Mrs John Murphy said:
This is interesting but two things strike me. You seem to be quoting out of context. You've cited things I've said but ignored what they were in response to. Whether something is a personal attack surely depends upon what is being said to whom and about what. Devoid of context anything can be read as saying anything.
For example you characterised my comment 'you pay peanuts you get monkeys' as a personal attack, and yet you ignored that it was in response to someone suggesting that my issue with CN is more structural than personal. My comment was to confirm that I agree with the previous comment. CN pays its staff badly so it ends up with poor staff - at every level. (This merely reiterates an early point made in a discussion about Kimmage where I said to the effect that if in order to hire a quality journalist like Kimmage, CN had to sack 5 of its current staff, I would shed no tears because it would mark an improvement in quality). Again, not a personal attack but a comment on CN's business and journalistic model.
Now, I would point out that by your initial definition of 'personal attack' Susan's first post in that thread was a personal attack. It attacked the poster not the post, it accused me of being motivated by personal dislike.
Is this paragraph here:
A personal attack? Built around a discussion of the posters' style. Why is unacceptable to accuse someone of writing in a deliberately obtuse manner, but it is ok to accuse a poster of being only interested in 'winning' or using 'fallacious arguments'.
Someone can be trolling but if they are accused of trolling then it is deemed to be a personal attack. However, guess what, it is also true that people do troll.
Finally, I fail to see how having a critical opinion on someone's job performance can be a personal attack if I say 'Pat McQuaid is not very good at his job' is this a personal attack on him? If I say 'Vaughters sucks as a DS' is that a personal attack. If I were to say 'Vaughters sucks as a DS because he is more interested in tending his sideburns and posing', then you might have a point. Why? Because the first is about the job the person is doing which is separate from any views about the person as a person, in the second, the view of the job the person is doing is characterised by the view the commentator has of the person.
You might as well say that any post that is critical and is addressed to another poster is a personal attack.
You've not really told us how we can tell Benson and anyone else when we think that they are doing a bad job.
Take for example the recent interview between Benson and Armstrong, which was panned by an number of posters. How would you tell Benson that the interview was terrible?
Mrs John Murphy said:
However, what happens when we are discussing a body of work over a number of years?
If someone is always producing ****-poor work then they are always going to be called on it. Which can in turn then be considered to be 'unrelenting' criticism and hence 'personal' when in fact its actually a reflection of their person's poor work and inability to do their job properly over a period of time. If someone is always ****ing up then they'll always be called on it - as is only right and proper.
A further point - let's say that we suspect that the reasons why that person isn't doing their job well is because they have a material interest in not doing it properly, or because they have lost all sense of what is right or wrong and instead seek to protect their own interests and jobs.
ie Pat McQuaid is devoid of any moral compass or Pat McQuaid is corrupt.
Now, is that a personal attack or an opinion explaining in the poster's eyes why the person involved in so bad at their job?
Ok - yes - I took comments out of context. In each case, the context made no difference. Each of those sentences was a direct ad hominem attack. Mixing them in with valid commentary does not change that. In the case of the "monkeys / peanuts" comment - that was directed at a specific group of individuals, but was still ad hominem.
Pat McQuaid is not a participant in these forums, to my knowledge. Therefore, such an attack as you suggest, is not personal. JV and CN staff ARE participants in the forum, and such attacks are then personal. Simple difference.
Next, we are NOT discussing a body of work, over a period of years, for the CN staff or the mods. If you have an issue - address each issue specifically. If you don't like the Armstrong interview, you are free to say so. You will be better tolerated if you include specific comments. A comment, as an example, that is not allowed would be "the CN editor is too stupid to ask Armstrong about drugs, or he is too corrupt or too biased". You don't know any of those things - they are conjecture, and they are a personal attack. You CAN say "I think the interview should have gone deeper or pushed harder on the whole doping issue". You can say "The interview looked pretty lightweight to me". I think you know the difference. In the original set of quotes, I gave you examples of stuff that passed the "personal attack" sniff test, as well as examples that didn't.
I strongly suggest you read the posts I linked to, and some of the material they link to. If you feel that you have no need to do this, then you should already understand exactly what I am saying, and the fact that I am writing this is not really something you need - which means I am responding to an artful troll on your part - IF you already understand this topic. If you are honestly raising this question - then reading those links will be useful to you. You have asked for "how to", and now you've been given it.
Sittingbison has also restated what I have said, and he has done it well. If my words do not "speak" to a person, his might. No personal attacks. If you don't like an article or an action, comment on that article or that action. You can do that as often as you like - every day if you like.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram