[Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Tue May 8 18:04:33 PDT 2007
Gary,
Thank you for so clearly and with great intellectual integrity replying to:
"Just so that we can all understand unequivocally where you stand:
1. Douglas Stambler claimed that Douglas Wilson molested young boys. If that claim is false, would you say the Wilson was slandered?
2. Is it your position that slander does not occur unless the matter is (a) tried in court, (b) decided by a court, and (c) upheld on appeal should an appeal(s) be filed?
Please for the sake of clarity and honesty answer yes/no to each of the two questions adding any explanatory material you like. Perhaps, for the edification of the V 2020 readers who are still interested, you can answer these two simple questions directly without evading them or trying to change the subject."
Seems kind of chicken shit to me to evade these simple questions which speak to the heart of the problem of trying by ruse to win an argument by the use of a persuasive definition.
I agree that we have wasted enough time on this topic. Those interested have most likely formed their opinions on this early on in the thread.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: g. crabtree
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
All right Wayne, last time up with this as I'm sure folks have got to be getting mighty weary of this mostly irrelevant topic. I know I am. Well here we go, one at a time and in order.
1. Any time anybody writes a sentence they choose words which may have differing definitions but settle on one for the purpose of trying to make a point or simply communicating an idea. Doing so does not preclude all other possible uses or meaning of that same word.
2." Force my will on others?" I couldn't force my will on my wife, my children, my pets, or my houseplants. If you can provide even one example of this stupid contention I'll be amazed as I have gone through life convinced my "will" was as ineffectual as my virtue. The surest test in this particular instance would be to check in with the person I was writing the sentence in question to. Did Ms. Lund think that I was "forcing" my will upon her? I suspect not, and that she would find the notion that I might would be laughable in the extreme.
3. Your favorite obsession, Douglas Wilson. Sorry, I refuse to indulge you in this one. Suffice it to say that I really think, unequivocally, that your passion for all things Doug is beyond odd. If you'd like to crow about my response to this question, knock yourself out. I don't believe in encouraging these sorts of behaviors.
4. The race. You propose a contest that you know could never occur as some sort of test of....what? Look at this one from my perspective. If, by a miracle granted to you by God Almighty, you were to win I'd find myself tired, sweaty, mildly chagrined and in Canada. If I win, I've beaten a geezer in a silly foot race. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me. Lord knows I'm not the fastest turnip on the truck but I didn't fall off it yesterday.
I'd like to say it's been a pleasure, but...
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Deco
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
Well Gary,
I am sorry that you can not understand the simple fallacy of a persuasive definition. But that is not unexpected from a pseudo-libertarian. Just as you try to force your will on others, you try to force a restrictive definition on others in a context where such a definition subtends only a small subset that the general definition used by the other commenter's.
To support your restrictive persuasive definition you write:
"With the courts judgment the answer to the slander/libel question becomes yes or no. Without, it's purely subjective."
Somehow in making this absurd statement you forgot to comment upon the Stambler/Wilson example. And while it is true that a court may enter a judgment in a defamation trial, that judgment may be just as subjective as that any issued by the man in the street. Or haven't you observed a protracted court case peopled by faulty or dishonest witnesses on both sides? Or has it not struck you that the quality of the opposing attorneys plays a great part in the outcome of a trial, perhaps in some trials much more than the opposing claims of facts?
Just so that we can all understand unequivocally where you stand:
1. Douglas Stambler claimed that Douglas Wilson molested young boys. If that claim is false, would you say the Wilson was slandered?
2. Is it your position that slander does not occur unless the matter is (a) tried in court, (b) decided by a court, and (c) upheld on appeal should an appeal(s) be filed?
Please for the sake of clarity and honesty answer yes/no to each of the two questions adding any explanatory material you like. Perhaps, for the edification of the V 2020 readers who are still interested, you can answer these two simple questions directly without evading them or trying to change the subject.
Feel free to continue commenting on my advanced age. Should you like to test the relevance of my advanced age I would be glad to race you from the Bourgeau Lake trail head on the Trans-Canada to the summit of Bourgeau peak. If you win the race, you will have more to gloat about my advanced age; if you lose, you can use your usual failure to meet the issue head on tactics or give some other lame excuse as ways to divert attention from your failure.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: g. crabtree
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
I am well aware of the difference between slander and libel. I have made the distinction in several previous posts. Since Ms. Lund's meaning was clear and I considered the post to be informal and "friendly" I opted to try and avoid coming across as a pedantic blow hole. Different strokes for different folks, aye?
The definition I used for the term slander was absolutely valid. I did not say that the term couldn't be used in any other way but rather that by the definition I used there could be zero question as to whether the offense occurred or not. Barring the restrictive definition of the term we enter into the vague world of peoples feelings and personal perceptions, a place where there is very little likelihood that people with widely divergent world views and opinions are going to reach consensus. With the courts judgment the answer to the slander/libel question becomes yes or no. Without, it's purely subjective. It becomes maybe, perhaps and who knows. Again I'm sure you are well aware of all this and are simply trying to score points in some sort of contest that only you are completely up to speed on. I hope you're having a good time. I'm a little amazed that a throw away post regarding Rose's newest venture has generated this much traffic. Are you having a difficult time filling the long, lonely hours of your declining years?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Deco
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
In the following the word "slander" is used since it occurred earlier in thread, although the correct term is most likely "libel" since we are referring to published material on the internet. The initial and continued use of "slander" for "libel" terms does not affect the gist of the arguments below.
Gary writes:
"Slander, being a legal term, would be easy for you to prove to me by showing me the judgment that the court rendered in your favor."
There are at least three problems with this absurd position. Gary has used this ruse before, so maybe I should risk wasting a little time to expose it, although such exposure will be unlikely to make even an Angstrom Unit of change in Gary's "The Art of Deception" dialectical habits.
A. "Slander, being a legal term..." This is a classic example of the Persuasive Definition Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
"A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "terrorism", "democracy" etc...."
Example: No true patriot would ever criticize President Bush for his decisions with respect to Iraq.
There are contexts where slander is used in its legal sense. However, it is quite clear that Keely was using it in the more general sense:
slander
1. saying of something false and damaging: the act or offense of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody's reputation
2. false and damaging statement: a false and malicious statement that damages somebody's reputation
Microsoft® Encarta® 2007.
Hence, the clear use by Gary of a "persuasive definition" of the word "slander."
B. "...would be easy for you to prove to me by showing me the judgment that the court rendered in your favor." Even if the meaning of the word "slander" is restricted to its simple legal meaning:
1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
the fact that no court judgment has been issued, does not mean that slander in its legal sense has not occurred. Almost all instances of slander in its legal sense never see the any judicial proceeding for a large variety of reasons. Even in its legal sense, the question of whether slander occurred is more complicated. For example, even if false and damaging statements are made, they may not rise to the level of legal slander, although they would certainly meet the criteria of the word "slander" used in its general sense above.
A/B. An example illustrating the above:
In a Vision 2020 Post, Douglas Stambler alleged that Douglas Wilson, so-called pastor of Christ Church, sexually molested young boys. If this allegation is false, then did Stambler slander Wilson?
Since, there has been no judicial proceeding on this matter (reader's are left to speculate why), there has been no court judgment issued.
Under Gary's view, then even if the allegation is false, Wilson has not been slandered. Reader's can be the judge, but I would guess that if the Stambler's allegation is false, I think most of us would agree that Wilson was slandered. Perhaps Gary can ask Wilson if he thought that he was slandered by Stambler's remarks the next time Wilson visits The Lock Shop.
C. The use of the persuasive definition of "slander" and its attendant fallacy by Gary is so clear that for most reader's my above notes are hardly necessary. But one is left to speculate why Gary would make such absurd statements.
Is it because:
1. Gary is such a fool, that he cannot see the absurdity of his statements?
or
2. Gary knows he is running a ruse? In that case we are left to conclude he is a phony and a liar, and not to be taken as a serious, honest defender of various viewpoints.
One could continue to analyze the rest of Gary's response to Keely with its several fallacies, some of them linguistic, but little would be gained for the time investment required.
When it comes to political or ideological viewpoints, there has yet to be developed a method to separate the true from the false (if that is even possible). Such things are always subject to debate at this point, but sometimes progress toward mutual agreement is made. Misleading ruses, absurdities, evasions, etc obscure and stifle rather than forward progress toward agreement in these areas.
Perhaps Gary could make himself a much better defender of his viewpoints (or might possibly, though very improbably, change them a little) if he were to take a well designed logic (not rhetoric) course.
Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: g. crabtree
To: keely emerinemix ; Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
Keely, the remarks I made with regard to Rose's blog were quoted verbatim from mail that she sent to me on the subject. I took no editorial license, just straight from the horses mouth. (note the quotation marks)
Slander, being a legal term, would be easy for you to prove to me by showing me the judgment that the court rendered in your favor. Baring that its just a disagreement concerning the facts. Snide and nasty are in the eye of the beholder. Being mocked is something big girls simply deal with. If you're going to have an opinion and attempt to inflict it on the world you can expect for people to take exception. Are you trying to get me and the rest of the fine folks here on the V to believe that you have never displayed any of the qualities that you accuse Dale of? Never been a little snarky, a little mean? Never fudged the facts to present your position in its most favorable light? Don't even bother to answer, I'm sure we all know. You're human, despite your attempts to have us believe otherwise.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: keely emerinemix
To: g. crabtree ; Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
Ummm, hey? Gary? Rose's blog says she allows comments. Just not bigoted ones. She gets to decide.
Also, while we're on topic here, I can assure you, as someone slandered and mocked by Dale Courtney quite regularly over the last four years, his is not about news with a modicum of commentary. It's just nasty and snide, with a modicum of respect for actual facts.
keely
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jampot at adelphia.net
To: deco at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 10:29:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
My goodness, Wayne all those years of bottled up spleen are certainly making themselves apparent in today's posting aren't they? (what is it now, 101? You don't look a day over 98 but you are a testament to the notion that old and grumpy do go hand in hand) Lets address your little hissy fit in the order that you excreted it.
You take me to task for the sentence:
"Apparently it's more fun to simply broadcast your irrefutable wisdom to the world and not have to deal with the unpleasantness of actual debate."
Mr. Courtney's blog is a news/items of interest site with a modicum of commentary tossed in on the side. Not screeds and lengthy personnel political rants. A greatly appreciated aspect to his using this format is that items of interest to him are not directed to and clogging up the greater groups inbox unlike certain others who shall remain nameless.
In my memory of Dale's posts to the V he did a fine job of expressing and defending his view points, as did Rose. The difference was that Dale was the lone mongoose in the viper pit and Rose sang with the choir. I perfectly understand how being the minority voice can become tiresome and, eventually, not worth the effort. In conversations I have had with Dale I have done my best, sorry as it is, to convince and encourage him to rejoin the fray. Lord knows I would enjoy an additional conservative voice here to help sing the counterpoint to the rest of ya'lls dreary dirge. Do I have "distain and censure" for Rose and her new endeavor? Not hardly, I'm not wild about the fact that it doesn't allow for comments (as Dale's does) but I have been assured that this is but a temporary thing and will change "soon." I have been informed that comments must fall within "appropriate parameters" and this IS a type of censorship I'm not particularly fond of. I truly fail to see how anything I have posted might be construed as being in favor of limiting anyone's free expression. You seem to be laboring under the erroneous and fatuous assumption that Rose and I are enemies of some sort. Nothing could be further from the truth. We get on rather well, all things considered and I wish her nothing but the best in her latest whimsy and I hope that it doesn't suffer the same ignoble fate that lil' Joannie's did.
Whether I have "exhibited yourself for all to see as a phony" is for others to decide. What I have been trying to express is my contention that more light (and heat) is shed in an unmediated, unrestrained setting and that it's the venue that I, personally prefer (even if it means having to endure silly fonts & unrestrained use of color) for hashing out the topics de jour as opposed to having to listen (read) someone hold forth ad nauseum.
Now hows about you have yourself a nice little nap and try and get a little more fiber in your diet and see if your cranky and constipated outlook don't take a remarkable turn for the better. At your advanced age you shouldn't get so agitated.
g
From: Art Deco
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
Well, Gary,
I am surprised that you have the stupidity to mention and to champion Dale Courtney's web-blots so soon after you wrote the following about Rose Huskey and others:
"Apparently it's more fun to simply broadcast your irrefutable wisdom to the world and not have to deal with the unpleasantness of actual debate."
Are you too busy playing with your keys to see that Courtney runs his own web-blots in part because he was not able to effectively defend his positions on V 2020, and so that he may remove comments that he doesn't like, or remove comments that point out where he either misquotes, quotes out of context, or quotes incompletely to give the wrong impression. It's all right for Dale Courtney, but not for Rose Huskey?
Further, you pretended a few days ago to be staunchly anti-censorship and a true defender of freedom of speech "Censorship sucks" were your words. Now you express disdain and censure for those who dare, like your hero Courtney, to express themselves in a blog - a decidedly anti-free-expression position on your part.
You sir, have just exhibited yourself for all to see as a phony, whose writings express a desire to control what others say and do almost as much as do the cultmaster's!
Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: g. crabtree
To: Tom Hansen ; heirdoug at netscape.net ; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
I know I'm probably going to regret this but my curiosity is hopelessly piqued. Just exactly what action did you take that would serve as a shining example for others to emulate? Is it the thinly veiled vulgarities in your post? Is it maintaining a hate web site against a small local protestant congregation? Is it endlessly posting of news tidbits that you think should be of interest to others? Is it your tireless and constant monitoring of Dale Courtney's web site? I'd really like to know what it is so I could thank you properly for your ongoing good works. (once their identified)
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Hansen
To: heirdoug at netscape.net ; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
No-Clue –
You keep submitting gutless threats. Is that all there is to you? My guess is “Yes”.
I am going to repeat a comment I made to you a long time ago:
“SH*T OR GET THE HELL OFF THE POT!”
Loosely translated that means: Be a FRIGGIN’ man for once in your spineless, ignorantly childish life! Crawl out from under that rock of yours and DO SOMETHING. Either take action or SHUT the EFF UP!
I have set an example for you to follow when I took action in the past (and will continue to do so in the future).
Jeesh!
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
“Uh, how about a 1-strike law. Death doesn't seem too extreme for a Level-3 sex offender.”
- Dale “Comb-Over” Courtney (August 3, 2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of heirdoug at netscape.net
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:17 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
And I quote, ".... course of conduct constitute an implied threat."
Wow J.,
That would have to be the best example of point proving since Joan's "jack-boot-vasectomy-procedure" from many months past.
There is nothing like being the poster girl for the Intoleristas! Is there.
D.
I'd tell you go do yourself, but you'd have to grow some first. Which isn't about to happen this late in the game, now is it? The end. J :]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070508/55b0223f/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 73861 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070508/55b0223f/attachment-0001.png
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list