Go back
Appropriate Communication for a Spirituality Forum

Appropriate Communication for a Spirituality Forum

Spirituality


-Removed-
Are you Duchess64?


@ghost-of-a-duke said
I have always been consistent in defending those I consider friends. I am surprised you haven't realized that.
I'm not so sure that matters to him now. You spoke up for someone he has chosen to demonize. Strap in, man.


@fmf said
Why are you going after me on this thread when all I have done is apply the same insights and standards to petewxyz as I have done to any and all for as long as you have known me?
Any and all that you disagree with.

So... much... integrity...


@fmf said
I've noticed that you defend certain people and then you don't. I see consistency there. Do you really not know what "fair weather friends" means?
Do you?

If you do, why haven't you applied it to your own interaction with the Ghost in this thread?


-Removed-
I see you.

"You're either for us or against us."

Nice. Such integrity.


@fmf said
You have a track record, surely, of turning your back on friends in this little part of cyberspace.
Funny...


-Removed-
This is starting to smell of desperation.


@suzianne said
Argumentum ad populum.
No. You are mistaken. When I say "I think BigDoggProblem has [petewxyz's] card marked" it is not argumentum ad populum. It simply means that I agree with what BigDoggProblem said and therefore do not feel the need to restate it.

Argumentum ad populum is an informal fallacy argument that contends that a claim must be true because many or most people believe it. Agreeing with BigDoggProblem is not claiming that "many or most people believe" the same thing as he and I do.


@suzianne said
If you do, why haven't you applied it to your own interaction with the Ghost in this thread?
I will defend or support or agree with anything Ghost of a Duke says if I think he is right and if I think he is being consistent or principled ~ which is virtually everything he posts ~ but I don't and won't do it simply because of the sort of online "allegiance" that he was talking about.


@suzianne said
Any and all that you disagree with.

So... much... integrity...
If you perceive some lack of integrity on my part, address it specifically by all means. I have not claimed that petewxyz has no integrity. What I have done, though, is express the opinion that he was not exhibiting much integrity on the A False Sense of Security thread. It's your prerogative if you want to see that thread differently.


@FMF @divegeester

Judging by the preponderance of thumbs down you two have received in this thread it should be obvious to you both that your statements, comments and assertions are unworthy to be considered spirituality forum debate material.


@secondson said
@FMF

Judging by the preponderance of thumbs down you have received in this thread it should be obvious to you that your statements, comments and assertions are unworthy to be considered spirituality forum debate material.
You think the thumbs down I have received means I should contribute some sort of different "spirituality forum debate material" rather than my own?


@suzianne said
What are you gonna do? Beat him down incessantly, like you beat down GB incessantly until he finally left the forums?
Nailed it. That's what FMF and divegeester do duplicitously in tandem.


@fmf said
You think the thumbs down I have received means I should contribute some sort of different "spirituality forum debate material" rather than my own?
Read the OP and come down off your high horse.


@suzianne said
What are you gonna do? Beat him down incessantly, like you beat down GB incessantly until he finally left the forums?
Grampy Bobby left the forums because of the illness that eventually took his life.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.