Posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2006, at 14:35:20
In reply to Re: just what it is that constitutes incivility, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2006, at 12:26:57
> > > > she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
> > >
> > > > her uncivil comments
> > >
> > > Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
> >
> > A number of intelligent and experienced posters have asked you to clarify just what it is that constituted the incivility in *my* use of language that *you* use all the time.
> >
> > all of the time, virtually, you fail in your duty to guide us.
>
> What I considered uncivil was that she could have felt accused. Of being accusatory and of being uncivil.
>
> Guidance is always available. For example, in this case, I think one alternative way of expressing yourself could have been:
>
> > > While I was blocked, she posted something, and I felt accused of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again.You are begging the question. Petitio principii.
> She posted something else, I felt accused again, and I questioned her ethics, posting that while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.
And it took me how long, exactly, to get you to discuss this at all?
Moreover, it again evades the discussion of just what constitutes civility, or its absence. It presumes that I agree with your determination of that entity, which is called petitio principii. It is a logical fallacy to restate the same assumption as an explanation for the assumption being questioned. It doesn't clarify anything, yet. I spoke civilly, sir. A negative connotation is not inherently uncivil, or is that your premise? Please state your premises clearly, sir, as they differ from those meanings more commonly held.
>
> > Do you not understand the meaning of the word politic? It is the taking of sides, sir, amongst other older meanings. Arguments pro *and* con.
> >
> > Political debate involves two things. Advancing your own position, while weakening that of the others. Metaphorical teeter-totters of argument. Let us consider civility as teeter, and incivility as totter. You are saying we've lost half our field of debate, and must make do with only teeters.
>
> That's one way to look at it. Think of it as "totter control".The issue is not totter control, sir. It is in the placement of the boundary. It is indistinct, in the eyes of Babblers. If only we had your erudition and insight, we would understand on first pass. Where precisely is the boundary, sir?
> > I post something with a pointed message. Provocative of further discourse, I would like to imagine it to be. And, upon reading my words, you ponder a moment, and you discover a non-zero probability that I might have had an uncivil meaning in mind. You then substitute the obvious meaning I intended with your own imagined meaning, and subsequently block me for that. You're not blocking what I said. You're blocking what you imagined. That is how it feels to me, that I have been blocked because you imagined a slight to another that was not intended. The only thing I learn from such blocks is that you have a sucky imagination.
>
> The issue isn't the meaning you have in mind, it's how other people could be affected by your post."Could be". Precisely. Again, your restate your premise as if that itself is explicatory. The operator "could" does not give you license with other people's words. You have gone far, far, beyond the balance of probabilities.
You quite ignored clear evidence that one particular post was hurtful both to its poster and to its target. You reversed the decision of a deputy. I don't see you respecting "could be affected", in any way, shape, or form. I see imperial prerogative. You aren't the Wizard of Oz.
>Have you learned that when messages are more pointed, my imagination is more sucky?
No. It feels random. It feels capricious and arbitrary. It feels Bobbish. I don't mind being honestly blocked. The only time I felt I deserved it, you reversed your decision. I'm not arguing out of perverseness, sir. I argue with you because I cannot fathom your decisions. I argue because you are wrong. On those occasions where others have stood by me, they do so not because I am popular, but because they also felt you were wrong.
Have you ever seen me argue an obvious case? No, and you never shall. As I said, and you ignored, civility rewards effort. Civility is exemplified in things like, "Tie goes to the runner." Please be civil, sir, and acknowledge honest effort.
> > How is it that one year after I was blocked for a rule that doesn't exist, the FAQ is still not updated?
>
> Sorry, what rule is that?Precisely. Please be civil, and attend to things in a timely manner. I have asked you to address this no less than six separate times now, over an extended time frame, not always in this public forum.
I speak of the non-harassment version of the DNP rule. The one you imagined was changed, somehow. You blocked me for it. Don't you remember? Don't your write things down, in the FAQ? Please be civil, and ensure that you only enforce rules that are described in your FAQ.
> I know the FAQ needs revising...
And still, it remains unrevised. What is your plan? How do you expect that to be accomplished? What is your target date? Who will do this? Please be civil, and attend to all matters requiring your guidance in a timely manner.
>
> > Bobjectivity. I know it when I see it. And it makes me angry.
>
> It's OK to be angry. Just try to be civil at the same time. Thanks,
>
> BobIf only you would do so, as well, things would not get the way they are.
You did not address the example I made of Ed's thoroughly civil message which resulted in a block. Please be civil, and address all questions put to you.
Nor did you address the issue I raised about seeking clarity or rewordings on each example in which you discover ambiguity of meaning, rather than once ever. Please be civil, and answer each question put to you by your humble Babblers. Or show some true leadership, and delegate.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/639650.html