User:Capitalismojo/NPA

WP:NPA
The fact that you persistently chicken out of responding to that, and pretend instead that your "perception" of the word trumps its actual meaning, just so that you can misuse a guideline in order to get your way, says volumes of about your undisguised dishonesty. Your quote above is a uncivil personal attack. I would appreciate a retraction and that these comments be stricken. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Your quote above is a uncivil personal attack." Wrong. It's a criticism, and a valid one that describes your behavior. You don't get to censor other editors pointing out your behavior just because you jolly well don't like it. I asked you above, point blank, what definition of "self-serving" you were using, and how the material in question conforms to that phrase, and like Earl King and Arthur Rubin, you stonewalled on the question by simply repeating the original claim, essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "La-la-la, I can't hear you...!" This behavior is transparently dishonest, and not in the spirit of honest discussion, and you have zero entitlement to any apology (particularly in light of the fact that you raised no objection to Earl King making false accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry without providing any evidence or argumentation for it), much less a retraction. Nightscream (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "A valid criticsm would be on the order of: "You are not responsive to my point about X." You don't get to dictate how I point out your inexcusable behavior, and I'm not using vague, Orwellian euphemisms to hide the truth about it. If you don't like me pointing out your behavior, the solution is simple: Stop exhibiting it. When someone makes a counterargument, then respond to it, either by falsifying it, or acknowledging that it has falsified your position. If someone asks you questions about your own position, then answer them. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you can't hear them is indeed chickening out of an honest discussion, whether you like it or not.


 * "Your "criticism" is personal. You accuse me of cowardice (being chicken), you accuse me of dishonesty. These are not criticisms, they are attacks." They are descriptions of your behavior. You have been asked repeatedly to respond to specific counterarguments with which I have responded to your statements, and you have repeatedly stonewalled, employing the intellectually dishonest tactic of instead simply repeating the initial statement, pretending not to have read the counterargument, and refusing to even acknowledge it. That's dishonest, and it goes directly to WP:STONEWALL and WP:NOTHERE.


 * If you're not going to respond to my counterarguments because you know that have indeed falsified your statements, and you don't possess the character to admit it, then stop whining to me, and stop leaving these hypocritical little messages on my talk page. They will not be responded to. Nightscream (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought my responses spoke for themselves. I didn't look up a definition to support my sense of what "self-serving" means. I know what it means. Lets look at the definition though: "self′-serv′ing habitually seeking one's own advantage, esp at the expense of others Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

self′-serv′ing

adj. 1. preoccupied with one's own interests and often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others.

2. serving to further one's own selfish interests.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc."

I believe that these definitions (and yours for that matter) fit quite well with Mr. Joseph's statement. He has a personal interest in his film being perceived as an honest documentary and not one that parts of he personally doesn't take seriously. It hurts him to be seen that he included material for dishonest dramatic effect. His response is to accuse the reporter of taking "extreme liberty with" his words, saying his remarks were distorted, then accusing the interviewer of not having a good grasp of english, and lastly suggesting a bad telephone connection might be to blame. So we have a film-maker rubbishing the honesty, competence, and reputation of a reporter in order to bolster his own reputation. This is incredibly clear-cut to me, it seems painfully obvious. Apparently it is not. Do you disagree that he is serving his own interests or that he is disparaging another to do so? Either way it is not "dishonest" for me to disagree with you about applying policy. It is not "cowardice" to fail to address your arguments to your complete satisfaction. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: "I thought my responses spoke for themselves. I didn't look up a definition to support my sense of what "self-serving" means. I know what it means." That isn't what you said on the article talk page. There, you insisted that your "perception" of the word's meaning was what mattered, and claimed that "the others" in the discussion agreed with you, when about three others shared your opinion, versus seven at the time who didn't.

Capitalismojo: "I believe that these definitions (and yours for that matter) fit quite well with Mr. Joseph's statement. He has a personal interest in his film being perceived as an honest documentary and not one that parts of he personally doesn't take seriously. It hurts him to be seen that he included material for dishonest dramatic effect."

One more time: We're not talking about the content of the film, or how he wants it perceived.

The issue in question is that the two citations claim that he had distanced himself or moved away from some of the film's ideas, and his statement that he said no such thing. That has nothing to do with whether the documentary is an honest one. Pointing out that you've been misquoted has nothing to do with acting "at the expense of others" or "disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being" or "selfishness". If you wanted to argue that the arguments made in film itself were not made with a regard for the truth in mind, then I'd agree with you. The problem is, you don't seem to be able to comprehend (or refuse to acknowledge) that the discussion isn't about that. The issue of his statement that he was misquoted is entirely separate from the issue of the film's content or its promulgation, but you, Earl, Tom and Arthur either don't get this, or don't care, and are pushing for the exclusion of his statement about his position based on your view of the film, rather than on the wisdom of a completely separate matter. That shows a complete inability to reason with any modicum of objectivity.

If I'm wrong, then answer me this: Should we remove all links to the website of the creationist Discovery Institute from the Wikipedia article on that organization, even for pieces of information that do not go to their mission, like the date of their founding or the name of their president, because doing so has the effect of promoting their ideas and their agenda? That is essentially what you're arguing with Joseph and Zeitgeist, isn't it? Should we remove all links to the websites of organizations whose ideas are pseudoscientific from their Wikipedia articles for the same reason? I asked this on the article talk page, but (big shocker!), none of you responded to it. Can you respond to it now, please?

Capitalismojo: "His response is to accuse the reporter of taking "extreme liberty with" his words, saying his remarks were distorted, then accusing the interviewer of not having a good grasp of english, and lastly suggesting a bad telephone connection might be to blame." Which is irrelevant to the discussion, since the last version of material that was in the article did not include these remarks, and merely related that Joseph stated that he had not distanced himself from the film's ideas, as had been stated in The Marker and New York Times stories.

Capitalismojo: "So we have a film-maker rubbishing the honesty, competence, and reputation of a reporter in order to bolster his own reputation." Stating that you did not say what others claim you did has nothing to do with "bolstering" your reputation.

Capitalismojo: "Do you disagree that he is serving his own interests.." Serving your own interests is not what the phrase "self-serving" means, as you yourself just acknowledged the actual meaning of that phrase, which is not to merely "serve one's own interests". Again, if I take someone to court and successfully sue them for libel or slander, I am serving my own interests. But no one would claim that such an act is "self-serving". Do you disagree?

Capitalismojo: "...or that he is disparaging another to do so?" His remarks about the interviewer don't matter, because the salient content of the material in question is his statement that he has not moved away from the positions given in the film, as was reported, which is the only content that was related in the article.

Capitalismojo: "Either way it is not "dishonest" for me to disagree with you about applying policy." And I never said it was. You know perfectly well what I pointed out was dishonest about your conduct, and had nothing to do with "disagreement". It is refusing to acknowledge or respond to your opponents' counterarguments, and stonewalling repeating your initial arguments ad nauseum that is dishonest, and you know it. Keep in mind that stonewalling during discussions is not only dishonest as a matter of truth, but it's also mentioned at WP:STONEWALL, as is dishonesty in general at WP:NOTHERE, neither of which mention mere "disagreement". This remark by you is just a Straw Man Argument, which is indeed dishonest on your part.

Capitalismojo: "It is not "cowardice" to fail to address your arguments to your complete satisfaction." And I never said it was. In fact, you did not address my arguments at all, at least until now. Instead, you stuck your fingers in your ears and kept pretending not to have read my statements. This is not some esoteric standard or vanity: It goes directly to how discussions are either constructive or not. If you make a statement, and someone else makes a counterstatement, how are you fulfilling the role of discussion in working out the conflict if you don't respond to it. Repeating the same thing over and over, without acknowledging what others are saying, is a pointless endeavor that does nothing to resolve the conflict, or even effect discussion. At least now you're actually talking to me, instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears. Had you, Earl, Tom and Arthur done son on the article talk page, and consistently, a far greater spirit of straightforwardness would've been exhibited. But not only did you not do so, but you continue to employ propaganda-like spin in your remarks, as you have by pretending with this remark that your problem was a habit of not addressing my arguments to a perceived level of completion. This is a lie, plain and simple, and it is for this reason that I correctly point it out. It's amazing to me that you distort others' words and arguments without batting an eye while simultaneously impugning Joseph for his own dishonesty. How do you justify this behavior to yourself? Do you compartmentalize it? Nightscream (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)