17-11-2018, 05:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 21-11-2018, 12:24 PM by davidjackson.
Edit Reason: shorten | snipped by mod
)
To David
First of all, as a moderator you should not be so ready to turn an objective subject - reconsideration of past assumptions about the manuscript - into an excuse for a snide comment against a forum- member . Do remember that everything said here is accessible online, and thus deemed published material.
Slander becomes libel when it is published.
I would strongly recommend that what you hear said about the manuscript, or about persons, not be taken on faith. Demand evidence before adopting any information, regardless of personalities.
Searcher, for example, has accused me here of 'ambition and commercial interest'. I should be delighted to hear what prompted that fantasy, but I expect it comes down to 'a bloke said so'.
David, as moderator you had a duty to censure that ad.hominem and baseless assertion by Searcher, but not only did you fail to do so, you actually censored my own defence.
[snipped by mod]Ad. Hominem comments[/snip]
Your own remark about 'gossip mags' was absolutely out of order. (Give yourself a 60% warning level.
)
I should like you to re-think your seemingly arbitrary decision against permitting discussion of methodologies, standards of documentation, or re-consideration of past works and opinions, such as Stolfi's.
As a rule-of-thumb to determine if behaviour is being rightly described as being a product of prejudice, we have a list of tests which includes one item I think may prove helpful to moderators:
1. Would the problematic comment or action have been differently defined had it come from a different 'class' of person: e.g. from someone of different age, or gender, or from someone of a different nationality... etc.
As example - Had I said to Rene that 'ambition and commercial interest' were his sole motivation - would you have allowed it to pass uncensured? Had Rene responded with a protest that such assertions should be at least provided some evidence for them, would you have censored Rene's protest ?
Again, if Anton had suggested that the study's deep-seated problems are largely a result of inherited errors and poorly-documented arguments, would you have told him that to have a thread about the study's history, or to insist on correctly documenting a picture was 'appropriate'?
The sources I cited about Stolfi are already public record and Stolfi's character can only be restored, if anything, by a re-consideration of the circumstances which saw him, and thus his research, dismissed.
Another item for you, David. Had Rene corrected my usage of a French or German word, would you have interfered as you have just done? Wouldn't you first check some independent academic text book?
Look, I'll state my formal qualifications here once and for all. If any of it should amaze you then think about just who told you otherwise.
[snipped by moderator]Personally identifiable information which goes against forum rules[/snip]
First of all, as a moderator you should not be so ready to turn an objective subject - reconsideration of past assumptions about the manuscript - into an excuse for a snide comment against a forum- member . Do remember that everything said here is accessible online, and thus deemed published material.
Slander becomes libel when it is published.
I would strongly recommend that what you hear said about the manuscript, or about persons, not be taken on faith. Demand evidence before adopting any information, regardless of personalities.
Searcher, for example, has accused me here of 'ambition and commercial interest'. I should be delighted to hear what prompted that fantasy, but I expect it comes down to 'a bloke said so'.
David, as moderator you had a duty to censure that ad.hominem and baseless assertion by Searcher, but not only did you fail to do so, you actually censored my own defence.
[snipped by mod]Ad. Hominem comments[/snip]
Your own remark about 'gossip mags' was absolutely out of order. (Give yourself a 60% warning level.
)I should like you to re-think your seemingly arbitrary decision against permitting discussion of methodologies, standards of documentation, or re-consideration of past works and opinions, such as Stolfi's.
As a rule-of-thumb to determine if behaviour is being rightly described as being a product of prejudice, we have a list of tests which includes one item I think may prove helpful to moderators:
1. Would the problematic comment or action have been differently defined had it come from a different 'class' of person: e.g. from someone of different age, or gender, or from someone of a different nationality... etc.
As example - Had I said to Rene that 'ambition and commercial interest' were his sole motivation - would you have allowed it to pass uncensured? Had Rene responded with a protest that such assertions should be at least provided some evidence for them, would you have censored Rene's protest ?
Again, if Anton had suggested that the study's deep-seated problems are largely a result of inherited errors and poorly-documented arguments, would you have told him that to have a thread about the study's history, or to insist on correctly documenting a picture was 'appropriate'?
The sources I cited about Stolfi are already public record and Stolfi's character can only be restored, if anything, by a re-consideration of the circumstances which saw him, and thus his research, dismissed.
Another item for you, David. Had Rene corrected my usage of a French or German word, would you have interfered as you have just done? Wouldn't you first check some independent academic text book?
Look, I'll state my formal qualifications here once and for all. If any of it should amaze you then think about just who told you otherwise.
[snipped by moderator]Personally identifiable information which goes against forum rules[/snip]