Just a quick post to say...

[JonoPashley]

Perhaps BAS forgot where he was and thought he was on the SF forum?

 

[Goldberg]

Please note that I have labelled you as pathetic,

Is that not an insult?

I don't know, because what I intended to write was this:

Please note that I have not labelled you as pathetic...

...but I b*ggered it up. Apologies for the error.

I can give clear cases in point, and, in each case, by applying your very own method of observation, logic, and intuitive reasoning, demonstrate beyond the doubt of every reader except yourself that you are capable of being all of those things whilst in the very throes of denying them.

Would that not be insulting?

I don't see the relevance of what it would be if I did a thing that I haven't yet done. Either you're capable of examining your own behaviour by comparing it to a reasonable standard of behaviour, or you can't examine it without drawing in examples of other people's behaviour. If the latter is true, then there's limited hope of you noticing the theme of the posts that are persistently telling you that your behaviour is beneath you.

That's an example of a childish question.

Is that not an insult?

I see no virtue in getting embroiled in a tangent to the original point. I explained my view of a mature approach, i.e. being in contrast to your own, and I did it without calling you a tw@t or a w*nker. If you really can't take the point without developing a new and orthogonal debate about whether or not me calling your question childish is, in itself, abusive, then I believe that your goal is to obfuscate, not elucidate.

If you want to have an objective discussion about what constitutes abuse, then you should start a topic on it, and ask questions, and be prepared to listen to other people's opinions.

Even those of people whose opinions I consider valueless?

If there are people in the world whose entire set of opinions hold absolutely no value, then I would say that you could safely ignore contributions from those people. However, your ability to accurately identify and classify those people appears not to pass much muster with any of your fellow forum members, so you alone in the view that such people (a) exist and (b) proliferate on this forum in such high numbers that align with your apparently frequent dismissal of opinions that conflict with yours.

However, on the tiny number of posts of yours that I've read, the dominent flavour is that you believe that you know you are correct,

I always believe I am correct.

I was never in any doubt of that. My point was very different, which was that it's possible to always be correct without making other people feel as though the correctness is being rammed in their face. If it's your goal to make it plain just how correct you are, and belittle people in the process, then perhaps you should be congratulated having honed to a fine art your ability to do just that. On the other hand, some people believe that a intelligence and perception creates a commensurate duty to deliver correctness with humility and understanding.

and yet you ask questions of people in a manner so as to trap them.

How can people be trapped if they are correct and have a logical and consistent position?

To answer your question, some people don't have the time, energy, or verbal dexterity to answer your questions in the way that you put them. However, that doesn't change the fact that I've seen you make a point not by plain speaking, but by asking a questions using something akin to the shabby saleman's kindergarten manipulation of a non-sequitur such that an otherwise rhetorical question gets answered in exactly the way that is wanted.

If you believe that your justification for the thing that you call 'being factual' and other people call 'being abusive' is unnassailably correct and valid, then even the faintest hint of a question that makes someone else think that you're open to listening to the answer is the kind of dishonesty that you yourself would call "lying"; it's merely a more subtle form.

I'm always interested in hearing the answers to questions I've asked - you may have noticed that I sometimes repeat them when people fail to answer them.

Not particularly, no. In a tiny sample of about four topics, two of which have been locked, all of them have illustrated your particular brand of dishonesty. In boxing it would be a called a 'sucker punch'. The aggression implied by the metaphor is not without significance.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am objecting to the fact that people think it is perfectly OK to resort to name-calling if they don't agree with what another person is posting.

I can accept

"I think you're being pendantic because....",

but not

"you're a tw@"

Ah.

Did I call anybody that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't know, because what I intended to write was this:

Please note that I have not labelled you as pathetic...

...but I b*ggered it up. Apologies for the error.

That's alright - I knew what you meant to write.

I just wanted you to be sure you were making the distinction between "you are a #@&%$", and "your behaviour is that of a #@&%$".

Perhaps you'd like to go back and read the topic that all this is about, and keep an eye out for the word "tw@".

I don't see the relevance of what it would be if I did a thing that I haven't yet done.

Because if it would be insulting, and you don't agree with insulting people, then you can't do what you said you could.

Either you're capable of examining your own behaviour by comparing it to a reasonable standard of behaviour, or you can't examine it without drawing in examples of other people's behaviour. If the latter is true, then there's limited hope of you noticing the theme of the posts that are persistently telling you that your behaviour is beneath you.

I can see an unbelievable amount of agitation over 2 instances of "you're behaving like a tw@".

And I am extraordinarily disinclined to take any notice of anyone who is so bent out of shape about 2 instances of "you're behaving like a tw@" that they start up, or join in, a topic just to have a go at me.

That's an example of a childish question.

Is that not an insult?

I see no virtue in getting embroiled in a tangent to the original point. I explained my view of a mature approach, i.e. being in contrast to your own, and I did it without calling you a t**t or a w*nker. If you really can't take the point without developing a new and orthogonal debate about whether or not me calling your question childish is, in itself, abusive, then I believe that your goal is to obfuscate, not elucidate.

Au contraire - it's neither tangential nor orthogonal. (Which did you mean, BTW - nothing can be both.)

You did not call me those things, but you called me childish, so my question stands - is that not an insult?

If there are people in the world whose entire set of opinions hold absolutely no value, then I would say that you could safely ignore contributions from those people. However, your ability to accurately identify and classify those people appears not to pass much muster with any of your fellow forum members, so you alone in the view that such people (a) exist and (b) proliferate on this forum in such high numbers that align with your apparently frequent dismissal of opinions that conflict with yours.

Whatever.

I was never in any doubt of that. My point was very different, which was that it's possible to always be correct without making other people feel as though the correctness is being rammed in their face. If it's your goal to make it plain just how correct you are, and belittle people in the process, then perhaps you should be congratulated having honed to a fine art your ability to do just that.

It's never my goal to belittle people.

They are often very good at doing that to themselves.

On the other hand, some people believe that a intelligence and perception creates a commensurate duty to deliver correctness with humility and understanding.

And some people believe that if in the course of what should have been (and what started out as) a sensible and rational debate, one person asks another for the reasons for his position, then ignores them and asks again, responds with sarcasm, wilfully disregards repeated clarifications of important terms and adopts illogical and inconsistent positions for no reason except to be perverse should not go unchallenged.

To answer your question, some people don't have the time, energy, or verbal dexterity to answer your questions in the way that you put them.
However, that doesn't change the fact that I've seen you make a point not by plain speaking, but by asking a questions using something akin to the shabby saleman's kindergarten manipulation of a non-sequitur such that an otherwise rhetorical question gets answered in exactly the way that is wanted.

There's nothing wrong with rhetorical questions.

Do you have any examples of my shabby kindergarten manipulation of a non-sequitur?

Not particularly, no. In a tiny sample of about four topics, two of which have been locked,

Not a very representative sample then.

all of them have illustrated your particular brand of dishonesty.

I hope that you can provide proof of my dishonesty.

 

[JonoPashley]

Stuff

Quit ****ting up the forum with your pointless arguments.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Quit ******** up the forum with your pointless arguments.

Quit ******** up the forum with gratuitous attacks on me and I won't have to defend myself, will I?

 

[Goldberg]

Perhaps you'd like to go back and read the topic that all this is about, and keep an eye out for the word "tw@".

No, not really, because I don't expect that such a survey would do anything to further the debate in hand. Focussing on the number of times you have, or haven't, used a particular word is just fiddling while Rome burns; the big picture is that there are multiple complaints about the manner in which you address other members.

I don't see the relevance of what it would be if I did a thing that I haven't yet done.

Because if it would be insulting, and you don't agree with insulting people, then you can't do what you said you could.

If I murdered someone then I would be a murderer, but I haven't. Similarly, the insult that I haven't issued continues to be an irrelevance. If I were to act in an insulting way, and also observed that someone else acted in an insulting way, then I would, to some or other degree, be a hypocrite.

But please do let me know if you believe that a single hypocritical act by any given person is enough to invalidate every subsequent but otherwise flawlessly reasoned point put forward by that person, because such a rule should surely apply to everyone, and hence could be of the utmost importance.

Either you're capable of examining your own behaviour by comparing it to a reasonable standard of behaviour, or you can't examine it without drawing in examples of other people's behaviour. If the latter is true, then there's limited hope of you noticing the theme of the posts that are persistently telling you that your behaviour is beneath you.

I can see an unbelievable amount of agitation over 2 instances of "you're behaving like a tw@".

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I infer from your words that you don't believe the quantity of agitation. Since the agitation is self-evident, refuting something that's before your own eyes appears not to be a fully rational pattern of thought.

Or were you using the word "unbelievable" in a more jovial and figurative way? If so, please outline the circumstances in which it's acceptable for you to be literally incorrect, so that all those people whom you are so apparently eager to criticise for being equally incorrect have a set of guidelines that they can follow.

And I am extraordinarily disinclined to take any notice of anyone who is so bent out of shape about 2 instances of "you're behaving like a tw@" that they start up, or join in, a topic just to have a go at me.

In that case I observe that your use of the words extraordinary and unbelievable is out of alignment with any contemporary idiomatic usage. You might reason that your usage more closely honours the strict definition, and that it's therefore the more accurate for it, but there comes a time when being in a minority of one does actually mean that you're either wrong, or seriously out of date.

Even setting aside precision of language, since you doubtless won't want to be held to any degree of accuracy when it doesn't suit you, there's no escaping the fact that your repeated engagement in debate with those 'bent out of shape' forum members is the exact opposite of extraordinary disinclination.

I see no virtue in getting embroiled in a tangent to the original point. I explained my view of a mature approach, i.e. being in contrast to your own, and I did it without calling you a t**t or a w*nker. If you really can't take the point without developing a new and orthogonal debate about whether or not me calling your question childish is, in itself, abusive, then I believe that your goal is to obfuscate, not elucidate.

Au contraire - it's neither tangential nor orthogonal. (Which did you mean, BTW - nothing can be both.)

Your poking of mild fun at the geometrical metaphor has not achieved anything, other than to perfectly illustrate yet another attempt to obfuscate.

The point, in case you've forgotten, is that you have called some people tw*ats and w*nkers, and that you've failed to convince anyone apart from yourself that you had an acceptable reason for doing so.

If you decline to provide a reason on the grounds that the person asking you to do so is guilty of a human erring, then I suggest that you just tell all of us that we're tw*ts and w*nkers and instruct us all to go away. You never know how lucky you could be - perhaps the forum would comprise only you, being unadulteratedly correct, all of the time.

You did not call me those things, but you called me childish, so my question stands - is that not an insult?

Is that not a rhetorical question?

I was never in any doubt of that. My point was very different, which was that it's possible to always be correct without making other people feel as though the correctness is being rammed in their face. If it's your goal to make it plain just how correct you are, and belittle people in the process, then perhaps you should be congratulated having honed to a fine art your ability to do just that.

It's never my goal to belittle people.

Despite your claimed lack of intent, it appears that there are plenty of people who believe the opposite to be true.

If your goal, then, when calling someone a tw*t or a w*nker, is not to belittle, then what is it?

On the other hand, some people believe that a intelligence and perception creates a commensurate duty to deliver correctness with humility and understanding.

And some people believe that if in the course of what should have been (and what started out as) a sensible and rational debate, one person asks another for the reasons for his position, then ignores them and asks again, responds with sarcasm, wilfully disregards repeated clarifications of important terms and adopts illogical and inconsistent positions for no reason except to be perverse should not go unchallenged.

It's merely human, and normal, to be illogical and inconsistent. Even educated fleas do it.

If you're not capable of understanding this, then it explains your inability to accept it. If, on the other hand, you are [capable], then the occasional, or even frequent, suffering of fools would not go unappreciated.

There's nothing wrong with rhetorical questions.

Equally, there's nothing wrong with sweeping generalisations.

Do you have any examples of my shabby kindergarten manipulation of a non-sequitur?

I'm going to say no. Not because I have none, but because I would otherwise feel duty-bound to produce a reference, and this would be a huge distraction. For this reason, I retract the accusation, but reserve the right to re-assert it, and substantiate it, should the debate break from its leash and head off in that direction.

Not particularly, no. In a tiny sample of about four topics, two of which have been locked,

Not a very representative sample then.

Indeed, but your quote wasn't very representative of what I wrote.

I haven't claimed to be conducting an objective survey, and my tiny sample is representative enough for my point to be valid, but it was, and continues to be, predictable that your id forces you to sidestep any valid and true point that breaks the hold that your ego has over your reasoning.

all of them have illustrated your particular brand of dishonesty.

I hope that you can provide proof of my dishonesty.

Perhaps you'd like to go back and read the topic that all this is about, and keep an eye out for the proof.

 

[securespark]

It would seem that you have now completely lost the plot, Ban.

You are moaning that you are subject to "gratuitous attacks". Weren't you guilty of doing the same to someone else?

As I have said before, I don't have a problem if you disagree with what another is saying, but there is no need to resort to personal abuse.

You are also very quick to attack others, but it seems you cannot take a dose of your own medicine.

You have also claimed you did not issue any abuse:

I am objecting to the fact that people think it is perfectly OK to resort to name-calling if they don't agree with what another person is posting.

I can accept

"I think you're being pendantic because....",

but not

"you're a tw@"

Ah.

Did I call anybody that?

No doubt you will claim a victory here, but I think

You still think that I find it upsetting to draw attention to people behaving like tw@s.

You'll learn....

qualifies.

Can you put your hand on your heart and confidently say that, of all the words in the dictionary, there were not more suitable ones that you could have employed?

 

[JonoPashley]

Quit ******** up the forum with your pointless arguments.

Quit ******** up the forum with gratuitous attacks on me and I won't have to defend myself, will I?

bugger off back to screwfix troll, stop trying to be the damn victim all the time.