LDS School Board Member Bullies Teenage Girl

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I dislike most of your posts is that because they are predominantly self-referential, and tend toward the emotional rather than the evidentiary/analytical/substantive.

Providing a verbatim quote and then responding to it, and including links to the post to which I am responding, is not reasonably characterized as "tak{ing} away the context."

Then feel free to disregard my posts.  

Tell you what, I won't presume to tell you what to say or how to say it, and ask that you reciprocate.  Alternatively, feel free to disregard my posts.  Either way, let's dispense with the whinging.

As Captain Barbossa put it: I decline to acquiesce to your request.  Means "no."

I am not doing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

How clueless can you possibly be.  I was very clear that I do not want my posts picked apart word for word or sentence by sentence.  Yet you answer my post by doing the VERY THING I complained about.  PLEASE DO NOT FISK MY POSTS.  Taking sentences apart and taking sentences out of context is NOT 

 

Quote

 

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

 

The very definition of Fisking which is what you consistently use in your posts defines it as an approach that is tantamount to tking a sentence out of context in order to refute the entire argument.   I see you use this method in your answers consistently to allow you to take things completely out of context.  PLEASE STOP DOING THAT IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO MY POSTS.  Taking a sentence apart to answer a question and taking individual sentences OUT OF CONTEXT is NOT providing a verbatim quote.  It is taking the words out of context, which. is exactly what fisking is designed to do.  You use fisking for the very reason to distort what is being posted.  I am not the only one who have complained to you about using this gimmick.

I am not going to simply ignore your posts when you have distorted what I have said by using this gimmick.  Maybe I should copy and paste this post every single time you use fisking when you answer my posts. Perhaps you will then get the clear message that I am tired of you fisking my posts.

 

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

How clueless can you possibly be.  I was very clear that I do not want my posts picked apart word for word or sentence by sentence.  

How clueless can you be, to presume to dictate to other people what they may and may not speak.

 

If you don't like my posts, don't read 'em.  Or put me on "ignore."  Whatever you like.  But you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot say on this board.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet you answer my post by doing the VERY THING I complained about.  PLEASE DO NOT FISK MY POSTS.

PLEASE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, OR ITS LEADERS, DOCTRINES, MEMBERS, ETC.

I don't expect you to comply with this request.  You can say what you want on this board.  Free Speech is cool.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

The very definition of Fisking which is what you consistently use in your posts defines it as an approach that is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute the entire argument.  

Not really.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I see you use this method in your answers consistently to allow you to take things completely out of context.  PLEASE STOP DOING THAT IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO MY POSTS.  

Again: I decline to acquiesce to your request.  Means "no."

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Taking a sentence apart to answer a question and taking individual sentences OUT OF CONTEXT is NOT providing a verbatim quote.  It is taking the words out of context, which. is exactly what fisking is designed to do.  You use fisking for the very reason to distort what is being posted.  I am not the only one who have complained to you about using this gimmick.

Respectfully, I am indifferent to your assessment of my writing.  

I also decline to let you dictate what I may and may not say on this board.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not going to simply ignore your posts when you have distorted what I have said by using this gimmick.  

Okay.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe I should copy and paste this post every single time you use fisking when you answer my posts. Perhaps you will then get the clear message that I am tired of you fisking my posts.

I don't care for your writing style, either.  But I am not interested in presenting demands that you change what you say or how you say it in deference to my tastes and preferences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

Duplicate post

Edited February 13, 2024 by california boy

[Vanguard]

For the record, I do not agree with those who are contesting (attacking?) smac97's style of posting. Though I don't always agree with him (the vast majority of the time I do), I very much appreciate his breaking down of another's comments to ferret out what he sees as a possible inconsistency. And many times I come out of the exchange understanding said inconsistency. Though it makes for tedious reading at times, it does enlarge and clarify for me whatever issue is being addressed. Demanding that a poster not respond to a post in a certain way is not appropriate. If the posts are inappropriate for the forum, report it. Otherwise, we're all stuck with each other's style and smac97's is not the only style on this board others might find objectionable... 

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How clueless can you be, to presume to dictate to other people what they may and may not speak.

 

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you don't like my posts, don't read 'em.  Or put me on "ignore."  Whatever you like.  But you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot say on this board.

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

PLEASE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, OR ITS LEADERS, DOCTRINES, MEMBERS, ETC.

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't expect you to comply with this request.  You can say what you want on this board.  Free Speech is cool.

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again: I decline to acquiesce to your request.  Means "no."

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I am indifferent to your assessment of my writing.  

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also decline to let you dictate what I may and may not say on this board.

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Okay?  Perfect.  I am glad you are ok with not fisking my posts.  We finally agree on something.

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't care for your writing style, either. 

Then don't respond to. my posts

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I am not interested

If you are not interested, then don't respond to my posts.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

in presenting demands

Calling you out for using a gimmick to distort the context of what they post is a justifiable demand.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

that you change what you say

I have demonstrated exactly how fisking works in this very post

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

or how you say

You don't think fisking changes what you stated?

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

it in deference to my tastes and preferences.

Your personal fisking style takes words and sentences out of context, which is exactly why fisking is used.  It is dishonest to continually distort the context of what others are actually saying.  

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

You are welcome.  Always glad to offer constructive criticism.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Okay?  Perfect.  I am glad you are ok with not fisking my posts.  We finally agree on something.

Nope.  I'll keep writing in ways that suit me.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Then don't respond to. my posts.

I'll respond according to my preferences, not according to your peremptory demands.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you are not interested, then don't respond to my posts.

Calling you out for using a gimmick to distort the context of what they post is a justifiable demand.

A demand to which I decline to acquiesce.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

For the record, I do not agree with those who are contesting (attacking?) smac97's style of posting. Though I don't always agree with him (the vast majority of the time I do), I very much appreciate his breaking down of another's comments to ferret out what he sees as a possible inconsistency. And many times I come out of the exchange understanding said inconsistency. Though it makes for tedious reading at times, it does enlarge and clarify for me whatever issue is being addressed. Demanding that a poster not respond to a post in a certain way is not appropriate. If the posts are inappropriate for the forum, report it. Otherwise, we're all stuck with each other's style and smac97's is not the only style on this board others might find objectionable... 

When a poster has more than one idea in a single post, then addressing those thoughts separately is totally understandable.  When each sentence is broken into multiple comments, then the whole context of the sentence is distorted and context is lost.  Once SMAC is able to break up the context of the original poster, then he is not responding to exactly what the poster intended.  He is able to put his own spin and give that spin context.  That is exactly why people use fisking.  

Everyone else on this entire board is able to keep posts in context and respond to those posts as they were written.  So what approach is a more honest approach?  Taking things out of context?  Or keeping the thoughts in context and commenting on exactly what was said.  Maybe you haven't been fisked like some of us have.  I hope you haven't.  It is very frustrating to see what you wrote become so distorted.  Take a look at the post I originally posted and see if you can tell where by going so far as to break apart a single sentence loosed all context of what that sentence has actually said.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I'll keep writing

I hope you will.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

in ways

You mean using fisking as a way to take sentences out of context.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

that suit me.

I get it.  You like using this gimmick to muddy exactly what the poster is saying.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll respond

I hope you will

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

according to my preferences,

Your preference being to use fisking to purposefully take things out of context.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

not according to your peremptory demands.

Because keeping things in context is unimportant to the actual discussion?

I hope you will reconsider

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A demand to which I decline to acquiesce.

I guess distorting the intent of what a poster is actually posting lends itself to your agenda.  Sad.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

You are welcome

[Vanguard]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

When a poster has more than one idea in a single post, then addressing those thoughts separately is totally understandable.  When each sentence is broken into multiple comments, then the whole context of the sentence is distorted and context is lost.  Once SMAC is able to break up the context of the original poster, then he is not responding to exactly what the poster intended.  He is able to put his own spin and give that spin context.  That is exactly why people use fisking.  

Everyone else on this entire board is able to keep posts in context and respond to those posts as they were written.  So what approach is a more honest approach?  Taking things out of context?  Or keeping the thoughts in context and commenting on exactly what was said.  Maybe you haven't been fisked like some of us have.  I hope you haven't.  It is very frustrating to see what you wrote become so distorted.  Take a look at the post I originally posted and see if you can tell where by going so far as to break apart a single sentence loosed all context of what that sentence has actually said.

I'm aware this has been an issue for you (and a few others) for some time. I seem to remember this coming up a few years ago? I doubt smac believes he is fisking you though. But in order to better ferret this accusation out you'd have to allow him to continue posting in the style you consider fisking! Weird paradox. : ) Please know that regardless of whether you may find my style inappropriate in the future, I am not intending to do so. And I believe smac isn't intentionally doing so either. Really, the only viable option you have would be to refrain from responding to his posts. If the issue is as prevalent & obvious as you claim it to be, I'm sure many others would also see through his perceived manipulation. 

My main point is that we don't want to go down the route of taking exception to and demanding another poster change his style short of reporting him to the administrator. I don't think anything good will come of it. That's why I have largely disagreed with many on this board when some of the more infamous posters have come and gone over the years. I personally liked more of them than not even though I thought their style and content of their posts were many times ridiculous though they were run out on rails...

Edited February 13, 2024 by Vanguard

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How clueless can you possibly be.  I was very clear that I do not want my posts picked apart word for word or sentence by sentence.  Yet you answer my post by doing the VERY THING I complained about.  PLEASE DO NOT FISK MY POSTS.  Taking sentences apart and taking sentences out of context is NOT 

 

The very definition of Fisking which is what you consistently use in your posts defines it as an approach that is tantamount to tking a sentence out of context in order to refute the entire argument.   I see you use this method in your answers consistently to allow you to take things completely out of context.  PLEASE STOP DOING THAT IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO MY POSTS.  Taking a sentence apart to answer a question and taking individual sentences OUT OF CONTEXT is NOT providing a verbatim quote.  It is taking the words out of context, which. is exactly what fisking is designed to do.  You use fisking for the very reason to distort what is being posted.  I am not the only one who have complained to you about using this gimmick.

I am not going to simply ignore your posts when you have distorted what I have said by using this gimmick.  Maybe I should copy and paste this post every single time you use fisking when you answer my posts. Perhaps you will then get the clear message that I am tired of you fisking my posts.

 

 

Could this be a lawyer thing? Maybe how someone in his line of work handles dialogue. 

Edited February 13, 2024 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

51 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

For the record, I do not agree with those who are contesting (attacking?) smac97's style of posting. Though I don't always agree with him (the vast majority of the time I do), I very much appreciate his breaking down of another's comments to ferret out what he sees as a possible inconsistency.

See here for an example where he cuts someone off mid sentence to respond to a point the poster did not make. 
 

 

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm aware this has been an issue for you (and a few others) for some time. I seem to remember this coming up a few years ago? I doubt smac believes he is fisking you though.

"Fisking" is really nothing more than "a line-by-line rebuttal," or "{a} rebuttal to an article or blog made by quoting its content in sections and refuting each section individually."

CB seems to think that "fisking" is inherently problematic.  I don't.

35 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But in order to better ferret this accusation out you'd have to allow him to continue posting in the style you consider fisking! Weird paradox. : )

CB "fisks" people all the time.  A few very recent samplings:

This must be one of those "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" things.

35 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Please know that regardless of whether you may find my style inappropriate in the future, I am not intending to do so. And I believe smac isn't intentionally doing so either.

I'm really no.  When responding to other posts, my response style is fairly consistent.  

CB really dislikes me personally, so much so that I think he feels I am singling him out in some nefarious way.  I'm not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Fisking" is really nothing more than "a line-by-line rebuttal," or "{a} rebuttal to an article or blog made by quoting its content in sections and refuting each section individually."

CB seems to think that "fisking" is inherently problematic.  I don't.

CB "fisks" people all the time.  A few very recent samplings:

This must be one of those "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" things.

I'm really no.  When responding to other posts, my response style is fairly consistent.  

CB really dislikes me personally, so much so that I think he feels I am singling him out in some nefarious way.  I'm not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Just a bit ago you quoted me, and I was frustrated at the first because it needed more context. Then I scrolled down a bit and saw another cut out comment I made. So I was relieved that you included the rest. So can't you see how that can be frustrating had you not included the rest of my comment? I mean you could make me look really bad.

Edited February 14, 2024 by Tacenda

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm aware this has been an issue for you (and a few others) for some time. I seem to remember this coming up a few years ago? I doubt smac believes he is fisking you though. But in order to better ferret this accusation out you'd have to allow him to continue posting in the style you consider fisking! Weird paradox. : ) Please know that regardless of whether you may find my style inappropriate in the future, I am not intending to do so. And I believe smac isn't intentionally doing so either. Really, the only viable option you have would be to refrain from responding to his posts. If the issue is as prevalent & obvious as you claim it to be, I'm sure many others would also see through his perceived manipulation. 

The problem for me is, my responses have been distorted using this method.  Intentionally or not, fisking lends itself to doing such a distortion.  Since SMAC is really the only one that uses this method, it is clear that fisking is not necessary to form a response to the point of the post.  

51 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

My main point is that we don't want to go down the route of taking exception to and demanding another poster change his style short of reporting him to the administrator. I don't think anything good will come of it. That's why I have largely disagreed with many on this board when some of the more infamous posters have come and gone over the years. I personally liked more of them than not even though I thought their style and content of their posts were many times ridiculous though they were run out on rails...

But it is reasonable to not have our posts distorted.  I don't seem to have this continuing distortion of what I have posted by anyone else.  While some of my posts may need clarification, I find the vast majority of SMAC's responses have distorted what I have actually said.  I do ignore most of his responses to my posts.  But at some point, it just reaches a point where it seems to be systemic.  

[Raingirl]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Could this be a lawyer thing? Maybe how someone in his line of work handles dialogue. 

I think it’s the difference between most posters responding out of emotion, and just firing off a post, and a logical, measured response. With a little bit of lawyer thrown in. 

[rodheadlee]

On 2/11/2024 at 1:01 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just the standard dictionary usage: “an intense feeling of deep affection.”

 

No. Compassion is compassion. Mercy is mercy. They can be signs that you love someone, sure, but they are not love. Do you know what’s not a sign that you love someone? Expressing dislike. 

If you dislike someone’s beliefs, culture, and personal character, those are all indications that you do not love them. As Calm said it’s possible to hold contradictory feelings at the same time. Especially for someone we have a long history with. I think the idea that you can love someone you just met that you feel strong disdain or dislike for is just a Christian construct to alleviate the cognitive dissonance associated with your perceived duties as a Christian. 

 

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

26 Woe unto you, when all amen shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and blend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

 

Edited February 14, 2024 by rodheadlee
ad info

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I think it’s the difference between most posters responding out of emotion, and just firing off a post, and a logical, measured response. With a little bit of lawyer thrown in. 

Many arguments that have obvious emotions or emotional appeals behind them are filled with logic and reason. And often attempts to appear dispassionate conceal emotions and are filled with logical flaws.

Then of course there is the obvious ragebait which is way too common.

[Calm]

On 2/13/2024 at 5:26 PM, Raingirl said:

I think it’s the difference between most posters responding out of emotion, and just firing off a post, and a logical, measured response. With a little bit of lawyer thrown in. 

I used to really like Smac’s way of responding.  I found it methodical and thorough.  But it seems not an unusual occurrence in more recent years for Smac to do two things that bug me. One is ask a question based on one section of a post that would be answered if he waited and read the whole post at once.  I don’t mind that he asks the question, but when he doesn’t register that it’s answered or doesn’t remove the original question or say something like ‘I see the answer here, no need to clarify, that bugs me because I don’t know if he still expects me to answer, if he noticed the answer at times, or if he’s satisfied. 

The other is focusing so tightly on part of my comment, he ignores what else I say that modifies or explains even when he quotes it. This alters the meaning and creates an argument I did not make for which he then holds me responsible. Since it didn’t happen much in the past, I wonder if he anticipates now what he thinks I am going to say so much he ignores my actual content because he is secure in thinking he knows what I mean based on our countless conversations. That is understandable as I have no doubt I am predictable in many of my comments, but familiarity isn’t a guarantee of understanding. 

It has happen enough that even though I dislike bringing it up, I feel I need to in order to explain to others that what Smac writes at times is not what I wrote or mean, especially when he insists it is a reasonable way of reading what I wrote and he refuses to change his interpretation even when I tell him that is not the meaning I give to those words. 

Smac is not the only one who does this, but it happens most often with him, my guess is because of the way he responds by splitting up the post, he may miss what the whole post is about. 

Edited February 15, 2024 by Calm