User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-31010985-20191015230454

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-31010985-20191015230454 I am disappointed to see that Amorkuz has again brought up the alleged personal attack towards him and my apparent show of bad faith. I had apologised for it and I thought that was the end of the matter, at least on this thread where the prime aim is to establish validity or invalidity and not disputes over Tardis:No personal attacks.

The 10,000 Dawns: The Book Club Collection mentioned by Borisashton and the preceding individual releases mentioned by Bwburke94 are not published commercially or in a commercial format. They are made available online for free. The rules cited support non-validity rather than validity. This was the original quote that I was referring to and I don’t think an unreasonable interpretation of those words would be that the “rules” mentioned refer to Tardis:Valid sources and as such, you are stating that the information provided (namely the stories not being commercially released) supports non-validity. I apologise if that was misinterpreted but you did not bring it up then if it was. Amorkuz wrote: At the risk of repeating myself, all releases currently proposed for validity are not commercial. (...) The html/pdf’s continue being available for free to this date. The commercial release of these stories is currently announced for 2020. Amorkuz wrote: 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. I am aware that this statement was clarifying a faulty statement from User:RingoRoadagain but both myself and User:Scrooge MacDuck thought that this was a point you were trying to admit as evidence into the debate. Even if this wasn’t the case, my reply only served to point out that T:VALID does not care about commercial releases and if this was not relevant to your point there was no reason to bring it up again on your part, but I hardly thought it wise to not comment on that part of the response on the off-chance you should bring it up again.

I assume by not mentioning Scrooge MacDuck you took offence to my use of the word "argument". According to Merriam-Webster, (which is not my "favourite", that was an assumption and a wrong assumption you had made about my posts. I am not American so why I would consider an American dictionary to be my favourite is beyond me. It was merely the first I came across when looking for a definition of "self publish" and once I had used Merriam-Webster once, what use would it have been to mix up dictionaries that potentially have slightly different definitions for the same word? The statement about it being my "favourite" was unnecessary and I would be lying if I said I was hurt by it but it certainly frustrated me. Anyway) one of the definitions of "argument" according to MW is: "A coherent set of reasons, statements, or facts, intended to support or establish a point of view."

- Merriam-Webster

As you said yourself, what you said is a fact and a fact that was used to establish the point of view (a position or perspective) of these stories not being commercial. So, really, what I was doing was exactly the same as what you were doing but you didn’t use exactly the same words as me.

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. (...) 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. I have shown good faith and I find your apparent lack of it very troubling. I don’t know where you are getting the "second time" from, since I only mentioned the phrase once and then later in my apology, unless you want to claim my apology for potentially offending you was in itself a personal attack.

According to MW, "seem":
 * To appear to the observation or understanding
 * To give the impression of being

I don’t think that the obviously derogatory "you seem to be a bastard" and "you seem to be actively manufacturing..." is a fair comparison. If you call somebody a bastard it is pretty clearly an opinionated insult but I genuinely feel in the circumstances that a neutral onlooker could have interpreted your statements as purposely misleading, especially given the fact that what actually happened was so easily verifiable upthread. Now that you’ve elaborated and made clear it was not as it seemed I hope the matter can be concluded. Regardless, I'll be sure to be more careful (and explicit) with my reasoning in the future, as I'm sure we all could.

I have never intentionally personally attacked anyone on this thread and I have already reiterated my apology for any offence caused multiple times. It would be much more productive if I could actually address the points raised rather than having to defend myself repeatedly.

I would like an admin to investigate Amorkuz's repeated claims of my bad faith, just to get to the bottom of the issue so we can move on; as well as his statement that I make a "tradition" out of making "faulty arguments" in "debates", plural, both of which I find quite offensive.