[Report] Personal Attacks (?) in Weekend in Haunted House

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not sure if this crosses any lines (maybe it doesn't) but I want to bring this up for the record so there is some awareness of this problem if it should get worse.

I have mentioned, on many many many occasions in the past (and I will post previous posts dating way back if I have to as evidence, please tell me if I should) that I don't want to talk about my law school experience because it involves some very personal/traumatic memories. There is NOTHING in what I post EVER in any of the specific threads that brings up my law school credentials/past as a basis for any of my arguments.

However... it becomes standard practice somehow for people to make jabs at my law school days (or as some phrase it, "alleged law student" past). When I tell them to stop, they "insist" on defending that its not a personal attack and start making further jabs ("oh you never finished law school????" "oh you must have been a terrible student"). And its always the same group of posters; its starting to come across as extremely insensitive and downright borderline harassment.

It is none of their business and there is absolutely no basis or need to bring up this personal issue in debates other than to break a nerve with me.

I am not sure that any lines have actually been crossed but I want to flag this out here so that if it gets worse, I might feel the need to further report, for now I will keep it to this one thread in the Haunted House:

...

So then a testimony that someone saw a murder isn’t evidence for the murder somehow?

Not the same thing and as a "supoosed" law student, you know this.

Me saying I saw a UFO is not evidence that UFOs are real. Its just evidence that I said I saw a UFO. Lear the difference.

I don't take kindly to references to my law school days. Please do not go there. Its a personal attack. I don't like where this is going...

evidence that you saw the UFO is evidence of UFO's existing... now you can lower the weight of the evidence by attacking credibility or specifics of the sighting or by alleging that it never happened but its evidence of existence nevertheless

I fail to see how that is a personal attack. You supposedly went to law school and you brought up a comparison with murder. I pointed out that testimony of seeing a murder is not comparable to someone saying they saw a UFO.

Me saying I saw a UFO is not evidence of the existence of UFOs. It’s just me saying I saw one. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, the truth of it will not change. Murders are palpable and happen. We have evidence of them. UFOs, ghosts? Not so much. All we have is here say and here say is not evidence of anything.

My law school experience/past is not relevant to the topic. I don't like it when people bring it up.

Its in the same vein as if someone said: "Well, since you are 'supposed' divorced person, you are supposed to know X, Y, Z about divorce etc" You wouldn't like it either if in discussions people started saying, "Well since this is PERSONALLY TRUE OF YOU... you OUGHT to know X, Y, and Z..."

Just no.

Again, you supposedly went to law school and you brought up a comparison with murder. They’re not comparable, in evidence and all. Something you should know. I fail to see how this is a personal attack.

Show me undeniable evidence of the existence of ghosts. Show me photos, show me scientific studies that prove ghosts exist. Not here say. Not folk tales. Anyone can say anything. That still doesn’t make it evidence of the undeniable existence of ghosts.

Its a personal attack because it invokes a personal experience/qualification of the poster. Its not focused exclusively on argument, it encourages others to draw an inference or to view the opponent's arguments unfavourably by inferring something personal about the opponent rather than the pure substance of the argument itself.

There are no scientific studies precisely because science's official position is: "Ghosts do not exist unless someone else proves it to me and since they are not scientists they won't be able to do it in a way that we find satisfactory... in the meantime, we (the scientists) can also conclude ostensible experiments to 'prove ghosts' but our real purpose is to discredit specific instances of ghosts; this way we can generate a continuous and permanent trail that suggests they don't exist even though we are using a scientific method to measure a supernatural phenomenon..."

It’s not a personal attack, so get over yourself.

Me saying I saw a UFO or a ghost is not evidence of their existence. You comparing evidence of murder with here say about ghosts being real is rather silly. They’re not comparable. Learn the difference.

If you're actively bringing up people's personal past in your arguments, then I consider that to be a personal attack.

There is a very valid analogy to be made as they both involve eyewitness testimony.

You talked about comparing heresay with evidence of murder. I told you that they’re not comparable and as a law student you should know that. You getting this “upset” about it is ridiculous. It’s as if I were to get pissy when someone brings up I studied art history in a pertinent subject. The truth is, I did. I studied art history. That’s not a personal attack so really, get over yourself.

It’s not a valid analogy because murder is something proven to happen. Someone saying they saw a UFO is not proof of the existence of UFOs or ghosts. Until there’s undeniable proof with scientific studies and concrete evidence, every account of someone saying they saw a ghost is just heresay.

I have not brought it up. You brought it up. I do not talk about law school. I do not invite such conversations.

It is your post that brings in my law school past and makes this personalised. There was absolutely no reason to bring it up; you could have argued your point without referencing a personally traumatic experience.

Again, are you going to address my points or are you going to keep bringing up “that which shall not be named”?

I don't take kindly to references to my law school days.

Interesting. Past tense?

Couldn’t hack it, eh?

Back off

No hostility intended. Law school is really hard. I’m sure you did your best.

I am going to tell you what I should have told the last person in real life who used this disgusting tactic on me:

You do not get to assume ANYTHING. And I have NO OBLIGATION to confirm or deny any of your unfounded assumptions. For the record, I do not confirm nor deny. Now, BACK... OFF.

Do not talk about my law school experience, it is a sensitive topic.

Stop derailing this thread and stay out of my personal affairs.

With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.

...

I'm not sure any of this is actionable but it is truly getting on my nerves.

My law school and exactly what happened there is truly none of anyone's business and I have mentioned tons of times (across many many threads, I will pull out these posts if I have to and I guarantee you the same posters that callously keep bringing this up HAVE read/seen these posts) that I do not talk about law school.

There is NOTHING in my profile or signature or in anything that I've posted within the last 2 years that even remotely INVITES this sort of personalised attack/inquiry.

[Infected Mushroom]

The following is an exchange from another thread which shows that Galloism knew as of 2018 (today) that law school is a sensitive topic yet decided to make another jab:

I see...

This is why you need to read the facts Mushrooms. As a pretend law student, you should know this.

Please stop with the allegations that I never went to law school (and so am a liar). I don't appreciate it and its getting on my nerves slightly. The last three/four years have not been easy at all.

I'd rather we just focused on the materials in the threads and not do this sort of thing.

Then act like a law student. Read. Discern. Think about the legalities, rules, consequences, and angles. Consider the common law history.

Don’t act like honour and valour and whatever the fuck means anything in our society. Don’t knee jerk react like the common rabble. You want to be treated like a law student,start acting like a lawyer.

Shadow optional.

Then act like a law student. Read. Discern. Think about the legalities, rules, consequences, and angles. Consider the common law history.

Don’t act like honour and valour and whatever the fuck means anything in our society. Don’t need jerk react like the common rabble. You want to be treated like a law student,start acting like a lawyer.

Shadow optional.

I don't need to be told, least of all, by you, how to "act like a lawyer." I've had three/four years of that.

You can (privately) choose to believe if I was a law student or not but there's just no call for this sort of mudslinging in every thread. You've done it in many other threads now. I don't like it and I'm starting to feel harassed.

I'm not telling you what to think, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could refrain from making insinuations in every thread about my personal/educational background and/or call me a "pretend law student."

Its just not very nice.

...

from yet another thread:

You then tell him: "Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right."

Have I been possessed by the spirit of a High Elf?

Because then it would be What Would a High Elf Do. WWAHED.

I'd summon him into the firm's main hall, explain that he's insulted the honour of the company, and then fire him. When he chose to say those words, he didn't just make a mistake, he made a choice. He's insulted the honour of the company and if someone does so (regardless of their performance), they have to be let go. Otherwise you will not be respected and feared and you will be unable to run the organisation. Also, it is evident that he can no longer be trusted and that his loyalty is in question. And in this day and age, loyalty is currency. Its not a question of performance, its a question of loyalty and honour.

Loyalty and honor. Feared. I lol’d.

In any case, you erred by waiting a few days. In most jurisdictions, if you fail to suspend/fire someone as soon as you become aware of fireable behavior, it ceases to be a qualified reason to fire them. This means generally they can draw unemployment (if you’re in a right to work jurisdiction) or draw unemployment and sue for wrongful termination (in the other kind).

As a pretend law student, you should know that.

And he saw this conversation...

Jokes aren't funny if they have to be explained. But you should probably give up the pretence that you study law in Canada...

Please don't make this personal; that has nothing to do with the topic

please don't make allegations

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

I am shocked and appalled that you would even insinuate a person who states SCOTUS has unlimited power and courts can reinterpret any law or contract to suit his fancy, regardless of wording, is not actually a law student. How dare you sir! How dare you.

...

I am sure there is more...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Since we are airing people's dirty laundry here, let me post here that IM essentially posted that he would make this known to the moderators if we didn't stop:

Are you all going to keep at this until/unless I report?

Is this where this is headed?

I am pretty sure this counts as mods as weapons.

Not to mention, he also insinuated I was delusional in the thread of NSG awards this year:

Award for Insanity Soldati ("I might disinherit my kids... if I had billions I wouldn't share more than $10,000 with them")

Not to mention this post laced with nothing but personal attacks:

We all know he pulled it out of his ass. We don't need to pretend it comes from somewhere special.

And I wouldn't give my children to Trump either, because they're my kids quite frankly.

And you alone reserve the right to work them half to death and disinherit them if they don’t live their life the way you want them to live (by your own admission if you had billions of dollars you wouldn’t supply them with anything more then 10k once you are now longer legally obliged to provide). I suspect you would even charge your own kids rent as soon as they can legally work groceries.

The thought of them growing up and taken care by the rich, affluent trump family and having a real shot at being someone important and powerful shocks you. You are reminded how your own father made you bleed to get what little you have today and you shudder at the possibility that your child could get more for less.

Most important of all, you have to remain the legal father. Anything else is a massive blow to your self worth.

I have to say, this is quite a fascinating alternate point of view (even though I can’t personally agree with it). Internally it’s all consistent (if you run with some premises) but it is utterly reprehensible.

It has become very clear to me that a lot of people in this thread respond with a form of knee jerk possessiveness. THEY ARE MY KID. Never mind what is best for them. Never mind that someone could offer more.The other half is this strange ideology where you remain “parent” but really won’t support your children at all.

Now, I am pretty sure insinuations about his education, or lack thereof, in a particular subject are more defensible than he straight up insinuating I am insane and straight up engaging in amateur psychoanalysis to do, as he claims, what he claims we do only to him, not to mention insinuating facts about my own family, which is a bit hypocritical considering he typed up this report because people are insinuating facts about his education.

I am not doing this to defend myself, but let it stand for the record, that IM is no innocent victim in this matter, considering how he personally attacks people, but has come and tried to compile a list of posts where everyone questions his legal knowledge as someone who took several years of law school and downright tell us he was going to report everything if we didn't stop, which could be considered a "use of mods as weapons".

[Infected Mushroom]

Since we are airing people's dirty laundry here, let me post here that IM essentially posted that he would make this known to the moderators if we didn't stop:

Are you all going to keep at this until/unless I report?

Is this where this is headed?

I am pretty sure this counts as mods as weapons.

Not to mention, he also insinuated I was delusional in the thread of NSG awards this year:

Award for Insanity Soldati ("I might disinherit my kids... if I had billions I wouldn't share more than $10,000 with them")

Not to mention this post laced with nothing but personal attacks:

And you alone reserve the right to work them half to death and disinherit them if they don’t live their life the way you want them to live (by your own admission if you had billions of dollars you wouldn’t supply them with anything more then 10k once you are now longer legally obliged to provide). I suspect you would even charge your own kids rent as soon as they can legally work groceries.

The thought of them growing up and taken care by the rich, affluent trump family and having a real shot at being someone important and powerful shocks you. You are reminded how your own father made you bleed to get what little you have today and you shudder at the possibility that your child could get more for less.

Most important of all, you have to remain the legal father. Anything else is a massive blow to your self worth.

I have to say, this is quite a fascinating alternate point of view (even though I can’t personally agree with it). Internally it’s all consistent (if you run with some premises) but it is utterly reprehensible.

It has become very clear to me that a lot of people in this thread respond with a form of knee jerk possessiveness. THEY ARE MY KID. Never mind what is best for them. Never mind that someone could offer more.The other half is this strange ideology where you remain “parent” but really won’t support your children at all.

Now, I am pretty sure insinuations about his education, or lack thereof, in a particular subject are more defensible than he straight up insinuating I am insane and straight up engaging in amateur psychoanalysis to do, as he claims, what he claims we do only to him.

I am not doing this to defend myself, but let it stand for the record, that IM is no innocent victim in this matter, considering how he personally attacks people, but has come and tried to compile a list of posts where everyone questions his legal knowledge as someone who took several years of law school and downright tell us he was going to report everything if we didn't stop, which could be considered a "use of mods as weapons".

For the record, it is not using mods as weapons since I literally proceeded to type up the report

[Galloism]

I’m not sure why expressing some concern resulted in two years of my posts being drug up and splattered all over this thread.

Do I really even need to make a defense here? I don’t see anything worth getting excited about at all, least of all suggesting that lawyers need to approach things a certain way a year ago.

[Frisbeeteria]

My law school and exactly what happened there is truly none of anyone's business and I have mentioned tons of times (across many many threads, I will pull out these posts if I have to and I guarantee you the same posters that callously keep bringing this up HAVE read/seen these posts) that I do not talk about law school.

There's nothing in the Terms and Conditions or the game rules that give you the right to declare certain aspects of your posting history to be off limits. Even if you make a post and later delete it, that content was public for a time and can be commented on. I'm not seeing anything remotely actionable here.

Soldati Senza Confini also brings up a valid point about countering perceived personal attacks with more personal attacks. That needs to end. You post provocative threads intending to draw out arguments. You don't get to complain when people make non-rule-breaking arguments you don't like.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As I was mentioned in this report (I know Fris already ruled), I want to stress that since I don't follow every post IM posts nor know him, and last I knew, he was in law school as per his own admission, my bringing up the law school comment had to do with him comparing eyewitness accounts for murder with those of UFO sightings and that they're not comparable. That as a law student (supposedly, I don't take anyone here at face value), he was supposed to be able to tell the difference. It wasn't a personal attack. He is the one assuming it was.

[Mallorea and Riva]

(I know Fris already ruled)

Just let it be, it's settled.