I know he has some fans here...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 21:20

xxxx wrote: There may be disapproval but there is no insult.

INSULT #1

Your post and quote made no differentiation between those who were interested but didn't post, and those who weren't interested. Therefore you could be insulting someone who was very well versed, agreed with you and had not replied for whatever reason.

INSULT #2

Posting when you did could look like you had expected more of an on-topic response than the one you got, with more people responding to the original post than mr magnolia. Bumping up your thread (even if it had not contained the quote and text it did) is a mechanism which insults the workings of a forum.

INSULT #3

Saying "no one" and not "no one else" could look to somebody like you had ignored or discounted mr magnolia's post, which would be an insult.

INSULT #4

Your quote said "these men" - and although it was said in relation to an all-male senate, and was quoted by dh lawrence, still has the potential for perception of gender bias when mapped onto the preceding text, which points the finger at all of those who failed to respond, a group which contains genders other than male - insulting by default.

INSULT #5

Crude rhetoric like this (because obviously some people would be depressed or terrified by such an increase in power) in place of substantial argument or information is an insult to debate itself.

INSULT #6

Even if a slave is an object of sympathy in your eyes, being compared to one is offensive.

INSULT #7

Even if a slave is an object of sympathy, being told that you are eager to become something powerless is offensive.

There may be overlap between some of these insults - and the case for some of them is stronger than others - but whilst I would agree that there was no one insult, I disagree that there was no insult.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 21:28

You tell me I should keep it simple when my entire on topic posting was about 4 lines, how simple and straightforward can you get?

Simplicity over obfuscation - that is, a clear title and maybe some inkling of the content of the legislation in the main post.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 21:33

As my post was so poor in your belated opinion, how could I garner enough attention to effectively insult all these people anyway?

You have no way of knowing how many people will read what you have written, now and in the future. You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Mar 2006, 22:54

Dadaist wrote:You have no way of knowing how many people will read what you have written, now and in the future. You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it.

Direction requires intent. That someone takes offence does in no way imply that such offence was intended.

If we were all required to restrict our freedom of speech purely on the basis of who, conceivably, now and in the future, might take offence we'd never express any opinions at all.

And that would be a very silly state of affairs.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 23:27

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:You have no way of knowing how many people will read what you have written, now and in the future. You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it.
Direction requires intent. That someone takes offence does in no way imply that such offence was intended.

If we were all required to restrict our freedom of speech purely on the basis of who, conceivably, now and in the future, might take offence we'd never express any opinions at all.

And that would be a very silly state of affairs.

People are still reading this?

You're quite right, seanie. I've never accused xxxx of ill intent, nor do I want to restrict his freedom of speech, expression or any other exposition, nor did I, nor will I. I don't think he set out to be evil or in any way nasty. I certainly don't want to change his or anyone's opinions. I just comment on events.

Reality, as well as dictating that direction requires intent, also dicates that a lack of due care can lead to an accident, the cause of which an absence of intent to cause harm is not necessarily sufficient defence - and xxxx's post was no accident.

Mapping "no one" onto "you all" does define an object - his quote and post were aimed at that object. He may not have thought that he was directing an insult down that line, but some might say that you are what you do, not what you think!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 09:58

Dadaist wrote:
You're quite right, seanie. I've never accused xxxx of ill intent, n

Dadaist wrote: You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it.

Can you insult without ill intent
No

So I insult people 7 times in two sentences according to your list above. Your ability to divine deliberate offences from honest opinion would make a soviet commissar blush.

So thats at least seven counts of ill intent I'm being/not being accused of.

A new false accusation is that 'I abuse the forum', rather rich coming from someone who has such a colourful record.

Do what I say, not what I do seems to be the order of the day.

Thanks seanie, for defending my right to express an opinion which might or might not offend people.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 10:30

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
You're quite right, seanie. I've never accused xxxx of ill intent, n

Dadaist wrote: You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it.
Can you insult without ill intent
No

So I insult people according to you, 7 times in two sentences according to your list above

So thats at least seven counts of ill intent I'm being/not being accused of.

A new false accusation is that 'I abuse the forum', rather rich coming from someone who has such a colourful record.

Thanks seanie, for defending my right to express an opinion which might or might not offend people.

I defend that right too xxxx, but rights carry responsibilities!

I didn't say that you "abuse the forum" - I said that bumping a post in that manner was an insult to its workings.

In my opinion, you can insult without ill intent. You can cause offence and the people offended feel insulted. For example, it is possible to "insult someone's intelligence" without ill intent.

I certainly have a colourful record here, so I talk from experience when I analyse your post. The differences are :

1. When I apologise, I say "sorry" or use the word "apology".

2. I try very hard only to throw darts at dart boards - as opposed to carpet bombing.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 10:32

Your ability to divine deliberate offences from honest opinion would make a soviet commissar blush.

Quality.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Mar 2006, 10:52

Dadaist wrote:You're quite right, seanie. I've never accused xxxx of ill intent....

I rather think you did.

You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it

And you acknowledge direction requites intent. You have effecitvely said that xxxx has intentionally insulted as many people that can and will ever read it. Surely that would qualify as ill intent?

But I'm sure you didn't mean it. I'm sure any offence you may have caused was entirely unintentional.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 11:26

Dadaist wrote:
but rights carry responsibilities!

What a very new labour position to take, one I strongly disagree with
Rights are just rights,
if they are contingent on responsibilities then you are discussing transient,earned privileges, not inalienable rights

Dadaist wrote: I didn't say that you "abuse the forum" - I said that bumping a post in that manner was an insult to its workings.

Whatever the wording, its still yet another indictment on my long charge sheet

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 11:56

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
but rights carry responsibilities!

What a very new labour position to take, one I strongly disagree with
Rights are just rights,
if they are contingent on responsibilities then you are discussing transient,earned privileges, not inalienable rights

Dadaist wrote: I didn't say that you "abuse the forum" - I said that bumping a post in that manner was an insult to its workings.

Whatever the wording, its still yet another indictment on my long charge sheet

It's hardly a New Labour position to say that even though you have a right to free speech, you have a responsibility to try and use it wisely and not cause offence - especially to groups of people who haven't really done anything wrong. Taking one opinion or another on things like the Muhammed cartoons is nothing to do with party politics. Do you think the British press should print them?

Chuck as much in my direction as you like though - the only half decent one was the Commissar joke which I was very tickled by!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:02

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:You're quite right, seanie. I've never accused xxxx of ill intent....
I rather think you did.

You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it
And you acknowledge direction requites intent. You have effecitvely said that xxxx has intentionally insulted as many people that can and will ever read it. Surely that would qualify as ill intent?

But I'm sure you didn't mean it. I'm sure any offence you may have caused was entirely unintentional.

If I thought xxxx actually had ill intent I wouldn't be half as nice to him as I'm being.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:33

Dadaist wrote:
It's hardly a New Labour position to say that even though you have a right to free speech, you have a responsibility to try and use it wisely and not cause offence -

As I have unswervingly done, but to have a right does not require that you act responsibly, to conflate the two is to place a condition on access to rights.

I have no responsibility not to insult, only a strong preference. If I state that I think paedophiles do horrible things, they will no doubt feel insulted, where does my reponsibility lie, with the paedophile community's feelings or my right to insult if I feel it warranted? There is a time an a place for insult and opinion, thats why we have the two different categories

As I have pointed out before it is you who insult me, not the other way round.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:41

Dadaist wrote: If I thought xxxx actually had ill intent I wouldn't be half as nice to him as I'm being.

Then why say I deliberately insulted everyone when insult requires ill intent?
Thats a false accusation.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:44

As I have pointed out before it is you who insult me, not the other way round.

Yes, aimed just at you, as a reaction to what you targeted at everyone.

It's not controversial to state that a group of criminals have done something wrong - the law is on your side.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:00

Dadaist wrote:
As I have pointed out before it is you who insult me, not the other way round.
Yes, aimed just at you, as a reaction to what you targeted at everyone.

But I has I have always maintained I have not insulted anyone

My actions don't conform with your definition of insult
yet you reintroduce your original false accusation
and this somehow authorises many insults specifically at me?

You aren't making sense, but then I have pointed this out before.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:04

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote: If I thought xxxx actually had ill intent I wouldn't be half as nice to him as I'm being.
Then why say I deliberately insulted everyone when insult requires ill intent?
Thats a false accusation.

Er - because I disagree with the premise and hence don't think it's a false accusation?

I gave an example - insulting someone's intelligence. You can do that inadvertently and cause offence without having meant ill of anyone.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:12

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
As I have pointed out before it is you who insult me, not the other way round.
Yes, aimed just at you, as a reaction to what you targeted at everyone.
But I has I have always maintained I have not insulted anyone

My actions don't conform with your definition of insult
yet you reintroduce your original false accusation
and this somehow authorises many insults specifically at me?

You aren't making sense, but then I have pointed this out before.

I think we are both making an equal amount of sense!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:13

Dadaist wrote: Er - because I disagree with the premise and hence don't think it's a false accusation?

I gave an example - insulting someone's intelligence. You can do that inadvertently and cause offence without having meant ill of anyone.

Your false accusation does not correspond with this example, if you do something inadvertently, you do it without intent, you have accused me of

You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it

Something I thought we agreed required ill intent

Where is the inadvertency? Or are they two separate charges to answer? Inadvertent insult and direct insult, both aimed at everyone?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:21

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Er - because I disagree with the premise and hence don't think it's a false accusation?

I gave an example - insulting someone's intelligence. You can do that inadvertently and cause offence without having meant ill of anyone.
Your false accusation does not correspond with this example, if you do something inadvertently, you do it without intent, you have accused me of

You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it
Something I thought we agreed required ill intent

Where is the inadvertency? Or are they two separate charges to answer? Inadvertent insult and direct insult, both aimed at everyone?

Say "false accusation" as many times as you like.

Maybe you and seanie agree that an insult requires ill intent. But I'm not joining your gang.

You can be insulted by something that causes you offence.

The intent that you had was to aim something at a certain target - that is, an "intended target".

My example only addressed the fact that it is possible to insult without ill intent.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:23

Dadaist wrote:
I think we are both making an equal amount of sense!

Not in my opinion, not even close. You don't make sense because you contradict yourself.
Either I act with ill intent, or I don't.
You say I haven't
So do I
So I did not direct an insult at everyone
You admit you insulted me as revenge for something you concede I did not do
Faced with this contradiction you redefine insult

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:45

Dadaist wrote:Maybe you and seanie agree that an insult requires ill intent. But I'm not joining your gang.

Well I don't think that. I very much doubt xxxx thinks that.

Maybe people were insulted. I can't imagine many would be though. I don't think many people with a sense of proportion would be too discomforted by what was posted.

However you've clearly implied that, in your opinion, xxxx insulted people intentionally. I'm struggling to see the justification for that.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:54

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
I think we are both making an equal amount of sense!
Not in my opinion, not even close. You don't make sense because you contradict yourself.
Either I act with ill intent, or I don't.
You say I haven't
So do I
So I did not direct an insult at everyone
You admit you insulted me as revenge for something you concede I did not do
Faced with this contradiction you redefine insult

But you did publish and direct something which could cause offence!

I've never accused you of ill intent though.

I don't think I have the intelligence to redefine anything in the English language - different people have different interpretations though, and we are in the process of clarifying what our existing interpretations are.

It might be that one of the ways that we differ in interpretation is whether an insult is something which must be hurled, or something which can be shown to have been created if someone takes offence - that is, it can exist in the mind of someone who takes offence, who has therefore "been insulted" by something which may or may not have been published with ill intent.

So perhaps the "contradiction" lies in how one percieves being insulted (which can come as a shock to the person who published something they don't think is an insult) when placed next to how they themselves choose to insult others - in effect, each of us has a personal set of standards which may differ from our neighbour.

I'm sorry if you feel that my perspective on insulting behaviour is contradictory - like I said, my personal take on things is that I try to only throw darts at dart boards as opposed to carpet-bombing!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:58

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Maybe you and seanie agree that an insult requires ill intent. But I'm not joining your gang.
Well I don't think that. I very much doubt xxxx thinks that.

Maybe people were insulted. I can't imagine many would be though. I don't think many people with a sense of proportion would be too discomforted by what was posted.

However you've clearly implied that, in your opinion, xxxx insulted people intentionally. I'm struggling to see the justification for that.

You can draw whatever conclusion you like. I think I'd rather state something than "clearly imply" it. Anyway, both you and xxxx have done something I just wouldn't do - and that's treat everyone as a blob - whether it's calling them "you all" or "no one".

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 14:25

Dadaist wrote: Anyway, both you and xxxx have done something I just wouldn't do - and that's treat everyone as a blob - whether it's calling them "you all" or "no one".

But you did, you said I insulted everyone, there was no one that could fail to be insulted bythe alleged inadvertent/ill intended (or whatever you choose to call it this post) insult that you falsely accuse me of.

I said noone (slight exxageration as mr m was the exception) seemed interested because because of the lack of posts.
Fair enough statement, no?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 14:46

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Anyway, both you and xxxx have done something I just wouldn't do - and that's treat everyone as a blob - whether it's calling them "you all" or "no one".
But you did, you said I insulted everyone, there was no one that could fail to be insulted bythe alleged inadvertent/ill intended (or whatever you choose to call it this post) insult that you falsely accuse me of.

I said noone (slight exxageration as mr m was the exception) seemed interested because because of the lack of posts.
Fair enough statement, no?

I commented on what you said, and who you said it to - I've certainly never published anything like the "you all" and "no one" aimed at POL readers. I guess it's a context thing - if I were to publish on here that I am selling a book, of course I am offering it to everyone for sale. That's not what I meant by treating "everyone" as a blob, though - there has to be an element of judgement on the part of the person saying something, and maybe also the potential for offense to be caused - I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Mar 2006, 15:27

Dadaist wrote:You can draw whatever conclusion you like. I think I'd rather state something than "clearly imply" it.

You may think that.

But are you sure?

Dadaist wrote:You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it...

Dadaist wrote:Reality, as well as dictating that direction requires intent...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 16:55

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:You can draw whatever conclusion you like. I think I'd rather state something than "clearly imply" it.
You may think that.

But are you sure?

Dadaist wrote:You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it...

Dadaist wrote:Reality, as well as dictating that direction requires intent...

xxxx spoke to a certain set of people on purpose. That's the "intent" bit in my mind. Same as when you said "you all" to readers of "Portobello Matters".

You have taken one quote where I was talking to you, and one where I was talking to xxxx - and put them together, and in the case of the second, removed what was a clear context (I was actually quoting you) in order to assert a clear implication - strewth!

What does an unclear implication look like - spaghetti junction?

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 17:35

Dadaist wrote:
xxxx spoke to a certain set of people on purpose. That's the "intent" bit in my mind. Same as when you said "you all" to readers of "Portobello Matters".

Of course I spoke with a purpose, why would I speak without one?

The "intent" you identify can in no way justify your false accusation that my intent was to insult people.

Unless:
any act done with intent is always an insult
then I'm afraid you have made no progress in justifying your false allegation which has been the justification of your insults toward me

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:04

Dadaist wrote: You have taken one quote where I was talking to you, and one where I was talking to xxxx - and put them together, and in the case of the second, removed what was a clear context (I was actually quoting you) in order to assert a clear implication - strewth!

Both quotes relate to the same context.

You said;

You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it...

In response to that I said;

Direction requires intent. That someone takes offence does in no way imply that such offence was intended

And you replied;

Reality, as well as dictating that direction requires intent, also dicates that a lack of due care can lead to an accident, the cause of which an absence of intent to cause harm is not necessarily sufficient defence - and xxxx's post was no accident.

The bit about accidents doesn't relate to what you actually said. The important part, at least in relation to my original point, is your agreement that "direction requires intent". And going back again to your original post you said;

You have published an insult directed at as many people that can and will ever read it...

That seems pretty clear. Whatever you may have intended what you actually posted clearly implied that xxxx's supposed insult was intentional.

Now clearly that inference was unintended. An accident if you will. That could've been avoided with a little more care and attention.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:09

a false accusation that I insulted everybody who didn't post a reply.

your false accusation that my intent was to insult people.

I've certainly commented on the post you made and explained why what you said could cause offence. I think I found 7 different things. You said there was no insult.

Once you've finished hunting for truffles in the undergrowth of this argument, feel free to comment on the accusation itself!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:24

seanie wrote:going back again to your original post

That seems pretty clear. Whatever you may have intended what you actually posted clearly implied

Thanks for clearing up whatever it is you've cleared up - but for most people, time runs forwards and I don't think an implication is particularly clear if one has to work backwards to arrive at it!

I'm sure we could all be doing with more care and attention - whether it's addressing people as "you all", putting words into peoples mouths, or comparing them all to slaves.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:33

Dadaist wrote:
your false accusation that my intent was to insult people.
I've certainly commented on the post you made and explained why what you said could cause offence. I think I found 7 different things. You said there was no insult.

Once you've finished hunting for truffles in the undergrowth of this argument, feel free to comment on the accusation itself!

Again, as you conveniently feel unconstrained by consistency of argument, you attempt to reconstitute your false accusation in this form:

There is something that you consider could cause offence and therefore I intended to deliberately insult everybody

The false accusation was that I deliberately intended to insult people,

The possibility (and it seems to remain a possibility) I could cause offence cannot prove this.

Your reluctance to accept my statement that I did not deliberately intend to insult anybody, let alone everybody, and repeating the false accusation again and again is, at the least, unreasonable.

Either I deliberately intended to insult everybody or I am a liar in saying that I did not.

Neither is true, I'm afraid

Repeating a false accusation cannot validate it

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 19:40

Eh?

I thought I had already said that I don't think you had ill intent.

I've said how I think the things you said to everybody could cause offence.

Maybe we're on crossed lines as to which false accusation it is you dislike more - but the one you've failed to respond to is the one, er, where I pointed out what all the things were that I thought could be taken as insults.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 19:47

so there's :

(a)

a false accusation that I insulted everybody who didn't post a reply

but then you say

(b)

The false accusation was that I deliberately intended to insult people

I'm unsure as to which false accusation you're talking about when you say false accusation. I know you wouldn't be falsely accusing me of making a false accusation, but in order for us to be quite clear - can you quote where I said both of these things?