Why do you persist in claiming that there will be a reduction in bank guarantees? Mig dug up several links with actual facts that point to the exact contrary, but you'd rather believe the lies that comfort your prejudices (ooooh, EU, bad evil bureaucracy crushing the brave Norwegians) than acknowledge that your minister is full of shit and plain wrong.
This is the first ad hominem comment I can find on that thread - to which Chris responded in defence of Solveig and suggested Jerome pick on someone his own size.
I have no doubt that substantive difference on the EU exist between Chris, Solveig and Jerome - but accusing people of preferring to believe in lies to comfort their prejudices hardly seems in line with the values of respectful debate we seek to promote on this blog - particularly when it seems, on the evidence of that exchange, that Solveig never claimed that the EU was seeking to enforce harmonised standards on Norway - merely that the relevant Norwegian Minister had expressed such concerns and that, in her view, "Norwegians would not take a reduction in bank guarantees lightly".
You appear to have done a good job of adding facts and clarity to that debate, something you and often ET are very good at. There was no need for any ad hominem comments to have been introduced, and I'm surprised you cite this thread as an example of Chris' misbehaviour when he was clearly responding to an insult to his partner. How are we going to encourage much wider participation on ET when ordinary members risk being attacked by frontpagers for things they didn't say?
The issue here isn't who is pro or anti EU, fanatical or otherwise. The issue here is whether ad homimem attacks are permissible, and particularly whether you as a frontpager support another frontapager in making such an attack against an ordinary member (Solveig) - even if that member had been wrong on some point of fact (which does not appear to me to have been the case in this instance). I hardly think ET wants to send out the message that its editorial board supports ad hominem attacks against ordinary members? notes from no w here
I'm surprised you cite this thread as an example of Chris' misbehaviour when he was clearly responding to an insult to his partner.
I went to the trouble of reading a long thread at your initiation because you suggested it presented evidence of Chris' perfidy. I wrote a substantial and argued response in which I suggested that Jerome had initiated any ad hominem comments which appeared on that thread. I invited you to confirm that you, as a frontpager, do not support frontpagers initiating ad hominem attacks against ET members.
And your response...
You suggest that Chris might have had an ulterior motive for posting a quotation he posted on this thread. Perhaps he does, perhaps you can ask him. Having an ulterior motive is not a hanging offence. Were similar accusations not also made against Sven? Are you scanning the pages of ET for any comment by anyone which might possibly, if interpreted in another context, be construed as containing a veiled critical reference to a front pager?
However my concern is that the thread you cite as an example of Chris' bad behaviour instead indicates to me (a disinterested party - before you ascribe ulterior motives to me) that an ad hominem attack was initiated by a frontpager against a member.
You don't seem to see that as a problem or worthy of comment.
Can you not see that this would appear to justify the accusation, made by other members, of frontpagers "ganging up on ordinary members", of frontpagers having one standard for ordinary members and a lower one for themselves?
We appear to have front pagers acting as Judge, jury, prosecuting council, witness and complainant in this instance. The society we so like to criticise on these pages has long learned to separate those roles and appears to have a much better developed sense of natural justice.
It seems that ET is good at lecturing others but cannot provide the most elementary standards of justice and fair play to its own members.
I am disgusted that you seem to think that this is just another opportunity for point scoring against Chris. Have you no concept of Solveig's rights to her good name and ordinary common decency, courtesy and good manners in this matter? I have never known her to behave without courtesy to others on this blog, and the least she deserves is an apology.
But I suppose that would require someone to admit that it is possible that they might be wrong on a rare occasion. notes from no w here
I find your response absolutely extraordinary for the priorities it reveals.
I am sick, but sick, of innuendo and insinuation and plausible deniability. I have been guilty of making hurtful insinuations in the past too. This HAS TO STOP, people! Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
We appear to have front pagers acting as Judge, jury, prosecuting council, witness and complainant in this instance. The society we so like to criticise on these pages has long learned to separate those roles and appears to have a much better developed sense of natural justice. It seems that ET is good at lecturing others but cannot provide the most elementary standards of justice and fair play to its own members.
I invited you to confirm that you, as a frontpager, do not support frontpagers initiating ad hominem attacks against ET members.
Once again, this is totally unproductive. "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
