RE:RE:Quite InessentialYasch22 wrote: Oldnagger, I believe you're responding to a post by "IanCaimbeul," who kind of strangely attacked Quintessential for posting 3000+ posts in less than 1000 days. That is, someone who is NOT Quintessential attacked Quintessential -- not you -- in the mode of "argumentum ad personam". That is, an attack on the person, not on the subject matter.
Of course, in a lot of cases it's not that easy to distinguish between the person and the idea. In the case of someone who works as a director for a coal-mining outfit and is flat-out wrong on the relative amounts of CO2 produced by human activity vs volcanoes, it's hard to avoid saying a nasty word or two about him.
A problem with putting adversaries on ignore is that we can miss the context of some of the interchanges. A way to get a quick periodic look at a whole thread is to open the Peyto-Stockhouse page under "New Private Window" or whatever your browser's "incognito" window is named.
My bad and for that I do most sincerely offer an apology to Quintessential.
The timing could not have been worse since Quint had just prior to that attacked my arrogance on the VET board
I do not like putting anyone on ignore for the very reasons you mention. But there is a fundamental problem. When one says something that might be controversial and then responds to the ad hominems,there are wolf packs out there who will join in for the delight of the kill. this happened to me last fall on the VET board and the whole experience was far from pleasant. As the insults certainly crossed any normal line of decency and worse detracted from the reason I was there in the first place.
So , I very much appreciate your advice Yasch, as I always do and will try to avoid the cesspool of climate controversy. Thinking things thru my necessary point is to propound the idea that it is not the disease I want to argue about but rather the possible remedies.