Are there any Online Bullies on SciForums?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wegs said:
See above - I must have missed your communications with paddoboy. Guess there’s some bad past stuff going on there. You’re both valuable to the site in your own ways. Don’t let this stuff get to ya.
Click to expand...
Wegs, you are going to have to fully read more of paddoboys Posts.
That is the only way that you will be able to fully understand exactly how detrimental to life in the Universe, or indeed the continued existence of The Universe itself, that my presence on this Forum is.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
lol I know what the phrase means but I was just confused as to why you’re using it to describe dmoe. I must have missed something in the exchanges between you two.
Click to expand...
You have missed plenty of the exchanges of dmoe and myself over many years, and the childishness and stupidity reflected in his posts as the post from James also reflects. Ask him about a poster called et pet over at SFN. ;)
I give back as good as I get.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Sorry, not an ad hom. Merely a criticism.

To be an ad hom, it would have to be 'you're wrong because you are a creep'.
Click to expand...
Good point! That is obviously half the problem....Some self rightious people believe they should be allowed to get away with saying and claiming anything they like, and a good critical post is often mistaken for the usual silly adhom claim.
 
paddoboy said:
You have missed plenty of the exchanges of dmoe and myself over many years, and the childishness and stupidity reflected in his posts as the post from James also reflects. Ask him about a poster called et pet over at SFN. ;)
I give back as good as I get.
Click to expand...
You keep mentioning SFN, paddoboy
What is "SFN"?
And what "about a poster called et pet over at SFN" ?
And how is it relevent to this Thread?
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Sorry, not an ad hom. Merely a criticism.

To be an ad hom, it would have to be 'you're wrong because you are a creep'.
Click to expand...

- https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
" Definition of Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments."

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
" Definition of ad hominem
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made "

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
" Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. "

- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem
" ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
1. A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself or herself.
2. A personal attack.

- https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem
" ad hominem
1. Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument: The candidates agreed to focus on the issues rather than making ad hominem attacks against each other.
2. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason. "
 
sideshowbob said:
Y'know, even "..." is a response.
Click to expand...
Yes, sideshowbob, "..." is a response.
It is a response that is given to signify that something was NOT IGNORED.
It means that a missive was carefully and fully read.
It has been completely understood.
After all due consideration, it has been determined that it does NOT merit any response, so the "..." simply means :
Read - Understood - Nothing worth responding to!
 
dumbest man on earth said:
You keep mentioning SFN, paddoboy
What is SFN?
Click to expand...
Ít's a science forum et p...er dmoe.
dumbest man on earth said:
And what about a poster called et pet over at SFN?
Click to expand...
The poster over at SFN is/was a real weirdo bully that operates here under another handle....his childish inane post methodology is unmistakable! ;)
dumbest man on earth said:
And how is it relevent to this Thread?
Click to expand...
He was a potential bully there until corralled and hog tied, and is still a raving weirdo here....:p
 
paddoboy said:
Ít's a science forum et p...er dmoe.

The poster over at SFN is/was a real weirdo bully that operates here under another handle....his childish inane post methodology is unmistakable! ;)

He was a potential bully there until corralled and hog tied, and is still a raving weirdo here....:p
Click to expand...
So, what does this "poster over at SFN is/was a real weirdo bully that operates here under another handle" have to do with this Thread?
Are you claiming that you are the "poster over at SFN is/was a real weirdo bully that operates here under another handle" ?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
- https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
" Definition of Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments."

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem
" Definition of ad hominem
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made "

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
" Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that is applied to several different types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. "

- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem
" ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
1. A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself or herself.
2. A personal attack.

- https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad hominem
" ad hominem
1. Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument: The candidates agreed to focus on the issues rather than making ad hominem attacks against each other.
2. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason. "
Click to expand...
Yes that's it dmoe, just like the following adhom by yourself.
dumbest man on earth said:
Meh...why don't you practice what you preach, paddoboy?

Now, would you Please go and play with the other children?

Adults are trying to have an Honest and Earnest conversation.
Click to expand...
In reply to a legitimate scenario put by me......
paddoboy said:
Good question:
Perhaps an old saying needs to be kept in mind at this time...It goes like this...."People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
Click to expand...
 
dumbest man on earth said:
- https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
" Definition of Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments."
Click to expand...
Indeed. Simply a criticism isn't sufficient.

An ad hom is an attempt to undermine the arguer, rather than the argument. The requirement being that there is an argument in the first place.
The 'creepy' comment wasn't in response to any argument.


But I don't understand the purpose of this thread, so Imma step back.
 
DaveC426913 said:
But I don't understand the purpose of this thread, so Imma step back.
Click to expand...
- from the Opening Post of "Are there any Online Bullies on SciForums?" :
The Site/Page/Link : https://chataboutyou.com/online-forum-bully , was an interesting read for me and I invite other SciForum Members to Read the Linked content and offer their opinions on the views expressed by Aya Hajime.

And as a related question, do any Members see any evidence of "Online Bullies" here at SciForums?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
And as a related question, do any Members see any evidence of "Online Bullies" here at SciForums?
Click to expand...
Yes....
dumbest man on earth said:
Meh...why don't you practice what you preach, paddoboy?

Now, would you Please go and play with the other children?

Adults are trying to have an Honest and Earnest conversation.
Click to expand...

Hence my reasonable comment, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones/rocks/pebbles"
 
Some other facts worth considering. We often hear trolls, religious fanatics, anti science nuts using the argument against facts such as "an appeal to authority." As in the ad hominem accusation, they are only valid in some situations. eg: I remember a fool over at SFN pulling me up when I was making some comment about Voyager having left the solar system, based on the fact it was now outside the Sun's heliosphere and the influence of the solar wind called the heliosheath. This turkey whose handle was et pet, then arrogantly interrupted claiming that this was wrong and that the solar system was defined by the effects of the Sun's gravity. ;) See where this is going?....Gravity of course extends to infinity, falling off as per the inverse square of distance. The same applies of course to the photons emmitted by the Sun, which have no boundary and of course do not get weaker. [not taking into account the absorption factor etc]
I obviously used a "correct"authoritive confirmation of this which is valid and welcome. The appeal to authority of course applies to for example, asking a doctor what the best cut of beef is.
An adhominem can be viewed the same way. Certainly attacking the person should not be the goal, [and yes, I have used ad hominems, sometimes unnecessarily so] but just as certainly if a person arguing for say little or no gun laws, as in the USA, or if some ratbag started singing the praises of Adolf Hitler, then all the ad hominems one can muster are equally as valid as proper authority appeal. In other words, people pushing and claiming nonsense continually, without links or references, are open for attack. I believe I can safely use Fat Freddy as an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top