USC professors blog, dangerous ground? (Page 4)

Renee, you silly woman, you KNOW BT is supposed to be your #1 priority...

Renee:

1) I never once demanded that you support your belief that her article on the alleged Rapes at USC were well reasoned.
2) I questioned your opinion, and disagreed with it. I then set out why I disagreed with the propostion that her arguement was well reasoned. (5/9/2006 8:35 pm post)
3) In response to that post rather than engaging in a meaningfule debate to support your oppossing position as to why her article was well reaoned you instead "turned it on it's head" by stating " Maybe you don't like her conclusions so you discount her reasoning?" You chose to engage in further debate on the issue, and you did so, not in supporting your opinion with the points in the article that you found persuasive, but rather by questioning my motives for not agreeing with her/you. You can't voluntarily engage in debate then when faced with an adversarial propostion bow out and say...'I was just expressing my opinion, you can't ask me to explain my opinion'
4) My next post to you wasn't a personall attack, to the contrary I specifically didn't understand your post in response and asked you to clarify what you meant so that I could respond, if warranted. I honestly admitted that at first blush I thought it was a personal attack and then on a second read didn't really understand it.
5) Having gotten no clarification, i addressed your points as I understood them. My post of 5/11/06 9:49 am. In this post I set out my argument supporting my position that the professors blog on the alleged Rapes at USC were not well reasoned, and in particular were slanderous and unfair. In that post I never once engaged in a personal attack against you. I addressed with specificity the points in the authors article/blog and where I found fault with them, not you. I limited my opinion specifically to the articles on the USC alleged rapes, and addressed the authors faults/falacies. You stated: "If you don't like what she says, why not just lay it out there. Attack what she has to say, rather than attacking my opinion about her writings as a sideways entry into venting about her opinions. Instead, your reply seemed argumentative to me."
I did just that in my post of 5/11/06 at 8:49. I went through with the utmost specificity of how and why I thought the authors arguements were faulty.
6) Too often on this board people make assertions and there is a response and we all come to find out that what was meant by the original assertion was misunderstood. I attempted to give you an opportunity to clearify a point I admittadly didn't understand.
7) regarding defending your opinion, if you are engaged in meaningful debate you do in fact have to defend your opinion. that is what debate is, settting forth a proposition and then defending that proposition, or in the face of alternative positions conceeding to other positions. And if you are going to place your opinion on a public forum, it is perfectly acceptable to be asked to defend/support that position.
8) One of the problems I have Renee is that you often in the form of debate engage in what can be perceived as personal attacks. I get the feeling it is seldom, if ever, meant as an overt personal attack. I get the feeling it is often meant as sacrasim, or an interjection of ice breaking humor. But often it doesn't come across as that. (Examples in this thread wheh you told tyrant about getting his panties in a wad or knot. I'm sure that was meant in jest, but it comes across as a personal attack. It can come across that you are blowing off someone elses arguments in a demeaning manner) I certainly took your statement of "Maybe you don't like her conclusions so you discount her reasoning?" in that vein. that statement did nothing to support your postions, rather it demeaned mine out of hand. That's why I asked you to clarify prior to me responding. In a debate there is nothing wrong with asking someone to clarify a point to ensure meaningful debate.
9) I have been accussed of engaging in personal attacks on this board before, and I have also issued public apologies for those instances. I have also asked the person that accussed me that if he/she thought I had engaged in a personal attack to PM me and I would reassess my post.
10) My points about the professors blogs were specifically only addressing her writtings dealing with the alleged rapes at the USC campus. I view these differently then I do her other writtings, mainly because she accusses individuals of a hanious crime. I still believe that hiding behind an "opinion" of guilt is total B.S. Especially when she throws around terms like pedophile.
11) The odd thing is that I generally agree with you about free speech, and it's protection. However, free speech is not a cloak to protect individuals against slanderous and lible speech. And at least as it pertains to the professors writtings on the USC rape cases, I don't believe they are well reasoned, and I believe they are bordering on slander/libel, for the reasons I have previously set out.

In retrospect I do see how my post could have been called into 'demanding" that Renee support her opinion. While I still feel comfortable in asking someone to support thier asserted opinion on a public forum I should have worded my statement more artfully. Perhaps i should have asked Renee what she found compelling or persuasive about the authors article involving the alleged USC rapes. That might have been a better way to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

So, to that extent Renee you were right, and to that extent I apologize.