|
In Reply to: Re: for the sake of clarity posted by Person on April 19, 2002 at 07:51:08:
We are dealing with an excellent debater here.
There comes a point when debate for the sake of debate is tiresome and unproductive: If I say that "smoking is bad for health", an obssessive compulsive debater will even try take that point away by saying that if I drove a car to work this morning, I did more than any smoker did to pollute the environment plus dirty quite a few lungs along the way, etc etc. In the end I have no point.
Incidentally, "physician heal thyself" I believe, was what Jesus said the unbelievers would surely throw at Him to taunt Him (Luke 4:23).
As expected, the poster did not really take in anything I had to say but found my post offensive, and found a way to counter-attack. Everyone, has biases - I am not ashamed of mine. I contend that the line was crossed by this poster, when he failed to observe the guidelines.
The interpretation of the guidelines is the responsibility of the coordinators, and we have all agreed on a decision to ban him.
Many of you already know who this poster is, but for those of you who don't, here is a little insight as to our decision:
This poster has a long history of stalking, writing highly insensitive posts, all hidden behind the veil of intellectual debate. He has at times surprised many with how calloused, mentally cruel, and deliberately hurtful he can get. He is skillful in walking on the fringes of the rules and using the board as a playground for his mindgames. I would go as far as to call him a "bulletin-board bully" for his obsession with getting under people's skin to mess with their psyche. He has openly talked about unsettled grievances with another poster here, and has shown over and over again that his agenda is to distort and invalidate another person's experience, or even an expression of that experience.
He has upset many, and is responsible for making it so unpleasant for some, that they have refused to post when he was "around".
