I've ignored nothing. I simply chose not to respond line by line.
I highlighted the key points.
Sometimes when people agree with each other they are not in cahoots, they are not the same person (as you have previously accused Sarkus and Seattle of being), and one is not the mouthpiece of the other.
Sometimes, when they agree, it is because they agree.
Simple as that.
I have decided for myself: you lied, for effect.
You don't understand, and post #96 shows that you don't.
So let's go through it:
You start in that post by accusing me of flip-flopping between agreeing and disagreeing, as if I am doing both on the same issue.
I am not, as I am agreeing with you on one issue (the principle) but not the other (the standard by which you apply it, and have harassed Sarkus to abide by).
Your accusation of "flip-flopping" is clear evidence that you do not understand the difference.
Your next line is clear evidence again that you don't know the difference between the two: "Please be clear. What is the "basic principle" and what is the "actual standard"? What are you talking about? What are these two things and how are they different from one another?" despite being told repeatedly what those differences are.
You then reiterate that you dismissed Sarkus' post out of hand, using this accusation of "bile and insults" to dismiss the criticisms.
That is a fallacious ad hominem attack by you.
There is plenty there that deserve and require a substantive response from you, James R, as it gets to the very heart of the discussion that this thread should be about.
But you seem more intent on continuing your harassment of Sarkus, and ignoring what he, and everyone else (and I'll get on to that choice of words later), has explained to you.
You then think that simply pointing to a few phrases or sentences that he has written is sufficient to warrant the disclosure you sought.
It isn't.
That is to beg the question by you.
Whether or not those things are sufficient to warrant disclosure is, again, at the heart of this thread.
And you are wilfully choosing to ignore that.
You then deny the interpretation that everyone else who has chipped in has taken from your approach thus far.
Fine, if that is not the interpretation you want people to have, but it is the one everyone else who has chipped in thus far has taken from what you have said, maybe it behooves you to explain why they are wrong, and actually counter what they have said regarding the standard.
Not the principle, but the standard.
Remember, there is a difference.
But you have not done that.
You have repeatedly countered their arguments against your standard as if they have argued against the principle.
You then ask what follows from the principle that "disclosure is ethical if you have a vested interest."
Well, if one acts in good faith then one discloses when they feel that the discussion, or what they are saying, reaches the standard that warrants such disclosure.
They are left to disclose that, not pressured into disclosing that they don't have.
Otherwise, what follows is what others have explained to you, and which you deny, that every person ever discussing something has to declare, either that they do (if they do) or that they do not (if they do not) have a vested interest.
Note that the principle discussed is not that one ought to disclose such when asked, but rather that one should disclose any vested interest they may have.
Let me know if you want me to continue to dissect post #96?
About you playing the victim:
“This is just the "pile on James" issue of the moment.” – #94
About you dismissing criticisms with ad hominems:
“You're foaming at the mouth. You don't seriously expect me to engage with you while you're in this state, do you?” – #77 – followed by zero response to those key issues raised.
“I mean, you asked whether I want to live in a police state? Or interrogate people? Really? That sounds like something Sarkus would say, not you.” - #76 – without actually addressing the issue.
“You keep giving him a free pass. It's obvious where your loyalties lie.” - #95 – without actually addressing the issue of your ongoing harassment.
Would you like me to go on?
You haven’t addressed it all, but rather just the underlying principle.
You continue to claim you understand the difference, yet your arguments show otherwise.
Are you doing it deliberately?
The difference is at the core of this issue, and it is an issue either you don’t grasp, or are deliberately misrepresenting.
Your own posts, as already shown, is sufficient evidence of that.
I am not trying to insult you, just get you to recognise the reality of the position you’re in.
The difference between him and you in this regard is that he doesn’t attack ad hominem as a means of deflecting and avoiding issues.
You do.
As already evidenced.
The entire question of whether or not one has a vested interest, when the discussion does not warrant such ethical consideration, is itself an ad hominem.
You have tried in this thread to do little but paint Sarkus as unethical, as rude, foaming at the mouth, none of which appears to be borne out by the tone of his actual posts.
And you have the audacity to complain about me merely saying that you don’t understand a difference, and support that assertion?
Once again you try to second guess motives, actions, that are unwarranted and unsupported by you.
I have not talked to him about this.
Should I?
I am onside with him with regards the principle that an ethical person would disclose, unasked, that they have vested interests should they indeed have some.
I am onside with him with regard there being no obligation to respond to a request to disclose whether or not one has a vested interest, at least until a standard for such consideration has been reached, and then it would be up to the person to disclose.
I am onside with him regarding your ongoing harassment of him.
There are aspects I am not onside with him.
You spend too long on the former and not enough on the latter, and get both wrong.
Again, this speaks to your wilful or otherwise failure to understand what it is you’re actually discussing.
You have discussed the principle, yes, but not the standard you hold, and harassed Sarkus to abide by.
You raised some examples, yes, and then ignored his response to that.
You have not discussed those examples since, and nothing else that speaks to the standard rather than the principle.
It is not bullshit.
I have supported more than adequately.
And now to this.
This is just a fallacy of definition, a dishonest approach to appeal to a specific (in this case the literal) definition when it is clear from context the intended meaning.
You also did it with “nonsense”.
It is fallacious, and you do it knowingly and deliberately.
Not wise, but worth repeating here: “People will watch how other people behave.” – James R (#94)
Now, if you want to discuss the differences we have in the standard, rather than the principle, a distinction which you claim to understand...?
