board77

TED, I understand your questioning of Holby's bringing it up, and of Eru bowing to it, but as you said I don't care. Probably because I am a fan of irony, and am fully aware of past positions I have had.

I'm trying to figure out a way to present my original topic that can highlight the problem more clearly. I intend first of all to avoid all political examples

halplm wrote:

I know what the topic I wanted to discuss was. No ranger can determine that something I don't believe is on topic, is in fact on topic. It's MY topic.

This is a messageboard, hal. If your thread is derailed, try to bring it back. You can't have absolute control of everything. Lots of threads get derailed. It happens. You don't seem interested in that, just in yelling at everyone for being against you.

Quote:

I know what the topic I wanted to discuss was. No ranger can determine that something I don't believe is on topic, is in fact on topic. It's MY topic.

Oh really? Only a thread originatior can determine what is on topic for a thread, never a Ranger or another poster?

What happens then if, say, someone starts posting about fluffy bunnies in CG's "Congress" thread here in the symp? CG is not currently available here to say "hey that's off topic, can it be split/stopped/etc," so what happens? The other posters in the thread or the Rangers have no right to step in and can the fluffy bunny talk in a clearly innapropriate place? Or does this rule only apply when talking about what IS on topic, rather than not?

In that case, what happens if a thread originator, losing an argument or being pushed down by the majority opinion, suddenly decides his thread SHOULD be about fluffy bunnies, even though that was clearly not the original topic at hand? What if he states anyone trying to continue with the original topic is now off topic? Is that okay?

Also:

Quote:

The fact TED did exactly what I was complaining about did make me very angry, because I've been angry this continues to happen. The fact it would happen exactly when I was trying to get people to address it, caused me to lose my cool, which I fully admit.

I thought you were trying to discuss personal attacks vs attacks on opinions and the difference between them, not anything at all to do with being off topic and osgiliation.

Quote:

I'm trying to figure out a way to present my original topic that can highlight the problem more clearly. I intend first of all to avoid all political examples

If I were you, I would use hypothetical examples. Hypothetical arguments even. You didn't answer my question, though. Was it just my first post that derailed or was it my subsequent posts as well?

I already said I overreacted.

It was an extremely frustrating situation, and I don't think the subject is that complicated, which is why I wanted to discuss it.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Quote:

I'm trying to figure out a way to present my original topic that can highlight the problem more clearly. I intend first of all to avoid all political examples

If I were you, I would use hypothetical examples. Hypothetical arguments even. You didn't answer my question, though. Was it just my first post that derailed or was it my subsequent posts as well?

The first was derailing, the second was just misunderstanding. I think.

El, I guess I can understand seen that as the topic, but it was not. I did not want to talk about personal attacks at all.

Indeed, there are several places this has been discussed recently (with no progress I might add).

Okay, thank you, hal.

halplm wrote:

I. give. up.

Liar.

I gave up on this thread, yov, perhaps you'd care to comment on the restart?

You mean the 1000th thread you've started to discuss the same old thing while pretending to discuss something new?
No. thanks.

if at first you don't succeed, try try again.

You know, the idea is in fact not the same, and much more clearly defined.

No, not really, it's about exactly what all these threads you always start in times like these are: YOU.

not in any way is it about me. It's about something I recognized and am pointing out.

You, claiming it is all about me, is another perfect example of an ad hominem argument.

Not really since I wasn't making an argument for or against what you're talking about because I don't care. It's not so much an argument as it is observing a long, historical pattern.

eta:

halplm wrote:

not in any way is it about me.

halplm wrote:

That's just it, I would not like to have that person deflect the question. But I don't want to deny that person part of the conversation, I want them to actually engage in that debate. If they disagree, then debate the ideas. It's the TACTIC that I want to see disappear, not the person.

whatever yov

How I wish that were true.

Knock it off or take it to the Bike Racks. Please.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Holby, that is an underhanded attack on a poster. I think it should be removed. Eru bowing to it doesn't help either.

I think that's a bunch of bull. If pointing out a poster's past words is an attack, then we need to shut down the entire symposium and ban debating altogether.

Erunáme wrote:

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Holby, that is an underhanded attack on a poster. I think it should be removed. Eru bowing to it doesn't help either.

I think that's a bunch of bull. If pointing out a poster's past words is an attack, then we need to shut down the entire symposium and ban debating altogether.

If the topic being pointed out is relevant, then yes, but I did not think that pointing out the irony was relevant to the topic at hand (whatever that topic was).

Seeing as hal's opened up a thread addressing what he was really getting at and this one has turned to sniping, anyone object if I lock this?