Print

Its an insult

14 (53.8%)

Its a commentary on the people

9 (34.6%)

I'm not from the County but its an insult

1 (3.8%)

I'm not from the County but its a commentary on the people

2 (7.7%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Voting closed: June 11, 2012, 10:53:41 AM

[Frenchfry]

Can you cite where I have expressed this belief?

Dude..you're a hypocrite...just own it and move on.

[excelsior]

Dude..you're a hypocrite...just own it and move on.

Sorry, but I will need a citation.  You lack credibility.

[Frenchfry]

Sorry, but I will need a better source.  You lack credibility.

Well you just keep holding your breath 'til Fox News makes that personal post for you. 

[ducksoup]

Can you cite where I have expressed this belief?

This quote of yours:

I would only add that this individual's examples of "MonroeBerry" and "land of the bigoted inbreds" expose his intellectual dishonesty.

Is an Ad Hominem, and the ones you quoted by another poster were intended as Ad Hominem assertions.  So, you are correct that I wrongly wrote my post. 

To restate: You expressed the belief that name calling of a group is wrong, while personal attacks that you make are acceptable.  Is that more fitting?

By the way, this:

Sorry, but I will need a citation.  You lack credibility.

Is completely an Ad Hominem. 

[excelsior]

This quote of yours:
Is an Ad Hominem, and the ones you quoted by another poster were intended as Ad Hominem assertions.  So, you are correct that I wrongly wrote my post. 

To restate: You expressed the belief that name calling of a group is wrong, while personal attacks that you make are acceptable.  Is that more fitting?

By the way, this:

Is completely an Ad Hominem.

Incorrect summary of my statement.   

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

I expressed that this individual claiming the term Monroetucky meant a "Mayberry" like town was intellectually dishonest when this individual previously aligned this term to "land of the bigoted inbreds".

My statement can be summarized as Mayberry does not equate to "land of the bigoted inbreds" and any attempt to validate this comparison is dishonest.

[Frenchfry]

Incorrect summary of my statement.   

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

I expressed that this individual claiming the term Monroetucky meant a "Mayberry" like town was intellectually dishonest when this individual previously aligned this term to "land of the bigoted inbreds".

My statement can be summarized as Mayberry does not equate to "land of the bigoted inbreds" and any attempt to validate this comparison is dishonest.

While it's true that I feel Monroe has a disproportionately large population of inbreds....the original context where Preparation "H" copied my statements to create this new topic meant something else altogether.

But hey...you can continue your inbreeding tradition all you want....I just made an observation.   

[ducksoup]

Incorrect summary of my statement.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

I expressed that this individual claiming the term Monroetucky meant a "Mayberry" like town was intellectually dishonest when this individual previously aligned this term to "land of the bigoted inbreds".

My statement can be summarized as Mayberry does not equate to "land of the bigoted inbreds" and any attempt to validate this comparison is dishonest.

I would only add that this individual's examples of "MonroeBerry" and "land of the bigoted inbreds" expose his intellectual dishonesty.

Saying that a statement is “intellectually dishonest” is different than calling the person “intellectually dishonest”.  “expose his intellectual dishonesty” is directed at the person, not the act.  The clear interpretation of your original statement is that you believe that anyone using those names is “intellectually dishonest” as a person.  By choosing that statement the inference is that you believe that name calling by group is “intellectually dishonest” but the associated inference is that a personal name calling of an individual is acceptable.  All of that wrapped up in an Ad Hominem fallacy.

Please, if you wish to repeatedly call me on the use of MY words, pay more attention to your own.

[ducksoup]

Rednecks, liberals, socialists, tea baggers, Republicans, nerds, or hicks are all words that can have multiple meanings.  All can be insults, descriptors, or harmless euphemisms.  It depends on the context which is used, but also the originator of the phrase. 

I cannot guess to what the poster meant from a copied quote from another topic, but wonder if personal animosity is not a part of a negative interpretation that may or may not be there.
Frankly, that seems highly possible as it was pretty much a pick on that poster because he is that poster.

Why can’t you see that the relentless attack of that singular poster because it is that poster is just as bad as what you hate him for?  And here is the whacked out part; why aren’t you calling ME out for calling you, and you, and you, and you out for doing the same thing......

[excelsior]

I responded when you stated that I believe that ad hominem is horrific.  The only that thing that I called you out for was signing values to my belief system.  I simply asked you to cite a reference of where you gained this knowledge of my personal moral code.

You now appear to be assigning status to folks for my affections that I have not expressed. 

What gives you the power to know and state my deeply held beliefs?

[Monique]

What a fun thread! So interesting, too!


 

[Professor H]

What does that mean?
Are you saying you've taken your bullying to another level?
As much as bullying has become the topic of news in this day and age....I'm quite surprised the administration has allowed you to continue your bullying campaign.

I reported your topic on April 12th for this TOS violation:
Never received a reply but that's typical.
Sadly I neglected to look further down on their list or else I would have mentioned this TOS violation as well:The only dishonesty here is that the 3 stooges that banded together to bully haven't admitted being associated.
Paranoia keeps creeping in eh? 

What does it mean?
 - it means I didn't disclose your name in the original post

Wasn't meant to be a Fry Bashing Topic...  although your legacy lends to many figuring out it was you as you seem to be the few if not only posters that uses this type of language

I posed the question to the appropriate area for discussion -
Just Asking...  for residents of the Monroe Area

There has been a civil discussion on the topic,
with history revealing the terms and where it originated from.   
I'm not from the "south" so I wasn't sure how those who's families came from the south would view the term or how it was utilized.  Thus the anonymous poll as well.

If calling you out for your foul use of language is a bully (new definition) crying to admin won't help.  
Especially when you got your hand caught in the cookie jar

[ducksoup]

I responded when you stated that I believe that ad hominem is horrific. The only that thing that I called you out for was signing values to my belief system. I simply asked you to cite a reference of where you gained this knowledge of my personal moral code.

You now appear to be assigning status to folks for my affections that I have not expressed.

What gives you the power to know and state my deeply held beliefs?

As the gatekeeper of Oz asked, “Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place?”  I believe that I answered that already.  Your Ad Hominem of:

I would only add that this individual's examples of "MonroeBerry" and "land of the bigoted inbreds" expose his intellectual dishonesty.

Clearly states that you personally have the emotional response that the original poster is “intellectually dishonest” using an Ad Hominem to create a negative emotional response.  That created a personal attack on the individual to propagate your Ad Hominem.   Even aside from that you put forth your apparent belief that name calling of a group by an individual makes that individual “intellectually dishonest”  inferring that you have a strong emotional reaction.  Now, I could have overstated your response as being “horrified” rather than maybe “mildly disgusted” or even “barely noticed”.  I suppose from your reaction to assigning any emotion that possibly you are completely lacking in emotion, and therefore, not able to show an emotional response in an Ad Hominem.

Whatever way, you still flounder away trying to pick at my writing, when you are repeatedly not making what you say or ask clear.  If you had wanted me to address “horrific” and not “Ad Hominem is horrific” then you should have been clear in your question.

And now, since it seems to bother you so much, I will apologize for assigning any emotion to you.  That you used an Ad Hominem intended as an emotional retort is totally coincidental to you not having feelings to express.

But, now that I got that out of the way, why do you feel that a personal attack done by you is appropriate for someone that seems to try to present a better than everyone attitude?  Isn’t that a conflict, to assign what others think or feel and reject the idea that your own posting is faulty and can only be interpreted as an emotionally based Ad Hominem attack of a person?  Again, you clearly did not state that the ACT of using those examples was “intellectually dishonest”, but that the person was “intellectually dishonest” which is a personal attack to fulfill the Ad  Hominem. 

Tell ya what though; you can say I am from Monrotucky in the nastiest meanest wrongful way, and guess what?  It would mean nothing.  I know that I am human, have emotions, and make mistakes.  Just as with my original use of “Ad Hominem  is horrific”.  I corrected the error that I made with the use of Ad Hominem in that context since it was what you highlighted, and was in error.  If you had only meant “horrified” then you were clearly in error to post the “Ad Hominem” part.  If you meant both then you should have addressed the question as a plural.

[excelsior]

You are correct.  I agree that it was wrong of me to assign the term “intellectually dishonest”  to the individual and not the act(s) of this person.  I apologize to this individual for directing my statement(s) to you and not your actions.

[Professor H]

You are correct.  I agree that it was wrong of me to assign the term “intellectually dishonest”  to the individual and not the act(s) of this person.  I apologize to this individual for directing my statement(s) to you and not your actions.

See how that works - we all can make errors, and sometimes are misinterpreted.

Civil discourse without name calling - cleared up the question

[Frenchfry]

See how that works - we all can make errors, and sometimes are misinterpreted.

Civil discourse without name calling - cleared up the question

Of course you're quick to forgive...he's one of your boys.

Now try to do the same for Hilary Rosen.