![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naruki_oniI was going to keep this private, but ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
slamlander forced my hand (again and again - this many months later and he's still not over his obsession). What a self-deluded fool. This post is re-organized and rethought as much as I care to bother with. Now open for comments.
[Slammie, perhaps now you'll stop polluting other people's LJ's and focus all your pathetic whinging in this one entry, which can then fade from everyone else's view.]
The Summary
Well, I've left him alone until now, despite repeated nasty personal attacks. But I think I'd better make some kind of record of things before even I start to believe his lies. He's learned from the Bush Regime that any lie, no matter how blatant, if told often enough seems to become the truth. For my part, the truth, however little understood by others, will be the best defense.
In the thread that started it, we see him starting off the day as an asshat: pre-emptively attacking any UFies "foolish" enough to disagree with his illogic. Describing fellow UFies as whiners and dolts who have it ass-backwards is not reasonable behavior for that board.
The post the caused my disabling. How, I ask you, is proving that someone talks out their ass in any way "character assassination"? No, me making the assertion that he does all those things and then refusing to prove it would be. But I proved it.
In fact, that was something he had just claimed I didn't do "lately"! Just a few posts north of that, too.
So I did the research to back up my argument. I posted links to his own posts. And I pointed out, briefly and unemotionally, the flaws in each. That is neither "nasty" nor "character assassination".
Yet that is just what he's accused me of in his LJ. Please note that while he obviously wishes to flame me and whine about his punishment, he has been systematically hiding those replies that piss him off and hypocritically stating that he is trying to avoid a flame-fest. I read the other replies there and thought they had one or two valid points, but some of what they said pointed the finger right back at him. Good luck finding those posts now. ;-)
That's not the first place he began avoiding any sort of responsibility for his actions, either. In no certain order:
click
click
Of course, he had help. We cannot forget the contributions of Didactylos in egging him on (but I'm not even going to link to his posts in the thread that started it all - read for yourselves).
Of course, the main difference between them both is that Didactylos eventually admitted, at least to some degree, that he might have been at least slightly wrong.
Slamlander has never so much as considered that he might be wrong, let alone admitted to it. That is why he will never apologize for being a jerk.
I did think theNewt's comment about age was particularly insightful, though.
Slamlander does so like to hold age superiority over anyone that he thinks is younger than himself.
Finally, he just couldn't resist Drama Queening. Ta.
Well, that's the linkage and summary discussion out of the way. From here on out it only gets longer.
The Details
Slammie's biggest whine is that I assassinated his character with that post (and presumably others). He is, of course, wrong. One of the many things he is wrong about and which is essential for this discussion is the idea of when logic is to be applied to one's post.
If you read this post, then you can see that he made a belated effort to prove that I was wrong. His "proof" (I'm being generous by only putting it in quotes) relies on the absolutely idiotic assumption that rules of logic don't apply if there is "no debate context". I'm not making this up. He actually said that!
Well, that's like saying you're not lying if you don't do it under oath. He he he.
So, before looking at his points one at a time, let me remind the careless reader (or one who is just tired from reading this little novella) that my whole purpose of that disabling post was not to assassinate the character of Slammie, but to prove that he speaks crap often.
This was one of the more lighthearted of my proofs, given that he is most likely correct about the catalog. But by stating it as "A real engineer knows X" he has clearly fallen into the No True Scotsman fallacy, just as I said. Kind of a silly point, but still entirely valid.
Admittedly, I was a bit too vague with the word "throughout", as I meant it to apply as much to the follow up post as to the initial (and subtle) implication that archnerd was lying. Rather than admit he was wrong about it being "B$", he chose to insult whoever that order was issued for.
Because he is insulting those people whom he knows nothing about (not even whether the order was put in place to protect those alleged "stupid" people), it seems clear that he is using argumentum ad hominem. However, a case could also be made for ad hoc on the grounds that he is explaining after the fact why that order was made.
Still, that's just him being annoying and using fallacies in his arguments/points/discussions. It's not me assassinating his character. I'll probably have to define that at some point, just so I don't fall prey to equivocation.
I am, perhaps, wrong about this one. Obviously, the mechanics of flying are not as easy as he declared them to be, but I probably misspoke when I said the experts disagree. My physics teachers were not experts on the mechanics of flying, though I assumed they would know the basics well enough. Yet they incorrectly told me that Bernoulli’s Principle was the cause of lift. Lift, of course, is the essence of the mechanics of flight, and the true explanation is not what you'd call simple. Not if you had my brain, anyway. Perhaps you are a lot smarter than me (but I doubt it, because you've read this far along).
The interesting thing is that he commits another fallacy above. His original premise is that it is "not that hard", yet he relies on his 10 years of piloting as proof of his correctness. If it's not that hard, then even a non-pilot should be an authority, non? Perhaps not. Ah, well, just a silly little diversion.
*snipped for length*
Um, no. Trying to justify North's lying under oath is not conceding the point. The point was that North was not a "stand up guy". If Slamlander is conceding that point, he wouldn't have said this: "I think that Ollie did as good as could be expected in a difficult situation."
So obviously he was not conceding the point. Thus, trying to avoid admitting that North lied under oath by diverting the argument to North's safety concerns is misdirection. But notice that I didn't say it was definitely deliberate - I was questioning if it might be. I'm sure Slammie won't grasp the distinction, though.
I'm almost embarassed to have to remind him that he said here: "*No one* ever heard of it until about 10 years ago". And then predictably refused to admit being wrong when this response was given: "you must have been sleeping .. we were getting info from California about RSI in 1981".
I don't have to know Slammie to know that he's plain old wrong. (I've given up on linking to specific fallacies, unless there's something really juicy.)
The context is all there for him to read. The previous poster clearly was talking about those who are ideologically Republican, not just registered that way for other reasons (like the desire to vote in certain primaries, for instance). Because Slammie tries to make an absolute proof based on his being a Republican (in the context provided by the previous poster), he spoils his own proof by admitting that he's not ideologically Republican, so he's not bound by the restrictions reasonably assumed to apply to that group.
It'd be like me saying I was a Southern Baptist while admitting that I'm really a Secular Humanist, but I go to the meetings so I can keep up with their activities. If I join a group under false pretenses, I am not ideologically a member of that group and cannot prove that not all members act a certain way based on my own behavior.
Um, no, again you are wrong. I never admitted to "the fallacious dig and the ad hominem nature of this point". I was stating that you are wrong for believing that corporations (I meant to imply large, but didn't specify) are motivated by "enlightened self-interest". There is a plethora of lawsuits that show that assumption to be false. I could mention big tobacco, for example. They clearly didn't have the well-being of their customers at heart, only the profit they could wring from them.
Okay, you've got me! That's pure, unadulterated character assassination! I'm such a bastard. There is no way to take that link as other than a nasty, unadulterated lie. How could I have stooped so low as to post such a scurrilously defaming proof that he was wrong? Is there no shred of decency left in me?
Sorry, sometimes I get a little carried away. ;-)
So he tries to spin it as not evangelizing based on a false premise (that Firefox is more broken the IE), while then saying "but everyone else does it". Um, yeah, that's eating your cake and having it too. Can't be done.
For the rational reader, it is obvious that he has uttered a paradox. If there cannot be a nice way to do it, then how can there be a way that is less nice than the others? His assumption is that any form of killing is "un nice". Based on that assumption as though it were proven fact, he asserts that there is no nice way... Wait a second, I'm getting a circular headache here.
Apparently, we run into a problem where he defines "nice" in this context as meaning "not being killed". I would define it as "not being killed in a bad way". I think my interpretation is much more reasonable than his, but it's somewhat emotional. I think that a terminal patient who is in great pain can receive a lethal injection and thus be killed in a nice way.
There is no question that he meant this as an absolute rule for any and all forms of killing. If you do question that, then you aren't paying attention. (Granted, you're probably asleep by now.)
Well, that's all there is to that post. Hopefully you can see that the intent was to prove he speaks from a position of arrogance and often with illogic or false premises. In other words, that he's full of crap. As when he accused me of shifting the burden of proof.
And though some of you will (because you have already, without caring to hear my side of the story) falsely accuse me of being nasty and trying to slander Slanderlander, I have now shown that you are wrong. I asked him first for proof of his point, but he never gave any - as I said he couldn't. When he then declared (without the first shred of proof, naturally) that I had done it to him personally, I was forced to defend myself by calling him on his bluff.
I actually proved that he was wrong while returning the criticism back at him. He accused me of shifting the burden of proof, so I proved my point by doing my own research.
Thus I stayed within the context and scope of the discussion.
Miscellany
He accused me of waiting till he left the board before attacking him. Bull. I don't care what he's doing - I know he'll be back later to respond. I honestly never thought my post would send him over the deep end like it did.
I don't take any responsibility for that, either. That post was not "nasty", though it is personal, being about his person. And every bit of that post was in direct response to his lies about me not proving my points.
What sent him over the deep end must be a combination of stress from his personal life (it's happened to him before) and the blunt proof that he is wrong. If he wasn't so arrogant and insulting all the time, I never would have taken him to task so directly.
You know, his repeated slander almost makes me wish I hadn't gone to bat for him with the mods over this. Ah, well.
slamlander forced my hand (again and again - this many months later and he's still not over his obsession). What a self-deluded fool. This post is re-organized and rethought as much as I care to bother with. Now open for comments.[Slammie, perhaps now you'll stop polluting other people's LJ's and focus all your pathetic whinging in this one entry, which can then fade from everyone else's view.]
The Summary
Well, I've left him alone until now, despite repeated nasty personal attacks. But I think I'd better make some kind of record of things before even I start to believe his lies. He's learned from the Bush Regime that any lie, no matter how blatant, if told often enough seems to become the truth. For my part, the truth, however little understood by others, will be the best defense.
In the thread that started it, we see him starting off the day as an asshat: pre-emptively attacking any UFies "foolish" enough to disagree with his illogic. Describing fellow UFies as whiners and dolts who have it ass-backwards is not reasonable behavior for that board.
The post the caused my disabling. How, I ask you, is proving that someone talks out their ass in any way "character assassination"? No, me making the assertion that he does all those things and then refusing to prove it would be. But I proved it.
In fact, that was something he had just claimed I didn't do "lately"! Just a few posts north of that, too.
So I did the research to back up my argument. I posted links to his own posts. And I pointed out, briefly and unemotionally, the flaws in each. That is neither "nasty" nor "character assassination".
Yet that is just what he's accused me of in his LJ. Please note that while he obviously wishes to flame me and whine about his punishment, he has been systematically hiding those replies that piss him off and hypocritically stating that he is trying to avoid a flame-fest. I read the other replies there and thought they had one or two valid points, but some of what they said pointed the finger right back at him. Good luck finding those posts now. ;-)
That's not the first place he began avoiding any sort of responsibility for his actions, either. In no certain order:
click
click
Of course, he had help. We cannot forget the contributions of Didactylos in egging him on (but I'm not even going to link to his posts in the thread that started it all - read for yourselves).
Of course, the main difference between them both is that Didactylos eventually admitted, at least to some degree, that he might have been at least slightly wrong.
Slamlander has never so much as considered that he might be wrong, let alone admitted to it. That is why he will never apologize for being a jerk.
I did think theNewt's comment about age was particularly insightful, though.
Slamlander does so like to hold age superiority over anyone that he thinks is younger than himself.
Finally, he just couldn't resist Drama Queening. Ta.
Well, that's the linkage and summary discussion out of the way. From here on out it only gets longer.
The Details
Slammie's biggest whine is that I assassinated his character with that post (and presumably others). He is, of course, wrong. One of the many things he is wrong about and which is essential for this discussion is the idea of when logic is to be applied to one's post.
If you read this post, then you can see that he made a belated effort to prove that I was wrong. His "proof" (I'm being generous by only putting it in quotes) relies on the absolutely idiotic assumption that rules of logic don't apply if there is "no debate context". I'm not making this up. He actually said that!
Well, that's like saying you're not lying if you don't do it under oath. He he he.
So, before looking at his points one at a time, let me remind the careless reader (or one who is just tired from reading this little novella) that my whole purpose of that disabling post was not to assassinate the character of Slammie, but to prove that he speaks crap often.
here (No True Scotsman fallacy)
Out of context, if that statement was made in a debate then you *might* have a point but, it wasn't.
*snipped for length*
The post wasn't made to "win" an argument. It was made to provide information. [emphasis mine, because I'm still stunned by it] With no debate context, there isn't a fallacy.
This was one of the more lighthearted of my proofs, given that he is most likely correct about the catalog. But by stating it as "A real engineer knows X" he has clearly fallen into the No True Scotsman fallacy, just as I said. Kind of a silly point, but still entirely valid.
here (ad hominem throughout)
Out of context again, there was no debate context. It was a request for further info. The parent post made such a seemingly outrageous claim that I initially thought it was a joke.
Admittedly, I was a bit too vague with the word "throughout", as I meant it to apply as much to the follow up post as to the initial (and subtle) implication that archnerd was lying. Rather than admit he was wrong about it being "B$", he chose to insult whoever that order was issued for.
Because he is insulting those people whom he knows nothing about (not even whether the order was put in place to protect those alleged "stupid" people), it seems clear that he is using argumentum ad hominem. However, a case could also be made for ad hoc on the grounds that he is explaining after the fact why that order was made.
Still, that's just him being annoying and using fallacies in his arguments/points/discussions. It's not me assassinating his character. I'll probably have to define that at some point, just so I don't fall prey to equivocation.
here (bad assumption, since even experts still disagree)
What experts and what are they disagreeing with? I was a licensed pilot for over 10 years. Just because my license is lapsed, doesn't mean that I have forgotten how to fly. The same with operating a server, I have never been certified for that yet, I operate multiple servers daily. There was no assumption, I was speaking from personal experience.
I am, perhaps, wrong about this one. Obviously, the mechanics of flying are not as easy as he declared them to be, but I probably misspoke when I said the experts disagree. My physics teachers were not experts on the mechanics of flying, though I assumed they would know the basics well enough. Yet they incorrectly told me that Bernoulli’s Principle was the cause of lift. Lift, of course, is the essence of the mechanics of flight, and the true explanation is not what you'd call simple. Not if you had my brain, anyway. Perhaps you are a lot smarter than me (but I doubt it, because you've read this far along).
The interesting thing is that he commits another fallacy above. His original premise is that it is "not that hard", yet he relies on his 10 years of piloting as proof of his correctness. If it's not that hard, then even a non-pilot should be an authority, non? Perhaps not. Ah, well, just a silly little diversion.
*snipped for length*
here (misdirection of point - deliberate?)
That was more like conceding the point.
Um, no. Trying to justify North's lying under oath is not conceding the point. The point was that North was not a "stand up guy". If Slamlander is conceding that point, he wouldn't have said this: "I think that Ollie did as good as could be expected in a difficult situation."
So obviously he was not conceding the point. Thus, trying to avoid admitting that North lied under oath by diverting the argument to North's safety concerns is misdirection. But notice that I didn't say it was definitely deliberate - I was questioning if it might be. I'm sure Slammie won't grasp the distinction, though.
here (plain old wrong)
How can relating personal experience be "plain old wrong"? Were you there? Do you know me personally?
I'm almost embarassed to have to remind him that he said here: "*No one* ever heard of it until about 10 years ago". And then predictably refused to admit being wrong when this response was given: "you must have been sleeping .. we were getting info from California about RSI in 1981".
I don't have to know Slammie to know that he's plain old wrong. (I've given up on linking to specific fallacies, unless there's something really juicy.)
here (internal fallacy, either you are or are not a Republican - ideologically was implied)
Out of context yet again! I was providing a personal instance-proof. I am a registered Republican, I do not like Bush. Ipso facto, not all Republicans like Bush. The previous poster tried to imply that ALL Republicans felt the same. There is no fallacy here either.
The context is all there for him to read. The previous poster clearly was talking about those who are ideologically Republican, not just registered that way for other reasons (like the desire to vote in certain primaries, for instance). Because Slammie tries to make an absolute proof based on his being a Republican (in the context provided by the previous poster), he spoils his own proof by admitting that he's not ideologically Republican, so he's not bound by the restrictions reasonably assumed to apply to that group.
It'd be like me saying I was a Southern Baptist while admitting that I'm really a Secular Humanist, but I go to the meetings so I can keep up with their activities. If I join a group under false pretenses, I am not ideologically a member of that group and cannot prove that not all members act a certain way based on my own behavior.
here (believes in "enlightened self interest")
Here we finally have some meat ... maybe. What's wrong with enlightened self-interest? Even you, later admit to the fallacious dig and the ad hominem nature of this point.
Um, no, again you are wrong. I never admitted to "the fallacious dig and the ad hominem nature of this point". I was stating that you are wrong for believing that corporations (I meant to imply large, but didn't specify) are motivated by "enlightened self-interest". There is a plethora of lawsuits that show that assumption to be false. I could mention big tobacco, for example. They clearly didn't have the well-being of their customers at heart, only the profit they could wring from them.
here (not sure what to say other than he was wrong)
I'm not sure what to say here either. I misunderstood the parent post to refer to the comic strip that included Opus. Well, crucify me for being human!
Okay, you've got me! That's pure, unadulterated character assassination! I'm such a bastard. There is no way to take that link as other than a nasty, unadulterated lie. How could I have stooped so low as to post such a scurrilously defaming proof that he was wrong? Is there no shred of decency left in me?
Sorry, sometimes I get a little carried away. ;-)
here (more evangelizing based on false premise)
Out of context again. That was sarcastic teasing. As far as evangalizing goes, please point to anyone on this board that does not or has not ever done so.
So he tries to spin it as not evangelizing based on a false premise (that Firefox is more broken the IE), while then saying "but everyone else does it". Um, yeah, that's eating your cake and having it too. Can't be done.
here (NO nice way? Absolutes are usually wrong, as this one is)
Reality check here? I've killed ... there is NO nice way! Although there are some really bad ways. The one being killed usually objects, strenuously if possible. In this case, the absolute is 100% true, as stated.
For the rational reader, it is obvious that he has uttered a paradox. If there cannot be a nice way to do it, then how can there be a way that is less nice than the others? His assumption is that any form of killing is "un nice". Based on that assumption as though it were proven fact, he asserts that there is no nice way... Wait a second, I'm getting a circular headache here.
Apparently, we run into a problem where he defines "nice" in this context as meaning "not being killed". I would define it as "not being killed in a bad way". I think my interpretation is much more reasonable than his, but it's somewhat emotional. I think that a terminal patient who is in great pain can receive a lethal injection and thus be killed in a nice way.
There is no question that he meant this as an absolute rule for any and all forms of killing. If you do question that, then you aren't paying attention. (Granted, you're probably asleep by now.)
Well, that's all there is to that post. Hopefully you can see that the intent was to prove he speaks from a position of arrogance and often with illogic or false premises. In other words, that he's full of crap. As when he accused me of shifting the burden of proof.
And though some of you will (because you have already, without caring to hear my side of the story) falsely accuse me of being nasty and trying to slander Slanderlander, I have now shown that you are wrong. I asked him first for proof of his point, but he never gave any - as I said he couldn't. When he then declared (without the first shred of proof, naturally) that I had done it to him personally, I was forced to defend myself by calling him on his bluff.
I actually proved that he was wrong while returning the criticism back at him. He accused me of shifting the burden of proof, so I proved my point by doing my own research.
Thus I stayed within the context and scope of the discussion.
Miscellany
He accused me of waiting till he left the board before attacking him. Bull. I don't care what he's doing - I know he'll be back later to respond. I honestly never thought my post would send him over the deep end like it did.
I don't take any responsibility for that, either. That post was not "nasty", though it is personal, being about his person. And every bit of that post was in direct response to his lies about me not proving my points.
What sent him over the deep end must be a combination of stress from his personal life (it's happened to him before) and the blunt proof that he is wrong. If he wasn't so arrogant and insulting all the time, I never would have taken him to task so directly.
You know, his repeated slander almost makes me wish I hadn't gone to bat for him with the mods over this. Ah, well.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
No, not slighted
Date: 2004-10-25 05:08 pm (UTC)