There is hope for FFL! Nice reply, Doug, and in the spirit of exactly what was intended!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : Steve did not commit an ad hominem All he said was: 1. Doug was a moderator and not responsible for vetting all content (that would be rather difficult because Doug has to go outside and work). This is basically a factual statement. 2. He said Doug was not a therapist, which is also probably a factual statement. Then he expressed an opinion that you had personal issues with anger. This may or may not be true. But his short post was not concerned with any argument you made supporting some position, so it is not an ad hominem. Ad hominem refers to logical argumentation as was discussed in post #416814. With out supporting arguments an opinion is just that, a surmise. Based on your response, I think Steve's surmise has some merit, but that is still an opinion. Nobody knows exactly what a person's inner emotional state is, but people do make judgements based on the perceived outer behaviour of a person, gestures, what they say, how they say or write. Your response to Steve appears to be what is called a diatribe which is defined (courtesy of google.com): A forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. synonyms: tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation, broadside, fulmination, condemnation, censure, criticism. Now that sounds like someone who is angry, that anger directed at Steve in this case. This pretty much looks like a personal attack, whereas Steve, it seemed to me (opinion), was just making a suggestion. If any one has violated the guidelines here in this exchange, you have. I have to admit though, it is very entertaining. People to not require a Ph.D. to determine whether they think someone is angry or unbalanced, though eventually other factors may intervene for that someone, such as law enforcement officers or medical professionals working in the area of mental health. If I were to comment on 'your case', I would have the opinion you have low self esteem, that you blow up some simple comments into a vast conspiracy against your person. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Steve, You are labeling me as someone with stored up anger....."to whatever degree"....and for a large part of my adult life. This is an ad hominem -- in a public forum. How so? Quite simply I have not reported (here at FFL or elsewhere online) my inner emotional states throughout my life with any detail such that a, what?, couch psychiatrist?, can insinuate about my past or present or future emotional states.....let alone present a logical assembly of my posts that would demonstrate to a scientific prognosticator enough information for that "decider" to say, "Oh, yeah, that kind of mind, piss on it, that anger just clouds his judgment and it's just not worth dealing with this fuckwad." Yet this is exactly the intent of your post. You with no credentials are asserting something untrue about me. This is a foul accusation about me. I protest to Doug. Doug? There are not enough facts in evidence that I am someone with stored up anger -- which is merely code for "might blow at any minute." My online history is checkered with every manner of emotionalism, because I'm a writer and give myself permission to be silly, satirical, rude, outrageous, poetic, raw, real, fake OR WHATEVER. To interpret who I am from my online posts would require a PhD jury to authenticate some candidate's findings. AS FUCKING IF. This is an outrageous smear job by any decent minded regard. Aaaaaaaaand, further, the question: "Does that make sense?" is clearly another attempt to present the concept "Edg is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fucking stupid, you have to treat him like child, and always double check what's going on in that little noggin' of his." It is this sort of tactic that everyone here understands for what it is: plain old trolling -- with a smirk that assumes there's denial ability to shield all protests. "What? I never meant that. Why how dare you accuse me of having such a low intent." -- like that. Like fucking that. That's the tactic -- to me, it's Gestapol shit. Now, in the past, I would enter into a delightful tirade of withering statements about you, personally, that would leave stains on your soul, but DOUG IS WATCHING, so I won't. But you have violated the intent and spirit of the guidelines -- IN MY OPINION, and I call for Doug to arbitrate this issue and give us the benefit of his wisdom -- here in the public forum where the "act" occurred. Let's see if you have, indeed, befouled our pristine and new intent to be civil here, or if I'm mistaken and, truly, everyone thinks I'm way over the top in my interpretation of your below text. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : He's a moderator Edg, not responsible for vetting all the content that passes through here in terms of its future efficacy. Or present efficacy for that matter. Nor is he a therapist to help you process whatever anger you have stored up from what appears to be a large part of your adult life participating in this movement. Does that make sense?