The Dude is suspended from MAD. Is this "goading"

[_Jersey Girl]

I dunno, Mok, did I ring? What are you referring to?

Jersey Girl

[_Dr. Shades]

1. The Mod's are mentally ill and unable to interpret what they read.

2. The Mod's are control freaks who want to "own" their posters and the words they publish on that board.

3. The Mod's are afraid their apologetic posters can't hold their own in even a series of simple exchanges such as "did you read a book?" and choose pre-emptive strikes to avoid potential embarrassment at all costs.

4. The Mod's are crafty little wizards who think that no matter how false the picture is that they present...they're okay with it so long as it makes them "look good". In other words...window dressing is the thing.

Hi Jersey Girl,

Please take a quick look at this post, especially the first example, the one dealing with non-possessive plurals.

(Specifically, no apostrophe is necessary for the word "mods.")

[_Jersey Girl]

Alright, Doc!


Option #1:

Here are the only choices I can think of:

1. The Mods are mentally ill and unable to interpret what they read.

2. The Mods are control freaks who want to "own" their posters and the words they publish on that board.

3. The Mods are afraid their apologetic posters can't hold their own in even a series of simple exchanges such as "did you read a book?" and choose pre-emptive strikes to avoid potential embarrassment at all costs.

4. The Mods are crafty little wizards who think that no matter how false the picture is that they present...they're okay with it so long as it makes them "look good". In other words...window dressing is the thing.

My 2 cents, probably not worth much more than that.

Jersey Girl

Option#2

Here are the only choices I can think of:

1. The Mod's mental illness causes them to be unable to interpret what they read.

2. The Mod's control freakism is what drives them to want to "own" their posters and the words they publish on that board.

3. The Mod's fear that their apologetic posters can't hold their own in even a series of simple exchanges such as "did you read a book?" and choose pre-emptive strikes to avoid potential embarrassment at all costs.

4. The Mod's crafty little wizardism causes them to think that no matter how false the picture is that they present...they're okay with it so long as it makes them "look good". In other words...window dressing is the thing.

My 2 cents, probably not worth much more than that.

Jersey Girl

Is it okay to capitalize "Mods" or "Mod's" when referring to a specific or specialized group of moderators or do I have to say "The MAD Mods" or "The MAD Mod's"?

I am nothing if not teachable!

Jersey Girl

[_asbestosman]

Jersey Girl.

Since I assume you are referring to more than one Mod, option 2 should read

The Mods' mental acuity causes them . . .

Notice the apostrophe after the s. This indicates a plural possessive.

[_rcrocket]

In any event, by definition one cannot assert ad hominem arguments against anonymous posters.

rcrocket

And your evidence for this?

You know, Kettle, I'm finding myself astounded at the number of times you are being asked, not just by myself, for proof of your claims.

I'm still waiting on your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research".

Should I hold my breath for your proof that you can't insult a poster who doesn't use his real name?

You don't need to hold your breath.

I don't belive that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of lazy research. Some are, just as some defenders. Why would somebody be so foolish as to make that assertion?

"Proof" of my proposition that one cannot assert ad hominem arguments against anonymous posters is really based upon rhetoric. The term means, literally, "to the man." The latin term "homo" refers to a "member" of the family of man.

An ad hominem attack asserts an objection to the person, rather than the argument made.

If an anonymous poster enters a board, it is possible to make an ad hominem attack against that "person" by saying something to the effect that you don't like the poster's name or avatar. The poster then might reveal more; the poster is a fornicator, or drug user. Then, an argument that one should disregard the poster because she is a fornicator would be considered an ad hominem, but all you are doing is hurling an ad hominem attack against a fictional person on a board. We don't know that the poster is a fornicator or, for that matter, a transvestite.

However, if I post and idenfity myself as Curt Schillig, one instantly knows a lot about me and can use a lot from my personal and private life to discredit me.

But, it is certainly my observation that virtually any effective defender of the Church on this board is simply dismissed as making ad hominem attacks. That is so easy to do, isn't it. Witness Dude's post to me. What could be easier than that? If you don't like the message, simply insult rather than refute!

In any event, when I call you a damned cowardly hypocrite for posting attacks on the church without revealing your name, I am insulting you but that is not an ad hominem because the insult goes straight to the deficiency of your argument. An insult is not an ad hominem argument, but y'all seem to equate the issue.

Does that help?

Your welcome and ad hominen to you (using Dude venacular).

rcrocket

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl.

Since I assume you are referring to more than one Mod, option 2 should read

The Mods' mental acuity causes them . . .

Notice the apostrophe after the s. This indicates a plural possessive.

Alright, alright already. I'll fix it.

Control freak!

Jersey Girl
;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl.

Since I assume you are referring to more than one Mod, option 2 should read

The Mods' mental acuity causes them . . .

Notice the apostrophe after the s. This indicates a plural possessive.

Okay, smarty pants. Yes, I am referring to the mental illness of more than one mod. That is the mental illness belonging to more than one mod...thus, the Mod's. If I were simply referring to more than one Mod..I'd have written "Mods" as I did in option 1.

:-P

[_The Dude]

But, it is certainly my observation that virtually any effective defender of the Church on this board is simply dismissed as making ad hominem attacks. That is so easy to do, isn't it. Witness Dude's post to me. What could be easier than that? If you don't like the message, simply insult rather than refute!

Thanks for the corrections and sorry about the misspelling. You know, latin, not my thing.

Did you think I made an ad hominem attack rather than refute your argument? If so, then you misunderstood.

You said Richard Dawkins didn't address Thomas Aquinas. I said he did, I pointed out that Dawkins addressed the basic proofs for god, which stem from Aquinas (Dawkins mentioned him by name in that chapter, If I recall correctly). With that much I addressed your argument.

Then I speculated on why you forgot that part. That speculation was the following: that you would have remembered the parts relevant to Thomas Aquinas if Dawkins had attacked him with an ad hominem like, "Thomas Aquinas, the original bed-wetting Christian apologist" instead of actually addressing his basic proofs for God. That is because you are very keen on pointing out the commission of logical fallacies -- surely you would have remembered if Dawkins had done this!

I hope that's all clear. What about the rest of what I said about Dawkins' book? Rather than comment on my real arguments (or views, not arguments really), you chose to correct my latin.

[_Mister Scratch]

An ad hominem attack asserts an objection to the person, rather than the argument made.

Not just "the person," but the character of the person, too.

If an anonymous poster enters a board, it is possible to make an ad hominem attack against that "person" by saying something to the effect that you don't like the poster's name or avatar.

It is also possible to make an ad hominem attack on a person by saying, "Your argument is irrelevant because you use a pseudonym."

The poster then might reveal more; the poster is a fornicator, or drug user. Then, an argument that one should disregard the poster because she is a fornicator would be considered an ad hominem, but all you are doing is hurling an ad hominem attack against a fictional person on a board. We don't know that the poster is a fornicator or, for that matter, a transvestite.

Nor do we know, for example, whether you really and truly are a TR-carrying member of the LDS Church. Or if you are a lawyer.

However, if I post and idenfity myself as Curt Schillig, one instantly knows a lot about me and can use a lot from my personal and private life to discredit me.

But, it is certainly my observation that virtually any effective defender of the Church on this board is simply dismissed as making ad hominem attacks.

That is because there really aren't any "effective" defenses of the Church which do not entail ad hominem attack. That is why FARMS Review is so rank with ad hominem attack that DCP feels compelled to post self-deprecating jokes about it on the fittingly named MADboard.

That is so easy to do, isn't it. Witness Dude's post to me. What could be easier than that? If you don't like the message, simply insult rather than refute!

In any event, when I call you a damned cowardly hypocrite for posting attacks on the church without revealing your name, I am insulting you but that is not an ad hominem because the insult goes straight to the deficiency of your argument.

How do you figure? You have never, ever explained this. Any "deficiency" in the argument itself is what should be addressed, not anything about the person.... Or do you have some way of explaining this? Basically, what you are doing would be akin to me saying that your take on Dawkins is highly suspect, since you have demonstrated in the past (i.e., with your MMM article) that you are prone to either distorting or misreading textual evidence. So: you tell me---is that an "insult," or an ad hominem argument?

[_Bryan Inks]

In any event, when I call you a damned cowardly hypocrite for posting attacks on the church without revealing your name, I am insulting you but that is not an ad hominem because the insult goes straight to the deficiency of your argument. An insult is not an ad hominem argument, but y'all seem to equate the issue.

Oh snap. The fact that I use my real name as my alias kind of puts the crimp in your little piss-fest.

What do you have to say to that, Kettle?