ad hominem

[Guest guest]

At 5:35 AM +0000 4/16/02, dragon90405 wrote:

>Teresa, Rory, Z'ev, and anybody else concerned...

>

>> Am I missing something? Who is Mr Rose?

>

>I am the supposedly aggrieved Mr. Rose. But

>there was no personal attack. Hence there

>is no need for any apology. I would

>know, as I would have been the person

>being attacked. There was a misunderstanding,

>and as far as I know it has been resolved.

>

>No harm. No foul.

--

Ken,

 

I don't want to make this into something if it's not something, but

it is hard to read calling someone a liar as anything other than a

personal attack. The post is sitting here in the list with the

offensive message for all to see in the subject line. There may have

been a misunderstanding that led to the use of this language, but I

don't think I'm misunderstanding the sentence itself.

 

Whether or not you feel aggrieved, we all have a strong interest in

not having personal attacks on the list. IMO, the message should be

deleted.

 

I've changed the name of this thread so as not to perpetuate the offense.

 

Rory

 

--

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

> I don't want to make this into something if it's not something, but

> it is hard to read calling someone a liar as anything other than a

> personal attack. The post is sitting here in the list with the

> offensive message for all to see in the subject line. There may

have

> been a misunderstanding that led to the use of this language, but I

> don't think I'm misunderstanding the sentence itself.

 

Well, perhaps you're right. I guess I

simply took it as an expression of

the author's enthusiasm for his cause.

 

>

> Whether or not you feel aggrieved, we all have a strong interest in

> not having personal attacks on the list. IMO, the message should be

> deleted.

 

What would that serve? It would leave a

record that was contradictory to the

truth of what took place. I am strongly

opposed to deleting the message.

>

> I've changed the name of this thread so as not to perpetuate the

offense.

 

I certainly agree with the sentiment that

our discussions should focus on the substance

of the issues with which we deal. But I don't

think we want to edit or preculde the expression

of even very strong emotions. Were it not

for his choice of words, Mr. Skaliotis'

attitudes about the diploma issue would

not now be as clear to me. And as I am always

trying to better understand people's attitudes

abot the subject, I think we should encourage

more self expression...even if it is the

expressing of outrage that people feel

in response to statements made here.

 

I think as professionals we can tolerate

this kind of expression and appreciate

its potential value to those in the future

who might seek to know what we were

thinking. And I don't think there is

any danger in making more of this than

it should be, as it is a pretty fundamental

issue. Whatever else we mutually do here,

we are creating a document and that document

ought to accurately reflect the events

that it purports to record.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...>

wrote:

 

>

> I've changed the name of this thread so as not to perpetuate

the offense.

>

> Rory

 

 

Thank-you. I have been busy with taxes. Please direct all

personal issues to the individual, not the group. thanks.

 

[Guest guest]

Ken, Rory, All,

 

I apologize for any confusion and harm I may have caused by responding

to the thread. It is always fun to know the whereabouts of people you

have encountered along the way, so I was inquiring about that. No

personal attack was meant to Ken. Perhaps we can just let this thread

lay to rest now.

 

Colleen

 

 

Message: 6

Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:07:52 -0000

" dragon90405 " <yulong

Re: ad hominem

 

Rory,

 

> I don't want to make this into something if it's not something, but

> it is hard to read calling someone a liar as anything other than a

> personal attack. The post is sitting here in the list with the

> offensive message for all to see in the subject line. There may

have

> been a misunderstanding that led to the use of this language, but I

> don't think I'm misunderstanding the sentence itself.

 

Well, perhaps you're right. I guess I

simply took it as an expression of

the author's enthusiasm for his cause.

 

>

> Whether or not you feel aggrieved, we all have a strong interest in

> not having personal attacks on the list. IMO, the message should be

> deleted.

 

What would that serve? It would leave a

record that was contradictory to the

truth of what took place. I am strongly

opposed to deleting the message.

>

> I've changed the name of this thread so as not to perpetuate the

offense.

 

I certainly agree with the sentiment that

our discussions should focus on the substance

of the issues with which we deal. But I don't

think we want to edit or preculde the expression

of even very strong emotions. Were it not

for his choice of words, Mr. Skaliotis'

attitudes about the diploma issue would

not now be as clear to me. And as I am always

trying to better understand people's attitudes

abot the subject, I think we should encourage

more self expression...even if it is the

expressing of outrage that people feel

in response to statements made here.

 

I think as professionals we can tolerate

this kind of expression and appreciate

its potential value to those in the future

who might seek to know what we were

thinking. And I don't think there is

any danger in making more of this than

it should be, as it is a pretty fundamental

issue. Whatever else we mutually do here,

we are creating a document and that document

ought to accurately reflect the events

that it purports to record.

 

Ken

 

______________________

______________________