> Ed Storms deserves a major apology from you. Certainly.
I, Michel Jullian...arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, ... swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that to electrolyze means "to electrically lyse", and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that to electrolyze means "to electrically lyse". Michel, who has nothing against Ed Storms BTW, sorry (seriously this time) if it looked this way. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Beaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:47 AM Subject: [Vo]: MODERATOR: Michel Jullian, cease your attack on Ed Storms > > I've received complaints about your behavior. > > In reading the recent threads, it's clear that several Vortex members have > objected to your behavior, yet you ignored them. Are you new to Vortex-L? > On this forum, dismissing complaints from other users is a major mistake. > > And perhaps you haven't read the rules. Ad hominem attacks are banned > here. > > Vortex-L is a continuing experiment in online community. It has few > rules, lightly enforced. Normally members respond to each other's minor > lapses, and the community is self-correcting. But if problems rise to the > level where an offending member starts ignoring others' multiple > complaints, I will step in. Enforcement usually involves weeks-long > or permanent removal of the offending member to vortexB-L, where there are > no rules at all. > > I see that ad hominem is not the only problem here. > > Let me make my opinion clear. Over the last decade I've entered into > discussion with large number people on Newsgroups and even on Vortex who > see nothing wrong with ad hominem. The common name for such people is > "Trolls" or "Flamers." I've learned by repeated experience that one > typical "troll ploy" involves dishonestly distorting a common word, then > endlessly arguing about it. (Narrow exclusive dictionary definitions of > words having multiple definitions in practice certainly qualify as > dishonest distortion.) > > Your behavior in this thread very much resembles a classic "Troll Ploy." > > I'm well aware that Electrolysis has a definition broader than the > non-tech dictionary definition "to electrically lyse." Ed Storms and > others know the same. Most probably the researchers reading his paper's > title are aware of the wider definition. Yet you honestly believe that > Electrolysis has just a single narrow definition? I suspect otherwise. > To me it appears that you're not trying to "help" Ed Storms at all, but > using "help" as a dishonest masquerade while you strive to embarass him in > public. But Ed Storms has no need to be embarassed, since his usage is > not an error. > > A second problem. I note that initially you mentioned that Ed Storms' had > made a serious error ...but then you refused to tell him what the error > was. This is a tactic of dishonest debate I've seen more than once, a > form of Troll grandstanding, though one less common than the longrunning > arguments based on intentional word-distortion. This tactic has a clear > purpose: to focus public attention on the one who employs it. It's > appropriate to a political forum where dishonest manipulative tactics are > the norm. It has no place in a scientific debate. That you used it > sets off my alarm bells. > > A third problem. An honorable person with a legit correction would > consciously attempt to AVOID embarrassment by communicating in a very > brief message, or better yet, via private email. Doing it very noisily in > public, over several days, in a thread BTW where you also used a number of > small put-downs, adds up to a very serious ad-hominem attack. > > Those who objected to your behavior were in the right. > > Ed Storms deserves a major apology from you. > > > > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) > William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Engineer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 > 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
