Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell/Evidence
What is a "personal attack"?[edit]
I do not think tkorrovi quite understands what is punishable as a "personal attack". Saying "So you say but you are not an authoritative source" is not a personal attack; there are other comments like that, which I'm sure the community wouldn't construe as a personal attack... ugen64 15:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said." [1].
Paul Beardsell said that remark after I just said him what I know, or think "All neural networks are learning systems, trainable systems, and connectionists think that these are necessary for AC". This statement was not said to be by me, or meant to be, a quotation of an authoritative source.
Saying "So you say but you are not an authoritative source" as a reply there, implies that I am not even authoritative enough to talk to him, while all the other people are, and he is authoritative enough to talk to me. That is, the supposed flaw or weakness in me is that I'm not authoritative enough to talk to persons like him. If I considered it true, and not a personal attack, then it meant that I confess that I have no right to talk, ie he could that way ignore me completely, and discredit, no matter what I actually say.Tkorrovi 22:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is exactly this kind of reasoning one has to contend with all the time when debating with Tkorrovi. His grasp of English is just good enough to misidentify practically anything as a personal attack, for which he seems to be constantly and aggressively on the lookout.
Is the immediately above paragraph a "personal attack"? I say it isn't. Tkorrovi left out the sentence immediately preceding his extract from personal attack. Here it is: Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.
When Tkorrovi (or anybody) makes a logic error, or misunderstands something, and this is pointed out, that is not a "personal attack". When these logic errors and misunderstandings happen over and over and this is pointed out then that is not a "personal attack".
But they are taken as such by Tkorrovi.
Now, is the immediately above paragraph a "personal attack"?
Paul Beardsell 22:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What don't you understand? The abusive remark is stating a *supposed* flaw or weakness. I'm sure that others here understand.Tkorrovi 01:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"...and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said." If X requires A and B then demonstrating A alone is not enough for X. I have criticised your arguments but not to avoid discussion of them. You then shout "insult", demand an apology, go to arbitration over alleged "personal abuse". There has been none. This is just an abuse of process by you. Paul Beardsell 02:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the immediately above paragraph a "personal attack"? Paul Beardsell 02:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It mainly shows you not understanding what personal attack is. The abusive remarks are used to convince others, that the arguments of that person cannot be right, or that it doesn't make sense to talk to that person at all -- this is how the discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said is avoided. Your argument is simply wrong, first of all because personal attack is an attack against person, not against arguments. It may be considered a personal attack because it pretends to be a proof of someone acting wrongly, but for people who read carefully and understand, this is simply a wrong argument.Tkorrovi 14:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Taking a lesson from your book: Insult! Apologise, or I will not let you edit the article. And I will take a case of "personal attack" to the arbitration committee. Paul Beardsell 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) See here and more refs coming
Should I have to apologise for asking you to apologise on your talk page more than a year ago? OK, I do, I don't remember why I asked that, and I cannot find it, as the article's talk page history doesn't go so far back.Tkorrovi 22:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)