was simply a statement of truth.  How should I have said it?"

CTC offered a message. You disagreed with his message. You simply say that and leave out the "you are" part.

Being allowed to "say the truth", or what you think that may be the truth, about other posters leads to anarchy. Stick with analysis of the issues of the day.  Other members of the forum are never the issue of the day (unless we see one of them on CNN for some reason).

I don't think anyone will get banned for being liberal. But, they will get banned for persistent ad hominim attacks, I think. And that should happen after appropriate warning (which is what is happening here).

I hope you are right lkwd but if I were to get banned and ctc was not banned it would be very clear that banning was not meeted out evenly.  He violates the rules almost every single day.

[coachsparky]

Ban the violators.  It would save my space on my "ignore" list.  Currently, there is no fear of repercussions.

And he cannot even recognize he is one of the violators.  My lord ctc you are dense sometimes.

The words "you are"  followed by characterizations of the person you are talking about IS the problem in these discussions. Concentrate on the message being delivered and IGNORE the messenger as a person. You either agree with a message, or disagree with it, or agree/disagree with parts of it.

Discuss that and leave the personality, characteristics, associations, past practices, attitudes, behaviors, likes, dislikes, intelligence, biases, appearance, religion, or anything else about the background of the messenger out of it.

It's about WHAT is being said, not WHO is saying it.

Some may need some practice to alter past approaches to discussion. Others, unfortunately not enough, will not, as they studiously avoid personalities and concentrate on the message.

This message is very good.  It is hard to follow sometimes when you have been attacked. 

[coachsparky]

So I am curious SVV and lkwd I assume you both agree with fuhr that this was inappropriate.

And he cannot even recognize he is one of the violators.  My lord ctc you are dense sometimes.

Again, I regularly say thing like that to friends who are not picking up on a message and it is not big deal but ok, you guys are sensitive.  If I had said it this way, which basically says the same thing would it be better.  I asked fuhr this question but he did not answer.

And he cannot even recognize he is one of the violators. ctc, you need to look in the mirror and take an honest assessment of yourself because you are missing what we are all seeing. 

[Tripster]

So, would this first post below be considered a violation of the rules:


http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,31293.0.html

[coachsparky]

So, would this first post below be considered a violation of the rules:


http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,31293.0.html

tada

[coachsparky]

So, would this first post below be considered a violation of the rules:


http://forum.theopenmat.com/index.php/topic,31293.0.html

Or how bout this one from the same thread only a little further down?

ctc
Get a Job
Posts: 10827


Re: Did trippy really start a thread about racism?

« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2014, 09:05:07 pm »


Wow!!!  I start a thread and it attracts all the loons I have on ignore.

Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

[leglace]

We all need to worry about ourselves first and foremost. Let the mods sort em out.

[coachsparky]

Yes, the mods promised to take action against personal attacks a couple years ago.  So instead of replying I started sending a mod report when I felt attacked.  The mods did not follow through with getting the attackers to stop so I pretty much went back to my old ways responding to the attacks in kind.  I always felt it was because the mods agreed with those who were attacking me and did not want to discipline their friends.  I could be wrong but that was how it felt.

[brycemus]

There is a reason we had a timeout (I am a part of it). There is a reason we cannot edit posts. There is a common thread between these two things. That seems like something that is fixable.

[coachsparky]

There is a reason we had a timeout (I am a part of it). There is a reason we cannot edit posts. There is a common thread between these two things. That seems like something that is fixable.

And what would the fix be bryce.