Sunday, May 29, 2011

A challenge to kairosfocus-the-willful-sinner

gordo, you have directly or indirectly, maliciously accused MathGrrl of being a closed-minded and willful: liar, fraud, deceiver, Marxist/communist, and all around hyperskeptical troublemaker. You've accused her of "failure to address serious matters seriously, to provide even the smallest response to the request of Dr Torley, to explain evident blunders such as confusing a log reduction with a probability calculation, making some nasty snide suggestions, and her stunt of trying to brush aside the very foundational issues that led to the CSI concept have made her behaviour sink ever further in my estimation." (my bold)

I'll just pick one of those for now: I challenge you to show where she made any nasty, snide suggestions on UD. Let's see them gordy! I also challenge you to apologize (here, on UD, on Mark Frank's blog, and on all of your websites) for EVERY nasty, snide remark you've made about MathGrrl.

You say: "to spread a potentially damaging false impression that you know or should know is not true or fair is deceptive." You also said that to do that is a lie gordo.

Well, gordon e. mullings of the kairos initiative and scum sucking douchebag, you're a WILLFUL LIAR. Lying is a sin, isn't it gordy? You're going to burn!

Some, but by far not all, of the other false things you've maliciously, dishonestly, and willfully accused MathGrrl of being or doing:

disrespectful and hostile

grossly irresponsible and disrespectful

making unwarranted projections of dishonesty on the part of design thinkers

false talking points

red herring- strawman- ad hominem trifecta fallacy remarks

her behaviour is now unfortunately willfully insistent and deceptive

continued with a rhetorical strategy of ignoring substantial answers and corrections

MG was part of a co-ordinated group with KL and another

making some pretty nasty snide allegations or insinuations.

crudity of thought is fuzzed out by using indirection, allusion and suggestion

eagerness to play the rhetorical game of pushing persuasive talking points through the tactic of drumbeat repetition

lose sight of the duties of care to truth, fairness, and reciprocity in a serious discussion.

subtly willfully deceptive; tantamount to lying.

project talking points and play the game of selectively hyperskeptical objection, not to actually engage in genuine exchange of ideas.

drumbeat repetition of the many talking point objections

the face of a cloud of angry mosquitoes tanked up on talking points and spreading them far and wide

the whole debate is a massive exercise in self-referential incoherence on their part.

She simply refuses to accept that there are answers on the table.

MG has needed to explain herself

MG has persistently ignored.

One of MG’s tactics seems to be to wait until something is buried under enough posts in a thread, or has been continued in a successor thread, before repeating the assertion that was rebutted.

She knows or should know better than she has acted.

MG: Perhaps it has not dawned on you that the situation has now fundamentally changed, once your side has tolerated outing behaviour and increasingly disrespectful rhetoric leading to the creation of an attack blog that resorts to vulgarity as well as slander-laced outing behaviour as its main tactics. Madam, you are now associated with and unavoidably tainted by a cesspit of misbehaviour, and have a lot to answer for. As was already noted long since above.

simply rudely out of order and disrespectful

outing behaviour and crude vulgarities

You ought to be ashamed of the level your side has sunk to.

deliberately dodged aside

this sort of clever selection tactic has to be seen as a willfully deceptive strawman tactic, not a mere accidental oversight. It has happened far too many times.

you have so assiduously and cleverly ducked again

you resort to rhetorical tricks of distraction because you have no serious answer on the merits

snide allusion

Drumbeat repetition

not a responsible reply

MG cleverly refused to respond

the sort of vulgarity and outing behaviour already seen, comes across as disrespectful and uncivil.

The attempt to discredit and dismiss those on the other side without seriously addressing issues on the merits comes across as outright rude.

repeated refusal to address reasonable response, comes across as arrogant.

It is your side that has worked very hard to polarise the situation

You have a lot of fence mending to do, to even begin to come across as a reasonable person engaging a reasonable discussion on reasonable terms.

your ilk of objectors associated with MF’s blog

you and others of like ilk have to first establish that you are civil persons acting in good faith to be entertained for reasonable discussion.


And many more. I'll be adding more as I come across them.

You also blame her for things that other people have said on Mark Frank's blog. Guilty by association, eh gordy? Hmm, if you can use guilty by association, so can I!

You associate with joseph, barry arrington, dense o'leary, clive hayden, mung, uprightbiped, pav, nullsalus, chris doyle, gil dodgen, bornagain77, news (o'leary), stephenb, illion, cuntyuckianyankee, barrybowen, medsrex, allanius, junkdnaforlife, and all the other IDiots on UD, so that makes you automatically responsible for everything they say, and especially all the nasty and snide remarks they make or have made, anywhere, anytime. Of course you're also responsible for all your own nasty and snide remarks.