How Would You Define an Inflammatory Post

Disagree. I do not see how you could possibly consider that simple logic when it makes no logical sense.
It is attacking the poster, and it is irrelevant.


P1 makes a claim that X is bad.
P1 continues to partake in X.
Therefore, X is not bad.
Wrong.

You claim that it is not logical to say something is bad, and continue to do it. How is it not logical? What exactly is not logical? What is your proposition?

Simple post:
Make a proposition, and support it with points.
Here is a point" Blaze is claiming that X is bad, but partakes in X.
What is the proposition? What is your intention?
Everything points to a personal attack.

The statement that Blaze made is completely independent of Blaze’s actions. Are we going to discuss the statement or Blaze?
Here is a statement: X is bad.
Anything you can say about Blaze cannot support or dispute the statement. Anything you can say about Blaze is completely independent of the statement.
Is X bad? Yes or no. Provide your points.
Does Blaze partake in X? Irrelevant to whether or not X is bad. It is clearly nothing more than discussing the person instead of discussing the statement.

People do not exist in a vaccum, and we are not computers.

The diversionary capability is probably more relevant to consider than the personal attack aspect. Look at how much time has been spent discussing Blaze. It is hardly uncommon for Blaze's posts to be followed by the "he is an alt" disclaimer. Maybe it's sort of a public service announcement for the new user. Kind of like Coco's repeating her new user experience for them as well. I've noticed a greater amount of discussion about Blaze's posting style and his alts in the threads where he appear to be right on topic and hits the nail on the head.

Ah the first computer was a human

P1 makes a claim that X is bad.
P1 continues to partake in X.
Therefore, X is not bad.
Wrong.

You claim that it is not logical to say something is bad, and continue to do it. How is it not logical? What exactly is not logical? What is your proposition?

Ah yes, I forgot Adam was a Commodore VIC20.

And I really don't see how it is logical to engage in behavior you decry in others. Certainly not if you don't want that behavior emulated by the forum at large.

There are several other people who post in these forums under alts openly and don't get the same kind of scrutiny. The reason Blaze is scrutinized is because of his repeated statements about simply gaming the forum, and enjoying the fallout.

Ah yes, I forgot Adam was a Commodore VIC20.

OMgah!! I had a Commodore VIC20, I even remember playing a game called Radar Rat Race addictively. Good times!

People do not exist in a vaccum, and we are not computers. There is more to a discussion than simple logic - this is not debate class, it is a discussion forum. Certainly one can say "x is bad" while continuing to do "x", and it does not change the nature of "x". However, it does speak to credibility when one repeatedly makes hypocritical statements. Credibility and respect are important components of a disussion as well. Human reactions are not simply based on logic, only machines programmed to do so react that way.

Attacking a person's credibility is not relevant.
You do not have to be a machine . Using logic means that you approach a discussion from with logic. There is nothing about it that is not human. As humans, we have every reason to approach a discussion from a logical perspective.

Now you are stating that we should not be doing so. The fact is that it is a personal attack. Credebility attacks do not belong in a discussion. It is important to take a statement objectively without allowing the credibility (good or bad) of any individual in a discussion to influence your logical assesment of the statement itself.

There is no reason to attack anybody's credebility. There is no reason to discuss anybody's credebility. The credebility of any participant has zero effect on the validity of a statement.

Nobody is asking anybody to be a computer.

First of all, I think the intent is to note that we can't take someone seriously who does not follow their own beliefs.

Wasn't the "what's the strangest place you've done it" thread posted in general just yesterday one of yours? Heh. Please spare use the lecture. See that's the thing... discussion involves chatting, and debate, and humor, and diatribe. A seminar involves lecture. I'm not here for that. Plenty of serious discussion takes place here every day, along with plenty of discussion that's anything but... and everything in between.

Does no one's mouse come with a scroll wheel anymore? Is it traumatic to have to skip past posts you think are off topic or unpleasant? People who can't do that and have to stop in the middle of a thread to stare at the accidents are usually the ones who hold up traffic. A kind of forum rubbernecking that persists long after the wreckage has been moved to the shoulder. The best way to foster the kind of on-topic intelligent discussion you want is to carry on having it. If a fist fight breaks out or a rabbit with a pancake on its head goes bouncing past just ignore it.

Many participants have made claims to considering the forums but a game. Would it help reduce repetitive gaming alerts for the new or infrequent user if we had a sticky for this forum incorporating all the various disclaimers?

This is to subject a participant, and has no regard for points. You cannot have a proper discussion if you allow the credebility of a participant to influence your assesment of a statement. They have no relation, and should not be deemed related.

And ENIAC was the first modern day one

Hopefully you are referring to yourself, and not me.

This is to subject a participant, and has no regard for points. You cannot have a proper discussion if you allow the credebility of a participant to influence your assesment of a statement. They have no relation, and should not be deemed related.

Ok Margaret, I will bite. I am curious, actually. It does not bother you that someone purposely creates threads to incite a reaction from people, will post in opposition just to be contrary, and will shift their beliefs/arguments to ensure maximum negative reaction? Among the many problems in the forums, do you not find this also to be problematic and contrary to a healthy, respectful forum?

How is this post a personal attack? This seems rather civil to me, for a SL Forum post.

You creep me out.

I don't recall that one, I know I had another game but obviously not as impressionable cause I can't remember the name.