responding to ad hominem person attacks
Peter William Lount
peter at smalltalk.org
Sun Sep 16 19:11:48 UTC 2007
To the group: Due to the nature of Jason Shoemaker's comments I must
reply putting this on the record. I apologize as I really do want to put
this to rest. Thank you.
----
Hi Jason Shoemaker,
Sigh. I really can't believe that you'd post what you posted good sir.
Unbelievable. You have opened yourself to possible liable action good
sir. Unbelievable. Please stop that forthwith. Thank you.
Please respond to this posting and thread privately per the request of
others in the group. Thank you.
Sigh.
Jason Shoemaker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/07, *Peter William Lount* <peter at smalltalk.org
> <mailto:peter at smalltalk.org>> wrote:
>
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org
> <mailto:peter at smalltalk.org>> writes:
>
> There are also other laws other than copyright to consider. In
> British
> Columbia, where I am located, a party to a conversation may make it
> public if it's in defense of their person as my posting clearly
> was. End
> of story.
>
>
> ...
>
> Also I didn't retaliate with any personal attack. I simply stated the
> facts of what was said and asked the person to stop their attacks,
> which
> seems to have occurred as the subsequent email-posting exchange
> shows.
> Furthermore, out of a desire to have positive conversions subsequently
> follow, I provided suggestions of how to ask appropriate questions
> rather than initiate ad hominem attacks.
>
> I suppose that you support ad hominem attacks upon the person even if
> they are sent privately to attempt to influence, "bully" or "inflame"
> someone's behavior in a negative way with false accusations?
>
> How would you have handled it in a way that would positively
> influence
> the person's initiating the ad hominem person attack?
>
> All the best,
>
> Peter William Lount
> peter at smalltalk.org <mailto:peter at smalltalk.org>
>
>
> How is telling someone in private that they are being trollish, an ad
> hominem?
Telling some one that they are being trollish is an ad hominem personal
attack under all circumstances. It's a dramatic negative statement about
the person, it's intended impact is to stifle discussion and free
speech. It is bullying plain and simply. Often the rest of the group
will then moderate the person's comments down or remove them from the
group. I felt personally attacked in this case. I felt bullied. It was
heightened by the fact that the person and I had a long standing
positive history spanning many years with a good cooperative feeling. To
be called a troll was deeply offensive to me.
>
> How to handle this in a bad way? Let me think.
I submit to you good sir that you are handling this very badly indeed.
As I will show your posting is highly incendiary and likely so on
purpose. I ask you to cease such negative comments in public.
> How about try and make them lose face publicly?
That wasn't my intention. My intention is to stop ad hominem personal
attacks cold before they continue. In my experience people who use ad
hominem personal attacks continue to do so unless it's addressed
immediately with the actual facts of the matter.
If a person who makes ad hominem attacks looses face in public that is a
consequence of their making ad hominem personal attacks. They need to
take responsibility for the fact that they made a personal attack and
deal with any consequences.
I hold no malice or ill will towards the person. I have said my peace,
the point was taken, he adapted, he moved on as indicated by no more
personal attacks in our dialog since, and as far as I'm concerned the
matter is settled. It's some of you who haven't moved on yet. Please
move on. Thank you.
> Expose their private email, and add some 'facts.'
Now your tone suggests that the facts were concocted. My statements of
the facts are entirely accurate.
When attacked you are permitted to reveal relevant private conversations
that you are a party too. That is the law.
Yes, I will expose people attacking me. I will expose when I'm bullied.
It's known as self defense. Spreading the word about it helps the
attacks to stop.
> Tell them they have to follow some of the laws of your home country.
Now you are distorting the situation good sir. If fact I assert that it
is very possible that you are deliberately distorting the facts of this
in an attempt to harm my reputation. I ask you to cease such nonsense.
I never said I that the law compelled me somehow to reveal what
happened. That's pure nonsense and you know it. I simply stated that
there are laws (in many countries) that allow one to defend oneself by
disclosing relevant private communications when one is a party to the
conversation.
So it's important to be careful who you personally attack for your
private communications may become public. It's also important to not
liable people in public sir. The best policy is to not attack people.
> Help teach them how to ask 'appropriate questions', so I don't have
> to do this to them again. :))
Yes, he assumed that because the example I'd written had a mistake in it
that I must therefor be a troll rather than simply pointing out the
mistake and asking me to clarify.
He made an insulting personal attack by calling me a troll. That was his
action. He is responsible for the consequences of attacking someone
personally. I'm not going to sit around and take personal attacks. I
will shout about it loud and clear. Personal attacks are unacceptable in
most areas of life. I freely shout it out.
Yes, it's loud. If you don't like that that is too bad. If others don't
like that it is too bad. Don't make personal attacks and you won't have
to deal with the consequences of them.
There is no substantial difference if the attack is private or public.
The person who is attacked is the one who feels the negative
consequences immediately. They are the one who feels suppressed! The
attacked is the one who is being bullied by the attacker. It is a very
unpleasant experience good sir. I will not stand it by being quiet. I
will speak up and attempt to stop the bullying in an appropriate
professional manner within the law and without making an ad hominem
attack upon their person in return. I never called him any names or said
anything about his person except for the facts of what he said to me.
That is being professional about the matter.
> I create new code of conduct for the group.
It's the code of conduct that society permits in many countries so it's
not a new code of conduct at all.
The most common situation it's seen in is in journalism when the
journalist reveals private communications or interviews where the
journalist was a party to the conversation or communication.
It's also used in cases of liable to defend oneself against people who
are attempting to defame a person.
It also happens when people are mugged in a back alley and then tell
others what happened to them, what was said, etc...
Besides, you are also assuming that he intended the communication to be
private which may or may not be the case. It wasn't marked so. It had
the same exact subject heading as the other messages. Often people hit
"reply" rather than "reply to all". People where doing that throughout
the particular thread in question - multiple times. That is a fact. If
he had really wanted it to be private he could easily have marked it so
in the subject and in the body of the message itself to clearly show his
intention.
However, in our society one doesn't have an expectation of privacy when
one makes ad hominem personal attacks upon someone even in private. Sorry.
> Don't talk about X.
***** Others have asked that this off topic discussion be taken
elsewhere, I'm simply attempting to respect those voices. *****
However, I will discuss this with as many of you as there are since it
is unacceptable to have ad hominem personal attacks in a technical
discussion. I'd prefer to put this to rest though. Please no more public
emails. Send them privately thank you.
I will also defend myself from statements that are untrue, liableous or
malicious. As I am compelled to do with your posting Jason Shoemaker.
In fact calling someone a troll is telling them that you don't want to
hear about X. That X is heretical and can't be talked about. That the
particular viewpoint about X is not allowed. Being called a troll is
insulting as well. It is often intended as an insult too. That is in
part why calling someone a troll is an ad hominem personal attack.
Saying that you were personally attacked by someone is in no way an
attempt to suppress anything except the personal attacks. It's that simple.
Calling someone a troll is simply unwise. Don't do it.
> So nobody feels suppressed.
How did you feel suppressed good sir? Are you not saying anything
relevant to the topic of this group, Squeak and Smalltalk, as a result?
I doubt you are suppressed in any way what so ever as is evident from
your posting.
Don't make ad hominem personal attacks, false statements, malicious
statements or liableous statements and you won't suffer the consequences
of your actions in that regard.
It isn't my intention to suppress anyone. My intention is to respond
appropriately and sternly with full resolve to all ad hominem personal
attacks with (1) the facts, (2) a request to have the person stop the
personal attacks and, (3) to offer alternatives for them to show that
there are ways to move forward without personal attacks. That is being
professional. That is a high standard of conduct that respects all
involved, and yes, even the person who made the ad hominem personal
attack in the first place.
The person in question continued onward with the discussion without
further personal attacks so it seems to me that no one was suppressed
good sir. All that was suppressed in that thread were personal ad
hominem attacks from what is evident. That is a good thing. Very good.
Now if we can keep this thread civil we'd be doing fine. Actually if we
can put this to rest we'll be doing better. Please put this to rest.
Thank you.
Since you weren't a party to that conversation how on earth are you
impacted? You're not! Unless you make a practice of attempting to
influence your arguments with ad hominem personal attacks. They yes, I
can see how one would be suppressed or might feel suppressed. That's a
good thing though that improves the quality of the discussion. Isn't it?
If you support the use of ad hominem personal attacks then I can see
that it's a bad thing.
It's simply wise to keep things professional.
> Oh, and of course, I'm defending your free speech rights. I published
> your private email, didn't I?
It's not in defense of free speech that gives one the right to publish a
private email. It's in defense of one's person that gives one the right
to publish relevant private conversations that one is a party to. It's a
crucially important distinction that the law provides in many
jurisdictions around the world. Why? The facts are important when one is
attacked, more important that any privacy or other issues.
> </irony>
>
> Some of the things that jumped out to me.
>
> Libel: Any false or malicious written or printed statement that
> __publicly__ ridicules someone or damages their reputation.
Libel, that is what your posting is bordering on good sir since you sent
it to the wider group publicly written as it was. Clearly your
statements are false and misleading as regards to the facts of what
occurred. Clearly I can easily interpret them as malicious and liable.
Please stop that forthwith.
> So I'm thinking he isn't the one that damaged your reputation.
If people don't like someone standing up to bullies who use ad hominem
personal attacks as a tool in discussions then that's too bad. I am a
strident defender of a high quality of discussion without making ad
hominem personal attacks. I will defend any personal attacks by
informing the group that they occurred, ask the person to stop, and
offer suggestions for alternatives to using ad hominem personal attacks
as that is a professional approach, a socially accepted practice, a
legally sound strategy and it's also respectful to the person who made
the personal attack.
Clearly by now good sir it's clear that you posting is an attempt to
damage my reputation. I would ask you to cease from doing so further.
I clearly understand the meaning of the point you are attempting to make
however you proceed upon false premises as I've outlined above. If your
intent is malicious then it's you are that are open to liable. Conduct
yourself accordingly good sir.
Others in this group have asked that we take this off line. Please
respect their wishes. I am attempting to do so. In the future please
send your emails to me privately. Caution however, all ad hominem
personal attacks against me will be published at my discretion so just
don't go that way. I welcome all respectful conversations. I hope that
everyone is now done with this. If you are not yet done please send
private emails, thank you.
All the best,
Peter William Lount
cc. Legal Council.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|