Go back
To Duchess64

To Duchess64

Debates

2 edits

I know we've been engaged in hostilities lately. But the truth is that I don't come here so engage in flame wars or to make enemies. It's not really much fun for me to fight flame wars with anonymous strangers online.

We've both had our shots at each other. But now I call for a truce. You got the last word in on the "Bye" thread and I'm willing to let it go at that.

These are my terms:

1) I will not attack you personally, explicitly or implicitly or make negative statements about you in any way. If I disagree with you, I will say so, but I will address the substance of your argument only.

2) I ask that you do the same for me. Specifically, that if you disagree with me, you feel free to say so and why, but that you refrain from calling into question my motivations, integrity or state or imply that I am being disingenuous or intentionally lying. In other words, even when you disagree with me, I ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt. I will do the same for you, of course.

I've been a regular of this forum for a long time now and I've had fights with many other forum regulars, including Shav, FMF, No1, MB, etc., that are as bad as any fight I've had with you. If we could get past those to the point of at least some mutual respect (and in some cases outright friendship), there's no reason we have to be at each others' throats ad infinitum.

Deal?

Edit: Okay, the last two words on the "Bye" thread. My offer still stands.


Duchess isn't worth this kind of effort.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Duchess isn't worth this kind of effort.
Agreed.
Typical Duchess argument:
"All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore all men are Socrates".

Or better yet:
"You say fresh water has no salt but the ocean is fresh water and it has salt so you are wrong. Tomorrow I'm gonna build a fort. "

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
I know we've been engaged in hostilities lately. But the truth is that I don't come here so engage in flame wars or to make enemies. It's not really much fun for me to fight flame wars with anonymous strangers online.

We've both had our shots at each other. But now I call for a truce. You got the last word in on the "Bye" thread and I'm willing to let it go ...[text shortened]... nfinitum.

Deal?

Edit: Okay, the last two words on the "Bye" thread. My offer still stands.
Nice post.

I have no idea what it's about, but it's good to see people trying to reach out to each other.

Kuddo's!


Originally posted by shavixmir
Nice post.

I have no idea what it's about, but it's good to see people trying to reach out to each other.

Kuddo's!
That's Kudo's , Mr. "I got multiple Master's/Law/Ph.d degrees", shwitwit.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kudos



Originally posted by sh76
I know we've been engaged in hostilities lately. But the truth is that I don't come here so engage in flame wars or to make enemies. It's not really much fun for me to fight flame wars with anonymous strangers online.

We've both had our shots at each other. But now I call for a truce. You got the last word in on the "Bye" thread and I'm willing to let it go ...[text shortened]... nfinitum.

Deal?

Edit: Okay, the last two words on the "Bye" thread. My offer still stands.
Set your own standards and keep to them.

Why are they conditional? Is the implication that, unless your terms are accepted, then you will revert to form?

1 edit

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Edit: After re-reading your post, I am willing to consider that an acceptance, so thank you.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed





GRANNY.

1 edit

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by smw6869
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRK03q76GKU




GRANNY.
Granny!!

Where ya been?

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Okay, deal.

===What do you consider 'a personal insult'? When you challenged DeepThought to cite even a 'single instance' of the IDF intentionally killing civilians, I found it very hard not to believe that you were bluffing and hoping that DeepThought was too ignorant to reply. ===

No, that was not a personal insult. I was not aware of the incident from 1948 that you cited. In any case, I did not mean to assert that there had literally been no incidents of intentional murder by Israeli soldiers. I think there will always be isolated incidents in any conflict.

===You never have explained your motives in apparently implicitly denying that the IDF has ever intentionally killed any civilians. So I think there was a reasonable basis to question your 'integrity'.===

I'm not sure asking DT to cite a single instance is inherently an implicit denial of it ever having happened. In any case, as I said, I was not aware of the incident from 1948 that you cited.

===As I wrote earlier, I have no reason to trust you, and, given that you are a lawyer, I suspect that you may look for a technicality to exploit in order to keep attacking me personally, perhaps by proxy (see above).===

I could do that, lawyer, or no. But I don't really have an interest in doing that.

It sounds crazy, but I really would like to have a good rapport with every other regular poster here.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
===So I am unwilling now to commit to anything until you can show me for long enough that you have changed. As I wrote earlier, *if* you can start leaving me alone long enough, then I shall have less (perhaps eventually none) reason to write anything about you. So may I suggest that you try that? ===

Fair enough. Unilateral truce with an eye towards mutual truce if things go well. I can live with that.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Yes. I re-thought it and realized that I probably could not have realistically expected an unconditional "yes" under the circumstances and so that my demand for a re-affirmation was pointless.