For your consideration and comment www.TulsaToday.com (http://www.tulsatoday.com) has posted an election review titled, "Upcoming election fundamentals." We will, in the near future, allow comments on stories within the site, but until that time, we do enjoy reading Tulsa Now as one of many sites that track the pulse of our community. We will not answer here and know that some will use this opportunity for yet another personal attack, but we love you-all anyway and we will read what you say.
Not the most inviting way to start a dialog.
Translation: "It's all your fault that I was caught on TulsaNow lifting wholesale sections of Wikipedia without proper attribution, and I'm still p*ssed."
Quote from: Townsend on August 25, 2009, 05:07:13 PM
Not the most inviting way to start a dialog.
No kidding. I read it as, "I am promoting my website using your website, but I don't want to actually let anybody else talk to me."
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 25, 2009, 05:18:31 PM
Translation: "It's all your fault that I was caught on TulsaNow lifting wholesale sections of Wikipedia without proper attribution, and I'm still p*ssed."
Just tell me where to mail the check, you're this month's winner.
Gosh , that story reads like he is trying to get a job at the Tulsa World. He does fit in with most of the posters here though. Hmmm maybe he is FOTD :o
Sounds like Mudschlock is Arnett's guy: (from Tulsatoday)
"Chris Medlock – Republican. Strange as it may sound, this Republican candidate is following Obama's style, but from the right of the political spectrum – a campaign of insult and glittering generalities. Medlock is a proven serial liar. He is a demagogue using insubstantial twisted thought to demonize people and issues to the detriment of civic problem solving. He did so repeatedly when briefly elected to the City Council. The conspiracy fantasies he promoted (school mates conspire in corruption, the BOK Center will never be built, etc.) while, again briefly, hosting a local radio talk show were, at best, stupid and damaging to listeners new in their interest in public policy.
Medlock's attempt at a political career began as Liberal Democrat, then pro-abortion Republican, now he is on the right tip of the right wing. He is an ambition extremist looking for a constituency. Despite his pointless press releases, private polling suggests Medlock will earn less than 10 percent of the vote. http://www.medlockformayor.com"
Well, all other things aside, thanks for posting a link to your thoughts and information on the Mayoral candidates. I hope you engage in discussions on the issue here as well as in your own domain. As much as people may disagree with you and mock you for plagiarizing Wikipedia, I'm sure you have some incite to add.
Thank you for demonstrating the level of conversation on public issues available in this forum. This was a test and the results helpful as considerations are underway for Tulsa Today to add additional methods of interaction and discussion. We were having an internal debate and your responses settled the question.
For the record:
1.) The Tulsa World doesn't have enough money for me to work for them. I already earn more hourly than they pay top management.
2.) The charge of "plagiarizing" is false as moderators on this forum or any attorney would know. Also, if that is the best false charge my opponents can bring – pretty weak.
3.) Yes, I did post here to see if any traffic would flow from this source and our traffic tracker did not find a significant increase.
4.) Recycle Michael – Contributions from both City and County budgets allow you to sit on this forum during working hours and many folk question why?
5.) Conan71 – I am a Christian - not perfect (or even close), but forgiven. The tag line on your nickname is offensive. If the point is to offend and drive Christians away, congratulations you win.
6.) No serious discussion occurred here within a news cycle.
7.) I wish all who post here the best, but ... bye.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 25, 2009, 05:18:31 PM
Translation: "It's all your fault that I was caught on TulsaNow lifting wholesale sections of Wikipedia without proper attribution, and I'm still p*ssed."
Why does this guy believe he is important? Seriously.
I've only met him once and he seemed pretty normal but I guess my impression was wrong.
He appears to be a worthless jawbone.
Quote from: David Arnett on August 26, 2009, 10:34:10 AM
5.) Conan71 – I am a Christian - not perfect (or even close), but forgiven. The tag line on your nickname is offensive. If the point is to offend and drive Christians away, congratulations you win.
YESSSSS!!!! I finally won something!!!!
For those of you who were not previously aware, you have just seen a classic and typical hissy fit by the only Tulsan with a worse case of megalomania then Chris Mudschlock.
Dave, you know what they say: "If you've got to tell people you're a Christian..."
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 26, 2009, 09:48:03 AM
I'm sure you have some incite to add.
Unintentionally hilarious typo of the week.
Quote from: David Arnett on August 26, 2009, 10:34:10 AM
Thank you for demonstrating the level of conversation on public issues available in this forum. This was a test and the results helpful as considerations are underway for Tulsa Today to add additional methods of interaction and discussion. We were having an internal debate and your responses settled the question.
For the record:
1.) The Tulsa World doesn't have enough money for me to work for them. I already earn more hourly than they pay top management.
2.) The charge of "plagiarizing" is false as moderators on this forum or any attorney would know. Also, if that is the best false charge my opponents can bring – pretty weak.
3.) Yes, I did post here to see if any traffic would flow from this source and our traffic tracker did not find a significant increase.
4.) Recycle Michael – Contributions from both City and County budgets allow you to sit on this forum during working hours and many folk question why?
5.) Conan71 – I am a Christian - not perfect (or even close), but forgiven. The tag line on your nickname is offensive. If the point is to offend and drive Christians away, congratulations you win.
6.) No serious discussion occurred here within a news cycle.
7.) I wish all who post here the best, but ... bye.
What?
Quote from: David Arnett on August 26, 2009, 10:34:10 AM
2.) The charge of "plagiarizing" is false as moderators on this forum or any attorney would know. Also, if that is the best false charge my opponents can bring – pretty weak.
I didn't bring up the word "plagiarizing." You did.
Take your ball and go home then. I was attempting to be cordial. Give you the benefit of the doubt. But your response to a negative reaction is to claim "it was a test." That's just sad.
Per the plagiarism, if you are willing to grab portions off of wikipedia and post it on the internet as your own, I'd have to imagine you'd do the same elsewhere. It was in a sad little internet post. But still. Ripping off wikipedia while trying to talk down to someone? You even went to the effort of intermingling it with your own thoughts to make it look like you wrote it.
Lets refresh some memories:
Quotecannon_fodder wrote on December 27, 2007, 12:40:56 pm
Since this is a continuation it will be locked/deleted and I understand that... so forgive me mods but really:
QuoteOriginally posted by David Arnett
Tim,
You have engaged here in a formal fault of logic, called an ad hominem. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the converse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.
I have written, "The original point of this thread was to call attention to inaccurate sensationalism on [www.thetulsan.com published by Tim Huntzinger] which attempted to Katrina-ise Tulsa's Ice Storm. I hope everyone that saw that post knew more than I did – it could have seemed serious to those outside the area worrying as they searched for news about family and friends in crisis."
Tim, your answer to that question of publishing propriety is that your site is a farce – it would seem then to agree with the original posting. Ok, fine. Then you attack me. Ok, fine. I am a critic and have criticized left and right for many years. Critics of my work are welcome to say whatever they have to say. I publish on www.TulsaToday.com and if you have a specific question on a specific story, you can e-mail from that site or post a new thread, but mention the specific story which would enable a discussion of specific policy issues.
Wikipedia entry for "Ad hominem"
quote:Wikipedia Wrote
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argumentum ad hominem is the converse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.
Then waaaaaayyyy down at the bottom it has a little blurb about its Copyright. The Wikipedia entry on its Copyright policies can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
It can be used freely so long as it is referenced. Thus, your usage is a violation of their Copyright and also qualifies as Plagiarism - which is passing off someone else's work as your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism
And while I am at it, your argument itself is lacking as his post clearly stated his OPINION of you and thus was not framed using syllogistic logic. Opinions by their very nature are generally free from logical interpretation if no such claim is made ("I hate Duke basketball" Why? "I just always have.").
The type of fallacy you are seeking is "personal attack" (I'm confident you can find the Wikipedia entry) as Tim's was not an attempt to logically classify you as a weirdo, irrelevant, or humorless. Ad Hominem is ONLY a fallacy in a logical argument, which, by all accounts this is far removed. You also accuse him of a "shifting ground" fallacy in spite of your refusal to acknowledge his redirect.
I could go on with the logical errors in your initial and subsequent posts as well as the error in the entire manner of the framed argument, but I'm guessing you really did not want to get into the finer point of formally framed logic debates and the corresponding faux pas so frequently committed on the internet.
- - -
And while I'm at it... you accused Tim of pimping his website on TulsaNow but you have done nothing but. I really don't mind as I think you have contributed in some other threads (this one is essentially garbage), but there is another word you can lookup on Wikipedia for someone who accuses someone else of an act they themselves are guilty of.
Now please, stop making me defend the absurdity that is Timmay! I rarely have even have such a notion, but calling someone else out by ripping off Wikipedia is just, well, just wow. Please just contribute to discussions as you have knowledge in many areas involving Tulsa - but your vendetta against Tim is just destroying your credibility in many people's eyes.
Pretty funny huh? You got in a fight about using TulsaNow to do nothing but pimp websites, then got caught ripping off posting wikipedia content and left. Now you came back to pimp your website. Man, you should totally run to Wikipedia and look up irony
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 26, 2009, 11:11:55 AM
Unintentionally hilarious typo of the week.
Beat me to it.
This photo says it all:
(http://www.tulsatoday.com/images/stories/Dave.jpg)
The single blue eye just kills me every time.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 26, 2009, 11:11:55 AM
Unintentionally hilarious typo of the week.
Freudian slip?
Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for tulsatoday.com/archive
What is the current listing status for tulsatoday.com/archive?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 4 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 8 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-08-23, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-08-23.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including reycross.net/.
This site was hosted on 2 network(s) including AS46562 (COLO), AS40426 (TSS).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, tulsatoday.com/archive did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.
Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
How did this happen?
In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.
Next steps:
* Return to the previous page.
* If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 26, 2009, 11:23:33 AM
<snip>
Pretty funny huh? You got in a fight about using TulsaNow to do nothing but pimp websites, then got caught ripping off posting wikipedia content and left. Now you came back to pimp your website. Man, you should totally run to Wikipedia and look up irony
Man. If this were a boxing match, the referee would have stepped in to stop the fight.
On the upside, I didn't realize until now that Adelson was for merging City+County governments.
Wonder how many ways Eagleton can take that idea to court.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 26, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
Man. If this were a boxing match, the referee would have stepped in to stop the fight.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I just heard a someone get slapped down.
(http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:Kf9r4suHaKPgOM:http://softeuropean.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/slap.jpg)
edited to insert a better one...
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f386/xchamberx2/batslap_meme_03.jpg)
Quote from: swake on August 26, 2009, 12:36:11 PM
This photo says it all:
(http://www.tulsatoday.com/images/stories/Dave.jpg)
The single blue eye just kills me every time.
That's funny, I hear him refered to as "The Big Brown Eye" pretty often.
Well David is right about one thing, all he has to do is logon and post about anything here and "it starts."
Now, I don't know the background on the obvious bad blood some have and really don't care too know. However; one thing for certain is that everyone's opinion comes from the same place as every other idiots opinion comes from and all David did was share his (albeit in a third person point to his site kind of way) but others do that here too without getting stomped.
So from my perspective, if you don't want to (or can't) participate in a discussion anyone puts up, the answer should be simple and self evident - just don't respond. With that, I and most others in a civilized society are just FINE, really we are so please don't go out of you way to be an "opinion hole" for our benifit life's just too short for that.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 26, 2009, 02:15:28 PM
Well David is right about one thing, all he has to do is logon and post about anything here and "it starts."
Now, I don't know the background on the obvious bad blood some have and really don't care too know. However; one thing for certain is that everyone's opinion comes from the same place as every other idiots opinion comes from and all David did was share his (albeit in a third person point to his site kind of way) but others do that here too without getting stomped.
It was the way he handled himself. Act the way you would want to be treated and all would be fine.
Act like a one, get treated like one.
V-2025, if it weren't for following up his self-promotion with his better-than-thou chest thumping, and just downright creepy "this was an experiment" schtick, he might be better recieved.
It's our sand-lot, we can kick sand in his eyes if we see fit. ;)
Gentlemen,
Thanks I understand better don't agree but understand. It just drives me nuts the way this and other fine forum opportunities can so easily turn into Jerry Springer out-takes which I believe it degrades the viability of the venue.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 26, 2009, 03:20:11 PM
Gentlemen,
Thanks I understand better don't agree but understand. It just drives me nuts the way this and other fine forum opportunities can so easily turn into Jerry Springer out-takes which I believe it degrades the viability of the venue.
It's the interwebs, makes us all about 20 ft. tall.
Seriously, a little better perspective on David's history with this forum which might help:
The thread on which David got caught passing off Wiki as his own work was an antagonistic one he started calling out one of our regular posters who operates his own Tulsa-oriented web site. The topic title, as I recall, was "Tim Huntzinger Sees Dead People". It was a silly pissing contest that there was never any need to start. I think a lot of us came away feeling like David was trying to bully someone else publicly to make his work and web site seem superior. You couldn't have worked with him every day and not seen that pattern, 2025.
I actually do admire David's work. I simply can't believe that he doesn't think highly enough of himself that he believes he's got to put everyone else in written media down to make himself seem relevant.
If he wants to engage in that sort of self-aggrandizing behavior, he's got his own outlet for it. He doesn't need to stir up crap in other places to feed it.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 26, 2009, 03:20:11 PM
Gentlemen,
Thanks I understand better don't agree but understand. It just drives me nuts the way this and other fine forum opportunities can so easily turn into Jerry Springer out-takes which I believe it degrades the viability of the venue.
This didn't start as a "fine forum opportunity". This started with someone posting a taunt and a obvious dislike for this forum.
I'm sure most of us would love 100% constructive threads.
Please don't think I am am trying to be the boss of you but if you dislike the way some threads degrade, do like many do and read another one. I've moved on from some that clearly have gone to poo.
Arnett is also good at stealing borrowing others photo's for his own blog post ( yes Tulsa Today is only a blog at best) . Got to wonder how he and Pearceful got along.....
Quote from: David Arnett on August 25, 2009, 04:44:53 PM
For your consideration and comment www.TulsaToday.com (http://www.tulsatoday.com) has posted an election review titled, "Upcoming election fundamentals." We will, in the near future, allow comments on stories within the site, but until that time, we do enjoy reading Tulsa Now as one of many sites that track the pulse of our community. We will not answer here and know that some will use this opportunity for yet another personal attack, but we love you-all anyway and we will read what you say.
With all due respect, if Mr. Arnett believes the Mayoral race has truly sunken to a new low, perhaps he should have file his candidacy on 15 July?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 26, 2009, 09:28:36 AM
Sounds like Mudschlock is Arnett's guy: (from Tulsatoday)
"Chris Medlock – Republican. Strange as it may sound, this Republican candidate is following Obama's style, but from the right of the political spectrum – a campaign of insult and glittering generalities. Medlock is a proven serial liar. He is a demagogue using insubstantial twisted thought to demonize people and issues to the detriment of civic problem solving. He did so repeatedly when briefly elected to the City Council. The conspiracy fantasies he promoted (school mates conspire in corruption, the BOK Center will never be built, etc.) while, again briefly, hosting a local radio talk show were, at best, stupid and damaging to listeners new in their interest in public policy.
Medlock's attempt at a political career began as Liberal Democrat, then pro-abortion Republican, now he is on the right tip of the right wing. He is an ambition extremist looking for a constituency. Despite his pointless press releases, private polling suggests Medlock will earn less than 10 percent of the vote. http://www.medlockformayor.com"
I've got to say, that's a pretty bad donkey take down of Medlock. Who is a greater threat to Tulsa, Arnett or Medlock? Easily Medlock; I don't see Arnett running for office because he needs a job. My point: waist your negative energy on the real bad guys.
Now, I will admit Arnett's shot at Conan's tag line is pretty silly; when you clearly haven't paid much attention to a forum, don't start taking cheapshots about things you don't understand.
The flap over the tag-line is quite humorous considering the limerick Arnutt posted about Michael Bates on here when he was PWI.
Methinks mock horror and indignation.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2009, 11:14:14 AM
The flap over the tag-line is quite humorous considering the limerick Arnutt posted about Michael Bates on here when he was PWI.
Methinks mock horror and indignation.
What tagline is he talking about?
Quote from: sgrizzle on August 27, 2009, 12:26:20 PM
What tagline is he talking about?
"Dumbf*ckistanian", I would believe. It's incredibly offensive to the born agains and apparently keeping them from posting on this forum.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2009, 12:32:24 PM
"Dumbf*ckistanian", I would believe. It's incredibly offensive to the born agains and apparently keeping them from posting on this forum.
That's why FOTD has not used the phrase in a while. We need to dumb down this board and import the born againers....Where's all those Gatherers?
Quote from: FOTD on August 27, 2009, 12:39:09 PM
That's why FOTD has not used the phrase in a while. We need to dumb down this board and import the born againers....Where's all those Gatherers?
FOTD made this devil laugh out loud.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2009, 12:32:24 PM
"Dumbf*ckistanian", I would believe. It's incredibly offensive to the born agains and apparently keeping them from posting on this forum.
It is?
I must've missed the newsletter telling me I was supposed to be up in arms about it.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2009, 12:32:24 PM
"Dumbf*ckistanian", I would believe. It's incredibly offensive to the born agains and apparently keeping them from posting on this forum.
Wasn't the term coined by John Stewart? It is offensive because he's Jewish and therefore killed Jebus?
Here I thought it was self deprecating.
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2009, 02:11:00 PM
Wasn't the term coined by John Stewart? It is offensive because he's Jewish and therefore killed Jebus?
I think it made a certain poster feel better about his tiny pe....
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2009, 03:16:03 PM
I think it made a certain poster feel better about his tiny pe....
Mine has an elevator and a lobby. So you must be referring to another poster.
Quote from: FOTD on August 27, 2009, 05:11:35 PM
So you must be referring to another poster.
Yes I was, an offended re-birther.
A memorable moment of Arnett and a few others http://bit.ly/2c1Nwn (http://bit.ly/2c1Nwn)
That was pretty funny...thanks...He sure looked bad arguing like that. It clearly wasn't impartial news reporting...
The funniest part was at the end when he told the guy, "Who are you? I don't want to talk to you anymore."
Unfortunately, that didn't seem to buffer real well on my player, the sound quality sucked
Quote from: Conan71 on August 30, 2009, 06:03:16 PM
Unfortunately, that didn't seem to buffer real well on my player, the sound quality sucked
Sucks to be you then ::)
Here is another format for you http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8088615540248487216# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8088615540248487216#)
"Things have taken a turn for the surreal."
Quote from: MDepr2007 on September 01, 2009, 04:45:01 PM
Sucks to be you then ::)
Here is another format for you http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8088615540248487216# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8088615540248487216#)
Yes it does, but not due to sound quality. No Marshall's for a month. That's why it really sucks to be me right now.