<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dovster:
...I know that at least one moderator saw the flame about me posting dishonestly, because it was in the same thread as my post which was deleted.</font>
I will not respond to the actions or reasons of the moderators or other FTers but since this line is about one of my posts I will respond.
Never once did I make a personal attack against Dovester nor did I call him/her dishonest. This was Dovester's first post in the thread in question,
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dovster:
...This so-called work of art consisted of her photograph on a little boat floating in a basin filled with water dyed red, along with a poem singing her praises.
It was a tribute to a mass murderer, just as the Goldstein memorial was a tribute to a mass murderer. </font>
What I said was in response to another poster, letiole, asking where she could find information about the poem "glorifying this woman". I responded to letiole by saying,
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
I suspect that the answer is "No" because this is nothing more than a personal opinion dishonestly represented as the official intent of the artists in question. </font>
In the post to which I was responding, Dovester began to give what appeared to be straight factual description of the artwork in question and then added,
"along with a poem singing her praises" and
"It was a tribute to a mass murderer" which seemed to be suggesting that this was the intent of the artists in question and the museum. Dovester, or anyone for that matter, certainly has the right to hold and express these opinions but I took issue with what I saw as those 'opinions' being represented as fact. I was simply calling Dovester on this [again, IMHO] intellectually weak method of debate. What I called dishonest was the idea that
"along with a poem singing her praises" and
"It was a tribute to a mass murderer" were now being represented as something other than Dovester's personal spin on the work.
Yes, I criticized Dovester's idea of this work and his [IMHO] subterfuge to present it as "fact" thus I was critiquing and idea or an issue. I never once, neither technically nor by outright means made a personal attack. Arguments, ideas, and reasoning can and often are dishonest, disingenuous, specious, etc. You cannot debate any serious issue or idea without being able to call into question a persons line of reasoning, but doing so does not necessarily constitute a personal attack. I do not know Dovester personally. I do not know [nor really care, personally] if he is an honest person or a dishonest one but I will, as always, give someone I do not know the benefit of the doubt, AND I still stand by my original argument that to suggest that the official or even the only real intent of either the museum or artist in question is to "honor" or to "sing the praises" [in direct contradiction to the statements by the artists and the museum] of the subject is to make a dishonest argument, regardless of whether or not one agrees with or finds any value in the specific work itself.
Edited to add:
As for the other post quoted by Dovester I think that it should be apparent that I was setting up an extreme example, my suggestion to leave behind what I thought were small-minded beliefs in regard to artistic freedom, to show how one can vehemently disagree with the expression of another's freedom not only without limiting said contrary opinion but in fact celebrating that personas right to have them.
That is that I whole heartedly disagree with what I perceive to be Dovester's willingness to violently limit another persons free speech [support for the ambassadors actions] but I also wholeheartedly support his right to have and express those opinions. If this example was too subtle then I offer my apologies to those offended.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited Jan 21, 2004).]