Skip to main content

View Diary: Mr. KOS, Code of Conduct Rule No. 1: Ad Hominem Attacks Are Verboten (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The RULE I'm asking for - is NO "ad hominem" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    attacks.

    You can't call someone names, say they are trolls, CT or NUTS

    without being able to make a rock solid case.


    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:14:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Mostly agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laserhaas, susans, mahakali overdrive

      I just think that rule has always been there.  As far as I've always know, ad hominem has always been verboten and HR-able.

      The problem, I think, is that this has not been consistently enforced with ad-hominem attacks in the form of "troll" and accusations of mental illness. But it should be.

      Where I differ from you is whether CT is an ad-hominem attack.  I would agree that it is one of the lowest forms of argument - it is essentially just calling the opposing argument a name - but the name calling is still directed at the argument, and not the person making it.  It is like calling an argument a right-wing talking point.   Probably just as disruptive and useless as ad-hominem, but still distinct - and not banned.  

      We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

      by RageKage on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:39:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dude (6+ / 0-)

      1.  Saying a diary is CT is, by definition, not an ad hominem of any sort.

      2.  An argumentum ad hominem would be "laser haas is crazy as a fucking loon because all he posts are incomprehensible diaries that link Bain, Romney, and the Illuminati, so you shouldn't believe what he says."  Not that I would mean that;  it's just an example of an ad hominem.

      3.  Why does it seem like the crazies are most fervently trying to invoke the "don't be a dick" rule?  And by "crazies," I don't necessarily mean those who write diaries whining about how they've been subjected to ad hominem attacks when they haven't.

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:34:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is "ad hominem" (DUD) - to say CT and fail (0+ / 0-)

        to back it up with anything geniune.

        It is a high jack of a D, to kill the discussion;
        and it is bad faith, bad form - pure and simple.


        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

        by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:51:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bullshit (6+ / 0-)

          And you don't get to make your own definitions up.

          Got that?

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:55:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just because your a Laser hater and curse (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ek hornbeck

            doesn't make you correct.

            The definition is NOT made up.

            See it here on Wikipedia

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument

            If you are arguing against the person - without substance - you ARE engaging in "ad hominem" attacks.


            Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

            by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:07:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll try to say this slowly for you (8+ / 0-)

              saying a diary is describing a conspiracy theory is an argument directed against the diary,  not the writer.

              No matter how many times you copy from Wikipedia, it will never be the case that calling a diary a conspiracy theory is an ad hominem.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:11:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can banter B.S. as much as you wish (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ek hornbeck, kharma, TheMomCat

                your arguments do not hold water.

                As evident by the LINKS to prior comments from years back - the party called me nuts, begs for others to HR me - and seeks my banning.

                That's not general statements - just FACTs of "ad hominem" attacks.

                You are on the wrong side of this and blind to the truth.


                Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:16:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  See... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  laserhaas, kharma, Victor Ward, TheMomCat

                  CT is bait and anyway it stands for "completely true".

                  The only reason people trot it out is to get you banned, because it is one of the bannable offenses.

                  Ignore those comments and the people who make them.

                  If Adam had any power at all you'd be gone already.

                  •  I wish you could be as good at explaining why (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ek hornbeck, TheMomCat

                    my blood boils - when they do that stuff

                    as your are at pointing out the futility of arguing with them.


                    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                    by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:25:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course I can explain it. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      laserhaas, davespicer, kharma

                      They do it to make your blood boil and tempt you into fights.

                      It's classic trolling.

                      You must resist.  Yes, it sucks that the moderation is biased and arbitrary, but the reason to persist is to help those who follow.

                      There are those who claim I'm a "purist" and don't understand "compromise" and "incrementalism".

                      I live it every single day.

                      •  US AG Ashcroft "compromised" - with a $50 million (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ek hornbeck, kharma

                        NO Bid - Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) that was given to him by US Attorney from New Jersey (Chris Christie).

                        If Al Capone were to give the former USAG $50 mil

                        It would be a bribe.

                        ----------------------

                        When the great Christie arranges for it to USAG Ashcroft

                        It's a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.


                        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                        by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:58:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Amazing flexibility. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kharma, laserhaas

                          I like the double dog.

                          Double Dog

                          * Partner #1 gets into Down Dog position, while Partner #2 stands on the left side of Partner #1.
                          * Partner #2 places their hands about 8 to 12 inches in front of Partner #2's hands.
                          * Partner #2 lifts their right leg and places their foot directly below Partner #1's right hip bone. Then they bring their left foot up and place it below Partner #2's left hip, cupping each side of Partner #1's hips with their feet. Partner #2 is basically doing Down Dog on top of their partner. Hence the name - Double Dog.
                          * To dismount, Partner #2 slowly shifts their weight off and places one leg down to the ground, and then the other.
                          * Switch roles so you each get a turn to do both.

                      •  The bribe Romney's GANG offered me (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ek hornbeck, kharma

                        they called it a "recalculation" of the actual worth of assets in a BK estate.

                        If I'm willfully blind to what they are doing wrong - because of the estate being "overvalued"

                        a "recalculation" is in order.....


                        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                        by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:00:07 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  No. (3+ / 0-)

                    Whether or not I have such power, I don't know: I've never sought any user's banning based on my role behind-the-scenes here. I figure the HR process generally takes care of things well, over time.

                    And I'm disappointed by your other remarks here about me, and unsure of their genesis.  If you want to Kosmail me, feel free.

                    •  NO - what good would it do to argue with you (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMomCat

                      behind closed doors.

                      Let's have an open debate.

                      Back to the very beginning. The one issue you keep jumping over. Are there erroneous affidavits in the court docket record in eToys

                      Yes or No?

                      Under Section 327(a) - that the parties who put forth those erroneous affidavits - INTENTIONALLY hiding their conflicts of interest - Does the Bankruptcy Code & Rules mandate their disqualification?

                      Yes or No?

                      Until you and your friends stop following with you and calling that sine qua non issues CT - all other banter is an exercise in futility.

                      You are defending the position of bad faith parties, who work for OUR enemy. Who have stolen from thousands of people as well as me too.

                      NO one has the right to assault a victim - in essence inferring one is not a victim - and expect that victim to take it on the chin over and over again.

                      You are a PRO - at taking the debate down a highway where logic doesn't matter.

                      If I were Paul Traub - trying to dodge my culpability, you would be a good candidate for the job as defense counsel.


                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:00:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That wasn't directed at you, but ek. (3+ / 0-)

                        I'm not interested in discussing issues which you litigated back in 2005; I certainly don't see what they have to do with the diary you posted last night to which I responded.

                        •  What is being litigated now - what will be (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TheMomCat

                          litigated for years to come.

                          Of course your NOT interested.

                          Then please stay out of my D's and stop bringing along the same band of merry B's - with bad faith intents!


                          Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                          by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:09:59 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Adam B, a quick correction (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Adam B, terrypinder

                          You said, with emphasis added:

                          I'm not interested in discussing issues which you litigated back in 2005
                          Haas didn't litigate the issue.  His company, Collateral Logistics, Inc. filed a motion regarding the conflict, among other filings. Judge Walrath refused to consider it (and ordered CLI's pleadings in the matter stricken) because CLI was appearing without counsel, which a corporate entity may not do.  Judge Walrath pointed out at footnote 3 that refusing to consider the CLI motion
                          has not, however, diminished the issues addressed by the Court because Alber’s pleadings are substantially identical to CLI’s pleadings.
                          This may seem to be a minor point; it matters because it's at or near the beginning of Haas' story of a grand government conspiracy against him and part of the reason his diaries are so confounding.  

                          Haas, in his individual capacity, appealed to the District Court and, when it ruled against him, to the 3d Circuit.  His appeal was summarily dismissed:

                          Haas, who describes himself as president and sole shareholder of Collateral Logistics, Inc. ("CLI"), appeals pro se from the District Court's August 30, 2006 dismissal of his appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's October 4, 2005 order in the EToys, Inc. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court denied CLI's emergency motion to disqualify the unsecured creditor's counsel because CLI was not represented by an attorney as is required for corporations to appear in federal court. The District Court dismissed Haas's subsequent appeal after finding that he did not have standing to challenge the order denying CLI's motion. Because Haas's appeal to us presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

                          We are in complete agreement with the District Court's analysis and decision that Haas lacks standing to appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's order. Although the current Bankruptcy Code does not discuss appellate standing, we have recognized that standing is a prerequisite for appealing bankruptcy court orders. In re Dykes, 10 F.3d 184, 187 (3d Cir. 1993). In the bankruptcy context, standing is limited to "persons aggrieved" by an order of the bankruptcy court. Id. at 187-88. Individuals are "`persons aggrieved' if the order diminishes their property, increases their burdens, or impairs their rights." Id. at 188. This standard is more restrictive than the Article III standing requirements, as we require the appellant to be "directly affected" by the order. In re Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 391 F.3d 190, 215 (3d Cir. 2004). Whether a party is a sufficiently aggrieved is a factual matter subject to the District Court's determination. In re Dykes, 10 F.3d at 188. Thus, we review the determination for clear error. See In re Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 391 F.3d at 214 n.19.

                          As the District Court explained, Haas is not a "person aggrieved" by the Bankruptcy Court's order because the court denied CLI's, not Haas's, motion. CLI, a corporation, is a legal entity separate from its president and shareholder, and an individual shareholder such as Haas generally may not appeal a judgment against the corporation.

                          See In re Anchorage Nautical Tours, Inc., 145 B.R. 637, 641-42 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1992) (following Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F.2d 727 (3d Cir. 1970), and Alaska law to hold that the sole shareholder and principal of a corporation had no standing to appeal an order against the corporation). As such, only CLI (through counsel) had standing to challenge the Bankruptcy Court's order. See Kauffman, 434 F.2d at 732 ("A stockholder . . . does not acquire standing . . . when the alleged injury is inflicted upon the corporation."). Haas's position as president and status as sole shareholder does not change the outcome. See In re Anchorage Nautical Tours, Inc., 145 B.R. at 641-42.

                          Nevertheless, Haas contends that he has suffered pecuniary damage and is thus a person aggrieved. According to the Bankruptcy Court's findings in its August 25, 2005 dismissal of CLI's claims, CLI was retained by the Bankruptcy Court to provide transportation and security services in connection with the liquidation of estate inventory.

                          The retention orders required CLI to file applications for payment of its fees and for reimbursement of its expenses. CLI, however, failed to file adequate fee applications and its claims were accordingly not paid. Thus, it appears that any adverse pecuniary effects that CLI (and indirectly, Haas) suffered stem from its failure to comply with the retention orders, not from the order of the Bankruptcy Court at issue, which merely denied CLI's motion to disqualify the unsecured creditor's counsel. CLI's grievances with its circumstances and Haas's grievances against nearly everyone associated with the EToys litigation do not confer standing on Haas.

                          Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's order.

                          Link.  I'd have to double check, but I'm fairly certain that Haas subsequently added the appellate judges to the list of agents conspiring against him.

                          As long as Haas is permitted to post here, readers deserve to have an explanation of what really happened, which Haas refuses to provide.  Please consider this comment as part of that explanation.

                    •  Let's - You and I - tangle, upon he merits (0+ / 0-)

                      one by one.

                      Or agree to stay our distance from one another.

                      Like "gentlemen" would do!

                      CHOOSE?


                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:01:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Isn't this your diary (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              laserhaas, Victor Ward, twigg

              wherein you argue against name calling and personal attacks?

              Just because your a Laser hater and curse (1+ / 0-)
              doesn't make you correct.
              Oh, right! You are only arguing against anyone calling you names and attacking you personally!
    •  It's possible to make a rock solid case (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laserhaas, Victor Ward

      That someone is being a troll or conspiracy theorist without that person agreeing.

      You may think you are a crusader fighting the good fight when really you're just as stubborn as Orly Taitz.  Am I describing you or people who disagree with you (or both)?  Does it matter?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site