Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Media Issues
 My supposed left wing media sources
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic 
Page: of 11

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2007 :  10:02:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

So you still have to invent own versions of Dave W.s posts.

Says a lot.
Actually, "...or whatever the inappropriate immature statements were he made" says a lot more. It says that beskeptigal doesn't actually care about the facts, she's just sure that no matter what I said, it was both inappropriate and immature. It's clear she's left rationality behind, and is proud of it.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2007 :  16:04:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Dave's posts responding to that issue were especially revealing. I'm supposedly a bad person because I only chose to debate to a point. "Well you shouldn't have said anything" and "next time just tell me, I'll NEVER debate with you again" or whatever the inappropriate immature statements were he made. What was the point of such posts if not an emotional reaction?
So you still have to invent own versions of Dave W.s posts.

Says a lot.



"But now I know that such talk is anathema to you. Out of respect for you, I will henceforth refrain from trying to engage you in any such discussion ever again. " is the exact quote since you seem to think I made something up.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2007 :  17:06:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Just to clarify, beskeptigal, "any such discussion" referred only to those topics that you have already said you will not discuss.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2007 :  23:13:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally admitted by beskeptigal

"But now I know that such talk is anathema to you. Out of respect for you, I will henceforth refrain from trying to engage you in any such discussion ever again. " is the exact quote since you seem to think I made something up.
Yes, and when you changed his words, you changed their meaning!!! You made up a quote that suited you better.

Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2007 :  03:26:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I didn't make anything up, Starman, I paraphrased correctly what I recalled. "Ever again" is an immature statement and is not different from what I paraphrased. It isn't relevant whether it refers to all debate or debate over a single topic. Perhaps you and Dave are unaware it's the "ever again" portion of the statement that is relevant. It's a childish claim akin to, "I'm never speaking to you again."


Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2007 :  04:22:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

I didn't make anything up, Starman, I paraphrased correctly what I recalled.
What you recall is irrelevant, as we can all read what Dave W. actually wrote. You changed his words to make his comments sound juvenile and childish.
I´m willing to belive that this initially was an honest mistake, but your follow up posts can´t use this excuse.
quote:
"Ever again" is an immature statement and is not different from what I paraphrased. It isn't relevant whether it refers to all debate or debate over a single topic. Perhaps you and Dave are unaware it's the "ever again" portion of the statement that is relevant. It's a childish claim akin to, "I'm never speaking to you again."
Utter rubbish.
You are free invent new meanings to words for your own amusement, but you can´t expect Dave W. or anybody else to be aware of this.

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2007 :  05:05:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Just so that I am understanding you, beskeptigal:

Because the "ever again" part is actually redundant with the "henceforth" part, you consider
Out of respect for you, I will henceforth refrain from trying to engage you in any such discussion ever again.
to be inappropriate and immature, but you would not have considered
Out of respect for you, I will henceforth refrain from trying to engage you in any such discussion.
to be inappropriate and immature? Am I reading you correctly?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2007 :  14:53:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That would be correct, Dave, as well there are many other statements in several of your posts with equally emotional undertones. In particular many of your posts address me personally as opposed to the content of the discussions. They include statements of outrage which by far exceed what would expected by the content of the post they are in reply to, including some cases where a simple correction of misinformation or misinterpretation would have been sufficient were there not an emotional component in your reaction.

Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2007 :  22:18:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Dave is not interested in supporting positions. Dave is interested in wasting one's time and effort.



No. Dave is arguing to get his point across, just like any of the rest of us would.

Is it really so incomprehensible to you that someone could honestly hold a different point of view that you must attribute his motives to malice?
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2007 :  23:01:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Mycroft used "far left" to discredit my posts. Dave argued Mycroft only used "far left" in relative terms. Dave claimed I had faulty underlying assumptions. But then Mycroft came right out and said what Dave claimed I had no evidence for.



Let me clarify something here;

I didn't say “far left” for the purpose of discrediting anyone. I said it because it was my evaluation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think I've ever seen forums where people are so fast to make up nefarious personal motivations for everyone that disagrees with them. Shouldn't the default position be the assumption that if someone argues something it's because it's their actual opinion?
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 03/06/2007 :  01:14:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Belief in one's "evaluation" doesn't negate the fact you are using ad hominems to discredit a person you don't agree with. It's your problem. The people on this board typically see through such tactics. The people using ad homs rarely use them with the full understanding of how little they add to one's position in a debate.


Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1266 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2007 :  04:39:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
beskeptigal, do you honestly think "far left" as a description of political views is an ad hominem?

He's not calling you a moron, he's calling you a liberal. Why are you offended by this?
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2007 :  09:15:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
She's a centrist Clinton liberal. If you ignore his foreign policy, Clinton is a conservative. Bob Avakian is far left.

It would not be an insult if she were far left, but since she isn't, it probably is.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13477 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2007 :  09:47:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo

She's a centrist Clinton liberal. If you ignore his foreign policy, Clinton is a conservative. Bob Avakian is far left.

It would not be an insult if she were far left, but since she isn't, it probably is.

You know, terms like “far left” seem to be defined by whoever is saying it. What I mean is the definitions are subjective. For example, I think Clinton was a centrist. One mans centrist is another mans conservative I suppose. So we get into trouble because we don't know what the person making statements like “far left” or “centrist” actually mean, unless they define what those terms mean when they are using them…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2007 :  10:19:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kil

You know, terms like “far left” seem to be defined by whoever is saying it. What I mean is the definitions are subjective. For example, I think Clinton was a centrist. One mans centrist is another mans conservative I suppose. So we get into trouble because we don't know what the person making statements like “far left” or “centrist” actually mean, unless they define what those terms mean when they are using them…
That's what I was saying early in this thread, Kil.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 11 Previous Topic Topic   
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000