Here’s the whole dialogue in total, and without any interspersed comments to help people decide for themselves what was meant and said.
I begin by writing to Haus:
Hello Haus.
First, let me say thank-you for interjecting a voice of reason wrt Lurid’s personal thoughts and opinions on my status as a moderator. That said, I’d like to address your concerns expressed when you wrote:
“>0<, you *are*, however, a moderator of this forum. This should not generally affect your behaviour as a poster, but if somebody raises a concern, you probably should try to address it in a reasonably adult way. Your last post was pretty much pure ad hominem, and was also perpetuating threadrot.”
Yes, I am a moderator of the Headshop, and so, yes, writing that post did require a certain restraint, which—believe me—I tried my best to exercise: I didn’t simply tell Lurid to “Fuck Off” and that I’d see him in Hell! You see, this is nothing new to Lurid and myself; put differently, had someone else raised this concern, my response would have likely been different, but it was Lurid who voiced this concern, and it is nothing more than his repeated attempts to antagonize me. Note that Lurid is an adminstrator and has at least as much responsibility to “act in an adult manner” as I do, and perhaps a teensy bit more. That is, notice how Lurid steps in to stir something up that is entirely unrelated to the anything in the thread.
Now, ad hominem means “argument against the man,” which clearly Lurid’s post is. He says:
“Personally, I am rather disturbed that a Headshop moderator sees comprehensibility as an optional extra. There are certain minimal standards of intellectual debate and the ad hoc redefinition of words in order to conform to an agenda is rather short of that.”
Here we see that he is voicing an opinion about me, the man, wrt the role as a moderator. His reasons, “…a Headshop moderator [who] sees comprehensibility as an optional extra,” is merely opinion & not argued or supported by anything other than his assertion. Furthermore, this reason is clearly “putting words in my mouth”: Lurid seems to think that everything I say is in absolute terms, and does not appear able to appreciate that I am an adult, and so, able to exercise discretion and appreciate context. Put differently, Lurid tends to paint me with bold strokes and ignores details. My saying that “I don’t feel the need to be constrained by popular belief nor popular usage and understanding of words” clearly does not entail that I see “comprehensibility as an optional extra”: such a conclusion requires extra assumptions, which Lurid seems unable to recognize or report.
Also, Lurid attacks me, the man, again with the line about “minimum standards of intellectual debate.” This is the default position that Lurid appears to have towards me: he figures that I am incomprehensible and appears to hold to this very rigidly and tightly. I notice that Q and I have been having an “intellectual debate” fine all on our own—staying on topic, giving each other mutual respect, and etc.. Neither him nor myself are complaining about one or the other. Included here is the unsupported accusation that I am defining words “ad hoc.” There is no evidence of this. It hasn’t occurred in the thread other than in my thesis, which is that relations and things are identical &/v that things are bundles of relations and not anything more, and this is exactly what the “intellectual debate” is about. Thus, my redefinition is obviously not “ad hoc” but has been argued for consistently and clearly throughout the thread. As well, this idea that I am always operating from a position of “agenda” is really something that Lurid seems to say again and again wrt to my messages and threads, and yet, he doesn’t ever once seem able to say what such an “agenda” is. I have discussed some of these things with Lurid via PM recently, and yet, he seems unwilling to see anything but my shortcomings.
All things considered, it seems that Lurid’s post very much “argues against the man,” and does so on mere assertion of opinion with disregard to any actual evidence.
Is my post ad hominem? Show me the money.
Suggesting that Lurid take a hot bath to relieve tension isn’t argument—that much is for sure—and so, it doesn’t appear to “argue against the man,” Lurid. A somewhat sarcastic and flippant remark certainly, but not attacking Lurid.
Next I say:
“And quit putting words in my mouth that aren't there. What's this "agenda" that I have, Lurid, please tell me because I am getting a little tired of you throwing this word at me all the time without knowing what you think you see, but merely knowing how you see.”
Here I fail to see any “argument against the man.” I ask Lurid to be more clear about this supposed “agenda” I have (granted, not in a “friendly” way, but not in an insulting way either), and I ask him to quit interpreting me in ways that seem to suit his “default position” attitude towards me.
After that I write:
“Also, I don't merely redefine words "ad hoc": I typically try to give good reasons to think that we use them incorrectly or don't understand what they mean as well as we'd like. Geez, Lurid, give it up, OK?”
This pretty much addresses Lurid’s concern in an “adult manner.” Granted, the final sentence is not necessary, but again, reflects the circumstances of Lurid’s and my recent private interactions, which obviously you are likely not aware of. However, I still fail to see argument against Lurid the man here.
Finally, I write:
“Why do you keep posting in Headshop threads only to try to pick a fight with me: I already discussed this with you via PM--speaking of minimal standards of debate and all...”
Again, I ask Lurid a legitimate question, and there is evidence for this in the thread about Language where Lurid posts to pick a fight about “the incorrect use of Godel,” when clearly Godel was not being used at all, but only explicated for the sake of another member who seemed to know only a little about such matters. This feels to me to be an excellent example of what neglecting the minimal standards of debate is. Again, I fail to see this as argument against Lurid, but argument against what appears to be his position.
b.
Haus responds:
Would you rather "inflammatory, offtopic and rude" rather than "ad hominem"? I'm happy to go for that, if it will be a more comfortable fit for you. Because I very much doubt that any explanation of why your post was ad hominem will be accepted by you, and only result in another long explanatory post to exposit on my misunderstanding, and I'm afraid that I'm v. busy at the moment and cannot really address. Sorry. It seems to me that you are pretty clearly attempting to criticise and belittle Lurid as a person, as you believe he has you, and thus suggest that his argument is baseless, at some length. This is ad hominem.
You and Lurid are both, to my mind, misbehaving here. You are both rotting the thread with a personal argumetn that belongs perhaps in PMs, possibly in the Policy, maybe in the Conservation, none of which arenae you chose. Mutual responsibility. But I doubt very much that you are going to concur with this, and again that's your privilege. My only interest here is in the good order of the Head Shop.
So, to the purpose. "Inflammatory, offtopic and rude" has much the same force. It is bad for the thread, and bad for the Head Shop. You are a moderator of the Head Shop. I believe that it was Descartes, when teaching Queen Christina geometry, who suggested that she do the math.
Yours aye,
T.
I respond:
> Would you rather "inflammatory, offtopic and rude" rather than "ad hominem"? I'm happy to go for that, if it will be a more comfortable fit for you.
Yes, AAMOF.
> It seems to me that you are pretty clearly attempting to criticise and belittle Lurid as a person...
No.
> as you believe he has you, and thus suggest that his argument is baseless, at some length...
What argument?--he's not provided one. He made statements, but does not provide evidence to support his “personal” claims (other than taking a single quote, and blowing it up out of any relation to sanity or sense).
> This is ad hominem.
"Argument ad hominem is a kind of argument that uses personal attack against the arguer to refute her argument. In the abusive or personal variant, the character of the arguer (especially character for veracity) is attacked; e.g., 'You can't believe what Smith says—he is a liar'."
~fr. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Note how close the above example is to Lurid's post. Lurid says, in essence, "You can't believe Greater than Zero because he doesn't use language correctly and he doesn't argue fairly." This is rude, abusive, and belittling to me. I don't take people's shit, Tann—you know this.
Again, I fail to see how asking Lurid to explain to me more about this “agenda” (his word) I am supposed to have or asking him why he has been trying to pick fights with me is abusive, rude, or belittling to him. Yes, I fully agree that the opening line to my post (the “take a bath”) is rude, but abusive?—maybe if you are really soft, and belittling?—hmm…perhaps somewhat.
> You and Lurid are both, to my mind, misbehaving here.
I agree.
> You are both rotting the thread with a personal argument…
We are both rotting the thread, yes; however, it seems to me that Lurid had made the argument personal—am I not entitled to respond? I mean, it’s not like I was ready and poised to destroy the thread because of such nonsense, but I did want to make a little remark.
> Mutual responsibility.
Yes, great idea in theory—looks good on paper or in pixels. Great if both sides can see this. Perhaps you could share some of your thoughts about this with Lurid? I’ve tried to explain to him that our differences and difficulties are not merely all about me, but he’s not so inclined to take what I say sincerely.
> "Inflammatory, offtopic and rude" has much the same force.
Hmm, not really. I do not feel that my post was “inflammatory,” off topic only insofar as it was a response to someone’s message, which was way off topic. Yes, rude—no doubt. Rude is not the same as ad hominem.
> It is bad for the thread, and bad for the Head Shop. You are a moderator of the Head Shop. I believe that it was Descartes, when teaching Queen Christina geometry, who suggested that she do the math.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Lurid is an administrator of the board: what sort of remarks and guidance have you offered him?
I believe it was Jesus Christ who suggested to people in general that they ought to, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and I also believe it was Confucius who suggested to people in general that it was generally a wise idea to “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.”
Mutual responsibility indeed!
Give and take, ebb and flow—we all relate in currents which generally reflect and complement one and other.
Yours,
brian.
Haus then writes:
As I say, I'm afraid I'm very busy at the moment, and as such do not feel I can in good conscience apply myself to the previously bootless task of persuading you that any of your percepts are in any way not entirely correct.
You rotted a thread in the Head Shop. You are a moderator of the Head Shop. Your fight with Lurid belongs in PM, or in the Policy, or in the Conversation.
Yawn. Take a nice hot bath and soke that tension away, Lurid.
"Lurid's statement is not valid - it is a result of tension, not ratiocination. Lurid is emotional, not rational. You should not listen to his argument because of his personal weakness."
I do not expect you to consider this seriously, and I am, as I mentioned, too busy to read your subsequent refutation in depth, for which I apologise preemptively.
My viewpoint is that your response was offtopic, inflammatory and childish. This is my opinion. Everybody rots threads sometimes becasue they are cross, but it is traditional to understand that threadrot adn personal arguments that leave the topic behind are not a good thing, especially when they are perpetrated by moderators of that forum.
Lurid's behaviour I commented on in the thread. He has not, at this point, contacted me to explain why he is completely justified, has said nothing more in the thread, and may perhaps have decided to have a bit of quiet time and think about his responsibilities. I can't speak for him.
Now, this problem you and Lurid seem to be having seems to belong in the Policy, or in the Conversation and as such I am not entirely sure why you are a) not talking about it there and b) so keen to talk about it with me, rather than with him.
So I write:
> As I say, I'm afraid I'm very busy at the moment, and as such do not feel I can in good conscience apply myself to the previously bootless task of persuading you that any of your precepts are in any way not entirely correct.
See, it's funny because what is the case is not merely that my precepts are likely not entirely clear, but that your and Lurid's are not entirely clear either. It's interesting because, like I have said to you before, some people do not seem able to look in the mirror, but appear to have no difficulties picking out other people's problems. Of course, I suppose that it could be the case that the likes of Lurid and yourself are entirely without fault in all circumstances...
> You rotted a thread in the Head Shop. You are a moderator of the Head Shop. Your fight with Lurid belongs in PM, or in the Policy, or in the Conversation.
No and yes. I mean, Lurid rotted a thread, but I did not shy away from responding with like.
> Yawn. Take a nice hot bath and soke that tension away, Lurid.
>
> "Lurid's statement is not valid - it is a result of tension, not ratiocination. Lurid is emotional, not rational. You should not listen to his argument because of his personal weakness."
Hmm, perhaps—appears forced, but valid. From person to person, the tension was reference to Lurid and my recent exchange of a couple of PMs. He has tension he needs to relieve. And of course, there’s always the point (quite obvious) that Lurid had no argument, but maybe you’re simply more generous than I.
> My viewpoint is that your response was offtopic, inflammatory and childish. This is my opinion. Everybody rots threads sometimes because they are cross, but it is traditional to understand that threadrot adn personal arguments that leave the topic behind are not a good thing, especially when they are perpetrated by moderators of that forum.
Off topic?—only insofar as it responds to something mentioned in thread previously by another member, but that particular member was “off topic” to start. Inflammatory?—could be if you’re someone who is already (or easily) hot and bothered. “Childish”?—you use this word much too much without any apparent appreciation of the depth involved in being childish—you use it as something always derogatory: grow-up! 
> Lurid's behaviour I commented on in the thread. He has not, at this point, contacted me to explain why he is completely justified, has said nothing more in the thread, and may perhaps have decided to have a bit of quiet time and think about his responsibilities. I can't speak for him.
Only a half-hearted and sympathetic comment—you speak reasonably to his off topic remarks, but no mention that his post was “ad hominem”—you only choose to “scold” me for this—why?
> Now, this problem you and Lurid seem to be having seems to belong in the Policy, or in the Conversation and as such I am not entirely sure why you are a) not talking about it there and b) so keen to talk about it with me, rather than with him.
a) because it is something that Lurid needs (the desire in order) to be able to discuss: I am not going to start a thread only to talk to myself.
b) see the above & Lurid and I, like I’ve mentioned several times now, have already exchanged a couple of PMs about some things, but he seems unlikely to step outside his fixed view of myself and his closed mindedness about certain matters. Put differently, he can’t think clearly about the things he needs to in order for him and I to actually have a dialogue. As it stands it is all “you are to blame for x, y, and z, mod & no one else is wrong in any way whatsoever, and nothing you can possibly say to me can persuade me otherwise.”
It’s funny because I am typically the only one willing to admit my mistakes and errors, while others are merely happy to point them out; i.e., they do unto others what they cannot do unto themselves.
b.
And then Haus responds:
Quite so. No doubt everybody here is coloured by their own judgement. I for one have no wish to continue to impose that judgement. If you have a problem with the identification of your thread as offtopic, I suggest you go to the Policy. If you believe that Lurid's behaviour needs to be discussed, I suggest again that you go to the Policy.
As it is, I'm afraid that I am very busy and etc. You believe yourself to be right, I really don't mind very much as long as you stop misbehaving in the Head Shop. I am bored by your suggezstion that nayone who does not immediately celebrate you must be on the same side. I criticised your behaviour and Lurid's. The difference so far appears to be that Lurid has not immediately dashed off an angry letter to the Daily Mail.
Now, it seems that if I have the temerity not to agree with you, I will receive the same abusive treatment as previously, which strikes me as neither a very mature or a very profitable relationship.
So, to restate. You are welcome to believe what you will. I respect absolutely your right to feel so. You contributed to threadrot in the Head Shop in the pursuit of a personal grievance. You believe yourself to have acted unimpeachably, and as long as you accept that my opinion differs, then fair enough; it will no doubt lead to trouble further down the line, but there we go. If you wish me to refer this correspondence upwards to Tom, or wish to do so yourself, please do feel free to mention.
So then I write back:
“If you have a problem with the identification of your thread as offtopic, I suggest you go to the Policy. If you believe that Lurid's behaviour needs to be discussed, I suggest again that you go to the Policy.
There is no problem in the first case: Q and I are managing (oh!—somehow) to get along after the tragedy. However, there is a problem in the second case, but it is not really my problem, ya’ see (of course, I am afraid that you don’t, but I am getting used to some of your blind spots by now)?
“As it is, I'm afraid that I am very busy and etc.”
Yes, and yet you keep writing for some reason…
“You believe yourself to be right…”
Yes, and you believe yourself to be right—boring.
“I am bored by your suggezstion that nayone who does not immediately celebrate you must be on the same side.”
I’m not even sure—typos aside—what you mean here, Tann. What side? Who is being asked to “celebrate” me and who put in the request? Not me.
“I criticised your behaviour and Lurid's. The difference so far appears to be that Lurid has not immediately dashed off an angry letter to the Daily Mail.”
Look Haus, here is where you are clearly wrong. Lurid’s post was ad hominem, and yet you chide me for that mistake and not him. That is the difference. As an administrator you might want to try for an air of impartiality, don’t you think?
“…it seems that if I have the temerity not to agree with you, I will receive the same abusive treatment as previously, which strikes me as neither a very mature or a very profitable relationship.”
Look, disagree with me all you want—I don’t really care so much about that, but remember from our marathon PM race that I will give to you what I seem to be getting from you. If you start to give me abusive treatment, you might expect some in return. In this respect I agree our relationship becomes neither “mature” nor “profitable”—it takes two to Tango, doll.
“You contributed to threadrot in the Head Shop in the pursuit of a personal grievance. You believe yourself to have acted unimpeachably”
No see, this is where you are simply not listening to what I have said to you. I freely admit I contributed to “threadrot,” & I admit that it wasn’t the best behaviour—I can say that I’ve committed these wrongs. Therefore, I fully believe the opposite of how you think I do.
What I do believe is that Lurid does not recognize the full extent of both his role in creating “the wrong” and the attitude that he has which motivated such participation.
I had hope that you had a better understanding of both myself and how relationships work by now.
To which Haus writes:
So, let me make sure I understand you correctly: you admit that you rotted the thread, you acknowledge that this was a bad thing to do. You accept that your response was indeed ad hominem. So, the only complaint you have is that I did not accuse Lurid Archive of using an ad hominem argument as well?
Well, that's easy enough. Lurid Archive was questioning your competence to moderate. As such, his argument was by definition not ad hominem but simply homini. Notwithstanding Latin, I asked both of you to stop rotting the thread, and it appears largely to have worked. Thus, as a piece of moderation it worked perfectly well, barring your hurt feelings, which I regret but cannot allow to prevent me from acting as I have been charged to do by Barbelith in keeping threads clear of clutter in the Head Shop.
Lurid is also an intelligent user of language. He will therefore understand how he is being upbraided, and the force behind the words. I have faith in his ability to comprehend written English, and it appears that I judged the forcefulness of the rebuke aright, since the threadrot from his corner appears to have ceased in that thread.
Now, briefly, for I am rather busy at present:
I’m not even sure—typos aside—what you mean here, Tann. What side? Who is being asked to “celebrate” me and who put in the request? Not me
Well, it seems on current form that I am going to get this wave of abuse every time I criticise you, and thus that I am perforce going to have to celebrate you. This may not be how you perceive it, but it is certainly how I feel.
However, the "typos aside" demonstrates rather why I fear I must ask you to desist. You are very, very rude, in a highly repetitious fashion, and it tires me. The references to typos, the puerile imitation of a missing i tag - it is dull. I have thus far managed somehow not to correct your solecisms (even when they involved glaring grammatical errors in post titles), but while I have no particular wish to sink to this level of playground hair-pulling I also have no real desire to sit around here on the end of it.
So, I must ask you with regret to refrain from PMing me further. Any further PMs will be taken as harrassing, and dealt with as such. I regret also any inefficiencies that may result from this in the process of moderation, but am sure they will be surmountable. I suggest that if you have a question about how to moderate in the Head Shop, you ask one of the other moderators, or use the Policy. Likewise any continuation of your problems over my choice of words, which I feel other members of Barbelith should have access to if it is worth this amount of bother; I am, after all, hardly equipped to comment, being in your eyes so clearly partial.
I am very sincerely sorry for this, but as I say I am terribly busy and you are quite right - as time-consuming and only fun for the wrong reasons, I should not be indulging in this profitless antagonism.
I remain ktl.,
T.
My final PM to him reads:
> So, let me make sure I understand you correctly: you admit that you rotted the thread, you acknowledge that this was a bad thing to do. You accept that your response was indeed ad hominem. So, the only complaint you have is that I did not accuse Lurid Archive of using an ad hominem argument as well?
Close. I still don’t feel my post was ad hominem. There is a specific definition of what that is, and I don’t think my post qualifies. So, yes, I assisted the rot that Lurid had started, and yes, not necessarily the best tactic to take. I still believe that you are wrong about it being ad hominem though.
> Lurid Archive was questioning your competence to moderate. As such, his argument was by definition not ad hominem but simply homini.
Yes, questioning my competence to moderate based on personal feelings about me & expressed in an ad hominem attack against me as a person: he asserts, without argument or evidence that I, as a participant in intellectual discussion, do not follow certain so-called (and left vague) “minimum standards” and that I suffer from some sort of shortcoming where I define words “ad hoc” to support my “agenda.” This isn’t intellectual debate, and it isn’t argument: it is the expression of Lurid’s personal grief with me as an person!
> Lurid is also an intelligent user of language. He will therefore understand how he is being upbraided, and the force behind the words. I have faith in his ability to comprehend written English, and it appears that I judged the forcefulness of the rebuke aright, since the threadrot from his corner appears to have ceased in that thread.
Umm, clearly the threadrot has ceased by both of us. He had his say & I had mine, then it was over—your “moderation hat” wasn’t even necessary.
Certainly Lurid is a capable user of English and it is likely that he is aware of what he is written; however, I doubt, based on previous interaction with him, that he is able to understand and remedy the ill motivations that prompted such an outburst. So yes, Lurid is intelligent—I’ve said as much to him myself—but I do not feel he is as emotionally intelligent as he would like to believe.
Now I had said, “I’m not even sure—typos aside—what you mean here, Tann. What side? Who is being asked to “celebrate” me and who put in the request? Not me.”
> Well, it seems on current form that I am going to get this wave of abuse every time I criticise you, and thus that I am perforce going to have to celebrate you. This may not be how you perceive it, but it is certainly how I feel.
And what is peculiar is that I’ve little to no problems with your criticisms when they are fair. Again, I’ve no problems with being wrong, but I do have problems when people believe me to be wrong for the wrong reasons—this seems equally as applicable in this situation.
You had written, “I am bored by your suggezstion that nayone who does not immediately celebrate you must be on the same side,” and, typos aside, I really did not understand what you were trying to convey here, but with your further clarification I’ve got it now: you figure that I figure that anyone who doesn’t agree with me is involved in a network of conspiracy against me—ridiculous! I certainly don’t feel this way. That said, I do figure that you and Lurid are sympathetic to one and other’s feeling and thoughts about me. This is also seemingly connected to the Ierne incident. Like I’ve said to Lurid, when you (and he) are able to judge not only me, but also Ierne and yourself by the same standards is when we’ll all likely get along better.
> You are very, very rude, in a highly repetitious fashion, and it tires me.
“You ever use that machine on yourself?” Rachel to Deckard in Bladerunner, referring to the machine used to detect replicants.
> So, I must ask you with regret to refrain from PMing me further. Any further PMs will be taken as harrassing, and dealt with as such.
Well, like wrt any other Lither related matter of “the final word” I am afraid it doesn’t work that way (you said as much in the thread that was related to our unfortunate marathon of PMs). I feel I am free to respond to your messages. If you want to treat this as “harassment,” then feel free to do what you think is necessary.
> I am, after all, hardly equipped to comment, being in your eyes so clearly partial.
Not “clearly partial” in general, but certainly in this instance: you do not treat Lurid with the same attitude you treat me—this much is clear.
> I am very sincerely sorry for this, but as I say I am terribly busy and you are quite right - as time-consuming and only fun for the wrong reasons, I should not be indulging in this profitless antagonism.
Well, I’ve certainly better things to be doing with my time.
> I remain ktl.,
What is “ktl”?
b.
---------------
So that is that. |
).