He didn’t. The issue with Fenris was that he called Liberal’s posts “lies,” which isn’t allowed in any GD thread. He did not enforce any other rules and there was no special treatment involved.
I didn’t say everybody posting in this thread was a Liberal-hater, and neither did tomndebb. Some people here really hate the guy’s guts. I think that’s a statement of the obvious.
And I have found accord with him in the past even after arguing with him, but I do find objection with two of Marley’s statements.
I’m sorry, but it is not philosophy. It may well be classified as witnessing with a personal philosophical bent, but Philosophy? No. If the classification of philosophy is the reason posters are asked not to ‘hijack’ by arguing with the premises and interpretations involved, then please set your moderator hats at ease and know that in no way are the standards of philosophy represented in those threads, not even down to definitions.
Yes, but when it was ignored in those threads, the posters were warned against hijacking. Even though they were specifically addressing premises postulated by the OP in the thread. How is that hijacking? How is it not enforcing the rules of the OP for him? I am not trying to be sarcastic or play gotcha; I truly cannot understand how challenging a premise outlined by the OP can be considered a ‘hijack.’ If someone says “These are my terms, now are we all agreed?” and someone else says “no, you’re wrong.” and goes on to explain how…THAT is part of Philosophy. A mutual acceptance of common terms prior to debate. One cannot simply dictate those common terms and expect honest debate or a sound premise. Yet that is what appears to be happening in those threads. That is why this thread exists. It appears to be a double standard.
These objections are not aimed at Liberal as a person, but at a particular style of debating which is grounded on a false premise*. I do not know Liberal well enough to have formed any emotional reaction to seeing his name in a thread. That said: that this style if posting is encouraged by the moderators because of perceived dislike of the person presenting that style combined with an intolerance for the same type of misapplied theory by other posters smacks of inequity. I don’t believe it is possible to be ‘fair’ on a message board due to the nature of the board, but I do believe that it is possible to maintain rules that feel equitable. This does not.
I apologize for blathering.
*dictating of definition of terms, not religious.
But…you are responding as though none of us has a valid concern, simply because there may be Liberal-haters here.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Or it gets ignored - and in the shuffle, everyone who is not a squeaky wheel is ignored too.
So the two options are Liberal stalkers who “jump his shit without provocation” or executive officers of the “Liberal fanclub”? Holy “excluded middle”, Batman.
Again, who?
My “grudges”, if deciding that I was tired of Liberal’s game is a “grudge”, began fairly recently. And the only times I’ve posted about it here are A) that clusterfuck of “Liberal slinks back to the SDMB” thread(s) and B) the Aesthetical Jesus IV one (and spinoffs)
I don’t think Seven’s interacted with Liberal much before this.
I won’t presume to speak for Leander, since I don’t interact with him much.
You can keep saying that but I did NOT call Liberal’s posts lies, I said I wished I could call them lies. Which is weaseling around the rules, but it’s exactly the sort of weaseling that’s been permitted all along like the explicitly allowed “You are a member of such-and-such group. ALL people in such-and-such group are liars” workaround that Der Trihs has made a career out of and Tomndebb has allowed.
And again–and I’ll keep repeating this every time it’s brought up incorrectly, the only instruction I got from Tomndebb was that I was to not respond to Liberal on that specific topic. The so-called “hijack” that Liberal continued to make even after I was forbidden from talking about it
Tomndebb and I both made several posts addressing the issue. I don’t agree that it’s a violation of the rules or a blog, but I think it was treated as a valid topic.
You did the same thing with the “where’s your secret list” question. I called nobody a stalker, either, but I think I gave enough examples.
Exactly. And no, “weaseling around the rules” is not given blanket tolerance.
So–again, to be clear, if I said “People who start Aesthetical Jesus” threads are all liars", I would have been fine?
And that still doesn’t address the fact that I was point-blank told to not continue to challenge Liberal on his “hijack” so he could continue to post on his side-topic free and clear without challenge.
“No, “weaseling around the rules” is not given blanket tolerance.”
Then why is it tolerated from others? Again, the inequity that is perceived to exist smacks of favoritism. I know posts get reported as requested, so please do not direct me back to the little yield sign with the exclamation mark. Instead, please address the perception of inequity I raised in post 62.
This is exactly spot on. Let’s go straight to the mod post in question:
The only bit of instruction to Fenris:
And to me:
Note that the “insult” in question was to condemn Lib’s cry of “threadshitting” as dishonest and cowardly.
Tom then continues:
So he is very specifically and with full knowledge of what he’s doing calling direct responses to Lib’s post hijacks.
You’re correct. In fact, before this complaint thread was launched, I had posted to one of the people who has participated since the very beginning, other-wise:
It IS the right time [to challenge me]. I have to honestly say that I am completely flummoxed as to why people seem to think that I want no argument at this time. I DO. I do want argument (or agreement, or challenge, or any comment) about my interpretations. I feel like I’ve said this a hundred times, and yet somehow, I must have muddled it up with my poor writing. But the fact of the matter is that it is EXACTLY my interpretations that I want people to challenge (if they wish).
As I’ve said so many times, the only things I DON"T want challenged are things like whether John is a good source of Jesus’s sayings. Or whether John even actually wrote the book. Or whether the words as used by John-or-Whoever mean the same as the way I mean them. Or the epistemological justification for my beliefs. (Which I actually have now given — to PBear.)
And the reason for not wanting argument about the second set of things is that they are entirely moot. They have no bearing on my interpretations or exegesis of the mere words.
too late. nm.
But it’s clearly given tolerance for some people. How do I achieve the status that, say, Der Trihs does? Is it a “membership” thing? Is it a post-count thing? Is it mod favoritism? Squeeky-wheel syndrome?
And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the only instruction I was given was being point-blank told to not continue to challenge Liberal on his “hijack” so he could continue to post on his side-topic free and clear without challenge.
Incidentally, the law of excluded middle is not about leaving out alternatives between two extremes. The LEM (in first order propositional logic) states simply that the proposition (P or Not P) is always true, and follows deductively from the law of noncontradiction.
Apparently if you were one of the people who DO get special tolerance, you could have said “All people who use the word ‘threadshitting’ are dishonest and cowardly” it woulda been just fine.
Law of the Excluded Middle: principium tertii exclusi, lit.: There is no third option, only P or not P.
I’ll file that away, Fenris, but I don’t think I rise to that level of special. I mean, I didn’t even call him dishonest and cowardly, just his debating tactics, and I still got called for the insult.
Tomndebb quoted you the deal on that one. It’s actually posted as part of the Great Debates rules, so it’s not a secret. The sad truth is, we are not required to pretend to be stupid when people test out their efforts to lawyer around the rules. You’re not the first person to insult someone by saying ‘I wish I could tell you what a liar/jerk/fucker/troll you are.’ It’s pretty common. And you didn’t get so much as a warning for it, either.
I think Tomndebb addressed this, too.
And I’m not complaining about that–I certainly rule-weaseled and I appreciate the lack of warning. But I do want to know why other people can get away with similar rule weaseling on a weekly basis.
Again, you guys can’t possibly be saying that there’s any real difference in meaning between “You’re a believer. All believers lie constantly” and “I wish I could tell you what a liar you are”. The words are different, but the meaning is identical.
I disagree.