Is this the way you would like threads to proceed?
I start a thread to debate a perfectly valid topic.
The very first words of your response:
are an accusation of bad faith argumentation.
There are a number of instances where you seem to think that threads should not be made personal. And yet here you are, using your Magic Mind-reading Powers to determine what my intent is.
Is this the tone you want to set in Great Debates?
Regards,
Shodan
In your op in that thread you did misrepresent the article.
You stated the Saint Paul City Council has banned an Easter display that contains …
This is not what the article stated. Tom (as usual) was correct.
Jim
**Shodan
**
You said the city council did it. The city councul did not do it. I think “misrepresent” lets you off lightly.
Yep. Good call Tom.
The topic may be valid.
Your presentation–your opening statement–was factually false regarding the city council.
You shaped the argument dishonestly and I prefer that such arguments not begin in lies.
THAT is the tone I want to see in Great Debates.
I once got in trouble for putting words in a title in quote marks (in what I thought was an obvious summative fashion), even though the first words of the OP contained clear and unambiguous links to the actual quotation. The board puts a high value on accurate OPs; when yours is inaccurate, the mods’ll come down on you.
That’s different from declaring that you’re always posting disingenuous stuff, which is basically what Tom ixnayed in your links.
Daniel
Tom’s points were accurate, but Shodan’s point that a reasonably high level representative of the city would feel that there is an urgent necessity to scrub public displays of any seemingly partial (specifically Christian) religious references does (IMO) reflect a growing fearful attitude about public displays of religion that resonates beyond the caprice of just one nervous nelly HR director.
Please forgive me if this is an inappropriate request—my main reason for reading mod-complaining threads is to learn the… the… would it be right to call moderator decisions the ‘common law’ of the SDMB? Anyway…
Could someone post a link to the original GD thread that is in question?
Thanks,
Rhythm
I should say, Shodan, that I disagree that your mistake in the OP was deliberate. It looked to me like an honest error.
Daniel
Yet a cursory google of Easter Bunny +City Hall reveals a zillion gagillion instances of civic sponsored Bunny and Easter Egg related activities to weigh against the actions of one over-zealous tool concerning a display put up on the personal initiative of one city employee of low rank.
Well he was asked that in the original thread. Perhaps replying to a question like that would be better than starting a silly pitting.
Maybe **Shodan ** should have even reread his Op to see the mistake he made. Just a thought.
Jim
I have no problem with the topic Shodan presented. You may note that I was mildly critical of the HR director, myself, offering no support for his position.
I simply prefer that threads not begin with false statements–partiucularly when the source is sufficientlt brief to rule out the possibility that a poster made a simple error based on an excessive length of text through which to wade…
As I said in that thread, on rereading the article it looks to me like his reference to City Council may have been reasonably accurate, so the choice Tom gave him–essentially, is he a liar or an ignoramus–isn’t a fair choice.
I don’t know that it’s out of bounds for GD, but then, getting irritated at someone’s debating style also isn’t out of bounds for the Pit.
Daniel
Ah, I concede your point, **Tom ** did not leave the possibility of poor wording leading to the inaccuracy of the Op. We’ll have to wait and hear from **Shodan ** if it was a mistake or if he was acting like Ann Coulter.
My Question came a few seconds after Shodan started this pitting but before I saw it of course.
Jim
I agree with you, Tom, that there an inordinate number of factual errors in the OP. Particularly so, when the linked article is so easily digested. I just want to note, however, that you, too, have a factual error contained in your post.
You said, “The only member of the city council mentioned by the story opposed the action.” There are, in fact, quotations from two members of the Saint Paul city council: councilmember, Dave Thune; and council president, Kathy Lantry. So, it seems to me that is is within the realm of possibility that Shodan’s errors of fact were not intentional. You have stated explicity otherwise, not once, but twice.
FTR, it was the St. Paul human rights director, acting in his official capacity as an employee of the city, who banned the display. I regret the error.
Actually, you were denying that the ban on the Easter display was an example of government action at all.
The question I posed in the OP had to do with governmental action banning Easter displays. And your nitpick (and attack on my motives) made no difference. Whether it was the City Council, or the human rights director acting in his official role as a city employee, is a meaningless nitpick. And yet you felt it necessary to bring it up, and accuse me of bad faith.
I would be interested in a response to UncleBeer’s point. Since the article to which I linked was, as you mention, short and easily digested, your immediate assumption is that any errors must necessarily be due to malice and bad faith. Yet you responded, based on that article, with a post that contained a factual error. Is this conclusive proof that you are motivated by ignorance and mendacity?
With all due respect, Shodan is a tool. His perspective is distorted by his extreme reality tunnel and he leaped to an unfounded interpretation based thereon, which led him to dumping an obnoxious turd in the punchbowl without bothering to confirm or clarify the facts of the situation beforehand. And now he gets to play the martyr because his ridiculous views aren’t getting any respect from the “biased” board. A decemberesque post is a decemberesque post whether or not it was intentional.
Heh–you’re right. I was sure it was their human resources director, not their human rights director. I almost wonder if this is a typo in the article itself–does St Paul really have a human rights director?
Daniel
Sure enough they do. They even have human rights ordinances. I wonder what section of this ordinance the director is relying on in his action?
Daniel
No, it was the Human Rights director. I was all prepared to flame tomndebb over it until I noticed that he specifically said “HR”, which could mean either.
I also note for the record that Cervaise, who accuses me of misrepresentation because of my world view, uses quote marks to falsely accuse me of saying something that I have not said anywhere in this thread or my OP. He is accordingly invited to piss up his own pant leg.
Regards,
Shodan