Bad!

[Tim Gratz]

To Mark:

Respectfully, sir, you just do not understand debate. (I was on a debate team for two years in college and won a city-wide debate class in high school.)

To tell someone his "logic is as sloppy as his grammar" is not unusual in a sprited debate. So is the suggestion that someone is debating without adequate knowledge of the facts (e.g. "learn some more history of the Kennedy administration".

To call people names, e.g. a "cowardly charlatan" and "a rat" is, however, puerile and it reflects on the person calling the names, not on the person to whom the name-calling is directed.

Moreover, it is clear all I was doing was making a joke, not insulting Charles and Jack. Pat even suggested that had it come from Ron it might have been funny. Kind of like "things may not always be black and white, but Charles and Jack will always be (respectively).

Moreover, it is not a joke occasioned by a "funny" name. For instance, we had someone checked into the hotel whose last name was "Bimbo". Now if I made a joke based on THAT person's name, it wouldf be personally insulting, and therefore wrong.

In no way did I think my joke would offend either Charles or Jack. And it apparently did not.

I will not direct this to you but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of why some people cannot differentiate between jokes and serious statements, or between good-natured jokes and insults.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, while I, too, have been annoyed by much of Tim's behavior, I interpreted his bad "black and white" joke as an attempt to make nice.  I don't see how it qualifies as a smear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably more a sneer than a smear. Anyway, what's the point of Tim starting such a thread. There's nothing of research value in it, just mild ridicule of others' thoughts (I get the black and white joke--is that funny?).

And since Tim is claiming that he has been the victim of childish name-calling, a few of Tim's gratuitous insults directed at others should be brought to the attention of the Forum, lest they forget who starts these things. Tim's pompous dismissals of others' opinions, peppered with rude insults, runs through many threads, and causes many heated exchanges.

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry, Mark, but when someone else's opinions are made of blue cheese, sometimes the temptation to so categorize them becomes irresistable.

Speaking of which, there is now proof that the moon is indeed made of cheese:

http://moon.google.com

(Be sure to "zoom in" as much as you can.)

Perhaps Craig can use this link in his ongoing debate with Jack about the lunar landing!

Edited July 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

To Mark:

Respectfully, sir, you just do not understand debate.  (I was on a debate team for two years in college and won a city-wide debate class in high school.)

To tell someone his "logic is as sloppy as his grammar" is not unusual in a sprited debate.  So is the suggestion that someone is debating without adequate knowledge of the facts (e.g. "learn some more history of the Kennedy administration".

To call people names, e.g. a "cowardly charlatan" and "a rat" is, however, puerile and it reflects on the person calling the names, not on the person to whom the name-calling is directed.

Moreover, it is clear all I was doing was making a joke, not insulting Charles and Jack.  Pat even suggested that had it come from Ron it might have been funny.  Kind of like "things may not always be black and white, but Charles and Jack will always be (respectively).  Moreover, it is not a joke occasioned by a funny name.  In no way did I think it would offend either one of them.  And it apparently did not.

I will not direct this to you but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of why some people cannot differentiate between jokes and serious statements, or between good-natured jokes and insults.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't give me any phony indignation. I agree with John Simkin, you should be totally ashamed of yourself. Your behavior has been a disgrace. Forum members should read the aforementioned Communication Breakdown thread if they want to determine who throws the most mud here.

You claim that to call people names is puerile and reflects on the name caller, but how does it reflect on you when you claim that the stupidity of another is increasing with every post or when you rudely dismiss others as having no knowledge of events when all they are doing is disagreeing with you. Insulting people and then claiming to have suffered injury when they respond is very cowardly behavior. Sadly, you do it all the time.

[Tim Gratz]

Again, sir, you do not understand the difference between a spirited debate and name-calling. And I would also point out that when I suggested someone lacked basic knowledge of the Kennedy administration, indeed it turned out I was right: the person had admittedly not read the "basic" books on the Kennedy administration written by Kennedy insiders.

To suggest someone lacked this knowledge was not a "rude insult"; 'twas the truth.

By the way, can you differentiate for me the difference between a "rude" insult and a "polite" one? Are not all insults "rude"?

[Mark Stapleton]

Again, sir, you do not understand the difference between a spirited debate and name-calling.  And I would also point out that when I suggested someone lacked basic knowledge of the Kennedy administration, indeed it turned out I was right: the person had admittedly not read the "basic" books on the Kennedy administration written by Kennedy insiders.

To suggest someone lacked this knowledge was not a "rude insult"; 'twas the truth.

By the way, can you differentiate for me the difference between a "rude" insult and a "polite" one?  Are not all insults "rude"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

So you were right all along, were you? That's very funny. It turned out you were wrong, as usual. Shanet was right. There were elements of JFK's administration who are now being closely looked at, among them C Douglas Dillon. Your knowledge of JFK is woeful, fatally flawed by your obvious political illiteracy. You claim he was a hardline cold war warrior, hellbent on invading Cuba at all costs. I really think John should ensure that those who intend to make thousands of postings, such as yourself, posses a modicum of political literacy. The Forum has standards to uphold, after all. You must learn to READ and UNDERSTAND before you write, mister two and a half thousand postings.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark S. wrote:

There were elements of JFK's administration who are now being closely looked at, among them C Douglas Dillon.

Where in the world do you get this, Mark?