Re: "Torkel Bashing"


MoeBlee wrote:
George Dance wrote:
However, calling the thread I argued on a 'commemorative thread', while
technically correct, is somewhat misleading.

I don't even think it is technically correct.

I won't argue that point. Others here would dispute it, but I doubt
that they'll dispute it with you, or vice versa.

The commemorative posts
had all come in more than a month before. As I see it (and another
eyewitness confirms), at the time I joined it the thread was nothing
but a flame war, with all kinds of little battles raging.

It had mostly battles; but not all was battle, I say, just for the
record.

Again I won't engage you; anyone can look at the record and reach his
own conclusions.

Of course, engaging in such arguments
from the other side is also somewhat lacking in tact.

Indeed, so put most of the blame on the two people (one from each side)
who started all the arguments with those from the other side. The
archive tells you exactly who they were: people whom I'll identify
here only as CB and MB.

And I'll identify that as the kind of thing a snotty little brat says,
"Look teacher, Billy and Johnny were fighting. It was all Billy and
Johnny who started it. Your George would never start a fight like
that."

If Billy and Johnny did start it, then it's telling the truth - nothing
more, nothing less - to say that they did; while saying only that Billy
started it (because Johnny's a pal) would not be. That statement says
nothing about whether George would start a fight or not.

Whatever other fights there were in the thread, you came into give a
post that included a remark that is an egregious distortion of
Franzen's postings, and I believed your remark deserved to be
challenged.

Fair enough; and if it deserved to be challenged, it deserved to be
defended. The problem here being that there's some consensus on the
list that, while they don't mind seeing the challenges, they don't want
to read the defences.

Your role is not diminished by whatever fights were going
on. You post something, then you can expect that someone may very well
post their disagreement with what you posted, and "blame" is not at
issue.

When I start receiving abuse, and even a death threat, in my mailbox,
then "blame" becomes very much an issue. I take it that you've had no
such reaction.

Those two weren't solely responsible; some of the blame should also
falled on those who replied to one or the other of them, and kept the
game going. That includes me, and it also includes you.

"Yes, teacher, I did get into the fight too. So I suppose you should
punish me too teacher."

The blame game wasn't my idea; others decided to play it. What I've
been pointing out out to both of them was that, when looking for
targets to blame, they should ensure a complete search by using a
mirror.

Oh bull. There is no blame just for speaking one's mind, even if it
adds to an embroglio.

Then you haven't read all of this or the other thread (or you've
confused the questions of whether there *is any blame and whether there
*should be* any blame).

If you want to impose such constraints on
yourself, then fine. But everyone gets to speak his mind about whatever
is posted and no one has to refrain just to avoid "blame" for the
continuation of fight.

Tell me: Why have you not challenged any of the people on this thread
who've been taking issue with that? And why have none of them
challenged you? If your only interest is truth, not defending a
'side,' (to use your term) why are you giving a free pass to those on
your side spreading that bull (to use your term)? If you don't believe
in blaming or scapegoating, why are you challenging only the popular
scapegoat?

I'd suggest to you that you didn't notice that you were doing those
things; that you sincerely believed, all the while, that you've been
doing none of them? That all the while you've been strictly an
impartial seeker after of truth, evaluating every argument by its
soundness and not its maker, and every post by its content and not its
poster.

I think that you honestly believe that. However, given what you've
been saying in your most recent posts, and whom you've been saying it
to, I don't believe it at all. I'd conclude that you have a bias
induced by tunnel vision.

(And, of course, the next time you tell me that Torkel Franzen was just
like you in that respect, I'll put that down to the same bias.)





MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Torkel Bashing"
    ... Billy and Johnny were fighting. ... nothing about whether George would start a fight or not. ... then "blame" becomes very much an issue. ... why are you challenging only the popular ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Illegals in the US problem. Simple solution
    ... >40th birthday. ... I don't "blame" anyone for my size. ... >taking some office technology classes to improve my office skills. ... a fight you would knock his little dick in the dirt. ...
    (alt.marketing.online.ebay)
  • Re: Byrd should retire from boxing
    ... >>> some rigged decision. ... That fight last eve was a disgrace and Byrd should be ashamed ... Yes, the fight sucked. ... I blame all that on Williamson, ...
    (rec.sport.boxing)
  • This is a Last Mohican fight (was: [On-Topic]Inquirer: How the IT media manipulates the news)
    ... > for the lack of VMS knowledge out there, blame the owner! ... The truth is that we are all idealists in here. ... What whould this fight bring to us? ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Universities pay dispute
    ... are hit by action of this type, they blame the people who are taking the ... Their criticism should be directed at those people who have created ... It takes two to create a dispute, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)