Banned from FPN?

[david i]

Listing logical fallacies (especially without explanation) and criticising an oppononents debating skill is itself a form of ad hominem attack. The competence of a debater at debating does not tell us anything about the validity and worth of the arguments the debater is (trying to) present. In referencing the LDM, while failing to include any substantive arguments in those posts, you are using the very LDM tactics you criticise.

Tactic 33 from the LDM: Object to proper use of the LDM.

Just sayin'...

regards

david

Indeed, the irony amused me. Of course, we could turn this argument back at one another interminably....

I'm game...

Too, of course there is error in your original suggestion. No debater's competence factored into anything I've said, at least. The LDM is about tactics used in the setting of a losing proposition. As per my earlier thread, the LDM can be used by both poor and excellent debaters. That people appear to see themselves as having been assigned the role of "poor debater" I find... interesting.

regards

david

[raging.dragon]

You insist upon attacking a person who you know will not respond to you here, over and over. Most of us don't know the details of your issue and it actually doesn't matter. Frankly to observers, you come off looking far worse than Wim.

(Emphasis mine.)

That is until something similar happens to you, right? To think that it can't or won't is being naive.

Having seen David's and Hugh's posts here, and being at least somewhat familiar with FPN's written and unwritten rules - their personalities are incompatible with FPN's rules so the outcome was inevitable and the specifics don't matter much. On the otherhand, I am concerned about what happened Chemyst, jbb, and others with less aggressive and argumentative personalities. I half expect to get banned from FPN for my comments in this thread and the Harlequin thread.

Hmmm...

First they came for the gypsies, but I wasn't a gypsy so I didn't object.

Then they came for the developmentally disabled but I wasn't....


Common Denominator?

Now in good old Usenet fashion I guess we have to argue the sematics of Godwin's Law, and whether or not it is appropriate to compare the powers that be at FPN to brutal totalitarian governments?

[mhosea]

I disagree. Mike's recent posts alone wholly disprove the whole of this thread having fallen to a slew of... well...anything.

I was trying to lead by example, but at this point I feel like the lone buffalo who, having diverged from herd, looks back and says "Come on guys, let's go this way!"

[david i]

You insist upon attacking a person who you know will not respond to you here, over and over. Most of us don't know the details of your issue and it actually doesn't matter. Frankly to observers, you come off looking far worse than Wim.

(Emphasis mine.)

That is until something similar happens to you, right? To think that it can't or won't is being naive.

Having seen David's and Hugh's posts here, and being at least somewhat familiar with FPN's written and unwritten rules - their personalities are incompatible with FPN's rules so the outcome was inevitable and the specifics don't matter much. On the otherhand, I am concerned about what happened Chemyst, jbb, and others with less aggressive and argumentative personalities. I half expect to get banned from FPN for my comments in this thread and the Harlequin thread.

Hmmm...

First they came for the gypsies, but I wasn't a gypsy so I didn't object.

Then they came for the developmentally disabled but I wasn't....


Common Denominator?

Now in good old Usenet fashion I guess we have to argue the sematics of Godwin's Law, and whether or not it is appropriate to compare the powers that be at FPN to brutal totalitarian governments?

Hardly Godwin's.

Metaphor for style has nothing to do with goal set. Powerful parallel though no doubt.

Yer turn.

regards

-d

[raging.dragon]

[...] That people appear to see themselves as having been assigned the role of "poor debater" I find... interesting.

The use here of LDM tactic 5, and probably 1 as well, is also interesting.

[david i]

I disagree. Mike's recent posts alone wholly disprove the whole of this thread having fallen to a slew of... well...anything.

I was trying to lead by example, but at this point I feel like the lone buffalo who, having diverged from herd, looks back and says "Come on guys, let's go this way!"

Well, I was complimenting your notes. You are trying to fight the good fight. I respect that.

regards

david

[dannzeman]

Good times. So, let's talk about pens, shall we?