Double standards in Europe through Slovak case studies -- did you know these?

Not 5 pages, just 5 paragraphs.

You see, when you're disproved and can't say anything to my sound question to you ("does the MEANING of cut-out quote change if the FULL ARTICLE is provided?"), you try to hijack the point by trying to gag me in this "you broke the rules" way.

Actually, the insults your posts contained sometimes were much worse. That is what my "grow up" statement tried to indicate. You totally twisted some of my points, adding even irony and sarcasm, etc. etc. etc.

Indeed it's difficult to engage in a debate when the different view is tried to be oppressed by picking on MINOR points such as a few small foreign-language quotes. And it's difficult to engage in a debate when the different view is tried to be oppressed by "ah, you see, everyone here is against you, which means you're obviously wrong" type of "superior" arguments. Even if you think you are totally right regarding the media law, it still doesn't justify you to trample different views. This is what free debate is about -- to acknowledge the other view, and instead of trying to oppress it with provoking or ironic ways, you can try to find sound arguments against it.

It was not my intention to break your rules, but here you decide who does it and who doesn't. But if you think my impulsive reaction to the cynical insults in your posts (as well) were breaking the rules, then better that you check the content of your posts too. So if I had broken the rules here, then undoubtedly you too. In this case, it would be nice if you kept the rules of your own forum. And also enforced them not just on those who disagree with you, but also on those who agree. E.g. tell me, isn't total topic hijacking against the rules? This thread was opened to show double standards and 99% of its initial content was about SLOVAK cases. The HU media law was just an example of the double standard. Yet, almost ALL posters (who agree with you) kept talking about the HU media law in it. I didn't see almost any sentence which addressed the Slovak cases. So despite the fact there are two other topics regarding the media law, it was irritating to these posters that I used the media law case in a double standard illustrated by Slovakia, it annoyed them that I was right that there is a double standard applied (and it wasn't just my thought: see the guardian.co.uk article), so they just decided to BE 99% OFF-TOPIC. No words about Slovakia, yet the topic title, and the initial content was purely about that, using the media law only as a comparison. This is obvious hijacking of a topic. Isn't that against the rules?! I just checked the AoDA rules topic, and to me seems it's against the rules. Nonetheless, I know you don't like rules discussion publicly, I just wrote this paragraph because you also mentioned them to me publicly and I felt it important to draw your attention not to apply double standards in this case. I'll make another attempt to write in your AoDA forum according to how I think you imagine the application of your rules (hopefully this will meet your expectations), but I expect that the rules will be applied equally to others as well (e.g. about not hijacking my topic about Slovakia). I think this will be a good compromise.

I hold no personal grudge against you, by the way, but when it's talk about my country and I see that some cheap & insulting elements are used for an attempt to misrepresent my points or simply oppress them in the discussion, I need to be impulsive because noone would swallow such insults. And I still respect you as before, but inside this topic, I didn't intend to swallow the insults (which also came from you, even if you didn't intend so) regarding my country, so in such cases, expect me to be impulsive. Having said that, I think there is no need to hold a grudge.

 

I did read the SP rules in past and in present too. I already told my points: I'll try to guess how you interpret your own rules (won't be easy) and comply with that in my posts, but I expect that you also equally treat others' posts as well. Thanks in advance.

 

I think the intention to find a compromise (which makes you feel everyone keeps your rules) is not arrogance.

Your problem now is that you want to have the last glorious word in this thread (regarding your attack on me that I broke your rules) and you can't tolerate that I reply to you. You can be satisfied, this is my last post regarding your accusation on me of breaking rules. (I intend it to be the last, of course you can enforce it to be the last or even delete it, but before you would do that, I think it's wise to discuss it in a PM; considering some facts that can't be listed here).

Just one note: if you have had problems with my posts earlier (you say I "broke" your rules), you could have informed me in a PM, telling exactly WHICH part of the post is against the rules (that is the common practice in most forums). Instead, you are stating generally that I broke/break rules, and you do it publicly. I think common sense says that if someone talks to you publicly, you answer publicly. That is what I've been doing. And I haven't received any PM from you, "Baronius, this and this part in your post #N is against the rules; please edit it, and avoid it in next posts". All I got is insults to my country and attempts to ridicule my viewpoint, and now these public "warnings".

It's a bit absurd to post accusations on a member (on me) publicly but expect me just to swallow them and not to react to them in the same place where they were posted publicly.

As I said, I'll try to keep your rules in the way you imagine it, and will write my posts according to this. I just suggest let's leave it like this. You can answer to this post, of course, and to make you happy, I'll not answer to your last post. This won't make you feel that your authority is questioned here. It's your forum, you do whatever you wish on it.

 

Ah. Naturally, the cogency of one's argument is inextricably linked to the accuracy of one's spelling. A known fact. Tal, I think you're making a mistake in revoking alley access from one possessing such rhetorical genius.