I see you personally attacking other people quite often, Calandale, but you seem to be unable to see that you are doing it.
I know you do. We have very different definitions.
Of course, to you, yous is the ONLY one. And,
you fail to see any distinction between the
morality of bringing extraneous information
into your squabbles. Stuff which you choose
to NOT be attacked about, by not sharing.
You only seem to see it going one way.
No. I know damned well that I began this fight.
Brought it to a different level. You took it beyond
where my morals allow me to go, except when I
lose my cool far too much, as I did when making
my comment that QM was homophobic - something
he admitted, but was of no importance to the issue,
and was purely a twisted result of my frustration at
his personal attacks on me. I seem to remember making
a similar assault upon TM1, when I was getting sick of
him following me about, posting about my personal life,
where it did not apply. Perhaps, had you revealed such
of your own, I'd have disgraced myself there too - hell,
I did with lucifer, but hope that I retracted it, before anyone
saw what an ass I was being.
You don't need a person's biography to personally attack them.
Again, this is based upon the difference of our
meanings for the word.
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement.
See? Your meaning is the ONLY one? Ok, if your principles,
effect the manner in which you are making site dependent
decisions, or in the manner in which you are actually arguing
or posting, they ARE fair game, IMO.
What 'personal attacks' have I made, by your criteria? I've questioned
your fighting tactics - clearly a matter which is limited to the site itself.
I've not even speculated that you are like this, IRL. I've attacked your
desire to hold onto power, but again, that is a site-related issue, and I've
not made any attempt to draw parallels to things in your real life. I've
definitely noted what I see as a close minded adherence to whatever
you've decided - decisions which are often made
very early in a
discussion. (I wonder if I've ever seen you change your mind?) And,
I've noted the point at which your treatment of me took an extreme
about face - not over the style of my attacks, but over a disagreement
in ethics, which few others cared about. I'll add another observation: unlike
me, you dropped mentioning that disagreement, when you saw it was
gaining you no support - you are the consummate politician; I am not.
I fight on, even when it is merely gaining me enemies. Now, most would
probably see your attitude there as laudable, but I don't - I prefer my own
(of course
)
Nah. I come up with wacky ideas and try to see if
they hold water.
Perhaps that is what you intend to do, but your method of testing them is to try to cram them down everyone else's throats.
No. My method was first to attempt just hacking the
idea about. I soon learned that the apathy here required
that, in order to get a discussion on the issues, one had
to actually put up a timed poll, and force people to
thinkabout it. I don't think that there was a damned suggestion
that I made, which I was unwilling to be convinced that my
initial take was wrong. But, it got frustrating to see ideas
brought up, discussed briefly, without any real passion, and
then ignored.
Maybe that was the way that you saw it, but almost everyone else saw it differently.
You are better at arguing, even when wrong.
I grant you that.
Perhaps you thought that you were "safeguarding the membership from the excesses of democracy;" however, it looked like you were trying to dictate rules to everyone else and limit their freedom to vote the way they wanted to on future issues by implementing lots of new laws that you created.
Yes. That's exactly what safeguards are. Kinda like the
bill of rights. Rules to prevent the WC from abusing others.
The polls that you call "mere ploys" looked like you were trying to manipulate other World Council members.
Manipulate is an interesting, and not entirely inaccurate term.
Let's take the most egregious case - the dreaded fiat poll.
I made that poll merely to lay the foundation for arguing that
you were using exactly the type of absolute power which
that poll would bring into being, for the staff. An argument
which wouldn't have gotten anywhere, given your popularity
here, but might have come in handy to harp a bit. Imagine
my shock when your coterie voted
in favor of admins
having the absolute right to do whatever they pleased. And
don't plea some confusion, that poll is clear as day, to anyone
who wasn't befuddled by your argument for passing it.
Also, no matter how many times you have posted, "When it came down to it, some of those who cared enough for democracy to try and lay it down on firm ground were hounded away by the same tactics you see used against me," you have never once backed up with facts your assertion that anyone was ever "hounded away," how it was supposed to have been done, or whether you are being "hounded away" yourself. On the contrary, you insist that if you post here less frequently in the future, it will be completely because of your new job, not because of any supposed "hounding." Perhaps these shadowy people you have claimed were "hounded away" had life changes that were more important to them than spending so much time posting here.
By hounded, I mean the pack mentality. By away,
I mean told to GTFO. Both have applied to me.
Both applied to Lit. Both applied to Scrap. I don't
know how many others have been so driven away
by constant abuse, by your little gang. And, of course,
one wants to seem stronger, so putting a good face on.
But, such a gang, picking off those who 'don't belong'
is going to effect decisions to leave. Indeed, in Lit's case,
it may well have contributed heavily to his meltdown and
targeting of the site - maybe worse. In Scrap's, whom you
like to claim was busy with his 60 hour weeks - well, he had
been busy before, yet found time for coming here; and he
wandered over to ZOMG, found that not to his liking, and
then proceeded to troll at WP a bit. So clearly, time wasn't
the only reason for his leaving. Nor, whatever I said, is it really
likely to be the case for me.
Now, this begins to bring the big, "so what?" I mean, this is
intensity, right? We're not nannying. Still, I guess I'm hoping that
those involved in such gang bullying remember what it was like
to be the target of such. Maybe remember that they vowed
never to be such. Hell, I have nothing against drag out fights,
but something tastes WRONG about everyone siding up with
whomever they like and dislike. Which is what seems to happen,
nearly every time. As though party, not ideas, is the real discriminating
factor. Oh, we will argue with those we like, but not at all in the
same manner.
