Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-24894325-20191015133953

On a separate note, I am alarmed by the recurring responses that, instead of addressing reported facts attempt to address the supposed motives behind stating these facts. After a post stating that fact A is not entirely correct (or is completely incorrect), these responses can be divided into three subtypes: (The 2nd type is sometimes coupled with calls to admin to reprimand the poster for posting off-topic.)
 * 1) The claim that A is necessary for validity has already been addressed and disproved.
 * 2) Whether A is true or not is irrelevant for validity and should not be discussed.
 * 3) What is the reasoning behind raising the issue of claim A being false? Before proceeding with discussing A, one must lay out a strategy how they would argue (in)validity using A.

This is an all too familiar symptom of partisan disputes, where objectivity matters little and where every fact, instead of being verifiably true, verifiably false, or in dispute---where every fact is either in favour (of validity) or against (validity).

This is a dangerous aberration of intellectual discourse. I am truly disheartened to see it manifest itself so strongly here on the wiki.

All people who ask me what it is I am trying to say should read my posts. When I say that Arcbeatle Press is a self-publisher, it is because this is a fact I have been proving by multiple quotes, including from James Wylder himself, over and over again. This fact is not for validity or against validity. It just is. If somebody considers this or similar facts irrelevant, they are welcome to ignore these facts. If you are right about their unimportance, so will the closing admin.

When I say that the releases proposed for validation are not commercial, it is also a fact. Borisashton responded to this by "I'll just repost my response on October 5 verbatim since the argument has come up again despite already being dealt with in my opinion."

As is becoming a tradition in these debates, the argument Borisashton responds to (for the second time), the argument I was allegedly promoting is along the lines of the story must be commercially released to be valid. However, I do not believe anyone, including me, suggested this line of reasoning. All I pointed out was that the releases whose validity is being debated are not commercial.

In showing good faith, unlike Borisashton, and despite him doing it for the second time, I am not suggesting that he "actively manufactured" this faulty argument and put it in my mouth, I am not claiming that putting "seem to" in front of a personal attack somehow turns it into something allowed, as if "you seem to be a bastard" were not considered an insult.
 * where, according to his favourite Merriam-Webster dictionary, to manufacture is a synonym of inventing or fabricating, as in "known to manufacture evidence" and where to fabricate is defined as "to make up for the purpose of deception" as in "accused of fabricating evidence";
 * and where "actively" signifies intent.

In show of good faith, I am simply pointing out that the argument Borisashton erroneously attributes to me, for the second time, is not mine, as is clear from reading my posts.