Glurp -oops- Gloop, why are you down on Joe? All he did was ban Dave. I thought that was funny - didn't you? Hell, you're the one who thought "glurp" was funny, so I know you have a low threshold for what counts as humor. Do you think Joe seriously thought Dave deserved banning or that he could actually sustain banning an admin? It was a joke. Do you think Dave took offense at it? Sheesh! I hope not. That would be a sad statement about the thickness of his skin.
That said, I agree with your sentiment that we need not sink to the level of others out there with whom we disagree. Or even some who appear to agree with us on some things, but really either lack self control (and intelligence), or are just juvenile jokers who want to shock people and couldn't care less about real issues. I'm not sure which category "Jerkov", as you call him, falls into, but I'm confident Joe doesn't fall into either.
But neither do we need to sit here quietly, hanging our heads in shame, when Dave pops in to throw around blanket condemnations of everyone (or most) here. Some on SI, perhaps Dave included - perhaps not, seem to think spirited debate is bad, that expressing strong disagreement and exposing fallacious arguments or outright lies equates to personal hostility and offense. I say anyone who takes such a position is either trying to defend the indefensible (i.e. those making the fallacious or fraudulent arguments); is too thin skinned and insecure about their own ideas and, therefore, should not be expressing them in a public forum where they are exposed to criticism; is intellectually incapable of distinguishing between sharp or biting wit and juvenile namecalling (you know, like those who call everyone that disagrees with them a nazi or gay - AS comes to mind); or is just an overly sensitive, politically correct wimp who can't stand the idea of open and honest conflict (perhaps preferring the dishonest, sneaky, manipulative variety practiced by some we know - e.g. the poster f.k.a. X).
BTW, my recent posts here to Dave were meant to express the views above, albeit in a somewhat biting way. If he wants to come in here and criticize specific posters for specific acts, fine. Part (hopefully not all) of his job is to police the site for TOU violations. But if he comes in here casting aspersions widely and wildly, implying some collective guilt (or collective childishness), then he should expect to be engaged. If he doesn't want to be engaged, he should stick to specifics and be business-like about it and then gone. OTOH, if he wants to chat, he is welcome, IMO. But if he does, he needs to be careful how he flashes his badge off duty.
Bob |
