So, what are the rules?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

People have criticized me for telling Ed that he can't learn things. But isn't that a simple statement of fact when Ed says the ACLU doesn't try to get menorahs removed, I and others tell him that the ACLU did try to get menorahs removed and cite Allegheny v ACLU, then some months later Ed says the same thing, he's told the same thing AND told that he's been told before, then some months later he AGAIN says the same thing? At what point is it acceptable to say that Ed can't learn that the ACLU brought a lawsuit against a menorah, and the courts ruled against them? Is there a magic number of X repetitions where it finally becomes acceptable to state that Ed can't learn at least that much? He even said in 2003 that he lives in Allegheny County and remembers the case well!

 

Now, Gonzo1 says he refuses to debate with me, but that doesn't stop him from disparaging my honesty. Oh well, I've explained before how when I joined cub scouts, I was an atheist, I omitted god from the promise, and either nobody cared or nobody noticed. Certainly nothing indicated to me that atheists couldn't join, and this was before 1985, when the BSA kicked out Paul Trout for not believing in a "supreme being" -- then READMITTED him and awarded him Life Scout after the public outcry. So it isn't clear if the BSA excluded atheists prior to 1985.

[CA_Scouter]

and he keeps going and going and going and going....

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

The difference is that it isn't about Ed. It's about the idea. When you change the focus from the idea to Ed, the idea suffers from neglect.

 

It is possible that Ed did learn the idea the first time he read it. However, if for some reason, he simply can't accept it, and if this is expressed verbally in a variety of ways, then it is incumbent on the teacher to present the idea in a manner that can be comprehended by the student. And even if it is comprehended, acceptance is never guaranteed.

[Beavah]

Yah, what packsaddle said.

 

And there's the glass houses thing. You also dodge arguments at times to return to shrill core message. So the insults only detract from the argument. Yeh'd be much more convincing as a friend at the dinner table than as a streetcorner preacher.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

But there isn't much of an argument going on when the same fallacies are brought up over & over. If someone thought the BSA started in the 1950s, even after being corrected numerous times, you can't really have a discussion about the early years of the BSA with him until he learns when the BSA was founded. And if he can't learn...

[Lisabob]

Yeah pack, we call that "investment." I "know" the Buffalo Sabres really won the Stanley Cup in 1999 and that the ref who upheld the "winning" goal that Dallas has always claimed to have scored was both blind and an idiot. Nothing anybody says to the contrary is ever going to change my mind on that. And Brett Hull (the alleged goal scorer) is persona non grata in my life, to the point that I have had to root against any other team that he plays for on the basis that they clearly have no integrity for signing him.

 

Practically everybody is invested in something and lots of times the things people are invested in claiming as "truth" are in fact, totally incorrect (unlike my above example, where not only do I realize I'm invested, but I'm also 110% right, darn it).

 

So apparently Ed is invested in believing that the ACLU only goes after Christian symbols and also that the ACLU eagerly awaits every opportunity to "get" the BSA. This, despite the documented fact that the ACLU has done precisely the thing that Ed repeatedly criticizes them for not doing. Well ok. My suggestion is that every time he brings up that old and factually incorrect point, somebody should post a one-line reminder, with link, to another thread where it was already discussed and demonstrated that Ed's assertion is wrong. And then DROP IT and move on to the rest of the discussion. Perhaps in this way we can avoid the "I know you are but what am I" character of the all-too-frequent Ed-Merlyn thread hijackings. Though mind you, I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

Go Sabres!

 

 

[evmori]

Who wants pie?

[FScouter]

"My suggestion is that every time he brings up that old and factually incorrect point, somebody should post a one-line reminder, with link, to another thread where it was already discussed and demonstrated that Ed's assertion is wrong. And then DROP IT and move on to the rest of the discussion."

 

Or, hows about IGNORE IT. As has been demonstrated more times than fleas on a dog, any response at all begets another iteration of the same.

[eolesen]

The forum rules are simple: keep it civil, and no personal insults.

 

It's one thing to attack an argument or a position.

 

It's yet another to attack the person. You've crossed that line and even (somewhat proudly?) admitted to it.

 

 

Something else I learned along the way that you might want to consider: beating a dead horse doesn't make it get up and move.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

But eolesen, that's what I'm asking about in this thread. What if a statement "X" is both true, and insulting? Are people prohibited from making true statements if it might hurt someone's feelings? What if statement "X" is both true, insulting, but needed to advance the argument?

 

Can I point out to Ed that he's wrong, and the ACLU has sued to remove menorahs? Can I point out that I have told him this before, and he persists in saying the ACLU does not sue to remove menorahs? Can I say that what he's saying is false? Can I say he has been told this before, and he cannot apparently learn this simple fact? Can I say that he either can't learn this, or he HAS learned this and is now intentionally lying about the ACLU?

 

Sometimes statements which are pertinent to the argument might be taken as insulting, but does that mean such statements are simply not to be made? Is it a violation of the rules to quote court decisions where the BSA describes gays as not being "clean"? Are people who are in favor of the BSA's gay policy not supposed to say that their religion teaches that homosexuals are sinners? Is gonzo1 in violation of these rules for saying I was a cub scout "fraudulently"?

 

Oh, but *I* get dinged for tell Ed over and over that he can't learn what I've told him over and over. No, that's beyond the pale.

[evmori]

It's not the telling, it's the constant belittling & calling posters liars. You have been guilty of mis-truths, Merlyn, and I have never called you a liar. Nor, I think, has anyone else.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[CA_Scouter]

You're deflecting again Merlyn. We are speaking of the constant repetition, at times, your belittling of others, your name calling and personal insults directed at Ed. Please try to stay on point.

 

You can stomp your feet, cross your arms and burst out with an indignant 'harumph', but you just can't have it only YOUR way.

 

Now don't go off and pout - please note that this particular thread addresses decorum, not the content of your arguments or your right to express your opinion. Perhaps if you improved in this area, you might gain a modicum of respect from those who currently have disdain for you.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well Ed, that's a pretty fine hair to split -- you WILL say I have made "mis-truths", but you WON'T say I'm a liar. Wow, what integrity (what integrity?)

 

I have very seldom called someone a liar in this forum; the only times I can recall are when someone had the audacity to tell me what I would do, or what I thought, and they got it wrong, and they had not merely misinterpreted something I had written. In cases like that, I can see no alternative but to conclude they made up my position out of whole cloth, and decided their made-up scenario was the actual case, instead of asking me first, and their statements were made without any disclaimers like "it appears you think XXX" or "you would probably do XXX". In such cases, I point out that they are lying.

 

"lying" is another example of something that could be both true and insulting. Is it against the rules to state that someone is a liar? Is Ed's dodge of saying I'm lying but not calling me a stater of "mis-truths" a violation of the rules?

 

Now, if this were a real argument, I'd ask Ed to substantiate his statements. But it doesn't look like people want real arguments, they want typing. And no fair hurting someone's feelings! Now, go out there and kick out some gays.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

CA_Scouter, this IS about decorum. If I'm in an argument, and I think someone is lying, I SAY so, and I tell them why. That's all part of a proper argument. If someone says something, and I think they're lying, but I can't SAY I think they're lying, then what? Bring back "inoperative statements" as euphemisms for lies? I say explitive deleted to that. As I've said before, some statements are both true and insulting; does this mean some true statements cannot be made in conducting an argument here?

 

And I started this thread, don't I get a say in what is and isn't out of bounds for it?

[jr56]

The rules are pretty plain to me Merlyn. If you choose to ignore them, that is your problem. If you feel that Ed has violated them, that doesn't give you the right to jump in. What's the old addage, "Two wrongs don't make a right".