livius drusus

Well goodness me we seem to have a bit of a pile-up going on heah.

Doctor X, the behavioral rules at IIDB do not allow name-calling of any kind, that includes accusations of intentional dishonesty and hypocrisy, nomatter how accurate you believe them to be.

Sophie, your mispelling of Doctor X's handle and use of certain adjectives describing his person are infantile and entirely unsuited to a discussion in the philosophical fora of IIDB, nomatter how provoked you believe yourself to be.

I remind the participants of the following from the IIDB Rules and Policies:

Let's keep it above the belt, please.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator - GRD

sophie

livius drusus : I apologuise for mispelling Doctor X's handle, I hope all can accept this apology from a kind and loving Sophie. It was an honest mistake but I'll take the blame none the less. I'll cut the adjectives concerning Doctor X, it is only a style which comes when affection has been fostered. Again apologies from a sincere and meekly admonishable Sophie.

On another note is it OK for livius drusus to address an enchanted Sophie with the description given in italics shown in the quote?

But the dear Sophie is willing to forget she even ever saw this commentary. She feels no pain.

I hope Doctor X feels the same reciprocal way concerning the apology from an uneasy Sophie.

Amaranth

The rule of thumb around here is attack the argument without mercy, but never attack the person. So, calling your argument a lie is ok, but calling you a liar is not. As such, calling your words against Dr. X infantile is fair game, but calling you such would not be.

It's a fine line, but that's how things run.

livius drusus

I may call your argument and what you describe as an "affectionate" style but strikes me as a disingenuous attempt to insult via flattery, whatever I see fit. As Amaranth pointed out, the rules of this board preclude disparaging people, not their arguments.

Pain is not necessary. Observation of the rules and policies of IIDB are. See that you remember that much, at least.

sophie

Amaranth ,

Human understanding does not seem to be your best point. This is usually correctable over time as I have personally found. There was a conjunction used to connect two seperate ideas and both converged to the point in question. There is no such infantile words except 'goo goo and gaa gaa'. This is generally used to describe a behaviour pattern. Mabye moderators have other interpretations of the word.

Again as I said the good and nice Sophie is not hurt. The well aligned Sophie has not flinched.


Is this out of line?

BY THE WAY, is not your argument on the thread more important?

sophie

livius drusus,

and while you side step the point I made about your remarks in italics, you have managed to find the tangent very well. I fully understand.

you are too sensitive. But since I am on your turf , I have to live by your rules.

.

Boy, do I ever feel like I am choking. OK iidb, I will be as sterile as I can get, I hope this satisfies your principles. Now can you please answer my direct question.

livius drusus, moderated :

livius drusus

Again, you draw pejorative conculsions about a person's character based on their interpretation of your point. This is exactly what is against the rules. I am leaving it up to illustrate the point. Any more such instances will be deleted on sight.

Yes, and moreover, given Amaranth's generous explanation of rules you have now clearly demonstrated you do not understand, your assault on the "best points" of his mind/personality is entirely unprovoked as well as unacceptable.

Moderators and dictionaries both, actually.

infantile:

1. Of or relating to infants or infancy.
2. Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; childish: infantile behavior; an infantile remark.

But if you'd prefer it, I'd be glad to change my description of your handle-mangling and faux-dulcet insults to puerile or immature or fatuous. Thankfully, moderating at IIDB has given me a vast vocabulary of synonyms for foolishness, so name your pleasure.

If you have any futher concerns about the moderation of this thread of the rules of IIDB, feel free to contact me via PM or email, or raise the issue publically in the Bugs, Problems & Complaints forum. As of now, you will return to the topic at hand.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator - GRD

sophie

livius drusus, Thanks for the fair warning and command boss, I will return to the topic.

Again thanks for the encouragement.

then again I could'nt obey two contrary commands at the same time.

So I'll take the advice.


:boohoo:

King Rat

Lock it Livius, this is pointless.

Amaranth

Ah hah! A chance to explain the rules to you first hand

This, being directed at myself and not at my argument, breaks the rules. It's also technically incorrect, in that you had to have meant "reading comprehension" and not "human understanding." Ironic, really.

Ahh, now see, this is a counter-argument, and thus valid under the rules.

For future reference, here's the definitions of infantile:

1. Of or relating to infants or infancy.

2. Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; childish: infantile behavior; an infantile remark.


What argument? Your response was lower than trash. It attempting to discredit use of formal identification of logical fallacies on a forum that is cenetered around logical debate, and where such identification is standard, not exception. The other part of your argument, what little bit of it could actually be called argument, was merely more ipse dixit nonsense. Your arguments simply fail to account for the fact that you must not only declare the arguments incorrect, but show them to be such. Thus, your argumentum ad naseum has become a point of ridicule.

Any other ways I can assist you?

Amaranth