Ship of Fools: When is a comment on a comment too personal?

Thread: When is a comment on a comment too personal? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030859

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your idea of justice is flawed because you consider it need not be penal. The entire wiring of humanity is that all wrongdoing must have reparation.
Your idea of what is Biblical is flawed because you admit you do not know what is Biblical or not and that whether something is or is not does not concern you.
Your idea of holiness is flawed because it is an aspect of God's character. If you ever encountered it you would be on you face repenting not posing the arrogant and spurious nonsense you continually do here.
With due allowance for the fact that I can plausibly read the "arrogant" comment as being directed at arguments, not opponents, that post is still too personal to be appropriate for Purgatory.

The proper venue from which to judge another's experience of God's character is Hell.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Given the crap I have had to take from time to time Mate, this is a bit rich. I suggest you keep your warnings for actual breaches of the rules.

[sorted out the code so we know what's what]

[ 10. February 2017, 22:42: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

You seriously mangled the quoting on that post. Everything above the sentence starting "With due allowance..." is YOUR post. Your editing of the quote makes it look like it is Eliab. Makes it very difficult to understand your complaint. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

For clarity, I sorted that out.

Also, to help people understand the question better, the original post is here.

A general point is that Purgatory is our space for serious discussion (yes, really). That means if you post there you can expect your ideas to be taken seriously, and discussed robustly. Discourtesy towards the views of others may not be strictly speaking a personal attack on those expressing those views. However, dismissing the views of others as "spurious nonsense" is certainly not showing the level of respect we expect, and falls short of serious discussion.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For clarity, I sorted that out.

Also, to help people understand the question better, the original post is here.

A general point is that Purgatory is our space for serious discussion (yes, really). That means if you post there you can expect your ideas to be taken seriously, and discussed robustly. Discourtesy towards the views of others may not be strictly speaking a personal attack on those expressing those views. However, dismissing the views of others as "spurious nonsense" is certainly not showing the level of respect we expect, and falls short of serious discussion.

All good and consistency of application is all that is asked. Eliab seems to have reacted to the word 'arrogant' which is directed toward what was said not the person but as I have formerly said in interactions on this very point, you can't use a word like that without some personal connotations.

Is it not the same thing as saying,"Bullshit!" which regularly happens by in purgatory without hostly comment? I would not have queried this if the warning had been about the 'holiness' remark I made which does call someone's view of God into question, but then again that is something regularly done to me as in the following:

quote:

So while hope endures, I shall continue in hope that God is love, mercy and forgiveness. Not the John Smyth like character Jamat describes.

If hope fails, well, I'm going to toast anyway, because there's no way I can bend my will to Jamat's vision of God, and God would know I was pretending, and I'd burn anyway.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
All good and consistency of application is all that is asked. Eliab seems to have reacted to the word 'arrogant' which is directed toward what was said not the person but as I have formerly said in interactions on this very point, you can't use a word like that without some personal connotations.

Is it not the same thing as saying,"Bullshit!" which regularly happens by in purgatory without hostly comment? I would not have queried this if the warning had been about the 'holiness' remark I made which does call someone's view of God into question, but then again that is something regularly done to me as in the following:

Please read my warning again, because I think you've misunderstood it (which may, of course, be my fault for being unclear). The "arrogant" comment raises the temperature of your post, but I acknowledged that it was at least ostensibly directed at an argument not a person. The "holiness" one was the point that I think would be better made in Hell.

My reasoning being that unlike a comment like Karl's (that he doesn't like what he understands to be your portrayal of God), which is robust debate, saying to someone that they don't understand holiness because it is an attribute of God, and if they ever experienced God they would repent, strikes me as unavoidably personal. It goes beyond saying that the idea of God that is being presented is wrong/unbiblical/odious/whatever to saying that the idea of God being presented reflects badly on the spiritual life of the person presenting it. I can see that it could be spun as not being explicitly a personal attack, which is why I didn't explicitly cite a commandment breach, but it certainly does not help Purgatorial discussion.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0