How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_marg]

Ok Jersey Girl,

I can see where she'd be looking for reasons to attack. I'm glad you cleared it up from your perspective. I certainly don't think even if you had complained in a pm, that you were looking for her to step in and attack. But I can see how she might use that as an excuse or even think maybe it is something you would like to happen. I can see that talking in a moderator forum and complaining about people, might fuel the emotions to attack, even if it isn't intended. I think some people step into threads, to purposefully harass not to discuss an issue, because they are motivated to protect or come to the defence of another. They feel they are doing a good thing for that person. In essence I believe that was Keene's reason for stepping into the thread, and I believe Bond's as well.

I appreciate your explanation. I'm going to keep this short for now, hope you don't mind.

[_marg]

FYI: You won't find the blog entry that I referred to here because she deleted it. I saw that and also the remarks on Kevin's boards probably not long after they were posted. Were either series of remarks posted publicly on the main board here, I would have probably chosen to address them.

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't read her blog.

[_Jersey Girl]

with regard to to moving threads.

Neither you nor I are accustomed to seeing entire threads moved. We both see the possiblity for misuse and manipulation of board policies to suit one's purpose should that purpose be for attack. Not long ago in the Terrestrial, beastie employed a strategy to get the use of "retard" as an insult moved to the Terrestrial. I chose to move the thread because I saw that she was prepared to persist in posting temple content in order to get the thread moved.

It's difficult to know when an entire thread should be moved, split off in portions or specific posts, or remain intact. The problem with this particular thread that you're posting on is that it will result in virtually nothing. No satisfaction, no consensus, no meeting of the minds, as it were.

The only thing that I can see as useful to the board, to mods and to posters, is to allow business to be conducted as usual and take situations on a case by case business. That is to say, get back to the business of posting in discussions and allow moderator's to practice implementing policies.

This board is new and developing. It cannot move forward or develop further when discussions like this about threads that took place well over 2 months ago are allowed to consume mod/posters time and attention and essentially keep people "stuck".

I say it's time to move forward and let the board and policies develop as they will.

[_marg]

marg....the flippin' thread was moved back to the Celestial as per richard's request. The "heavily moderated" statement is largely about language itself.

Right and if you've read my posts in this thread you will appreciate that at one point I was under the impression heavily moderated meant for ad homs. Now I know it's not, it's only for specific words.

What is it that you expect to happen here?

As I said to Liz, I'm responding to Shades opening post. I find it offensive. If he thinks it is a worthwhile sticky instructing other on how to improve the Celestial then fine, but I have something to say about it. And at this point, I'm responding to people's posts. Except Kevin's.

Do you think moderator's are going to step in here and referee the threads the way rpcman used to do?

No rpcman didn't referee except on rare, rare, rare occasions. And no I'm not asking for mods to step in. I appreciate Liz doesn't understand the concept that someone can make a suggestion, and it not be a demand or even an expectation.

If Shades gives me the go ahead, I'll be willing to give that a go in summer when I have time to do so. However, marg...I couldn't do that on the Evidence Thread because I was involved in it. Again, that is my personal standard with regard to moderating threads that I'm on. I feel strongly that I have to hand those off to other moderator's to handle or allow my possible bias guide my actions.

Maybe in the future, don't seek out mods to intervene, I think that contributed to escalating things, making it seem that the thread was worse than it was and I don't think they were following it.

As far as moderating, I don't care if ad homs are allowed. I only asked Shades his policy so that I could determine my involvement. I would likely refrain from posting if I was subjected to harrassment frequently, but it wouldn't bother me to refrain. In addition I only read certain poster's posts, and if good posters I liked left, of course I'd stop reading the board. And frankly at this point, I don't even read that much.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

If you happen to check this thread, I'd like to make a motion that it be de-stickied. I think it's time for that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Replying in bold text this time....

marg....the flippin' thread was moved back to the Celestial as per richard's request. The "heavily moderated" statement is largely about language itself.

Right and if you've read my posts in this thread you will appreciate that at one point I was under the impression heavily moderated meant for ad homs. Now I know it's not, it's only for specific words.

Yes, you were originally concerned about ad homs. You made mention of ad homs directly in the Evidence Thread to Kevin. I asked Shades to take a look at those posts. I did NOT "complain" to Shades as you implied in a previous post. If your impression was that the CF was heavily moderated for ad hom's why is it that you selected Kevin's comments as well as CC's etc, ad hom's against JAK instead of including the ad hom's that JAK has posted in the CF? Do you see how that makes you appear biased in favor of JAK instead of protesting ad hom's?

What is it that you expect to happen here?

As I said to Liz, I'm responding to Shades opening post. I find it offensive. If he thinks it is a worthwhile sticky instructing other on how to improve the Celestial then fine, but I have something to say about it. And at this point, I'm responding to people's posts. Except Kevin's.

Yes, and you've been having something to say about it for two months now. Are you now employing argument ad nauseum as a new strategy? What exactly do you find offensive regarding Shades OP? Did Kevin not level ad hom's? Does JAK not derail off topic? (If you say no to that, I'll post examples.) Do you not engage Kevin regarding his ad hom's? Since when has truth become offensive to you?

Do you think moderator's are going to step in here and referee the threads the way rpcman used to do?

No rpcman didn't referee except on rare, rare, rare occasions. And no I'm not asking for mods to step in. I appreciate Liz doesn't understand the concept that someone can make a suggestion, and it not be a demand or even an expectation.

Oh yes he did step in. When I started on F2 he regularly stepped into threads to get posters back on topic. You're thinking from the onset of flame wars when things got out of hand for days/weeks on end. "Personal attacks are getting out of hand". No, marg...he stepped into threads on a fairly regular basis prior to that until, I'm certain, he got to the flame wars and threw up his hands.

If you're not asking mods to step in, what in the blue blazes are you asking? Are we going to continue to pass notes to eachother like this for another week or are you going to get to a straight forward point without dick dancing about ad hom's, Kevin, agenda's, moving threads, moderation is a joke, mod's should be stepping in, mod's shouldn't be stepping in. Make your point already.

If Shades gives me the go ahead, I'll be willing to give that a go in summer when I have time to do so. However, marg...I couldn't do that on the Evidence Thread because I was involved in it. Again, that is my personal standard with regard to moderating threads that I'm on. I feel strongly that I have to hand those off to other moderator's to handle or allow my possible bias guide my actions.

Maybe in the future, don't seek out mods to intervene, I think that contributed to escalating things, making it seem that the thread was worse than it was and I don't think they were following it.

What? Don't seek out mods to intervene? Are you joking? So let's see....you didn't like that Kevin resorted to ad hom's but you don't want anyone to do anything about them. You thought moderation had to do with ad hom's but you don't want anyone to act on them. Stop it.

As far as moderating, I don't care if ad homs are allowed. I only asked Shades his policy so that I could determine my involvement. I would likely refrain from posting if I was subjected to harrassment frequently, but it wouldn't bother me to refrain. In addition I only read certain poster's posts, and if good posters I liked left, of course I'd stop reading the board. And frankly at this point, I don't even read that much.

Now you don't care if ad hom's are allowed. If you haven't determined your "involvement" in two months of engaging these issues, just when do you expect that to happen?

In earlier posts on this thread, you objected that Shades stated that "we" (you, JAK and then you added GoodK to the list) made "mistakes". Here's the score so far:

JAK: Doesn't give a damn and is posting on other threads.
GoodK: Doesn't give a damn and is posting on other threads.

You: Are still here going around in the same exact circles that you have been for two months now with the assumed purpose of determining your participation. You're not willing to invest time in "research", yet you're quite willing to spin your wheels for two months. With an approach like that, I don't see any future satisfaction on the horizon for you.

Here is the horrible truth. You, JAK and Kevin all made mistakes. Moderators made mistakes. JAK doesn't give a damn enough to engage this further, GoodK doesn't give a damn enough to engage this further...that leaves you and Kevin bantering back and forth and you're starting to look like me and M back in the old days.

Hey, if that's how you want it to go down, far be it from me to stop you!

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades,

If you happen to check this thread, I'd like to make a motion that it be de-stickied. I think it's time for that.

I won't de-sticky it until it's been reply-free for about two weeks (just like I do with every stickied thread).

[_marg]

Replying in bold text this time....

marg....the flippin' thread was moved back to the Celestial as per richard's request. The "heavily moderated" statement is largely about language itself.

Right and if you've read my posts in this thread you will appreciate that at one point I was under the impression heavily moderated meant for ad homs. Now I know it's not, it's only for specific words.

Yes, you were originally concerned about ad homs. You made mention of ad homs directly in the Evidence Thread to Kevin. I asked Shades to take a look at those posts. I did NOT "complain" to Shades as you implied in a previous post. If your impression was that the CF was heavily moderated for ad hom's why is it that you selected Kevin's comments as well as CC's etc, ad hom's against JAK instead of including the ad hom's that JAK has posted in the CF? Do you see how that makes you appear biased in favor of JAK instead of protesting ad hom's?

Oh my gosh, okay to continue...

First of all Jersey Girl, of course a response to someone who issues ad homs is to reply to them that their post was ad hom. that is not an invitation or request for a mod to do anything. When I request I specifically do so and yes I have on one occasion.

I involved myself in the thread Logic in Theology and Science, and in this thread in a previous post I listed a slew of ad homs dished out by CC and Gad to JAK which I took from the first 3 pages. No one, complained to any mod in that thread, Jak pointed out ad hom posts, so did I, but that's how one handles them or else one ignores the person. There really is not much else to do.

Shades later on after the thread died, went into it and took out "stupidity" and "dishonesty" of a post by JAK directed towards Gad, due to Moniker pointing it out. Shades was unaware I presume of the litany of derogatory comments JAk had been previously subjected to which were much more derogatory than what JAK had said.

So I asked him to take a look at the thread, only because he had gone into it to remove some of JAK's words. He wanted details and I replied to not bother. I was just making a point.

From that point on since Shades actually went into that thread to change a few words I was under the impression he wanted to curtail ad homs. It never dawned on me he was only interested in a few select off limit words. I really find it irrational to worry about stupid and idiot but not worry about the litany of words which can also be offensive or phrases which are equally offensive. Why one earth would I assume he's only interested in a few words?

So the next time, when Kevin was in a thread and was dishing out ad homs I requested in the thread directly, for mods to do something and I contacted Shades. He did do something. He moved the thread and I was angry at such a ridiculous way to handle ad homs. He agreed that wasn't the best way to handle them.

The thread Evidence for Jesus was in progress and sure I might have responded to a post of kevin's saying it was ad hominal, or maybe JAK did, that is the way people should respond to anyone using them in lieu of on topic posts. I was not searching or wanting any mod to get involved. You did, you requested Shades to look at the thread, and Shades did say to kevin to stop focusing on individuals and focus on topic, that was at your request, which I agreed with. Theorectically that might work, someone might stop if asked. The thread continued on until it got moved, and once that happened I was told it was due to everyone in the thread. I suspect that was partially your doing.

As far as why I'm not saying anything about JAK's ad homs, you've got to be kidding. They are so few and far between. I've always said it's the excessive ad homs which are the problem. And if JAK ever does say anything negative it's generally after he's been subjected to gameplaying including ad homs. Ad homs are not the only game used. Things like misrepresenting an argument not made and attacking it, or blowing out of proportion something someone says when that wasn't crucial to what they were saying, lacing a post with negative adjectives or adverbs to the person which are not substantiated. There is lots of stuff people use.

What is it that you expect to happen here?

As I said to Liz, I'm responding to Shades opening post. I find it offensive. If he thinks it is a worthwhile sticky instructing other on how to improve the Celestial then fine, but I have something to say about it. And at this point, I'm responding to people's posts. Except Kevin's.

Yes, and you've been having something to say about it for two months now. Are you now employing argument ad nauseum as a new strategy? What exactly do you find offensive regarding Shades OP? Did Kevin not level ad hom's? Does JAK not derail off topic? (If you say no to that, I'll post examples.) Do you not engage Kevin regarding his ad hom's? Since when has truth become offensive to you?

Right, I'm accused of argument ad nauseum and yet you are persisting in discussing this, so it's a lose/ lose if I continue to discuss with you isn't it? Regarding question #2, I answered it already. And I must not use argument ad nauseum. Regarding # 3...What does "Did kevin not level ad homs?" mean? # 4 "Does Jak derail off topic?" No more than anyone else. All arguments tend to go into sub arguments, that's the nature of argumentation. JAK doesn't use excessive ad homs, nor engage in game playing. # 5..."Do I not engage kevin regularly his ad homs?" What does that mean? #6 Truth been offensive to me? what truth are you referring to?

Do you think moderator's are going to step in here and referee the threads the way rpcman used to do?

No rpcman didn't referee except on rare, rare, rare occasions. And no I'm not asking for mods to step in. I appreciate Liz doesn't understand the concept that someone can make a suggestion, and it not be a demand or even an expectation.

Oh yes he did step in. When I started on F2 he regularly stepped into threads to get posters back on topic. You're thinking from the onset of flame wars when things got out of hand for days/weeks on end. "Personal attacks are getting out of hand". No, marg...he stepped into threads on a fairly regular basis prior to that until, I'm certain, he got to the flame wars and threw up his hands.

Well that isn't my memory.

If you're not asking mods to step in, what in the blue blazes are you asking? Are we going to continue to pass notes to eachother like this for another week or are you going to get to a straight forward point without dick dancing about ad hom's, Kevin, agenda's, moving threads, moderation is a joke, mod's should be stepping in, mod's shouldn't be stepping in. Make your point already.[/b]

I have made my point. I'm now responding to your questions. I'm not going to repeat my previous posts.

If Shades gives me the go ahead, I'll be willing to give that a go in summer when I have time to do so. However, marg...I couldn't do that on the Evidence Thread because I was involved in it. Again, that is my personal standard with regard to moderating threads that I'm on. I feel strongly that I have to hand those off to other moderator's to handle or allow my possible bias guide my actions.

Maybe in the future, don't seek out mods to intervene, I think that contributed to escalating things, making it seem that the thread was worse than it was and I don't think they were following it.

What? Don't seek out mods to intervene? Are you joking? So let's see....you didn't like that Kevin resorted to ad hom's but you don't want anyone to do anything about them. You thought moderation had to do with ad hom's but you don't want anyone to act on them. Stop it.

No I don't seek out mods to intervene to moderate for ad homs. Once with Shades. Your intervention didn't help, in fact you were part of the problem. Your reprimand post was wrong. It's okay to be wrong, but when you are and you are a mod attempting to get other mods involved and you are wrong, that creates problems. I appreciate you don't think you were wrong, but you were.

As far as moderating, I don't care if ad homs are allowed. I only asked Shades his policy so that I could determine my involvement. I would likely refrain from posting if I was subjected to harrassment frequently, but it wouldn't bother me to refrain. In addition I only read certain poster's posts, and if good posters I liked left, of course I'd stop reading the board. And frankly at this point, I don't even read that much.

Now you don't care if ad hom's are allowed. If you haven't determined your "involvement" in two months of engaging these issues, just when do you expect that to happen?

Quite simply at this point in time, now that I know Shades doesn't care about ad homs in the Celestial and doing anything about it, I don't care either. Just because I make a suggestion does not mean I care. Yes I cared that he moved a thread, I cared that twice that happened, when at the time I was under the impression the Celestial was heavily moderated for ad homs to curtail excessive use of them. I cared enough in one thread, to ask mods & Shades to do something about it. When it came to the evidence for Jesus thread, I didn't contact any mod to do anything, nor did I request any mod to do anything in the thread. Just because I mention ad homs in a thread does not mean I'm requesting a mod to step in. Now if this particular thread is truly about how to improve the Celestial, yes I think a zero policy would improve it. But I don't care whether one is instigated or not.

In earlier posts on this thread, you objected that Shades stated that "we" (you, JAK and then you added GoodK to the list) made "mistakes". Here's the score so far:

JAK: Doesn't give a damn and is posting on other threads.

Really you know for a fact JAK doesn't or didn't care about Shades opening post? I too have been posting on other threads, is that your gage?

GoodK: Doesn't give a damn and is posting on other threads.

Again the same, are you sure you know for certain what GoodK cares about. But as for " mistakes" Goodk was not singled out in O.P. so why should he care? Don't keep trying to pass off this ad hom thing onto me, in the Evidence of Jesus thread, it was you not me, looking to do something about ad homs.

You: Are still here going around in the same exact circles that you have been for two months now with the assumed purpose of determining your participation. You're not willing to invest time in "research", yet you're quite willing to spin your wheels for two months. With an approach like that, I don't see any future satisfaction on the horizon for you.

You are right, I'm spending time, in particular in this thread. I am responding to people, I am responding to you. I'm not doing any research, or spending much time off this board, thinking about anything on it. Stop trying to engage me and I won't respond.

Here is the horrible truth. You, JAK and Kevin all made mistakes. Moderators made mistakes. JAK doesn't give a damn enough to engage this further, GoodK doesn't give a damn enough to engage this further...that leaves you and Kevin bantering back and forth and you're starting to look like me and M back in the old days.

Hey, if that's how you want it to go down, far be it from me to stop you!

Jersey Girl I'm not bantering with kevin, I'm not even responding to him. I'm responding to you now , but you are right with you it is turning into a banter and that is what happened to you and M in the old days. Are you repeating your behaviors?u . The horrible truth , is you were a key instrumental figure in all this. Your over-exhuberance to have that thread monitored and moderated created an image of it, to mods who were not involved that things were out of control when that wasn't the case.

So now, just so I don't get accused of argument ad nauseum by you, I'll do my best to not respond to your posts in this thread. How's that? Why don't you take the initiative and stop, instead of me having to look like I'm ignoring you if I don't respond.

[_Trevor]

Trevor,

It seems to me that the mistake we are all making is to take this a little too seriously. I am in agreement with those who say that this is first and foremost a form of entertainment. When I am not having fun, I should look for fun elsewhere, and I do!

I used to look at it as entertainment but not lately. I'd be lying if I said I came here with no intention to argue points I believed to be true. I've shifted my interests lately, from Mormonism to theism in general. Sometimes I am afraid of starting a discussion because I don't know when I'll finish. I know I have several past discussions I need to catch up with, including one or two with you I think.

You are certainly entitled to care about it as much as you want. I think of it as entertainment primarily because of its natural limitations. I may learn some new things here, and thought will be provoked, but I don't expect much more than that. I doubt that I will be able to keep up my end of recent exchanges with you, partly because I have decided not to take this so seriously and partly because I really should attend to more important business. I just got a "revise and resubmit" on an article. I have an article on Paul due at the end of the month, and I have two on Nero I need to get done before the end of the summer. My articles for Bob Price will be put off until next summer at least. Arguing with you cannot be a priority. No offense intended.

JAK is said to be an exceptional critical thinker. Only by marg, of course. But JAK's main theme has been religion. How someone claiming to be an expert on religion, can misrepresent a well known religious doctrine like the immaculate conception is simply beyond explanation. He even said the doctrine was "Christianity," apparently clueless that this was a uniquely Catholic in nature. His ignorance is inexcusable because he relied on it to prove a point he thought he was making and when corrected, he refuses to accept it. And to make matters worse, he linked everyone to a website that actually explained the proper doctrine. That alone is proof positive that JAK expects us to put more effort into research than he is willing to do. Surely you can see how this undercuts his argument and his credibility as an "exceptionally excellent critical thinker."

There is, however, a difference between critical thinking skills and plain ignorance. I am not saying the two are not entwined in any way here, but admittedly I do not know JAK or really care what his particular mental skills are. Is he lazy? Could be. Is he shooting from the hip? Quite probably. I really don't care. I was simply stating what I thought to be a fair point--that ignorance and critical thinking aren't necessarily related. It is possible to know few things and yet deal well critically with those things you confront. I am not saying this is the case with JAK.

[_marg]

Shades, there still does appear to be something which needs to be addressed. I see in your post on page 3 you write: "The only one of the above that I would consider ad hominem was the "ranting goobers" comment. The rest were merely observations from Kevin's point of view. As such, the Celestial Forum can accommodate them.

So yes, marg, we're interested in curtailing ad hominem remarks in the Celestial Forum, just like you say we should be. You and the rest of us merely differ in our opinions of just what, exactly, qualifies as ad homimen, as I've tried to explain before. "

I’ve been assuming based on your inaction policy to ad hominems in the Celestial as well as your focus it seems solely to a selection of particular words of your choosing that you are not interested in curtailing ad hominems. Apparently I am wrong! It just keeps flip-flopping, first I think you're not interested, then I think you are, then I think you are not..and now I'm back to yes you are based on your current a last post on this issue.

You say you are interested, but that it's just a matter of we don't agree on what ad hominems are.

Since you disagreed with me on the ad hominems I pointed out from Kevin's post,I will address those as examples. Please don’t misconstrue that my entire focus is on Kevin. My main focus is on discussing what constitutes a fallacious ad hominem, but yes Kevin is an offender willing to continue attacks into the Celestial forum. It seems others seem to stay in the Terrestial knowing that attacks are acceptable there.

I’m going to be using one of my books at home called “Fallacies, Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Han V Hansen and Robert C Pinto. There are 2 chapters involved and both are on the Net. Thanks goodness, it will save me time. I’ll only take out portions, but you will be able to review the entire chapters if you intend to disagree with them or me.

Chap 15...Argumentum ad Hominem as a Violation of a Rule for Critical Discussion

Chap 9..The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies

In a nut shell Shades any personal attack, which is not relevant to the premises of an argument for its conclusion is fallacious ad hominem. It is irrelevant how knowledgable you think the person is who makes the ad hominem, irrelevant that within their post they make some valid points which does address the topic, irrelevant that they say the personal attack is their personal observation. None of that has any bearing on the relevancy of a personal attack to the conclusion.


It is possible that what you might have meant was that Kevin’s remarks I listed were ad hominal, but not fallacious in your opinion. So I’m going to address that.

I'm posting the list from Kevin's post below. What I’d like you to note is that every single one of those attacks addressed nothing/no premises you made in the opening post, didn’t address any counter point I made, didn’t agree with what you said, didn’t disagree, didn’t offer another suggestion related to what you said. Every single one of those attacks I pointed out, was for the purpose of “poisoning the well”. In other words, they are “pre-emptive ad hominems”. They are fallacious, because they are not relevant to any argument put forward, nothing is addressed or quoted of what anyone said, instead they stand on their own and are an attempt to convince others to not listen to or take seriously anything either JAK or I should say in discussion and not just in this discussion but in any discussion in the future.

Individuals who discuss or argue with intellectual honesty and integrity do not resort to these deliberate fallacious tactics in order to prevent or hinder progression of discussions or potential future ones. And if someone doesn’t want to argue with another individual no one forces them to, but to deliberately focus on abusive attacks in lieu of topic, is an attempt to "poison the well". It is not refuting or addressing arguments or points of discussion. I'll post a separate post on "poisoning the well"

Take a look at the ad homs from kevin's post, to see if any are relevant to any premise put forward in this thread to argue to conclusion.

1)First of all, I see marg's eternal need to bicker is still obvious.
2) This back and forth has been boring, but it amazes me how much time and effort marg spends trying to squabble with anyone who will listen, usually in the cause of defending her internet man, JAK.
3)JAK has done enough to make sure he'll never ever speak with credibility on this forum.
4)I can't think of anyone aside from marg, who thinks he is what he says he is.
5)Pointing out a poster's lack of credibility and history as a derailer is not ad hominem. It is an effort to keep order when ranting goobers try to pollute every thread with previously refuted cut and paste jobs.
6) Marg still doesn't know what ad hominem term means. She interprets any criticism as ad hominem.
7) The simple fact is, JAK gets what he asks for because he insists on jumping into threads and derailing with his standard sermon about how religion is dangerous, the Bible is untrustworthy, etc.
8) JAK rarely knows what he is talking about, he relies on google as his authority, he uses any website that suits his purposes (even Muslim ones!), he ignores detailed refutations while offering subterfuge and filibustering by pumping out long-winded "responses" to any observer who makes a single comment. And when he has been shown to know nothing of what he speaks, he disappears for a week, only to return with the same nonsense as if it was never refuted to begin with. It is a never ending cycle with people like these.

9) I will point all of these out as long as JAK continues to spread ignorance and as long as it interests me.

If you get a chance to read the chapters of the book Fallacies linked to above, you will note the authors discuss the traditional way of evaluating ad hominems (which by the way are fallacies of relevance). The term they use is “Standard Treatment” and they also go into another way which they refer to as Pragma-Dialectical. I won't go into Standard Treatment, you can read it for yourself. But essentially it boils down to the attacks not being relevant to the premises put forward. None of Kevin's attack are relevant to any argument you made or I made regarding "mistakes" made in the Celestial you say we made.

They go into an explanation why Standard treatment can be difficult in determining whether an ad hominem is fallacious. Because there can be difficulties in determining which ad hominem is fallacious or not, the authors suggest another way of addressing this.

Chap 15...Argumentum ad Hominem as a Violation of a Rule for Critical Discussion

In our opinion, a satisfactory alternative to the Standard Treatment of the argumentum ad hominem and other so-called fallacies of relevance can only be achieved if the preoccupation with the logical validity of arguments is abandoned. In the pragma-dialectical approach, we have done this by placing the fallacies in the perspective of a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The fallacies of relevance are then analyzed as violations of the rules for critical discussion.[/b].

Chap 9..The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies
gives the rules, but for purposes of this discussion I will only use the rule which applies to fallacious ad hominems, which is :

Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.

As you can see, if a party does violate that rule they are hindering a critical discussion from moving forward to possible resolution. What is a discussion board for, but discussion. What is the Celestial for, but for discussion which is not filled with dishonest gamesmenship to destroy or prevent discussion..right? or wrong?

So did any of the personal attacks made by Kevin in that list I provided contribute to some resolution of a difference of opinion? Kevin’s attack are fallacious under both ways of looking at ad hominems. It is irrelevant that he thinks JAK’s links are not acceptable, irrelevant that he disagrees with the way JAK argues, or whatever else about JAK or myself he dislikes or disagrees with. Everyone in argumentation could resort to the tactical move, of complaining about the other person in some way, but it’s fallacious. It is not relevant to any argument presented.

You’d have to be completely oblivious to the concept of fallacious ad hominems and why they are a hindrance to productive good discourse, to say that Kevin’s personal attacks are not fallacious ad hominems.

So to continue with Chap 11 on ad hominems, I'll quote relevant points.

-The argumentum ad hominem is a violation of the first rule for critical discussion: "Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints."

-The first discussion rule aims at ensuring that any difference of opinion can be expressed without hindrance. It may seem odd, but in order to promote the possibility that differences of opinion can be resolved, the open confrontation between the parties needs to be stimulated. Therefore, in a critical discussion the parties have a principal right to advance any standpoint they wish and to challenge any standpoint they wish.6 This implies that any potential obstacles to expressing standpoints or criticizing standpoints are to be cleared away. As a consequence, neither party is allowed to prevent the other party from entering into an unimpeded confrontation by ruling him out as a serious discussion partner. And this is precisely what is attempted in the argumentum ad hominem.7
All three variants of the argumentum ad hominem are violations of the first rule for critical discussion. In effect, they all amount to a party claiming that the other party has no right to speak.

-The general criterion that applies to all three variants is, of course, whether a party has said something that is calculated to undermine the other party's position as a credible discussion partner.

-In the Standard Treatment, an argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy because the premises of the argument are irrelevant to the conclusion, except in those cases where the premises are relevant to the conclusion -- unless they turn out not to be relevant on further reflection. The criteria applied in this endeavor are usually not only implicit and intuitive, but also highly arbitrary and ad hoc. It looks as if each case must be assessed individually to see whether there are mitigating circumstances that render the personal attack less blameworthy than it appears. Invariably, some examples are presented of personal attacks in which the ad hominem is after all not a fallacy.

-The pragma-dialectical approach offers a systematic solution to the problem of the many exceptions to the rule that an argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. The solution is very simple: there are no exceptions. If the criterion for one of the variants of the argumentum ad hominem is fulfilled, a personal attack is always a violation of the first rule for critical discussion. It is therefore, without any exception, a fallacy.

-In the pragma-dialectical analysis of the argumentum ad hominem, unlike in the Standard Treatment, no reference is made to the relevance of the premises of an argument for its conclusion. The reason for this is that an argumentum ad hominem is not fallacious because it is an argument with irrelevant premises. Viewed within a pragma-dialectical perspective, the relevance of a discussion move depends on its contribution to the resolution of a difference of opinion. In a critical discussion, an argumentum ad hominem is, in fact, always highly relevant, but in a negative sense: it hinders, or sometimes even prevents, the resolution of a difference of opinion.

So Shades if you truly are interested in curtailing ad hominems, it is quite simple, make a zero policy for any personal attack, for any adjective, adverb, phrase which are personal attacks. That's what the authors suggest. Any attack, remove the post to Telestial and let the person repost minus the attacks.

Now if you don’t want to do that, fine. But don’t use the excuse that your idea of ad hominem is different than mine, and that you do want to curtail them but you don’t view attacks as fallacious ad hominem like I do. Kevin’s attacks no matter how you cut it are fallacious.

For more information: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-informal logic