Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the ethics of debate
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 48 (271279)
12-21-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by custard
12-21-2005 8:30 AM


People really should review the sequence before offering an opinion on this sort of thing. Robinrohan made an off-topic remark about my dealings with the ToE, I gave him an off-topic answer about the ToE being a hoax and suggesting he test the ToE in a certain way, and bkelly had a major conniption fit that I dared to have a negative opinion about the ToE, as if that were anything new. It WASN'T "a legitimate question!!!" It was a rude off-topic interruption. Suddenly this minor tit-for-tat with RR has been dragged into bkelly's major outrage and I'm supposed to respond to this whole other context I have absolutely no interest in at the moment. I was not talking to bkelly, he rudely interrupted. He then pointed me to another thread about definitions of the ToE which as far as I could see was completely irrelevant to the point, so I didn't go there, about which he complained even further. Before I knew it I was being upbraided for all manner of crimes against science, nothing new there either really, and bk continues to rudely complain about this. I've simply taken to ignoring him.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 08:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 8:30 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 8:59 AM Faith has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 48 (271285)
12-21-2005 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
12-21-2005 8:43 AM


People really should review the sequence before offering an opinion on this sort of thing.
I was responding to his hypothetical questions, not any particular incident.
It was a rude off-topic interruption.
I think I made an allowance for that in my answer. Obviously if something like you described occurred, that wasn't in context of the discussion, it wouldn't be incumbent on you to reply.
I've simply taken to ignoring him.
I don't blame you if that is your perception of the incident (again I couldn't possibly say since I was only responding to the three questions and not about what happened between you and bkelly). There are a couple of people I ignore as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 12-21-2005 8:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 12-21-2005 9:00 AM custard has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1699 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 48 (271286)
12-21-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by custard
12-21-2005 8:59 AM


Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 8:59 AM custard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024