Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All


spikeddem


Jan 26, 2011, 7:43 AM
Post #26 of 173 (5017 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
qwert wrote:
I wonder why i already did know who this was about before even clicking the first link in this thread?

Personally i dont have any problem with him (maybe i'm already plonked?), and i dont think there is any reason to be overly polite to utter idiots, however i would suggest that Jay readjusts his thresholds for "utter idiot" and "overly polite". sometimes his shouting does indeed get rather distracting.

qwert

I think we have indeed been seeing a kinder, gentler jt over the last 2 months or so. Not too long ago he would have been trolling the shit out of this and other recent threads where he is being openly attacked.
killfile.


spikeddem


Jan 27, 2011, 12:32 PM
Post #27 of 173 (4985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [spikeddem] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hmm. Is "STFU" an Ad Hominem? I don't think so. Jay is on a roll.


jt512


Jan 29, 2011, 10:33 PM
Post #28 of 173 (4943 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post


After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay


k.l.k


Jan 30, 2011, 6:32 PM
Post #29 of 173 (4912 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

personally, i think j needs to dial it up a notch.

usnavy is still here, for instance.


caughtinside


Jan 31, 2011, 9:23 AM
Post #30 of 173 (4883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30406

Re: [k.l.k] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
personally, i think j needs to dial it up a notch.

usnavy is still here, for instance.

He and jt are buddies.


TonyB3


Feb 2, 2011, 3:59 PM
Post #31 of 173 (4838 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 32

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845


jt512


Feb 2, 2011, 4:37 PM
Post #32 of 173 (4833 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay


curt


Feb 2, 2011, 9:46 PM
Post #33 of 173 (4800 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18229

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay

Yes, after all you did say "please." Cool

Curt


jt512


Feb 2, 2011, 10:24 PM
Post #34 of 173 (4792 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [curt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
jt512 wrote:

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay

Yes, after all you did say "please." Cool

Curt

That and the fact that I was replying to an ignorant babbling fool.

Jay


ddt


Feb 3, 2011, 4:28 AM
Post #35 of 173 (4769 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442512#2442512


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442041#2442041


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442331#2442331


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441563#2441563


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441597#2441597


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441373#2441373

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2427524#2427524


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2425049#2425049


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2422628#2422628


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2420018#2420018


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2414921#2414921


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1662878#1662878


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2406916#2406916


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2449669;#2449669


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2445171;#2445171

(Sorry for the somewhat belated response. I just returned from some time off.)

I am not going to enter into a public discussion about a specific user, nor will I discuss the merits of the examples given. What I will say is that personal attacks are against the forum rules and will not be tolerated. Bear in mind however that the loose definition of "personal attack" allows for varying degrees of tolerance to be applied depending on the forum, topic and context of the conversation. This is after all an adult internet forum and a certain degree of "thick skin" is expected of users who choose to participate in the conversation. We also expect some amount of "self-moderation" from the community.

Having said that, I would also like to make it clear that repeat and/or habitual offenders stand a chance of losing their posting privileges permanently. This applies not only to offenses in the category of "personal attacks", but also to excessive profanity, rudeness, inflammatory material, disruptive posts, and trolls (i.e. posts with the sole aim of invoking negative responses).

DDT


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 5, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #36 of 173 (4701 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9608

Re: [ddt] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


jt512


Feb 5, 2011, 8:39 AM
Post #37 of 173 (4696 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 5, 2011, 8:42 AM)


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #38 of 173 (4659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

HA! You just got downgraded!


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2011, 4:48 PM
Post #39 of 173 (4648 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given. The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods. It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Feb 5, 2011, 5:19 PM
Post #40 of 173 (4641 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9608

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

HA! You just got downgraded!

Actually, that was NOT intended


jt512


Feb 5, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #41 of 173 (4625 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given.

Thank you for noticing.

In reply to:
The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods.

Yes, as I predict the mod's 5x-vote advantage will be, as well as the now thoroughly discredited system of anonymous voting.

In reply to:
It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.

Indeed it is.

Jay


guangzhou


Feb 5, 2011, 8:13 PM
Post #42 of 173 (4618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [shoo] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
TonyB3 wrote:
macherry wrote:
moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

I am not sure he is generally right. Just because he post often and yells the loudest doesn't mean he's right.


guangzhou


Feb 5, 2011, 8:30 PM
Post #43 of 173 (4610 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [TonyB3] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman


(This post was edited by guangzhou on Feb 5, 2011, 8:34 PM)


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2011, 8:39 PM
Post #44 of 173 (4605 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [climbs4fun] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
jt512 wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

HA! You just got downgraded!

Actually, that was NOT intended

Twas hilarious nonetheless


jt512


Feb 5, 2011, 9:12 PM
Post #45 of 173 (4601 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [guangzhou] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay


Partner philbox
Moderator

Feb 6, 2011, 1:07 AM
Post #46 of 173 (4580 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.


dr_feelgood


Feb 6, 2011, 3:52 AM
Post #47 of 173 (4563 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25796

Re: [philbox] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

philbox wrote:
So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.


ubu


Feb 6, 2011, 5:35 AM
Post #48 of 173 (4550 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1477

Re: [notapplicable] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
climbs4fun wrote:
ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

In reply to:
Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.


A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given. The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods. It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.

+1

This whole whine-fest of a thread is retarded.


beetlebug


Feb 6, 2011, 10:06 AM
Post #49 of 173 (4520 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Posts: 16

Re: [jt512] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos. I'll take "Not helping your argument" for $200, Alex.


jt512


Feb 6, 2011, 10:25 AM
Post #50 of 173 (4784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [beetlebug] Why are Ad Hominem Attacks Allowed By Some Users? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

beetlebug wrote:
jt512 wrote:
... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos.

Really? That's odd. The scientists and mathematicians I know are the nicest people I've ever met. Just don't try to bullshit them.

Jay

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook