An apology regarding a statement about Prime Junta

A while back I made the following statement regarding Prime Junta:

frequently and repeatedly wished DEATH on the country [USA] and its' citizens

This was referenced to a multiple-quote post that showed some strong anti-American feelings on his part. However, it did *not* support factually or in spirit the attack I directed against him.

I have since engaged in inappropriate personal attacks in heated debates in two other threads with him. In each of the three cases I have apologized for my behavior and action in the threads. However, this special case needs to be addressed due to the international nature of the forum.

This forum exists for the debate of ideas, and that is bound to become heated. The difficulty in heated debates is keeping things 'in bounds'. If you criticize a country that has forum members, using 'you guys' to describe the actions of the government is easily construed as an attack upon the citizenry and the individuals of the forum. It is then the responsibility of the individuals involved to own up to these situations. We have had them here - and on many occasions other than the few I was involved with. Some have owned up, others have not. That isn't my problem.

I acknowledge that I have an issue with some of Prime Junta's anti-American statements. That doesn't justify taking the separate effect of several posts and lumping into a gross characterization of the man as a whole. And for having done that I am profoundly sorry. I apologize if I have done something to besmirch his character on these forums, because despite disagreeing with him on many things, there are others I very much agree with - but as he said himself, having an 'I agree' session doesn't make for interesting discussion.

So in summary, I apologize to Prime Junta for my inaccurate and hurtful statements; I apologize to the members of these forums for my inappropriate behavior; and I apologize to the site owners for causing these problems.

Oh well, I think we all have become to heated sometimes, if not here then in RL. Not that it shouldn't be avoided, but as long as we really don't pick on a person for a long time or we don't use physical (talking about RL) actions against the other, I don't see a real problem.

That's awfully nice of you, txa1265. As someone who’s participated in and also judged competitive debate, I can assure you that you’re definitely not the only one who pushed the limits.

I know I've punched PJ in the nose a couple of times, and I suspect I may be one of the folks you were referring to when you said, "Some have owned up, others have not." OK then, I'm sorry — but he was sure asking for it.

I'm curious — Has PJ already done some owning up? As far as I can tell, his last statement here was a parting shot (something about the KKK).

Honestly I am not trying to apportion blame or figure out who did or did not own up or apologize. I'm disappointed in myself for letting my emotions get ahead of my brain and saying things I'm not pleased with. I thought I had finished getting carried away in flame wars back in the USENET days but every now and then it happens and I don't like it.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I thought I had finished getting carried away in flame wars back in the USENET days….

Well, USENET! Now you're talking flame wars!!

Hey JemyM - shouldn't Hitler be in that picture somewhere?

an apolgy on the internet? Madness, I say!

A public apology? Oh my, aren't we bit dramatic over here? In my low and humble opinion personal debates on the Internet are best solved via private messages.

Lacking 90% of the facts and history of the situation, you're really in no position to determine the appropriate response. Mike did what he felt was appropriate and the rest of us are welcome to read or disregard as we each see fit.

As you say, Mike, you can't have debate and discussion if everyone is in agreement all the time. Neither can you learn another person's perspective or understand his/her worldview. When you care about something strongly, its not always easy to not take things personally. You don't need to be disappointed in yourself if you can accept the responsibility for your actions and remarks as you are doing here.

I think Prime Junta has done a pretty good job of keeping his cool for the most part, despite a few glaring slips, when you consider he's taken on his side of the debate pretty much solo, while the other side usually has several proponents all arguing against him simultaneously. He's saying things a lot of people don't want to hear, and whether he's right or wrong, you have to admire his ability to never back down from his personal beliefs. I personally, have learned things from his posts and point of view that I never would have without his input. It's unfortunate whenever personal attacks derail a heated discussion, but we're all human, and even I the great conciliator and Mistress of the Obvious have occasionally trolled out on people. Then you feel like a prize ass—or I do anyway.

Bottom line, it does take maturity to admit it when your tongue gets ahead of your brain, and I think the forums would be a poorer place indeed without any of the members of our crazed internet debate team.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Hey JemyM - shouldn't Hitler be in that picture somewhere?

My personal opinion is that P&R should be viewed as a separate entity to the rest of RPGWatch and you participate at your own risk, knowing that these are subject that inevitably stir the blood - and that's part of the fun.

Kudos to Mike for doing what he sees as the right thing.

I agree. Strong personal opinions make this an 'interesting' forum to be involved in. When I used to coach debating teams, the first rule of order was always 'attack the argument, NEVER the person'. To me, there's a difference between saying 'All Aussies are wankers.' and saying 'You <insert name> are a wanker.' The first represents a position in a debate, the second is a PERSONAL attack. Let's have the first, but PLEASE not the second!!

Yeah, but what if <dteowner> really is a total wanker? And what about the transitive property of wankism (or would that be wankery) which could indict a roomful in one fell swoop?

We did corporate harassment training today, so I'm primed and ready to roll. Now that I've been shown exactly what harassment is, I can do it properly going forward. Topic?!?

Originally Posted by dteowner
Yeah, but what if <dteowner> really is a total wanker?

What do you mean "what if"? I thought it was fairly obvious…

;-p

Corwin, What kind of coaching is it to make a strawl man argument like "all aussies are wankers"? I would say let's have the second one, but you d*mn well support it with evidence… otherwise just ad hominem.

Hey, I taught Logic too, and logical fallacies was always everyone's favourite topic!! If you've ever done any competative debating, you'll know that all topics are Strawman ( though this isn't the Codex ). Ad hominem is what I'm trying to prevent. Give me a slippery slope anytime!!

Oh my, this is very embarrassing, especially since it made me publicly go back on my resolution not to follow this forum.

Thank you for your graceful apology, txa. I'm very happy to accept it.

I also think I owe a couple of apologies — specifically to Corwin and dteowner; I have said things to them that were clearly beyond the pale. I regret, apologize, and will try not to do it again. Specifics available on request.

And now I really am off this forum. For now.