What Constitutes a Personal Attack?

Everyone here has got annoyed and said something they would like to take back the next day. Probably even Gus, although I don't remember any posts of his that attacked another poster, only those that attacked a position. Regardless, the people who have posted to this thread are blatantly attacking Gus, and doing so without much wit. My theory is, if you are going to weaken your argument by using ad hominen attacks, the least you can do is make it humorous.

Thank you friends,
Tony

BTW, not that Gus needs anyone to defend him, but I would guess that we are hearing the vocal minority in this thread.
Oh well.

 

I've probably spent as much effort doing that as anyone else on Degreeinfo, and with considerably more success.

But Gus has never abused me.

Is it the fact that I'm a native San Franciscan who likes the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality?

Abuse me! Pleasure is pain.

Oh please. Everyone bent over backwards to kiss Henrik's ass.

John Bear introduced him as the proprietor of Knightsbridge University. He introduced himself as the spokesman of non-accredited schools. Is asking such person tough questions "abuse"? What would you have had us do instead?

That's impossible. Frenchy thrives on abuse. He goes out of his way to court it. (That's one reason I like the guy.)

Again, "plcscott" seems to be a guy who thrives on mixing it up. (He pretends to be a scary bad-ass martial arts dude.) He has said himself that he's trying to push Gus' buttons just for the fun of it. So stop complaining. He succeeds in getting precisely what he wants. Degreeinfo is always willing to oblige.

Why am I being overlooked? I need abuse!!

 

Whenever I use that line, the drunk is usually loud, belligerent, obnoxious, insulting and non-conforming. Then they will angrily shout, "I pay your salary!!!"

These types of drunks are usually disheveled, unkempt, low-class citizens -- oftentimes unemployed, due to their alcohol and drug abuse. My prompt reply is always, "You can't even take care of yourself. How are you going to pay for my salary?" Without fail, this always shuts them up.

Or if I need a laugh from the surrounding eyes and ears, then I'll say, "I need a raise."

Okay, point well taken.

 

OK, that's funny. Real funny.

 

You bring up an important point. Sometimes I feel that if I just ignored these guys, they would consider that true (not just their cockamamie alleged) abuse.

Reminds me of Steve Martin and Bill Murray in the movie version of Little Shop of Horrors.

 

Well it seems that Scott is starting the trouble with Gus. I am out to push his buttons. Well I have not been here very long, and it seems that many in the past have pushed Gus's buttons. Infact I think you do not have to press buttons to get Gus going since his trigger finger seems to be mighty ichy. When ever he gets a chance he goes off on someone. And you think I caused all of this? The difference I have made, if any, is that I have not walked off on my way, and allowed Gus to keep doing this without calling him out. Gus seems to have more of a desire to tear people down than help them out. He has the ability with his knowledge of DL to steer people in the right direction, but he would rather pick a fight.

I did not like it when he did it to me, so when he did it to the new guy I called him out. If Gus is going to go around throwing out words like ignorant, stupid, idiot, etc. then expect me to call him down because I will.

Regards,

Scott

 

In True Lies (arguably the best movie Arnold ever made) Jamie Lee Curtis plays Helen Tasker, a bored housewife oblivious to the fact that her husband, Harry Tasker (played, of course, by Arnold Schwarzenegger) is super secret agent. One of the best scenes is when Helen finds out the truth about Harry, and still a bit incredulous, the following exchange takes place.

Helen: “Did you ever kill anyone?”
Harry (drugged with truth serum): "Yes, but they were all bad!"

 

Just for clarification, that Bruce was/is not me. Different person.

 

I always counter with "Oh, so you're the cheap bastard!!

 

Good one, and I agree my neighbor had been with the Sheriff's Dept. for years, and was a chief polygraph examiner. When he went back and finished his bachelor degree in criminal justice he took a new job to get a very good pay raise. The job was with the Dept. of Defense in VA. at least that is what he has to tell people.

 

When you call someone a fraud. You are insulting them. This is not a compliment and is not neutral, but is a direct attack on their character. In calling someone dishonest you are calling them a liar. Lacking wit means lacking perception or cleverness, intelligence, sagacity. Any person called these things has been directly insulted. You can disagree with their ideas without ever using these negative terms. I also attack people, but never first. My rule is no free shots. You call me a liar, I'll strike back, no free shots. Calling someone a ( fraud-dishonest- lacking wit ) is attack, and if they come back at you with terms like( liar- fool-stupid ) that is also attack. If you don't want their version of attack, then don't use your version. If you give it out, you may expect it back, especially from( ME ) NO FREE SHOTS!!! Using your version of insults to try and win debates is no sign of the correctness of your position, but is an attempt to undermine the other person by reducing them as a person, this is personal attack. Having determined your method of attack, you cannot choose how you will be attacked. If you dish it out, expect to receive it back, and your opponent in debate will choose that method of attack, not you.

 

Re: Re: What Constitutes a Personal Attack?

Interesting, very interesting. What I’d like to know however, is what you going to do if I don’t as you have alleged on several other occasions, go around calling people ignorant, stupid, or idiot? Will you apologize? Will you admit you are full of it? Will you have the common sense to be properly embarrassed? I sincerely doubt it.

You seem incapable of doing any research and instead prefer to shoot from the hip. As such, I chose not to ask you to prove your allegations, and have conducted a search of Degree Info archives for you. (The search terms have been highlighted in bold in this post for the sake of clarity; they were not highlighted in the original posts.) I have listed the quotes in order of the oldest to the most recent.

The first search was for posts in which I employed the term stupid. There were seven of them.

• 1.The first time I employed the word stupid on this forum was when I proposed the GAAS criteria. As I am particularly fond of that post, I’ll provide a link. It can be found here.
  
  2. This was a rebuttal to Peter French’s assertion that in Australia, only American’s paid for a Ph.D.
  ”It is interesting that you state that only Americans pay for a Ph.D. in Australia; this is news to me. The obvious inference is that they are the only ones stupid enough to do so: shame on the Australian institutions who take advantage of the poor gullible Americans. However, I wonder if all of this would also be news to the vast number of students from Asia and the rest of the world who have also paid their fees?”
  
  3. In this post I responded to an individual who had made repeated requests for a list of degree mills. Once again I turned down his request stating, I am simply not that stupid. Stop asking.”
  
  4. This post was a joke.
  “One of the best things about the laws against discrimination based on race, religion, country of origin, sexual preferences, etc. is that they do allow discrimination based on factors that are truly important, such as being ugly or stupid. ”
  
  5. In this post oxpecker asked if it was possible that Paulie actually believed that a Saint Regis degree was legitimate. I responded, “I guess is it possible, but is anyone really that stupid?”
  
  6 This was a joke to cdhale.
  “You may speak Estonian like a stupid gorilla, but your Klingon isn't much better.”
  
  7. In this post, an anonymous troll was explaining that he revealed personal information, got a bunch a crap for doing so, and then chastised me for not doing the same. I facetiously asked, “So, you want to criticize me for not being as stupid as you are?”

The second search was for the term ignorant, and it yielded seven posts

• 1.Here the discussion was concerning hiring practices.
  ”I reject the small percentage of naïve and ignorant individuals for precisely those same reasons. If their interest is so low or their research skills so poor that they are willing to commit their time and effort without becoming aware of accreditation issues or the value of their degrees, I can assume they will be even more callous with my time and money."
  
  2. This post commented on degree nomencalture.
  ”In fact, the degree titles from an unaccredited school cannot differ substantially from those issued by properly accredited schools. If they did, what little utility they would have (being that their utility is dependent on being mistaken for a properly accredited degree by ignorant or apathetic evaluators) would evaporate.”
  
  3. This was about a poster who was banned for logging in with multiple identities just to create controversy. I actually spoke on the phone with this guy and tried to help him.
  ”I deal extensively with non-native speakers of the English language. ‘Torry’s’ errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax, however voluminous, are not consistent. They appear to be the work of someone that is trying to appear ignorant, rather than the sincere labor of one who is putting forth his or her best efforts.”
  
  4. This one speaks for itself.
  ”After having to admit that almost every assertion you made concerning your degree was erroneous, your buddy Epictetus perhaps explained it best when he said, ‘In theory it is easy to convince an ignorant person: in actual life, men not only object to offer themselves to be convinced, but hate the man who has convinced them.’”
  
  5. In this post I parodied Dan Akroyd from Saturday Night Life in a response to Henrik.
  ”Henrik (you ignorant slut ), do you really believe that the same suave patent answers you provide the naïve prospective students of Knightsbridge University (in hopes that they will send you their hard earned money) would withstand the scrutiny of the members of DegrreeInfo?”
  
  6. In this post I quoted Dan Akroyd, and explained the origin of the phrase, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” I also apologized to anyone who did not get the joke or was offended by it.

Lastly, I searched for the term idiot. A total of four posts were found.

• 1. In this post I responded to Uncle Janko’s joke by updating one of the questions he posted concerning promoters.
  ”Are you a pest toward him? (1)YES (2)NO (3)I DON’T KNOW; IT COULD JUST BE MY NATURE (4)I MAY JUST COME ACROSS THAT WAY TO HIM OR HER BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS AN IDIOT AND A SADIST”
  
  2. This quote was one of the items on my list of the only times in history when it was appropriate to use the “F” word.
  ” 8. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that."
  —Einstein, 1938”
  
  3. This one also speaks for itself.
  ”I, for one, have no interest in treating anyone like an idiot or a criminal.”
  
  4. In this post I was responding to an anonymous troll who accused me of calling people idiots.
  ” Who have I called an idiot that isn’t?”

So there you have it; every post in which I used the terms stupid, ignorant and idiot in all my years on this forum. Anyone who wants to verify this information can conduct a search of his or her own. Needless to say, you will come up with one additional post: this one.

Oh, and for the record, anyone who goes around throwing out accusations without ascertaining the facts is stupid, ignorant, and an idiot.

 

Well Gus thanks for the research. Since you want to take the time to research here are some of the things I remember you calling me.

Warped, full of it, no class, low class, dispenser of self-serving bunk, extremely dishonest, ignorant, flawed logic, fool, and of course Bunkie.

I guess I can add the above to the list. Most of these came on a thread I started called RA=well rounded. You disagreed with my thoughts on fluff courses, and thus started throwing out this kind of stuff.

The problem is you use words, and any other method to win a debate. This is just a debate. You would rather tear someone down than discuss or debate. Stupid, Ignorant, Idiot, Warped, Liar, etc. are typically words that provoke people. Do you generally talk this way to people in person? When you debate people in person do you say?

your are too ignorant
that is stupid
you are full of it
you have warped logic
you are extremely dishonest
you have flawed logic

If so I bet you do not have many friends. You have great skills, and I am sure you are very smart. You know a lot about DL, but when you go around throwing this kind of stuff out you are going to either provoke, or offend people. All I am saying is why do it? If you have these great debating and vocabulary skills, and your grammar is perfect then just make your points.

You seem to want to find anything to win a debate. You throw up negative things you have read from people. The first several post I posted here were negative toward KW. The first chance you get you call me a degree mill apologist when I told everything about my experience with KW, and have not recommended them to anyone. In fact the opposite is true. That is the whole problem here. The only reason I keep coming back at you is to let you know how it feels, and obviously you do not like it.

 

How is this for research?

You ask fmhayes to show where you abused him so I will help you out.

OK, Dr. Quack, now see what you’ve done! You have our esteemed Uncle Janko feeling a bit distraught and neglected.

Don’t worry, Unk, I’m sure he’ll get to you eventually. Keep in mind that DegreeInfo has over 4000 members, and currently, the good doctor appears to be a bit obsessed with Rich and I. May I suggest asking him for a good recipe for NZ Brown Teal?

 

Was this necessary? You know that his passion is the brown teal, so you take a personal shot at him.

 

I am quite sure I am capable of doing more research, but my point has been made.

I have disagreed with people here that have the people skills to take it at that, and move on. I have also debated a few times with people who have been so articulate that they changed my mind. Your tactics are not fruitful to a debate. They do not allow discussion, but curtail a debate into a personal pissing contest. I realize we are in one now, but we will stay in one as long as keep it going because right or wrong, win or lose I will give you a dose of your own medicine.

 

Either your memory is faulty (I already proved I never called anyone ignorant), you have a persecution complex, or you are a troll (well, we know the last one is true). And no, I won’t do any more research for you. I have already proven conclusively that you are making false accusations solely for the purpose of personally attacking me.

If you know the thread it shouldn’t be too hard to post a quote. I have already proved that you have lied on this forum and now I have proved that you are constantly making baseless personal attacks. Either post the quotes or remain quiet. The world is watching.

Words are what you use in a debate. Words are all we use in this forum to discuss ideas. It seems that you are regarding words as weapons (you have used them to make threats) and are frustrated that others have a greater vocabulary and mastery of the language (it's that aversion to "fluff' courses coming back to haunt you ). As such, you have no recourse except to try and twist what others have said to suit your purposes.

No, and I’ve proven, contrary your allegations and what you are once again trying to imply (don’t you get tired of being exposed as nothing more than some kind of stalker?), that I don’t do so on this forum.

No. I am not, however, adverse to stating something akin to, “You are ignorant about distance education.”

Yes, but I’d follow it with a “because.”

Yes, when appropriate.

No. I would prefer to say, “that is (or you are employing) warped logic, here’s why.”

No. I call a liar a liar.

No. Once again, I prefer to say, “that is (or you are employing) flawed logic, here’s why.”

Listen, no one likes being proven wrong. I avoid it like the dickens by making absolutely certain of everything I say and write. However, on this forum, we have many individuals who post information (or better said, misinformation) that might lead an unknowledgeable, naïve, or impatient individual to attend a substandard school that will take their money, have them waste months if not years of their life, and all for the sake of what Dr. Bear has characterized as a time bomb on their resume. If, in my attempts to prevent this from happening (even to a single individual), I bruise a few egos, I can live with that. Especially since the egos being bruised invariably are those of individuals who hold fraudulent credentials. Like I said, the world is watching.

And all I am saying is quit making allegations for which you provide no proof. If nothing else, this is extremely dishonest behavior.

I do, and I make them very well. In fact, I make them all so well, that I notice you never bother to refute any of them.

I’m not sure what you mean, but without specific examples and quotes it is just another baseless accusation.

No, the whole problem here is that you have let your feelings get the better of your intellect. Do a search for any posts in which I used the term apologist. Want to guess the number of times? It is zero (zilch, nada). Therefore, you are simply making yet another false accusation, proving once again, that you are nothing more than a troll. This is tiring. Aren’t you tired? I’m getting tired. There is a certain amount of boorish behavior that is excusable when you are a newbie. After you have been repeatedly schooled as to the error of your ways, however, this behavior no longer is excusable.

Naah. The only reason you keep coming back at me is ego (reread my gunslinger post). As far as liking it is concerned, I don’t mind a good flame war. The problem is, you’re not any good at it. (Hint: In order to hurt me, what you post must be true). To borrow a phrase from the late Phil Hartman (as Frank Sinatra on SNL), “You don’t scare me. I got chunks of guys like you in my stool.”

 

Gus and I have gotten into it twice here. Once in regard to ACCS, (a school), and once on Bible interpretation. While I think Gus becomes confrontive, especially when outclassed , I don't recall feeling that I was under a personal attack or that animosity was being expressed toward me. Of course, I'm sometimes dense about such things or too egoistic to give a big rat's... , well, you know.

 

Ooooo Gus really good one. I guess you got me on the word thing. I knew I should have reread my post before hitting submit. Good jab, but if that is all you got you better run because you hit like a pansy.

I guess your tactics are open to subjective interpretation, and mine is that you are rude, arrogant, and provoking. Just as I pointed out when you went after fmhayes, and Henrik.

Let's see you called him ignorant slut, and did not explain it until later. I think because you were hoping he would react different. Do you think that this guy in NZ new that it was from something on SNL? No you were provoking him as you normally do. I did not see it until you pointed it out later. You may win these battles and arguments, but you do not come off as intelligent you come off as an ass. So, keep it coming I ain't skeeered!

 

It sucks.

First, let’s put your quote in the proper perspective. After several personal attacks (not just targeting me, but also Rich, and all Americans), I quoted from Dr. Hayes 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th posts on this forum demonstrating that (contrary to his assertion that all his posts were constructive) from the onset he has been combative and critical of other members of this forum. Uncle Janko posted, as you can see. that he didn’t recall Dr. Hayes personally attacking him. In response, I posted the humorous (that means funny) message you quoted. It was meant as a joke, and it was funny. In fact, it was very funny. (I did notice that you left out the last line about Uncle Janko getting a pass because he had requested a copy of Dr. Quack's manual, and the three grinning smilies I included in the original post.)

Second, how do you know what Dr. Hayes considers abuse? I mean, I know you both have a lot in common (neither has ever posted an informative and helpful message on this forum, and both of you have fraudulent credentials), but do you purport to know his mind? The purpose of my request wasn’t to show me what I wrote. I know what I wrote. My request to Dr. Hayes was so I (after being accused of doing it so many times) could understand what he considerered abuse (and vile abuse, at that). Don’t you think it would have been better if you quoted a post of mine that you thought abused you? After all, Dr. Hayes also accused me of abusing you.

You’re a riot. Do you picture Dr. Hayes as a little old man taking care of his NZ Brown Teals and cringing at the thought of any of God’s little creatures being harmed or injured? He’s a freakin’ arms dealer and avid hunter, for crying aloud!

The only point you have made, for the entire world to see, is that you are completely devoid of a sense of humor. Why don’t you ask Uncle Janko if he thought the post was funny? Why don’t you ask him if he thought it was exceedingly malicious?

My own medicine? I think not. For starters, in sharp contrast to your messages, everything I post is true. You don’t know how to do what I do; you don’t even know what I do. Witness the countless times you have accused me of doing something that I have proved your statements to be false. Moreover, you don’t have the skills to do what I do. Your bumbling attempts, are completely devoid of all humor, wit, charm, substance, truth or any redeeming qualities whatsoever. You know practically nothing about distance education, and even less about what constitutes proper decorum on this forum.

You want to do what I do? Piss off a bunch of degree mill owners and people with fraudulent degrees.