Ad hominem attacks

[Thomas Wall]

Replies to Amanda, Iggy, and Amy Z are in this post.

Amanda wrote:
Oh, no, am I one of [the bad elves who start
conversations and then stop replying without an
explanation]? I've had some amazing real life
difficulties lately; we had an injury in November and
a sudden resignation in December and the team I work
on is now at half-staff. It just seems to get worse
andworse. I've been working 11-hour days and doing
laundry at 1 a.m.

Tom:
Nah, I wasnt referring to you... the fact that you
even asked illustrates that, especially given Dicey's
reply. The three elves know who they are. On the other
hand, you always get back to me, even if its a little
late. And thats much appreciated, too.


Amanda:
I'm sorry, I really can't resist when a superb writer
makes a slip. It's like catching a LOON in a canon
mistake. Bombs aren't levied. Bombs are lobbed
(thrown). Taxes are levied.

Tom, chuckling:
That editorial instinct kicks right in, eh? You know,
I *knew* there was something wrong with levied when
I used it, but the other word was eluding me entirely.
Thanks for the correction... ;-) 


Amanda:
No [the author of post #277 is] not. That was
Joywitch, she hasn't been on the admin team since
about July 2003.

Tom:
Doh! Apologies to both Joywitch *and* Admin!Joy (the
Help Desk Diva); I got those two confused. As we can
all see, I make mistakes frequently. But I'm not
afraid to own up to them.  ;-)


Iggy wrote:
Like I said, I don't expect the posts to be deleted,
but I expect the posters to be reprimanded as
appropriate. If you delete the posts, then
you'd have to delete all posts that refer to it
directly, not to mention possibly having to delete the
rest of the thread. This would be a logistical
nightmare, not to mention an unreasonable thing to
expect, IMHO. <snip rest of paragraph>

Tom, citing the Feedback homepage, writes:
Personal attacks or insulting comments about
individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated.
Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result
in moderation.
 
Tom, speaking for himself now:
Unfortunately, the rules that have been laid out dont
talk about Howlers and moderation as a *first* step,
although I think that the rules to which youre
referring do exist in a general way for the entire
family of lists, ala the HBfile.

However, on Feedback, Moderation is offered as a
second step, with deletion of post being the first.

As for it being a logistical nightmare, I can
empathize with that, but frankly, someone should have
thought of that before the extensive list of rules for
Feedback was written. Since, however, the rules are
already written, Id advise either adhering to them,
or revising them. Thats just my two cents.


Iggy wrote:
All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit
right along with your complaints about Joywitch's
post, and are included in the now infamous Post #277.
Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well?

Tom:
(In reply to your question, no, I don't think Gwen's
post needs to be deleted. But #277 should be.)

As for whether or not Gwen's post is in line with
#277, no. It's not. I think that Amy Z slipped on this
as well, so we need to clarify ad hominem.

An ad hominem statement is one in which the
prevailing sentiment is primarily an attack on a
persons character rather than a response to the issue
or topic at hand. That's a Tom definition, there, but
Im fairly confident that thats the spirit of ad
hominem. 

Gwens complaints, if you reread them, are about
*topics,* i.e. Whatever the heck the Admin team is
called now, TBAY was defended maniacally, FILKING
stinks, and so forth.

Gwen did not call the defenders of TBAY maniacs. She
said that TBAY was defended maniacally. Gwen did not
say that FILKERS stink but that a great many of
FILKS stink. Perhaps these are contentious
statements, but they're not ad hominems.

Post #277, however, engaged in direct insults against
Gwen *personally.* i.e. ...blather *you* always
spew. I'll save us all the tedium of rehashing each
statement. My point is that post #277, in contrast
with Gwens original post, contains direct assaults on
Gwens *character,* and Gwen *personally.*

There is a big, Big difference here, guys. Just so
were all on the same page.


Relatedly, Amy Z wrote:
One can disagree on what transpired in that first
heated conversation on the Admin list (I was there and
view it quite differently than Gwen does), but to
refer to one's opponents in an argument as maniacal
and almost hysterical is an ad hominem attack.

Tom:
No, Amy, Im sorry, you are incorrect here. 

<Tom puts on his semantics hat.> 

Again, Gwen stated that TBAY was *defended*
maniacally. She did not say that the defenders of TBAY
were maniacs. Perhaps thats nitpicky, but its
tangible. Gwen never directly attacked anyone, and if
there were veiled references, well, at least they were
veiled. Joywitchs post, on the other hand, directly
assaulted Gwen personally.

On that note, you are also incorrect when you suggest
that I was bordering on ad hominem attacks with my
references to Iggys potential for Admin candidacy...
I never suggested that he was brown-nosing. I never
talked about *his* intent at all when that passage was
written, nor did I suggest that he wrote that in
*order* to get himself invited. 

What I said was that statements like that would
improve his likelihood of being invited. And whether
the elves agree or not behind closed doors is,
frankly, off the point. "We love the moderators" posts
like that *do* have a tendency to get people invited
to the team.

<Tom takes off his semantics hat, looks at it fondly,
and then tucks it away.>


Amy Z:
I still don't get the connection to Talisman's post,
which, again, was in defense of that much-maligned
class of people, Lawyers.

Tom, puzzled, responds:
Talisman quoted the same rule on the Feedback
homepage that I cited above. Im not sure how
lawyers got involved. I think that was another
thread in this discussion. 

I was never referring to lawyers, thats for sure.
When I chimed in, I was talking about post #277. The
whole lawyer thing must be related to something else.


Amy Z wrote:
I am loath to see any post deleted unless it's really
necessary...

Tom replies:
Well, since I have a proclivity for, er,
packrat-icity as well, not to mention an ardent
respect for history, I would normally concur with you
here. However, if these posts are to remain, Id
suggest a revision of the Feedback rules to account
for this.


Iggy wrote:
Hmmmm... If my information is correct, the Admin who
wrote that postwas Joywitch, and she hasn't been on
the team since they stepped down about 6 or more
months ago. When the post was written, she wasn't an
Admin.

Tom:
Yes, yes, we all read Amandas post and know that.
Again, apologies to both *Joy* and *Joywitch,* as I
got them confused.


-Tom, who has to dash right now, but who will
certainly follow up on this later, what with Iggys
request for information and Diceys interesting
account of what happened behind the scenes.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/