---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
When is someone going to get that I'm fucking having funzies here with my
creativity that often features the anger tone? Geeeze. If I'm vociferous, so
the fuck what?
That's fine.
And it was an ad hominem, because the issue was "Is Edg a quality thinker?" --
unexpressed, yes, but, no, IT WAS EXPRESSED. And to deny this when everyone
here knows that Steve was trying to elbow my ribs is ANOTHER ACT OF AGGRESSION
AGAINST ME.
No, you are just reading that into. I did not read the same message. When you
see a certain irregularity on an animal cracker, do you read some significance
into that?
Hee hee, fucking hee......I loves me da capital letters.
Can I get angry in a nanosecond? OF FUCKING COURSE I CAN. Can't you?
Can I have love flowing instantly? OF FUCKING COURSE I CAN. Can't you?
Have I lived a mostly normal life? OF FUCKING COURSE I DID. Didn't you?
I have been every kind of person -- shitheel, joker, leader, teacher, priest,
lover, devotee, businessman, sportsman, psychologist, father, son, brother,
husband, uncle, cousin, loser, winner. Got me tons of success and tons of
failure. OF COURSE I HAVE HAD EVERY EMOTION A THOUSAND TIMES AND CAN RECALL OR
RE-INSTITUTE THOSE WORKINGS OF MY NERVOUS SYSTEM.
I'm having five thoughts per second -- I can cherry pick any emotion I want and
by attending it, amplifying it into a full flown mental event with tons of
processing. CAN'T YOU? Or rather, DON'T YOU SEE THAT YOU DO THIS TOO?
I don't have that many thoughts per second, if you are referring to different
mental streams, different subjects and emotions in those thoughts
If you haven't been all roles of life and gotten really muddified, shame on you
for wasting a life.
Am I angry right now as I type this? NOOOOOOO! THIS IS FUN ! I'm writing!
I'm putting words together "just so."
If I was angry, you'd not know it until the boom was lowered -- would not want
to give you advanced warning...that I was just now stepping up onto your
porch....with a blunt instrument.....hee hee....see?....I just put an onerous
image into your mind......writers get away with this shit.
And, me?, angry at the pissants here when I have had REAL ENEMIES WHO DID
MASSIVE DAMAGE TO ME IN EVERY WAY? Get real -- no one here is worth my anger.
And by the way, I have never taken revenge on anyone in the real
world.....though I did win three lawsuits.....I mostly mean punching someone in
the nose -- haven't been in a fist fight since I was 13 years old. Not saying
that Willy's nose wouldn't be bloodied if I was stuck in an elevator with him,
but God has protected me by not putting me in said circumstances. Lucky me, eh?
The real issue that I was addressing with satire is that Steve's trolling is
too subtle for the likes of Doug to moderate. Doug can't nail Steve for having
an evil intent, because it would require a massive trial and gathering of facts
-- impossible. THAT WAS MY POINT. Doug is going to fail at moderation, because
everyone would fail at it.
Your writing style, like that of Ravi some years ago seems to give the
impression to others that you are not quite right mentally.
And how much more does it take for Doug to declare someone a misfit troll out
to make someone feel bad?
I would say your previous post might trigger some action, based on a rather
literal reading of Yahoo guidelines.
Does it really have to be such a large deal like someone asserting a lie that
amounts to legal libel before Doug will ban someone?
Doug may be feeling compassion. Perhaps he thinks you should be hospitalised.
It's obvious that there's many here who LOVE TO DIG AT SOMEONE and get them
riled up, and yet, Doug has not addressed anyone's MANY sins since he "took
over here." See? That's proof about how hard it is to pull it off -- Doug's
probably regretting this, heh.
I think, based on what Doug posted recently, is he is trying to get the feel
of what is going on. I am not sure how many of everyone's messages he read
before, but now he has to scrutinise a lot more messages, which I would think
is a thankless chore, and then make some kind of judgement call that seems fair
in relation to the group's dynamics and all the other considerations. It's a
new job for him and he has a number of people here not liking the idea he a
moderator, thinking he will be too strict and narrow minded, and on the other
side there is Rick, who could yank the moderator job away from him if he gets
too enthusiastic about the job, and there are those who do favour moderation
with a firm hand, but those could just go over to The Peak and see what happens.
So after reading the above, we should not take anything you say as being
representative of anything you actually think, or of reality in general?
---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?
