Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  and now that I've gone back and read (7+ / 0-)

    the diary and thread that sparked this childish little exercise I really have to wonder why you can't answer a simple yes/no question.

    I mean really. I'll highlight. The simple and reasonable things you were asked to answer are in bold:

    So we're clear. (10+ / 0-)
    They're not objecting to the settlement; they just want it to be public?
     (this is a very, very simple yes/no question. Yes, they want it to be public. No, they don't want it to be public.)

    What is the substance of the Trustee's objection, and has it been publicly filed yet?
    (this is a reasonable question and would help the narrative in that diary)

    This should not be difficult. If you can't answer the question, there's no need to throw a tantrum because you were questioned.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

    by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:30:15 AM PDT

    •  You are arguing falsely. The party may start (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Old Left Good Left

      off WAY down the false logic tree.

      But I'm not allowed to ask him to correct the error; before another (newbie btw) jumps in and just plants the word CT in the thread - nixing the conversation.

      And - OVER & OVER again - I said to he & his GANG

      If you will simply admit that those who stole my life savings and company - lied under oath to a chief federal justice

      then I'll answer questions.

      Not one of the GANG - answered that simple premise - the top of the logic tree.

      If they are calling me CT when I post a NEWS article from main stream as the source

      all banter after that is RWNJ efforts to ignore the facts and destroy the conversation.

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

      If the roles were reversed and I went to ANY of their D's and popped in with the words CT - or called one of them nuts - or called for people to HR the party much - so that they could be banned.

      I would have been slaughtered by now.....

      All of this double standard - permitting a person campaign by a Leader of the realm - to seek and destroy

      is Extreme Bad Faith!


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

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:39:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  irrelevant. (3+ / 0-)

        those things you allege happened after the questions were asked. Adam's question is one of the first comments on that thread after your tip jar. Them admitting someone lied is not relevant to your answering a simple series of questions, and it is not "threadjacking" to ask a bloody question.

        i'm not arguing at all. I am simply curious as to why two very reasonable and simple questions caused a multi-day tantrum. I am sorry you lost your livelihood to a bunch of lying motherfuckers but you could still answer the questions without screaming that everyone who asks you a simple question is:

        1. engaging in ad-hominum (nope)
        2. threadjacking (the only "threadjacking" was caused by you, screaming)
        3. distracting (you distracted your own diary)

        let's play another game. Imagine you were asked those two questions while on the stand. You are a lawyer, yes? Tell me what would happen if you went into the tirade that you did at Adam?

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

        by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:08:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He alway's asks questions appearing to be (0+ / 0-)

          "clarifying".

          So Let's "B" clear.

          He is an "Attorney at Law"

          defending the culprits in the eToys case

          and attacking the victim.

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

          You want a victim of the grand larceny robbery, being abused by federal corruption massive

          to engage in banter upon false logic

          because the crook went down the illogical highway

          and asks - So let's be clear, the sun is not shining on your case, it is shining on everyone - and your trying to make it about your case.

          B.S. banter - that has nothing to do with the fact that the title of the D in question.

          U.S. objects to secret settlement in eToys bankruptcy
          Then a KNOWN - "Laser hater" comes along and asks the VICTIM - seeking to poke holes in the victims bleeding wounds.

          And you expect the victim to keep taking that BS

          with a crap eating grin.

          You are joining the gang -  assaulting a victim - and (in essence) defending Mitt Romney.

          How does that make you feel about yourself?


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

          by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:20:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i'm bored today, so i'll play your game (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laserhaas, VetGrl, pico

            for awhile.

            1. Your narrative was not clear. A clarifying question is reasonable. I would have asked the same, and I'm NOT a lawyer. People who came to that diary may not have known what was going on. You certainly didn't help out in your own comment thread.

            But write whatever you want here or elsewhere.

            (Asking someone a question is not a defense of the culprits but whatever.)

            2. yes, I'd love to know the answer to those reasonable questions. Sorry you think it's BS but the previous diary was so confusing I really had no idea what was going on, and yes, since it was your diary, you do have a small obligation to help out where things are not clear. Instead you threw a tantrum and then wrote this meta-diary in an attempt to get sympathy for a comment-thread situation that was of your own making, because you think Adam has a personal vendetta for you and sits in his office looking for ways to ruin your life. Oh honey, no.

            3.  there's no gang ganging up on you and making you a victim here. What's with a few progressives lately? You ask some people here a simple question and they melt entirely the fuck down. Anyway, other than bored, I feel pretty great today.

            4.  I hope Markos ignores this code of conduct rule no 1, considering we already have the "Don't Be a Dick" rule. We're adults here, and we really don't need anymore handholding from the management.

            Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

            by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:58:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't be a dick rule is not applied - equally. (0+ / 0-)

              The issue is "ad hominem" attacks upon any D, calling it CT, nuts, or such - without backing up the allegations

              should be against the rules


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

              by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:22:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, i don't think it should be. let's move on. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                laserhaas

                Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

                by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:30:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can move to where you wish (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not going anywhere..


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

                  by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's fine. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VetGrl, Adam B

                    but "ad hominems" won't ever be banned in the sense that you want them all because you couldn't answer a simple series of questions.

                    I actually did make an attempt. While we were going back and forth, I quickly read through about a year's worth of your work here at Daily Kos. I still really have no idea what is going on with etoys and its bankruptcy having read your diaries and honestly Mitt Romney is a non-issue for me now. but there's a pattern in the comments threads of many of them: people show up confused, ask questions, you attack them, and then accuse them of being a gang of stalkers. Worse is when freak out when others try to fill the gaping holes in your own narrative because you're unwilling to do it. If this is how you behaved in court, well, no wonder you lost.

                    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

                    by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Dude (0+ / 0-)

        Calling everyone who questioned the content of your inane diary a "RWNJ" is over the line.

        Enough of the kid gloves treatment:  you are a raving lunatic espousing a conspiracy theory, and you ought to be banned because of it.

        "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 Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site