Mutual respect, prejudice, safety, and personal responsibility

[sarkeizen]

Well you're deliberately ignoring context then

No I understand the context.  You think that saying that someone is "playing dumb" among other things is a personal attack equivalent to calling someone a shill.

My original argument was simple. Treat people how you want to be treated

Technically speaking as far as you know MH is doing just that.  MH appears primarily to be asking for people to stop calling people "shills".  Has he called you a "shill"?  No.  QED.  Your belief that "shill" is equivalent to "playing dumb", "pretentious", "zebra", "kumquat" or "ma petit chou" isn't actually that relevant to this particular argument.  As far as you know MH's behavior is exactly the way he would like to be treated.

Your attempt to argue word X is equal to word Y seems like it can be summed up as: "I feel they are the same".  Which is fine, feel anyway you want about any word but clearly that can't be SUFFICIENT for EVERYONE to consider a word equivalent to some other word.  Unless of course at some point in time you were voted "king of words" and I didn't get the memo. 

So if you are indeed not lexical royalty then you need to argue your point.  In contrast I've given you some pretty detailed reasons why someone might consider various words you've mentioned different.  Even if you don't get it.  The argument is there.

pretty simple age old concept.

But not relevant without an argument.

[SeaMonkey]

...
Technically speaking as far as you know MH is doing just that.  MH appears primarily to be asking for people to stop calling people "shills".  Has he called you a "shill"?  No.  QED.  Your belief that "shill" is equivalent to "playing dumb", "pretentious", "zebra", "kumquat" or "ma petit chou" isn't actually that relevant to this particular argument.  As far as you know MH's behavior is exactly the way he would like to be treated.
...

Miles must be aware at some level of the Laws of
Interpersonal Relations.  Among them:  The Seed
We Sow Will in Due Time Bear Fruit. 

Whether that Fruit which comes back to us is delightfully
fragrant and tasteful or bitter and annoying is entirely
dependent upon the Seeds We Sow.

When we are displeased with the Fruit our Model Behaviors
bring back to us, then perhaps a wee bit of Behavior
Modification is in Order.

It has been said long ago:  Courtesy is Contagious

[Magluvin]

No I understand the context.  You think that saying that someone is "playing dumb" among other things is a personal attack equivalent to calling someone a shill.Technically speaking as far as you know MH is doing just that.  MH appears primarily to be asking for people to stop calling people "shills".  Has he called you a "shill"?  No.  QED.  Your belief that "shill" is equivalent to "playing dumb", "pretentious", "zebra", "kumquat" or "ma petit chou" isn't actually that relevant to this particular argument.  As far as you know MH's behavior is exactly the way he would like to be treated.

Your attempt to argue word X is equal to word Y seems like it can be summed up as: "I feel they are the same".  Which is fine, feel anyway you want about any word but clearly that can't be SUFFICIENT for EVERYONE to consider a word equivalent to some other word.  Unless of course at some point in time you were voted "king of words" and I didn't get the memo. 

So if you are indeed not lexical royalty then you need to argue your point.  In contrast I've given you some pretty detailed reasons why someone might consider various words you've mentioned different.  Even if you don't get it.  The argument is there.But not relevant without an argument.

Thats like saying, if you 'steal' $50,000, then that is not equal to 'stealing' $1000.  They are at different levels, but still the same crime in the end. Who is to say that the loss of $1000 doesnt hurt that individual possibly more than the one that lost $50,000?

If you want to set levels of 'tolerance' for what is considered an attack, then we all have our own opinions that vary on that, including yours.  You think you are right, Mh thinks he is right, Jim thinks he is right, etc.  If someone is right, then some others must be wrong.

The idea of shill being here on this site is not an impossibility. Sure you can say, "there are no shills here, because free energy does not exist." That is a potentially very shill statement. And if there is free energy, then why should we still neglect the possibility of shills here? If you take in particular the ones that get called shills, look at their attendance here. Many many hours of each day, bing, bang, boom, from the left and the right, bombarding a thread that produces a possible claim.  Like 'this' is their calling??? This is what all that book learnin produces in the end?  If these guys really do believe there is no possibility of FE, then why spend sooo much time in attacking a claimant until the thread is whittled down to a useless twig and falls of the front page for good? Why soo much time spent, on that? I can think of a 'lot' of things that their supposed technical genius could be put to better use rather than belittle and try to put to shame a claimant here.

If you think that oil corporations, electric companies dont 'fear' the possibility of what may be found or developed here on this site or others, then I say your terribly wrong.

Oil corp, the reasons are obvious. Electric co., once they said, "Great, yes, put up solar panes people, and if you produce more than you need, we will buy excess from you." But now, they want to charge you more for using power from them if your system only helps reduce electric costs and you still need grid part time...  Is that right? Or is that wrong? Monopoly on power? Yes.

Its about total control. No free power. In fact, no free water.  A city granted a land owner a permit to put a pond on his land. Then once it was dug out and filled with water, the permit was nulled ( epa influence) and he was told to fill it back in, "because the rain water he catches is not his to catch."


I believe there are shills here. Cant say for sure. But some sure do act in such ways that its hard to neglect the possibilities.

Mags

[sarkeizen]

Miles must be aware at some level of the Laws of Interpersonal Relations.

Ah but those are always subservient to the Seven-Fold Law of Interdynamics and the Fifteen maxims of Powerful Women.  So clearly my argument trumps yours.

Making up SeaMonkey text is easy.

[sarkeizen]

Thats like saying, if you 'steal' $50,000, then that is not equal to 'stealing' $1000.  They are at different levels, but still the same crime in the end. Who is to say that the loss of $1000 doesnt hurt that individual possibly more than the one that lost $50,000?

You need to be more specific when you quote a whole post and say "that" but thankfully nothing I said is anything like what you describe.  The person I was responding to attempted to say that MH wasn't "Doing unto others".  I merely pointed out that he can't really say that with any degree of certainty.  MH might be perfectly ok with someone saying he is "playing dumb" or "pretentious".

If you want to set levels of 'tolerance' for what is considered an attack, then we all have our own opinions that vary on that, including yours.  You think you are right, Mh thinks he is right, Jim thinks he is right, etc.  If someone is right, then some others must be wrong.

No, again I'm not saying any of that and you are making the same logical error that Jim is.  This probably isn't about levels of anything.  MH appears to think that being called a "shill" should stop.  That's it.  Either you agree or you don't.  Jim has a much longer and poorly defined list of things he believes should be on the forbidden word list.  You can either agree or you don't.

As I've said before.  I personally don't mind but it's pretty easy to see MH's point and of Jim has a point he really hasn't given much of a definition of it or argument for it.

The idea of shill being here on this site is not an impossibility.

This is irrelevant.  Calling someone a shill can still be a bad idea even if there's some remote chance it's true.

If you take in particular the ones that get called shills, look at their attendance here. Many many hours of each day, bing, bang, boom, from the left and the right, bombarding a thread that produces a possible claim.  Like 'this' is their calling??? This is what all that book learnin produces in the end?  If these guys really do believe there is no possibility of FE, then why spend sooo much time in attacking a claimant until the thread is whittled down to a useless twig and falls of the front page for good? Why soo much time spent, on that? I can think of a 'lot' of things that their supposed technical genius could be put to better use rather than belittle and try to put to shame a claimant here.

As someone who gets called a shill several times a week here.  I'll see if I can help you understand.

a) I probably spend less time than you think.  I type quickly and a fair amount of my job is spent on a computer.  This message took me less than five minutes for example.
b) Why, spend a lot of time knocking down silly ideas?  Haven't you ever heard the maxim: "You will never learn anything by spending most of your time around people who agree with you?".  Not to mention that bad ideas deserve to die in a fire.
c) Sorry, all of a sudden you are in charge of what I do with my leisure time?  Did we get married?  Seriously I do plenty of extra-circular field-related work this is just for fun.