 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.234.207.190
In Reply to: RE: "Both of you resort to name calling." Beg your pardon? posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2007 at 12:36:50
You guys have really dragged this discussion WAY off course.
You've accused me of being stalker, called me a "scamp," questioned my motives, et al. These are all ad hominems and logical fallacy. But I'm resigning myself to the conclusion that neither you or Wellfed care for the conventions of logic and are hell-bent on steering the discussion to fit your agendas.
I haven't followed your online activities and don't know (or care to know) who you are. But if it makes you feel more self-important to think of me as a stalker, so be it. Your declaration of having other "admirers" really is truly telling of your ego. Whatever floats your boat.
"And are you surprised that many saw right through the charade?"
Who are these "many" you refer to? I count you and Wellfed.
I don't care to support any majority claim as it's Bandwagon fallacy. But you're welcome to fixate on it if it suits you.
Geoff violated my intellectual property. How do you gloss over this and choose to attack me instead?
Follow Ups:
...my regular antagonist. Geez Luiz.
"If it makes you feel more self-important to think of me as a stalker, so be it." Again, missed by a long shot.
"Your declaration of having other 'admirers' really is truly telling of your ego." This remark shows you're immune to irony.
"Who are these 'many' you refer to? I count you and Wellfed." They were enumerated earlier.
"I don't care to support any majority claim as it's Bandwagon fallacy." Hoo boy! I might have this wrong, but weren't you the first (forget Hillary) to utter the phrase, "vast majority"? By golly, you were! This is just like when you accused me of "disctioary" "defining" and I had done no such thing, the word was all yours.
"Geoff violated my intellectual property." I see the "knowingly" has now been omitted; change noted.
"How do you gloss over this and choose to attack me instead?" Never glossed, simply called it a petty mistake for which you needn't have gone public and have *continued the discussion* once it became apparent there were geoff bashers clinging to you.
clark
My apologies if the stalker comment was not directed at me. You used ambiguous pronouns. In discussions where Wellfed was talking about me ("You'd think Geoff Kait gave len_ a snuggy or something"), you responded to his post with the following: "Naw, he's just a stalker. Been nipping and yapping at me for years. No ammo in his tube, tho. nt". I now understand you weren't referring to me, but hopefully you can see why I thought it was.
I did make the majority statement earlier and regret doing so. I am not perfect and definitely not immune from logical fallacy (especially when I'm debating with people who refuse to abide by the rules of logical engagement). The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies in order to perpetuate meaningful and reasonable discussion. You don't seem to care. That's fine. Rhetorical arguments (e.g. your pithy one-liners) can be fun. Not very useful, but fun. And maybe fun is all you're trying to get out of this.
I never used the word "knowingly" and "violated" in conjunction. I did say he knowingly took intellectual property (photo) that wasn't his. Can we get off this semantic merry-go-round?
I don't think what Geoff did was a petty mistake. It's your right to hold that opinion. I value intellectual property rights and ethics. Going public yielded results. It also makes people aware of this situation. What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?
That any "bashers" latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility. Neither is it my burden that "fanboys" latched on. You guys are all mature, sentient beings (or at least you should be). Shoulder your own accountability, please.
...denied he used the "bandwagon" argument (although you had), mistook a thread section topped by stalker Rick W for his own, dropped the word "knowingly" after being chided about it (but that's OK) etc. etc. and then has the nerve to write, "The difference between you and I, however, is that I attempt my best to refrain from fallacies."
Whew!
And then, "What's wrong with letting people know what Geoff did?" Nothing! But the proper and polite form, sir, is to inform him of your concern privately; *then* if he doesn't respond, you air the laundry.
Your one correct statement is, "That any 'bashers' latched on to the conversation is not my responsibility." But you can see surely how you enabled them.
clark
"But the proper and polite form, sir, is to inform him of your concern privately; *then* if he doesn't respond, you air the laundry."
I won't lie. I have no motivation to be polite with Geoff. This is a man who infringed on my IP. This is a man who unashamedly took my photo from my negative review of his product, making a smug comment about the photo quality and then secretly put it on his commercial website. This is a man who publicly called me a liar not too long ago when I said something negative about his merchandise, openly declaring I actually never owned his products and that I was fabricating my remarks. This is a sophomoric man inclined to belittle customers who speak poorly of his products.
This is the man you defend and ask I be polite with. Not that the truth isn't impolite ....
nt
You're selective indignation over unethical behavior strikes me as adolescent and hypocritical. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.
It is a personal opinion. It's apparently one you disagree with. Normally, people don't throw a tantrum over these types of disagreements.
nt
I don't know. The whole time, you've been calling me names, making disparaging remarks about my character, and brow-beating a dead horse. I suppose one man's complaint is another man's tantrum/whine. For certain, you've made it perfectly clear you think my complaint has been a whine from post #1.
It served as a tirade against MD. Had you done the proper thing and notified MD via e-mail, this might never have arisen. But, no: you had to go public first.
Had Geoff not responded, *then* this would have been the next step.
clark
I have no problem with your opinion that my complaint was petty. I disagree. Geoff took my intellectual property without permission (some would define this as stealing) and used it for his own gain. I made this public knowledge as I think people should be aware of this. He took my photo from my negative review of his product and spun the situation to his advantage, leading me to reiterate how poor I think his products are.
Call me petty. To date, you've not reprimanded Geoff. Some could construe this as tacit approval of Geoff's actions.
I was quick to jump in and pretty much say that his use of your picture may well reveal deeper shady business practices on the part of GF. So clearly I'm no GF fanboy... but, Clark makes a lot of sense in his point about contacting GF privately and then going public if there's no satisfactory response. It also appears that in saying so, he was agreeing that it was wrong for GF to take and use the photo and supported the idea of a public outing if the situation weren't remedied.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
I did send an email.
I'm not sure who benefits (except Geoff) if we never knew about this situation. I've already admitted on a few previous occasions that my purpose wasn't just to right the wrong, but also to inform people about it.
FWIW, this is not the first time someone has infringed on my intellectual property. Historical experience did factor in my decision on how to respond in these scenarios. Fortunately, I did not have to resort to more severe measures such as contacting ISPs.
Is yer postition?
Mom was right again!
Len tried to right a wrong wrongly.
So we have one right and two wrongs. Now, logically, if two wrongs make a right, then we have
(right + (wrong+wrong)) = (right + right).
Now suppose two rights make a wrong as any right thinking person might well suppose. So then
(right + right) = wrong.
Now we have arrived happily at your position with both oars in the water! Len is definitely wrong. But ONLY IF two wrongs make a right.
Et Voila.
But your very first constant is wrong, so I declare your beautiful formula invalid!
d
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
