Re: The very nature of Kill files and comments

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Hi Earl Dafydd:

You wrote:

> >His Excellency has once again decided to infer what he believes I must be 
> >implying.
> 
> And Lord Leifr has "once again" decided to imply a long history of previous
> aggregious debating error on my part by the above statement.
> 
> Leifr, please tell me when you think I err.

I'm not sure I'd call it a long history, but I have memories of this same
point being raised in the Strawman Police debate.  "You said this," "No 
you think I said that", "Well, whatever you said, you're responsible for
what you imply", "No, you're responsible for what you infer".

Does that sound familar?
> 
> Leifr, please do NOT remind me of my long history of error (whenever
> I disagree with you) as the first thing you say.  This is a rhetorical
> trick, not worthy of you or this forum.
> 
Speak to what I write, your Excellency, and not to what I may even imply.
> 
> Back to the subject, Leifr says:
> >However, I respect people who follow the debate more then people
> >who pop up to make comments and then go hide below their kill files.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Obviously, if you don't jump into the middle of discussions you've not 
> >been following, then you are not the object of this sentence.  So kindly 
> >don't infer anything other then what I am saying.
> 
> Fine.  I thought that you were talking about people with kill files,
> of which there are many.  You are right, your words refer directly
> only to kill-file-ambush-attackers.  If that is, as you say, the only
> group you wanted to malign, how can I do other than agree with you?
> I cannot disagree.  But I would not have replied to you if I had thought
> that was the case, because I am not convinced that any of these monsters
> exist.
> 
> Just because someone makes a comment about the debate and mentions
> that he is using a killfile does not mean that he is a kill-file-ambush-
> attacker.  Far more likely, statistically speaking, he (or she) is
> someone who followed the debate for some time, got bloody bored with
> it, and put it in his (or her) kill-file as a way of staving off
> raving insanity.  This is not a sign of irresponsibility, but of
> sanity.  And by mentioning both that he is tired of the debate and
> that he has a kill-file, he is encouraging others to join his method
> of passive resistance.  Which, incidently, is the only way anyone
> can protect themselves from further unwanted messages on the subject.
> 
Unfortunately, if you had been following this thread, including Henry 
Best's post, you would have seen him, a kill-filer, accuse Lady Siobhan
of promoting principalities as a solution to the problems of the Acorn.
That's a load of rubbish which only came about because Henry stepped in, 
without knowledge of the debate, assumed that some Pro-P (which Siobhan 
hardly is) made the Acorn Problem/Principality Solution suggestion, and 
then scuttled back to his hole.

So I am sorry I don't respect casually meligning Siobhan nor falsely
asserting arguements as being held by the Pro-P.  Is the cause for my 
annoyance clear?  Is my case a fair one?  Of course I think so.

In Service
Leifr