NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe I've been tolerant. I let him call me a liar repeatedly when it was part of a larger point. I've even asked him to show where I was lying when he responded with the accusation in regards to my posts. But it's become the entire basis of his response to me and it's long passed engaging in the topic at all.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13355209&postcount=2597
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13355199&postcount=2594
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13355138&postcount=2591
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353779&postcount=2536
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353741&postcount=2533
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353535&postcount=2515
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353443&postcount=2510
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353399&postcount=2507

He seems to ebb and flow with severity, but you'll notice that his replies to me have included calling me a liar for the last eight responses at least. He's been notified of the ignore button. He's been explained my objections by myself and other people. It's been explained to him what I mean, why I'm asking and how it's relevant to the conversation. His response has been to consistently insult me both in the above posts and in every reference to me when responding to other posters.

I don't mind if he says I've lied and shows where I've done so. It's a part of the argument. When calling me a liar becomes the argument, I object and would suggest that's just flaming.

I ask that whichever mod begins this recognizes that I told him his representation of my positions was incorrect, that I was tired of trying to explain my positions to him when he admits that his misrepresents them on purpose to force a response from me. So I told him I wasn't going to debate with him anymore but only asked that he stop mischaracterizing my positions. And I have told him where he lies and why it is a lie, and he still won't stop the exact same mischaracterization of my position. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13355138&postcount=2591

Of course he can quote my posts and argue with what I say all day long, but he doesn't stop there, he 'creates a position of mine that he knows I said is not mine and continues to present that to the other posters as if it is my positions' and he expects me to defend it. I'm not going to, I simply keep telling him is lying because he knows his representation of my position is not my position. And I ask him to stop. Repeatedly,

None of which is an argument for continually insulting me while openly admitting that you will no longer engage in debate (as explicitly stated in many of those posts).

If I mischaracterize your position, feel free to correct me, something I've repeatedly requested you do. I honestly trying to get you to clearly present your position consistently. I've pointed out and others have pointed out where you've not. Of course you don't agree that you haven't. People aren't inconsistent on purpose. Regardless, you can either respond to my criticisms or ignore me. Calling me names with no other debate is, as far as I know, not one of the options within the rules of the site.

As said in the thread, if you don't want to debate with me, then you're welcome not to. You can ignore me electronically if necessary. "Liar, liar, liar, liar" isn't debate, or useful in any format. Ever.

I'm done debating with you, I don't have to. I am fully debating with other posters on the topic with questions and challenges as they occur.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13355234&postcount=2601

Then clarify your positions. In absense of clarification we are left to guess, which as I've said repeatedly I'll do, and enjoy it. Guessing isn't lying. I'm not attempting to make my characterization fly, I'm attempting to get you to stop equivocating and actualy STATE your position clearly.....

I believe this a confession that shows us you know your characterization of my position is a false one in fact, one that you know doesn't even attempt to 'fly' or accurately represent a correct angle of what I say, but instead is only designed to provoke a response from me from your negativity of my view? Seems like you're the one flaming me. You use a lot of words to do it though... Please stop.

Oh, for pete's sake.

Balderdash71964, stop calling Jocabia a liar. Jocabia, if he doesn't want to debate with you, stop trying to make him.

Now both of you go sit on the naughty seat all through little-lunch!

Oh, for pete's sake.

Balderdash71964, stop calling Jocabia a liar. Jocabia, if he doesn't want to debate with you, stop trying to make him.

Now both of you go sit on the naughty seat all through little-lunch!

Ard, what do you propose I do. He doesn't get to decide I cannot refute his arguments and when I point out the flaw in them he calls me a liar. He's absolutely welcome to demonstrate the flaw in refutations, but he doesn't get to require me not to refute his arguments. I'm not doing it to upset him or attack his faith, my faith. I'm doing it because I truly believe he's ignoring a flaw. My understanding that this is sort of the point of debating a topic at all. His being upset that I caught him in a claim that could never be considered for demonstrating historicity is never going to have the effect of making me ignore it.

Well, first, I propose you look at what this sort of to-ing and fro-ing does to the thread. Because that's what it's about: the topic itself, not whether an individual player can force another individual player to admit that an argument has been refuted. Or whether an argument has been properly understood in the first place.

You're both now arguing over a technical point in the debate, rather than the content. You should be leaving it up to the audience (the people reading the topic). It's like going into a gameplay argument in the middle of an RP -- fascinating for the players arguing, but a real turnoff for the folk who just want to get on with the story/discussion.

The issue has devolved into whether or not you are restating the argument of Balderdash71964 correctly. He says you aren't, you say you are. Then you say it's wrong. Then he calls you a liar. That particular dead horse is not going to be resurrected, no matter how much both of you beat it.

So don't attribute it to him. You may, indeed, misunderstand his point. It would be courteous to simply acknowledge that possibility and move on.

If you feel that a particular argument is invalid, and that you can refute it, try this: state it neutrally. "It has been said that ..."; "some sources apparently believe"; "opponents of this interpretation seem to be arguing that ...". (Sure, someone will yell "straw man". People like to show off. If you know it's not, who cares? Pinch a term from maths and tell them you're "using a sky-hook" instead. It's a lot better than a pointless slanging-match that does nothing for either of you.)

I have a vague memory of a macho display from the Vietnam war era along these lines: "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." The actual argument is the balls of a topic; the body-count of opponents demolished is irrelevant, and the higher it gets, the more you lose in good will.

I have stated it neutrally. I have approached him with a simple request for an explanation. Repeatedly. And this isn't a side point. Not to bring the debate here, but a claim that they are "eyewitness" accounts requires one to first assume the question is already answered to existence. It's absolutely required to refute a claim they are eyewitness to ever refute a claim of existence. And it's not just me. It's just me that he's freaking out, mostly because it was my net he fell into.

Meanwhile, it's not as if he's avoiding the point.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13358197&postcount=2680

He doesn't want the point dropped. He wants ME to stop pointing out the flaws in it. He was hoping your ruling would let him make a last pass and reforming my refutation thinking, eroneously, that it would go unconfronted.

To Baldy's credit, he really is the only opponent here. I ignore the fly-by's from people with cut-and-paste arguments. Baldy is getting my attention because his argument is the only one that has ever gained any credibility. As he's pointed out recently, it's a fairly typical argument. Without addressing him, it's basically arguing into air.

More importantly, you'll find that when he started calling me a liar, I was being less direct. But at some point, you have to strike at the heart of the argument. It's really not a requirement that I avoid a point simply because for an apologist it's offensive. And he's repeatedly stated that he's upset because he's being forced to defend the Bible. Something that would be a substantial objection if he stopped claiming the Bible as a historical reference.

I'm sorry for delving a bit deeply here, but, frankly, the idea that a poster can scream at me to "Stop" and "Liar" and that it would be supported by a mod is really ludicrous. If arguments that offend people are no longer allowed, this site would be a wasteland. Read what he said was his specific problem was. It wasn't the particular point I was making. It was how I got him to make those statements. And he's said CLEARLY that no matter what I said he was going to attack me until I stopped attempting to debate him. Are you really going to back him up?

In this thread alone we see him claim that guessing at his meaning when he refuses to reply clearly is "flaming". That he is misunderstanding and it's making him angry really isn't a point that can be reasonably debated.

I'm going to continue to reply to arguments made by the only poster taking his position in the argument. If you'd like for me to change my methods in doing so because they are afoul of the rules, I'm happy to do so. If you'd like for me to cut him a pass because he can't address these issues without getting pissed, I'm not sure what to tell you. Sorry to turn this into general but I love this site, and my disagreement with what you're asking lies in what it means to what we've been doing here for half a decade.

*sigh* I'm beginning to understand why poor old Pilate developed that obsessive-compulsive handwashing disorder.

To make it clear: I am not supporting Balderdash71964's calling you a liar. It is flaming. I have told him to stop.

I do not think you were flaming him in the post he quoted here. I do not think you have flamed him subsequently. You are welcome to quote this opinion.

I am not paid to rule on the validity or otherwise of your opposing arguments. I wouldn't if you did pay me.

Nor will I direct Balderdash71964 to respond to your point. He says he has done so. He has stated his reasons. You say he has not done so. You have stated your reasons.

I do not, as a mod, support his. I do not, as a mod, support yours. My personal opinions or my professional opinions on that topic are irrelevant in this forum. If I wanted to enter a debate on a topic I would do so as any other player would, in the appropriate thread.

My concern here is with the operation of the forums. As long as you are debating the topic, you are welcome to continue.

I would point out that personal observations such as this You've fallen so far afoul of occam's razor that you can't claim this resembles a historical argument anymore. and this ... [leap of faith], one you clearly made and got angry that I quoted repeatedly
in your latest post aren't necessary to your argument and, if similar comments accumulate, could create the impression that you are not merely replying to, but baiting, your opponent. I am not saying that this is baiting now. I am advising you to avoid personal comment and stick to the subject.

That's pretty standard forum advice. I think I have now addressed the conerns you raised in your original post.

However (*sigh*, again), in fairness I will leave this thread open in case there is anything I have missed.

(Memo self: badger the Mods' Union to include a payment-by-word clause in any Jennifer Government II agreement.)

*sigh* I'm beginning to understand why poor old Pilate developed that obsessive-compulsive handwashing disorder.

<snip>
However (*sigh*, again), in fairness I will leave this thread open in case there is anything I have missed.

(Memo self: badger the Mods' Union to include a payment-by-word clause in any Jennifer Government II agreement.)

I sincerely appreciate your patience and effort. I’m humbled by your level headedness. Thank you.

Fair enough. I don't agree that talking about how an argument falls afoul of occam's razor or requires a leap of faith when discussion historicity is personal, but I agree with the gist. I also wasn't asking for you to agree with either argument. Being a mod doesn't make you have special access to the correct conclusion in debate or the correct argument. I was simply pointing out the importance of the area of his argument I was attacking and why it was necessary to address it and address it to him. Whether I'm correct or incorrect and whether or not one agrees with me, the reasons why such claims are necessary are quite obvious.

It seemed you were asking me to leave his post alone. You weren't. I'll accept I misread that. Thank you for clarifying. Have a WONDERFUL evening and may I recommend you take in the movie, Juno. It's a feel good.

What I am asking is that exquisite and impersonal politeness be the order of the day.

In pursuit of which, thank you for your cinematic recommendation; I shall take it under advisement.

(This sort of stuff is hard to write. What I mean is, I can't watch it, I'm watching the Hairspray DVD tonight with my daughters. Again. Plus popcorn.)

I think our work here is done.