Maybe this time it will go thru - probably get summarily ignored this time

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>How is stating that you are not understanding a concept
>correctly a personal attack?

It is not a personal attack by a strict interpretation of the rules, but posts that say (essentially) "you're wrong, you just don't understand at all" are not constructive and serve little purpose other than belligerence. A post along the lines of "I disagree, I think that . . ." is a lot more constructive and will not be taken as an attack.

Thanks for answering - I'm just looking for parameters. So it is acceptable to state that a person essentially has no clue in regard to an issue, topic or interpretation? As I said, I'm not hurt, but my reaction would be as nice as his and then snowball into a messy situation. I was suspended for 2 weeks for a comment about like that one, so I'm looking for guidlines. Either it's appropriate or not.....

Lemme give it a shot with two examples:

Quote

I say old chap, your perception of the events in question is somewhat skewed, don't you think?

That's not a personal attack but it isn't helpful unless followed up by some reasonings as to how those events were misunderstood.

Quote

God, you really don't have a clue about this, do you?

While essentially expressing the same sentiment as the first case but in stronger terms, this one is most definitely a personal attack. Even following it up with an explanation would not mitigate the fact that it is a personal attack.

Note that both of the above statements can be reasonably seen as ad hominem (defined by M/W as marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made). They just differ in terms of degree. Which, among other things, is why it's so difficult to provide a precise definition of what is and is not a personal attack.

And without a precise definition, we're basically left with an "I know one when I see one" caculation.

Wayne

And without a precise definition, we're basically left with an "I know one when I see one" caculation.

WHich is the US Sup Ct's language in regard to pornography; are you a law student?

Basically, what mnealtx wrote is a personal attack since the word, "your" was in there. I guess if he would have written, 'people with the understanding of this matter like you have presented have a flawed understanding....' then it still would have been a veiled attack of a light degree.

Point is, I was and Kallend was suspended for similar comments..... membership has its priviledges.

[MC208B 0]

hey Ed, you're an airplane mechanic? Me too. But I'd think you were a pilot from the whiny nature of your posts. And that is no personal attack either

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

hey Ed, you're an airplane mechanic? Me too. But I'd think you were a pilot from the whiny nature of your posts. And that is no personal attack either

I am (more SM than A&P, although AP, IA, FCC, PP), and you must be an A&P based upon your lack of understanding and kneejerk reactions without investigation.... just kidding ole chum, ahh, isn't all this joking just fun?

You probably came into this late in the game, but certain people are suspened/banned for nothing, while others are almost invited to be as naty as they want to bait others into making the comments certain moderators can use as fodder to ban/suspend.

[mnealtx 0]

Ah, ok... I had forgotten that he wasn't involved in the other thread about the First Amendment.

EBS, my apologies for not being more clear. Now, to clarify my earlier post -

Quote

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law and does not establish a particular religion as a "religion of state". Therefore, the father's claim that the Pledge violates the First Amendment, or the concept of "separation of church and state", is void. Obviously, this is only my opinion, but the fact that his case did not win supports it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

Basically, what mnealtx wrote is a personal attack since the word, "your" was in there.

So you don't see any difference between

Quote

I say old chap, your perception of the events in question is somewhat skewed, don't you think?

and

Quote

God, you really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Forget about abstractions and think of how you'd feel if either of those was directed at you.

Wayne

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

God, you really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Wouldn't that only be a personal attack if given in reply to one of God's posts?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

God, you really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Wouldn't that only be a personal attack if given in reply to one of God's posts?

Or if replying to someone who's confused themself with God.

Wayne

[MC208B 0]

Hi Ed. Yep, I'm just a country A&P mechanic in Maui.

I am aware of the clique here, very

I am also aware of the "certain moderators" here. That's why I'm so careful about what I say.

Again, these guys (moderators) aren't all that bad. I got kicked off flightinfo.com permanently and didn't even break ONE of their TOS rules. Just posed the question "wonder if his last words were something like Oh God! about a fellow that lost control of his airplane and cracked up. The dude was always dissing christians in his posts. Apparently, he was larger than life at that site.

Oh well, I try not to piss off the moderators or anyone else here except maybe Kallend and PhillyKev

[PhreeZone 20]

>Kallend and PhillyKev

Nice... take a shot at 2 people that have no way of replying back

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[MC208B 0]

It's a joke son.....lighten up

BTW, are they booted? If so, I wasn't aware.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law and does not establish a particular religion as a "religion of state". Therefore, the father's claim that the Pledge violates the First Amendment, or the concept of "separation of church and state", is void. Obviously, this is only my opinion, but the fact that his case did not win supports it.

Obviously, this is only my opinion, but the fact that his case did not win supports it.

Actually, his case did win when reviewed on it's merits by the lower court. It was then kicked up to the supreme court and dismissed on a technicality that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[PhreeZone 20]

Kallend, yes (for how long I'm not sure). Read here For PK's story

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,116]

>Either it's appropriate or not.....

There are no hard and fast rules. If there were, people would instantly find a loophole and use it to attack other people. In general, attacking other people's ideas (that's a foolish idea) is allowed but attacking people (you are a fool) is not.

If you are considering posting something, consider if you would be offended if someone posted the same thing about you. If you would be offended, it's probably a good idea not to post it.