The conundrum of enlightenment

[hackenslash]

The expression you were looking for is (ad hominem attacks). Seems you can dish it but can't take it.

Care to point out where I addressed anything to any target other than the guff you presented? I certainly didn't notice any attacks on your person in my post, although I can see why you might think that exposing your beliefs for the nonsense they clearly are constitutes an attack on your person. It isn't however. I have no opinion of you one way or the other. The inane drivel you present here is my target, and I addressed that. Can I take it that you concede all my points in that regard, since you have no response to them?

In any event, I didn't use the term ad hominem for a very specific reason, namely that you didn't even attempt to address my counters to your contentions, let alone by use of the logical fallacy described as ad hominem. That's why I merely called it personalisation. I prefer the technical term ad hominem only when describing the fallacy of attacking the person in order to dismiss the argument. You didn't do that.

Typical. Why is it that you would expect me to feel somehow obligated to respond to your dismissive critiques? (which in this case were nothing more than a group of thinly veiled expressions of contempt), do you feel I owe you something?

You don't owe me anything. You owe it to yourself, though, if you are intellectually honest, to address the valid objections to your assertions. Oh, and there was nothing veiled about my contempt for the views you expressed. It was right there in the open for all to see.What that has to do with your failure to address them

You haven't earned my attention or any special consideration. Yet you complain when I refuse to dignify your snide assertions with a response. What?.. Really?

Well, you've certainly earned my attention by erecting guff in a public forum.

As with many up here, some of your ideas are tainted by your hatred of those you perceive to have hurt you or to have repressed you somehow at some point/s in the past. It's like a constant whining sound in the background up here.

Oh dear. The usual false conflation of robust argument with emotional content. I haven't been hurt by anyone, and nor do I express hatred, which is a complete waste of emotional energy. I merely express the utter wrongness of your arguments. All you have in response is whining. Any chance of actually addressing my rebuttal?

Forgive, forget, move on. Take responsibility for your own peace of mind by letting go of these puerile emotional issues from the past. Seriously, this is good advise [sic] from an unlikely source.

I wouldn't be purporting to be a source of advice if I were you, especially since you have misread the situation by light-years. My peace of mind is perfectly intact, thank you, and your continued personalisations do nothing to aid you in your cause. Perhaps actually addressing the arguments might do some of that.

You seem at ease with crossing the line of civil to uncivil discourse. Just for the record, if it had been I who had originated your rectal emissions quip, I, in all likelihood, would have gotten the boot.

No, because you're still failiing utterly to understand the distinction between a comment directed at a comment and a comment directed at a person. Perhaps when you overcome this shortcoming your posts will not bring the attention of Whitney and the moderating staff.

You, on the other hand, will receive a pass owing to the fact that you are in lock step with the powers that be. Such a good little soldier.

On the contrary. In fact, my mode of delivery on this forum is a good deal more restrained than in other places, not least because I am most definitely not in lock-step with anything and have had to tone down my delivery specifically to meet the requirements of the moderating staff. I choose the path less travelled. What passes I do receive are based on the fact that my comments are directed at the nonsense posted, not the person posting. Learn the distinction and you'll be fine.

So, you suspect I'm a troll then?

Perhaps you could point to where I said that. I don't think you're a troll, but I do think you're evading the rebuttals to the nonsense you presented. It isn't hard. Just take it point by point.

Is that because I don't fit the narrative of your world view? Because I don't wear my emotional wounds like a badge of honor? Because I don't allow others to affect my personal happiness? Or because I don't share your displeasure with the majority of the human race? Who knows and who cares?

More unwarranted conclusions regarding emotional state. Perhaps you should stick to the arguments, since you are clearly unqualified in what you are attempting here.

Now it's your turn to, once again, to state something crude and/or arrogantly dismissive. Go.

I didn't arrogantly 'dismiss' anything. I presented a reasoned and considered rebuttal to the drivel you posted which, while possibly a little robust for one whose magical thinking extends to words having some sort of special power beyond their ability to convey ideas, did not constitute a mere 'dismissal'. Perhaps if you addressed the responses in detail, preferably without the amateur psychobabble and personalisations...

[Whitney]

Since ThinkBigger's posts after my warning did nothing to clear up his seeming like a troll he has been added to the Restricted group.

[terranus]

guys we need to stop banning people.

Hardly anyone gets banned here...wtf emoticon. Why is that not on the right side of my post box? I mean it's on like the 2nd page of view more smilies....not very convenient.

And I'd like to request this one get added:

[KDbeads]

OMG..... we has more smilies  :hide2:

[Whitney]

guys we need to stop banning people.

Hardly anyone gets banned here...wtf emoticon. Why is that not on the right side of my post box? I mean it's on like the 2nd page of view more smilies....not very convenient.

only so many can fit on the right side without me having to go in and figure out how to recode it...so the less used ones go in the view more area (the update previous to the last made the view more smilies not work).  The code to make the smiley is simply

Code Select Expand

wtf so it doesn't need to be easily selectable.

[hackenslash]

May I say that I would have given a little more rope? He was beginning to engage, I think, and may have engaged given a little more time.

I stand guided by you. I would rather have continued the discussion, but I bow, of course, to your better judgement.

[JoeBobSmith]

[McQ]

he was not a troll, and not preaching, just made some of u angry

This forum aspires to be on a higher level than you may be accustomed to. We don't allow for uncivil discourse, and if it is brought to our attention, we address it. If a new member spends the majority of his time just bashing the forum, complaining about how it is run, or simply engaging other members in pointless fights, then we do consider such a person as a troll.

There are uncounted forums to participate in. If someone doesn't like it here, they are not forced to stay. It is easy to criticize and be an armchair quarterback, but someone of value shows it by constructive participation.

[Whitney]

May I say that I would have given a little more rope? He was beginning to engage, I think, and may have engaged given a little more time.

I stand guided by you. I would rather have continued the discussion, but I bow, of course, to your better judgement.

He has plenty of time to prove himself; he was only added to the Restricted group, not banned.  If he really was intending on posting here constructively he can prove himself by participating nicely a bit in the getting to know you area and then I'd let him out.

[hackenslash]

Indeed, and I agree. My only concern is that some posters will not hang around for derestriction, which might be a shame. It may take a little time for some to come to terms with this forum's style. I'd hate to see potentially good posters excluded before they got the chance to work out what we're about.

All good though. Just planting a seed.

[JoeBobSmith]

[Whitney]

joe, the reason thinkbigger got restricted is because he was acting like a total ass.  If you think people ought to be allowed to act that way this forum is not for you.

[JoeBobSmith]

[McQ]

This forum aspires to be on a higher level than you may be accustomed to.

Please...that is so totally self righteous

if your views are attacked and you get angry and cry...then there's no room for constructive discussion anyway

whether or not you like mr"think bigger" or whoever  personally is irrelevant

Not self-righteous. Not even my opinion. That's the way this forum is meant to be run. Have you read the rules about civility yet? You have a lot to learn about this forum if you haven't figured that out by now. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

I only quoted your particular post because in it, you outright declared that thinkbigger isn't a troll and people were just getting upset because he made them angry. That may or may not be true, but that is for the moderation team to decide. My views were not attacked. I was not upset. My job is to moderate this forum. I think thinkbigger is not much other than a troll until he shows otherwise. Clear enough?

[Asmodean]

Great..! The Middle East domino effect is spreading here, apparently...

Me, I think is good that this board is not as loosely moderated as some others. Keeps the bad kind of weirdos out... For the most part.