16-02-2011, 09:53 PM
but has been irritated at the direction this site has been taking.
Although I don't intend to join in the big group fights that are going on. Nevertheless, I am not sure that it is obvious you distinction is at all clear as you try to make it in the following paragraph.
I suggest that you include some quotes from previous posts to demonstrate the difference. It appears to me that some of the founders of this forum should end up spending time in the DPF slammer. But who would put them there. Remember, one person's "rhetorical device" is another persons "venomous personal attacks and blatant ad-hominem distraction."
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Although I don't intend to join in the big group fights that are going on. Nevertheless, I am not sure that it is obvious you distinction is at all clear as you try to make it in the following paragraph.
Quote:he 'Insults' infraction is aimed at clearly venomous personal attacks and blatant ad-hominem distraction from substantive issues. It is NOT intended to outlaw rhetorical devices such as the use of sarcasm, anger, mockery, humour and many others - provided they are aimed squarely at a proposition or argument rather than the person making it. Venomous personal attack is usually clear enough, no matter the subtlety of the language constructs employed; identifying it as such involves some judgment, but that is what is being targeted here.
I suggest that you include some quotes from previous posts to demonstrate the difference. It appears to me that some of the founders of this forum should end up spending time in the DPF slammer. But who would put them there. Remember, one person's "rhetorical device" is another persons "venomous personal attacks and blatant ad-hominem distraction."
Anyway, that's my two cents.