George Herbert wrote:
On 1/15/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
The best reaction would have been to reply with something to the effect of 'okay, I won't call people's arguments "b.s." or suggest that they be "taken out and shot"'. Not to turn around and claim that I am equally uncivil (for violating the "etiquette" which somehow demands that people who do the wrong thing not be told they are doing so), humourless, suffering from some sort of psychosis, and a dick.
If you cannot see that calling people's arguments 'specious' and 'b.s.', and suggesting that the founder of such arguments should be 'taken out and shot' can be interpreted to be personal attacks, then I'm not sure anything I say to you is going to do any good.
I would like to both agree and disagree; this should not be so serious that people cannot lighten up. Workplaces and projects with low communal humor do terrible things to their participants.
That said, I don't think that the comments which started this all came across as funny, I agree that they came across as abusive, and whether we have a laugh from time to time or not, abusive is a bad idea.
The explanation mixes up two very different points. I see no problem with using euphmisms such as "specious" of "b.s." when what is meant is plain old "bullshit". Not saying so would indeed be engaging in an "'etiquette' which somehow demands that people who do the wrong thing not be told they are doing so." Such a comment is strictly "ad rem"; it is about what a person says. Bullshit and specious arguments are common fare around here.
Suggesting that someone be "taken out and shot" or that someone is psychotic is just as clearly "ad hominem", and should be viewed as objectionable.
Ec