JeffS--

You unfortunately have doubtless little, if any, experience in any form of written or oral communication or debate, for you totally misapprehend the terms that you use.

I will address your arguments in reverse order so that it will be clear to you.

You wrote the following in response to my post:



First that clause was written in response to those FTers who said, rightly, that Muminah and Fatima's only posts on this board dealt with their Muslim religion/issues, and never a travel related matter. I wrote that clause to draw a clear distinction between my actions and theirs, nothing more. In support of my contention, feel free to do a search of my name in either the CO, Hilton, or Marriott fora, to name but a few, for I often post in those areas both travel-inquiries and answers.

Now, as for your allegation that my "statement" was somehow qualified, pray tell me how? If it were with qualification, I would have said something to the effect that I will not post travel related matters until this debate has ended. I am sure that even you can see that I made no proviso. In point of fact, please go to the CO forum and see that in the midst of this debate, I have continued to post questions to the membership, and I am happy to mention that at least some of them feel that my actions do not rise to the level of a "troll" as they have answered my inquiry.

Moreover, you really need a thesaurus and a dictionary, for the words -- in addition -- do not constitute a qualification, rather, they represent an alternative grounds for my posting to this board. If anything, it is an expansion for the basis of my posting, not a contraction of same. In fact, the primary grounds for my participation on this board is the sharing of travel related info, although I will be the first to admit that this subject has nothing to do with that.

Therefore, you are in error as to this allegation, and I request a retraction.

By the way, are you a native English speaker? I ask this question in all
seriousness, as your name displays a possible Hispanic or Italian or Portuguese heritage, and I do not know if you are an immigrant; the errors that you have made in this matter, however, would appear to be those that an immigrant might make, and they are not those that a native or fluent English speaker often does.


Finally, you should know, that I have given you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you deliberately misquoted me. For as you know quite well, your selective but apparently unitentional quotation of my words, mischaracterizes my statement. I wrote the following:


The dashes function like a parentheses, and are set off from the main body of the thought. Had I wanted to qualify the travel related material, there would not be a following set of dashes and they would have been followed without interruption, by the "as warranted." That they are not proves otherwise.

Further, if anything, since my mention of travel related posts is set off from the main thought of the clause, it should be read as if it were not there. Doiong so, explodes your argument, for the "as warranted" as I had originally intended, modifies my responding to offensive posts, not travel related material. So, you have greviously mischaracterized my statment. But then again, I have given you the benefit of the doubt, for I prefer to think that you would not have done such an underhanded, cowardly, and bone-headed thing as to think that you could have gotten away by trying to hoodwink both myself, as well as the the FT readership with such a stunt.

I am afraid that you are wrong on that count, as well, for what I have done was not create a "straw man" argument with respect to Rudi's plea.

I will provide you with a definition and example of what actually constitutes a "straw man arguments:



http://www.dissension.com/logic/strawman.html


As I hope you can now see, I have done no such thing. Instead, I had asked why was it that he did not also include in his request to the FT readership, those statements that are offensive to various groups and not limit it to simply "personal attacks", for the types of posts that I have taken issue with fall within the latter category, and I personally feel they are far more destructive than "personal attacks as they seek to bring into disrepute an entire people, ethnic group, religious group, etc.

Sorry, but that is not a straw man. In fact, like the clause that you incorrectly identified as a "qualification," it is clear that I have consitently advocated an expansion on both counts.

As proof of what I say, see below.

Strike 2, but who is counting? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cool.gif



Well, inasmuch it appears to be standard policy around here to not find fault with statements such as broad generalizations, but rather only focus censure on those who engage in so-called "personal attacks," I, consequently, have finally decided to adopt only that which the FT membership have sanctioned as permissible and what apparently passes for appropriate discourse on this board.

I have made a factual statement. If you feel that my facts are in error, please point out where you think they may reside, and I will be all too happy to rebut your contentions, as I have done herein.

Further, so rather, than lose my cool and call BooBooKitty the name that I still feel is appropriate for her, I will limit my response to the form that she and her cohorts use, and which have been sanctioned as appropriate, as neither Rudi, nor you, for that matter, has taken issue with such characterizations.

As you well know, you also wrote this today:

Again, JeffS, you are incorrect, for I have not raised my voice, and I certainly can't let you have the "last word" on this one, for you are so flummoxed as to word definitions, and debate terms.

As for "my argument," what you were referring to was the litany of statements that I have cited that are either overtly or impliedly anti-Semitic, or anti-religious.

I have asked you this before, but I will ask you again, where, do you find my argument for those offensive posts as wanting?

While you are mulling over that, all I can say is:

STRIKE THREE -- YOU ARE OUT!



[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 12-03-2001).]

Let's just let the poor kid have the last word. Maybe that'll shut him up.

Please do not feed the troll.

DOC 2 BE,

I know this type of advice never works, yet I offer it.

Maybe you feel like everyone is against you, so your response to go down fighting. If so, perhaps you make yourself feel good in the process--you obviously enjoy a vigorous debate--but what's the point? Consider this. If there really are some anti-Semitic statements or anti-Semites in FlyerTalk land, do you think they'd be condoned. If you can demonstrate that certain individuals are anti-Semites, do you really doubt that they'd be effectively shunned here?

Instead, all of the attention has become focused on you and your arguments with different people. Why do you think that is? Is that because we're all a bunch of anti-Semites or is it because your communications style is ineffective? Is it effective to take issue with anyone who disagrees with you by, for example, making condescending statements about his/her level of education or intelligence?

Is it really so important to "prove" your points and your superiority? Or are there better ways to show that certain individuals are anti-Semitic, if that is really your cause? If you're as bright as you think you are, can't you frame the debate on your terms?

I know your instinctive response to write a point-by-point rebuttal to my post. But what is that going to achieve? (If you must, I'll let you have the last word.) Instead, why not, for example, collect a set of statements by Stimpy, with adequate and fair context, that you think demonstrate his/her anti-Semitic views?

P.S. I am by no means endorsing any allegations that anyone is or is not anti-Semitic. But I assume people are willing to stand by what they have written, as long as statements are shown in context.

Interesting, that you again wish to identify me as the "troll," for I have only responded to what passes for a feeble attempt as an attack on my logic.

You on the other hand, appear to attack my motives. In another thread, you likened me to a Neo-Nazi -- Now, that certainly is use of a "Straw Man" if there ever was one --
but I don't expect you to abide by your or anyone else's rules.

For instance:



My statement concerning anti-Semitism was in direct contradiction to Randy's statement that the matter had been resolved and his statement that he had only had 1 complaint of same in this forum. My post was to serve notice that the matter was not at an end, and that this should serve to advise him of that fact.

My posts have been in responseto others posts who might fall within in that category, if they did not believe their own anti-Semitic drivel. I do not see them as having "trolled" for a reaction, so much as having uttered sentiments, nevertheless, if they were trolling, it is quite characteristic of you to complain about my response, and not the posts that had generated the furor in the first place.


The only attention that I had wished was for Randy to be on notice that all was not resolved by his intervention.

Now, this brings me to my final point. You have likened me to a "Neo-Nazi." Not only is that wrong, but it is morally repugnant for you to compare me to someone who holds the views that I have attempted to expose on these boards.

I will restate some of your citations, just so that you "get it":



and


You are correct, although I doubt that you would fully understand why. However, you might start by taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 12-03-2001).]

MagMile outlines a reasonable, rational approach to address the issues that concern you. I would only add that a public forum is not an appropriate place to post the details.

If I were you, I'd write up a detailed history of events as you see them, highlighting your specific grievances. I would present this, in private, to the TalkBoard and to Randy. I would give them adequate time to consider the material, and expect them to take appropriate action. And I would abide by their decision.

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with quoting what people have written on these public boards. If you're willing to put your handle to your posts, you should stand by them. Taking private correspondence and making it public is probably inappropriate.

And maybe DOC 2 BE has done some of this. If so, I'd suggest that only illustrates that any points he'd hoped to make have gotten lost in the noise.

I do not disagree with many of your points, and as you will no doubt see, the only individuals that I am responding to are the very same one's who have been focusing their attacks upon me, and not the real perpetrators of this dust-up. I appreciate your input, but I feel that it is better to show those who are impartial, as you appear to be, that one of the tactics of those who wish to silence you is to label you something that you are not, and, I might add, by doing so, often overreach and thereby violate the rules that they claim to hold so dear. That is what dear Clement has done, above.

As for your statement about Stimpy, as I have said before, his statements pale in comparison to those that has prompted this sorry matter, but I will say this, and I know many of you will be shocked by this, but I have been mindful, that he has not tried to perpetuate an attack upon me, as others had.

As for your suggestion of my compilation of Stimpy's statements, I have done so repeatedly. You may, if you wish, review the contents of the recently locked thread in this very forum for a review of some of his more problematic posts.

Thank you for your attention.

D2B

You have been so blinded by your desire to attack me, that you have lost sight of the entire issue, for if you had read the post that is now locked, you would have seen that I have done exactly that. But, that is not sufficient for the likes of you, obviously.

However, I will duplicate my first post to that now locked thread, to show just how reasonable I have been, and that if my message has been lost in all that noise, it is not for my want of trying to silence it, but becaus you and your cohorts, have attempted to paint me as "The Troll."


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000598.html


Q.E.D.


[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 12-03-2001).]

I disagree, as just pointing it out could have been done without the comment about the Swiss being double dealing.

That's not the point. My objection to VicOsaki's comment wasn't to do with the fact that it was a personal attack on anyone (it wasn't); rather, the fact that he uses a generalization (about Jewish doctors) to slur a religious ethnic group. My objection to your comment is not that it is an attack on Rudi, but rather that it uses a generalization (double dealing Swiss) to attack a national group.

There are a couple of actions (disabling their ID for a week or forever) FlyerTalk has taken in the past against people who blatantly violated the TOS. I don't know if either of these actions has been taken in any of these cases, but if it hasn't, I'm not clear why that would be.

[Edited to correct bad UBB code]


[This message has been edited by dgolds (edited 12-03-2001).]

OKAY IVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS DOC 2 BE BUSINESS. SURE DOC 2 BE HAS A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH BUT FOR IT TO GO ON ON ON ON AND ON, ITS BEYOND! THIS SITE IS NOT A LAW INTERNSHIP, THERE IS NO DEBATE PRACTICES, THERE ARE NO WINNERS OR LOSERS HERE! IF DOC 2 BE CANT DROP IT AND MOVE FORWARD THEN A MUZZLE NEEDS TO BE PUT IN PLACE!

WHEN I STOPPED COUNTING AT 10 SLAMS AGAINST FT THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT! PERIOD!

OMG HAVE I READ LIKE OVER 100 POST IN HOW MANY DIFFERENT THREADS! IT ENDS NOW!

I WOULD RESPOND TO DOC 2 BE DIRECTLY BUT HIS EMAIL IS SECRET AS ITS NOT POSTED ON HIS ID!

MY FELLOW FTS LETS MOVE ON TO BIGGER AND BRIGHTER THINGS

ernestb -

Perhaps if you weren't yelling ...

Sorry, you feel that way, Ernest.

DOC 2 BE would drop it, if additional posters would not add to this thread. I feel it incumbent upon me to respond to attacks, nothing more.

That you have not done so, nor has Lisa, I feel no need to respond to your posts in the manner I have above.

DGolds --

You are absolutely right, but then I explicitly stated that I would be responding in a manner that Rudi had not decried despite my explicitly inquiring why such statements were not, too, circumscribed by his plea.

Inasmuch, as FT appears to permit these generalizations, I think that I shall do likewise, at least until such time that others see that these type of statements can be as offensive, if untrue, as so-called "personal attacks."

I sure do preciate ur correctin me Doc. Oh and thanks for making a comment about ethnic backgrounds again.

This now completes the research we needed to help prepare the next edition of the Moderators Handbook on personal/flaming attacks. There are some very good examples here and they will serve our future Moderators well in training them what these attacks are, how they start and who some of the people who support this behavior on FlyerTalk are. We thank you for the excellent examples that have been supplied. You are now free to return to FlyerTalk and leave what you posted here behind. Remember, this was only an excercise on what not to do on FlyerTalk and should never be repeated in your regular forums around FlyerTalk. Have a nice day.