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