SHADES-LIZ-JG

[_Sam Harris]

Nobody really cares about spelling errors in an issue that has been as inflated as this one. If the point could be reached and the grammar was all whacked, I think all parties involved would be happy.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

Here is an example of what I meant when I mentioned in a previous post to you how splitting off posts becomes an impossible task because "questionable" comments are embedded in topical posts.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=136635#136635

That will send you to a post made by JAK where he states that Kevin isn't truthful and then makes fully topical comments. In Kevin's reply that immediately follows, you will see Kevin address the "truthful" remark and go on to address at least a small portion of the more topical content of JAK's post.

Kevin could receive the "truthful" comment as an accusation of lying or ad hom. Kevin, in turn, accuses JAK of lying outright. If you read through there, you can see it's almost like a game of leap frog. JAK writes the "truthful" comment, Kevin responds to it, and in another post, Kevin begins to respond fully to the topical portion of JAK's post.

What would you do with those posts, marg? Would you split them off? Edit from within?

Well I took a look and address it in the Celestial forum because it did have to do with that thread http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/search.php?search_author=marg

Essentially kevin was into gamesmenship, it wasn't JAK. Kevin had consistently implied quite anumber of time he was referring to "all historians" and he believe all historian accept Jesus's existence and that was his argument for Jesus' existence.

He focused on the word "all" not me. I was not incorrect to take that as the implication. But it wasn't my main point anyhow.

This was just another example of Kevin's gamemenship to wear others down and shift the focus off issues. JAK was correct to bring it up. It showed 2 things, how easily words or argued over, miscontrued, and that Kevin was not being truthful. He really wasn't. Just because someone leaves out the word "all" does not mean they aren't implying it.

I think you can see there that splitting is no easy proposition when one wants to maintain the integrity of the discussion. Splitting off JAK's post where he makes the "truthful" comment would result in a chain reaction where the integrity of the actual discussion is cannibalized.

Jaks' comment was not fallacious! Post after post after post of Kevin's was laced with fallacious ad homs. Not all ad homs are fallacious though. But if you look at Kevin's post he focusing on attacking the person time after time. He also misrepresents what they've argued. JAK ignores him when he does that because it is too time consuming to counter it and besides Kevin is disingenous and so there is little reason to engage him.

When one is into the a thread it is much easier to see gamesmenship. I don't fault liz for not seeing what was going on.

So far as I know, with the exception of private information, editing from within isn't an option on this board and I am completely against that to start with. If you examine the thread, you will see repeated instances of back and forth such as that where splitting just isn't feasible.

No I do not see that Jersey Girl, I see the fallacious gamesmenship by Kevin not by JAK. You got sucked into it though. You focused on the word "all" which is what Kevin wanted others to focus on. Yet time after time the implication he made, included "all". And by the way, that was his argument so why the denial. He admitted he doesn't think there are any historians who do not accept Jesus' existence. You fell for his game J.G.

That's a case where I'd consider (had I not been a participant) moving the thread to a lower forum since it contains topical information however, it's still building the "Terrestrial feel" that Liz mentioned.

Isn't it interesting that the person who is writing ad hom post ..one after another, I don't think I read any to JAK that weren't ...wants to move it to terrestial?

Why because JAK said he wasn't truthful? One post by JAK..and yet every post of his is an attack on JAK.

I don't know what you do with someone like Kevin. I think if it were me, I'd move his posts each time he had any ad hom ones. Because that would make him more careful. And they could be preserved in a separate thread. I don't like mod interferance but I think when a person is consistent, it is the only way to stop them.

I know there are lots of word/spelling errors in this thread, it's late and I rushed through. will correct them tomorrow.

marg,

The post of mine that you are responding to has nothing to do with guilt, innocence or placing blame. Here is the first line of my post:

Here is an example of what I meant when I mentioned in a previous post to you how splitting off posts becomes an impossible task because "questionable" comments are embedded in topical posts.

That's all it was intended to be. It isn't a demonstration of where the breaking point was in the thread. It isn't an attempt to assign blame to anyone. It is just exactly what I stated:

"an example of what I meant when I mentioned in a previous post to you how splitting off posts becomes an impossible task because "questionable" comments are embedded in topical posts."

[_marg]

That's all it was intended to be. It isn't a demonstration of where the breaking point was in the thread. It isn't an attempt to assign blame to anyone. It is just exactly what I stated:

"an example of what I meant when I mentioned in a previous post to you how splitting off posts becomes an impossible task because "questionable" comments are embedded in topical posts."

Well splitting isn't the answer. The answer in my opinion is moving Kevin's posts which contain fall. ad homs. to an off topic areas. Kevin's posting with fall. ad homs. in that thread is pervasive, it is post after post. Having reviewed the thread with a critical eye I was able to determine fault.

As I said virtually every post of Kevin's is ad hominal. If you read them he's making personal attacks in virtually every one of them.

I got so used to it at the time, I wasn't even noticing. And my experience in the Celestial previously is that nothing is done about those anyhow. But moving an entire thread because one person is arguing with excessive fall. ad homs. defeats the purpose of it being heavily moderated in the first place. I pretty much ignored the fall. ad homs by Kevin, I would notice faulty reasoning such as his counter argument to JAK over Alexander and arguing things JAK hadn't said with regards to that, but faulty reasoning happens all the time, and isn't necessarily done to harass or disingenuously. But the problem is because Kevin is so blatantly disingenuous which is indicated by his excessive fall. ad hom. posts it's likely he is arguing with faulty reasoning just to harass and so it is not worth the time to respond and counter him. Trust me JAK could have countered Kevin's response to JAK re Alexander I could see the fallacious reasoning, but I could also see it wasn't worth doing so, given the way Kevin argues. He twists and misrepresents what was argued in the first place.

Where JAK mentioned that Kevin wasn't being truthful, that wasn't necessarily fallacious ad hom. It could have been. But JAK gave his reasoning. And after reviewing it I see JAK was correct. The implicaton time after time given by Kevin was that all historian accept Jesus, hence Jesus existed. It wasn't all that important whether kevin had said "virtually all" or just "all". The point of Kevin's argument was that Jesus existed because all credible historians say so. I brought up the text book I have written by Spodek, not because if I could find one and that would disprove Kevin's claim to "all historians" but because Spodek happened to be the text book in my house, it was the one used at a college course, he's an historian so I thought he was typical of historians generally. Kevin shifted the focus onto "all". And denied he said that, as if I was completely misrepresenting the intent of his argument. Quite frankly JAK was correct he wasn't being truthful. Even Kevin admits he believes all historians accept Jesus and that no one can find any credible historians who thinks otherwise.

Until my review of the thread I really didn't appreciate the extent of Kevin's fall. ad homs. It is rampant, post after post. He goes after the person in this case JAK in just about every single post. For the Celestial if that is going to be heavily moderated to control ad homs, it is not acceptable.

And the answer is in my opinion, since he keeps doing it, is take his posts which include fall. ad homs out of there . Take the whole post, and move to another area, even if it includes points on topic. Eventually he'll stop if he wants to contribute to the thread.

Moving into the Terrestial played into his hands. He's already caught on that it's okay for fall. ad homs. in the terrestial. Do you think he really was upset that JAK said he wasn't truthful? I don't. I think he wanted it moved so he could argue how he likes to argue and that is fallaciously without interference.

So after reviewing that thread I do think Kevin is completely at fault. I don't think splitting off is the answer, I think complete removal of posts where Kevin is making personal attacks would stop him from continuuing to argue in that manner. He was given 2 notices and that didn't prevent him from continuuing. Keep in mind it is pervasive with him, it is not just a few posts. It is his modus operandi to argue by attacking the person.

[_Jersey Girl]

I am not addressing the entirety of your post, marg.

Well splitting isn't the answer. The answer in my opinion is moving Kevin's posts which contain fall. ad homs. to an off topic areas. Kevin's posting with fall. ad homs. in that thread is pervasive, it is post after post. Having reviewed the thread with a critical eye I was able to determine fault.

That splitting isn't the answer is exactly what I attempted to demonstrate to you.

[_marg]

I am not addressing the entirety of your post, marg.

Well splitting isn't the answer. The answer in my opinion is moving Kevin's posts which contain fall. ad homs. to an off topic areas. Kevin's posting with fall. ad homs. in that thread is pervasive, it is post after post. Having reviewed the thread with a critical eye I was able to determine fault.

That splitting isn't the answer is exactly what I attempted to demonstrate to you.

Gotch ya, thanks for pointing that out. It certainly is difficult to moderate any section that says it is highly moderated. I think the focus should be on pervasive violations. But I appreciate if one isn't involved in a thread as was the case with Liz, it is difficult to see what is going on.

[_Jersey Girl]

I am not addressing the entirety of your post, marg.

Well splitting isn't the answer. The answer in my opinion is moving Kevin's posts which contain fall. ad homs. to an off topic areas. Kevin's posting with fall. ad homs. in that thread is pervasive, it is post after post. Having reviewed the thread with a critical eye I was able to determine fault.

That splitting isn't the answer is exactly what I attempted to demonstrate to you.

Gotch ya, thanks for pointing that out. It certainly is difficult to moderate any section that says it is highly moderated. I think the focus should be on pervasive violations. But I appreciate if one isn't involved in a thread as was the case with Liz, it is difficult to see what is going on.

Lady,

That moderating a thread is difficult, was my essential message to you from the dart-marg-JAK post up until today. I know the thread like a map of my hometown. I could split the thread if I have public permission from Shades and only if he gives it, because of my self imposed policy of not taking action on a thread I'm involved in. Keep in mind that Shades does not require that of me, I require that of myself. I am willing to offer a one time split on the thread and should I do so, I want no guff from anyone involved.

Let me know if that's what you'd like to see happen and I'll make it happen. I am still involved in the thread and as I stated to you privately, my interest in the thread wasn't so much the topic but seeing that a civilized topical thread take place there. My one and only goal in the thread and residual comments I've made regarding the thread has been with that thought in mind.

So, the question to you is this: split or not?

Should you choose split, my next post here will be a public request to Shades for permission to do so.

[_marg]

That moderating a thread is difficult, was my essential message to you from the dart-marg-JAK post up until today. I know the thread like a map of my hometown. I could split the thread if I have public permission from Shades and only if he gives it, because of my self imposed policy of not taking action on a thread I'm involved in. Keep in mind that Shades does not require that of me, I require that of myself. I am willing to offer a one time split on the thread and should I do so, I want no guff from anyone involved.

I disagree I don't think it should be split.

Let me know if that's what you'd like to see happen and I'll make it happen. I am still involved in the thread and as I stated to you privately, my interest in the thread wasn't so much the topic but seeing that a civilized topical thread take place there. My one and only goal in the thread and residual comments I've made regarding the thread has been with that thought in mind.

So, the question to you is this: split or not?

Should you choose split, my next post here will be a public request to Shades for permission to do so.

No I don't think it should be split. I think the objective should be to discourage excessive ad hominem posts by particular individuals. As I've point out previously, ad homs aren't really much of a problem, only when they are excessive. And I acknowledge at times it is difficult to figure out whether or not an ad hom is fallacious.

But if you take a look at Kevin's posts, and at this point I'm not saying to do so, so that you can do something about them, but just for interest sake, about every one of them includes an attack on a person or people. The only way to stop him if he's intend on continuuing to do that his remove his entire posts to another area, in off topic or where ever, until he stops.

I don't want to argue JAK's point or his position. That's up to him to do, but he's not here at least I believe until the end of the month. in my opinion JAK was not arguing fallaciously when he said Kevin was not being truthful. Kevin was sticking to the point he hadn't said the word "all", that he had been falsely accused of this. But if you look at his posts, whether or not he clarified once or twice that he meant "virtually all" , for all intents and purposes that was his argument. According to him if anyone did find a historian who said Jesus didn't exist then they should be ignored, they were nut jobs. So it boiled down to his argument for all intents and purposes being that no historian worth any salt would not accept Jesus' existence. Hence all historians accepts Jesus's existence. Kevin was sort of flip flopping on this.

Anyhow in my opinion the biggist problem with that thread is the ad hom by kevin. It is pervasive. If you want to clean up the thread take out any post of his which contains fallacious ad homs. He'll quickly lose interest dishing them out when that happens.

But splitting the thread and moving them, doesn't help. It's better for it all to be there than to do that.

[_marg]

by the way if you want to discuss whether any post contains ad hominal fallacy including JAK's or mine if you wish I will present my reasoning on it in this forum & thread rather than in the Celestial. I wasn't 100% comfortable putting my recent explanation in that thread re what Kevin had said and implied, but I thought since it was brought up in that thread it fit there. However I don't want to bog that thread down with this.

[_Yoda]

But splitting the thread and moving them, doesn't help. It's better for it all to be there than to do that.

Exactly! OK, is lightning striking, or do we actually agree on something? ;)

My thought at this point, is that the Evidence Thread is a special case. Each thread is reviewed on a case by case basis. Frankly, at this point, unless we get foul language in there, my vote is that it just stays in Celestial untouched.

[_marg]

But splitting the thread and moving them, doesn't help. It's better for it all to be there than to do that.

Exactly! OK, is lightning striking, or do we actually agree on something? ;)

My thought at this point, is that the Evidence Thread is a special case. Each thread is reviewed on a case by case basis. Frankly, at this point, unless we get foul language in there, my vote is that it just stays in Celestial untouched.

If the choice is between

a) moving entire threads and spitting threads due to fallacious ad homs
or
b) leaving them as is,

I'd pick b, leaving them as is. However that is not a heavily moderated forum, at least not for ad homs. And they can be just as offensive even if vulgar language isn't used.

If you want to have a heavily moderated forum, I'd start with warnings of fall. ad homs. But that can be tricky, because for some it can be argued they are justified within the context of the argument and so they aren't fallacious. And in my opinion Jak saying to Kevin that he wasn't truthful was justified. But then that requires an argument in and of itself to explain it to you. However in moderating the thread, one or two ad homs is not much of an issue. It's when it is pervasive and persistent. When that happens, I think moving the entire posts of an offending individual and replace their post with a link to where it was moved. In that way their post is kept intact and it can be reviewed but it is not disruptive to the main thread. This would tend to curtail people using ad homs excessively ( I think).