Phil Allison wrote:
( snip piles of drivel )
humorWhat kind of scissors do you use for that? I've never tried
to snip a pile of drivel before./humor
But seriously, there was no "drivel" in what I said.
What I said was:
For information purposes, not all amateur (ham) radio operators are the same.
We come in many different sizes, shapes, colors, creeds, temperaments, etc.
Some are suave and polite. (That's not me.)
Some are abusive and manipulative. (That's not me either.)
Some are authoritarian and legalistic. (Definitely not me.)
Some are militantly anti-authoritarian. (Definitely not me either.)
Some are blunt and direct but non-ad-hominem. (That's my style.)
The only common denominator is a love of electronics and radio. Other than
that, hams are an extremely mixed bunch. Judging the group as a whole by
the behavior of any one specimen will give a skewed view.
All of which are true statements.
And your response was:
[No response.]
I'm so glad you fully agree with everything I said.
Yes, that *does* logically follow. You did bother to reply,
and yet you did not disagree with a single thing I said.
Instead, you went off on a tangent about your (mistaken) ideas
regarding the concept of "examples", which has nothing to do
with the topic of the message you were purporting to be
replying to (namely that amateur radio operators come in all
types and descriptions, an assertion which you did not
contradict, probably because you know you can't credibly
do so).
(This is a type of logical fallacy known as "misdirection",
more specifically a subvariant of "straw man". I suppose
you could call it the "when in doubt, change the subject"
fallacy for want of a better name.)
FYI pal,
Fallacy of self-contradiction. Calling someone a "pal" in one
breath and a "fool" in the next is not self-consistent.
I was speaking of only one example = KA1LPA
Only a fool thinks that a criticizing one example of a group
insults the whole group ...
You did not mention any call signs.
And speaking of an "example" *does* speak of that which it is
purported to be an "example" of, yes. That's what "example"
means. (Look it up.)
Not that you used the word "example" in your post. But yes,
you were holding out the person you were talking about as being
an "example" of the amateur radio community. Otherwise, you
would have no reason to bring up "ham radio" at all, let alone
IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. TWICE.
Furthermore, since the person you're lambasting has been behaving
in a substantially more cordial manor than yourself the last few
days, you are not in a "high road" position which would allow you
to call that person "psycho" or "****" (as you did) without
sounding laughable. So don't do that. Duh.
Furthermore, your statement is a misquote because I never
actually said "criticizing one example of a group insults
the whole group". Nor is that quite a true statement.
Criticizing an "example" does criticize that which you're
asserting it's an "example" of, yes. But criticism is not
the same as insults.
Also, further fallacy of mis-quoting, because in my post,
I did not say that you insulted anyone. Even though, in
reality, you did insult "Jamie", I over-looked that insult
of yours, because I was more interested in pointing out
that amateur radio is much more of a mixed bag than you
appear to think it is.
... and requires an immediate defense ...
Fallacy of mis-characterization of another's statements.
I did not "defend" any one or any thing in the post you're
referring to. Indeed, I said, among other things,
"Some [hams] are abusive and manipulative". Does that look
like an act of blanket "defending" of the amateur radio
service? Sure doesn't to me. I was attempting to give
a more balanced view of the service, including both its
high points and its warts.
You are that fool.
Fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem": whether or not I am a
"fool" (whatever that means to you) in your opinion does not
interest me, because it does not bear on the truth or
falsehood of my assertions.
Bottom line: poor post, Phil. Full of fallacious reasoning,
untrue assertions, needless insults, AND UNNECESSARY CAPITAL
LETTERS. Were you perhaps staying up late? Better to do
Usenet stuff earlier, when you mind is fresher. I know you
are capable of much more effective communicating, because
I've seen you do it. You're a great person to talk to when
you stay on-topic. But when you go off on these emotional
tirades, you merely stir up anger, and accomplish nothing
good, for yourself or for anyone else. Some people here
are kill-filing you. You can change all that by doing
just 2 things:
1. Never write in Usenet when tired. Get some rest first.
2. If you write an emotional reply to something, don't
immediately hit "send". Save to drafts, sleep on it,
then come back the next day and edit-out all the
emotional and irrational stuff, and just keep the
cordial, logical, truthful, on-topic stuff. *Then*
hit "send".
--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley
Santa Ana, CA, USA
lonewolf (at) well (dot) com
http://www.well.com/user/lonewolf/