Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[Robert_S]

You don't know enough to teach your dog to eat dog food out of a bowl.

Jolly good. Your personal insult gives me free reign to return it.

No it doesn't. Your post is now reported for personal attack along with CES's post for going against the Play Nice rule, although the decision might come down that it's a personal attack.

Escalation and tit-for-tat do not seem to be winning strategies on this forum as far as I can tell.

[rachelbean]

I threatened him with a defamation action, and I meant it.

He did not just defame Pappa, but all members of this forum. I am easily identifiable, as I use my real name, and have spoken about where I'm from, and so on.

PZ is sadly lacking in understanding the legal interplay between defamation, free speech, and the right to privacy. Hardly surprising, given the sycophantic cacophany over which he squats.

How did you get from the previous conversation to PZ Myers? Did you reply in the wrong thread?

The thread was started about PZ Meyers comments, maybe Cormac was responding to that rather than the current conversation.

[Bella Fortuna]

He tends to do that.

[Cormac]

You don't know enough to teach your dog to eat dog food out of a bowl.

Jolly good. Your personal insult gives me free reign to return it.

No it doesn't. Your post is now reported for personal attack along with CES's post for going against the Play Nice rule, although the decision might come down that it's a personal attack.

Escalation and tit-for-tat do not seem to be winning strategies on this forum as far as I can tell.

Agreed.

I'm not happy with the recent increase in personal attacks at all.

I'd prefer if people would please try to not take things so personally.

I find it very offensive*.










*DYSWIDT? A bit of comic relief.

[Robert_S]

Escalation and tit-for-tat do not seem to be winning strategies on this forum as far as I can tell.

Let me elaborate on that a little. (BTW, I won't be participating in the mod forum discussion of this issue)

Sometimes something can be a mild enough insult that it kinda flies under the radar.
"You don't know enough to teach your dog to eat dog food out of a bowl." is sorta mild and inderect. Likewise is your comparison of CES's cognitive abilities to those of a dog is fairly mild. Often things like that either fly under the radar or are considered too mild for mod attention.

But once someone make a bold, direct and not-very-mild-at-all attack; then the staff can't ignore it. So who get's the attention?

No matter where we draw the line, there will be something just barely on the acceptable side of it. If you escalate from there, you can find yourself just one step over the line. That's a problem on any discussion forum with content rules and why escalation is a bad idea.

[Mousy]

Coito ergo sum, regarding your post here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1324163

Robert has already explained that it can be difficult to decide who to address in an argument that has started with small, indirect personal attacks and is escalating to more aggressive ones. We feel it's right to issue a reminder to both parties and so would like to remind you to play nice and not to make personal comments.


Red Celt, regarding your post here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1324227

As Robert has said, responding to a personal attack with another one serves to escalate the argument. We would like to remind you that personal attacks are inappropriate in any situation, whether you feel you have been insulted or not.

[Robert_S]

No bannings.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No bannings.

How about some shootings?

[Bella Fortuna]

No bannings.

How about some shootings?

I'll get me camera, but I don't think they'll feel good about doing it on film together...

[Robert_S]

No bannings.

How about some shootings?

I'll get me camera, but I don't think they'll feel good about doing it on film together...

Ain't you gone digital yet?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No bannings.

How about some shootings?

I'll get me camera, but I don't think they'll feel good about doing it on film together...

If we shoot at the same time you can record the surprised expressions.

[Red Celt]

No it doesn't. Your post is now reported for personal attack along with CES's post for going against the Play Nice rule, although the decision might come down that it's a personal attack.

Escalation and tit-for-tat do not seem to be winning strategies on this forum as far as I can tell.

Oh, now. It isn't tit-for-tat. It's karma. And that's just the way I roll, baby...



The forum has rules. I have my own rules. Sometimes they don't coincide. I can live with that... because the majority on here are such lovable little squishy bunnies, that I can put up with the occasional slap on the wrist when I'm karmically dealing with those who aren't.

[hadespussercats]

Karma?

Doesn't sound like you're envisioning something that plays out over multiple lifetimes.

[Red Celt]

Karma?

Doesn't sound like you're envisioning something that plays out over multiple lifetimes.

That isn't what I meant by karma. Given who we are, it's fairly safe to say that this is a secular karma: people are treated as they treat others.

[hadespussercats]

Karma?

Doesn't sound like you're envisioning something that plays out over multiple lifetimes.

That isn't what I meant by karma. Given who we are, it's fairly safe to say that this is a secular karma: people are treated as they treat others.

I'm not a fan of eye for an eye, generally.