Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Ad-Hominem\'s recognized as a logical fallacy for a very good reason, and given the *extremely* selective rationale, I could only assume willful misrepresentation. Hence why I re-edited the entries in, and gave a detailed rationale for doing so to rebutt the allegation I viewed as libelous (even if it was overly aggressively so). From what I could observe, my response was roughly equal in tone to the edit given by Dr. Death, only with a better and factual explanation rather than justifying the deletion of an entire set of entries because of a sentence segment in one.
to:
Ad-Hominem\\\'s recognized as a logical fallacy for a very good reason, and given the *extremely* selective rationale, I could only assume willful misrepresentation. Hence why I re-edited the entries in, and gave a detailed rationale for doing so to rebutt the allegation I viewed as libelous (even if it was overly aggressively so). From what I could observe, my response was roughly equal in tone to the edit given by Dr. Death, only with a better and factual explanation rather than justifying the deletion of an entire set of entries because of a sentence segment in one.
*Edit. Now have time to finish*
Simply put, my reply might have been rude (perhaps too rude), but it was based on fact: the main accusation Dr. Death hurled at me is demonstrably false (that I was going *beyond* the book to insult the author, and so was no longer talking about the book). If need be, I can copy the transcripts of the reasons for editing to prove this.
Beyond that, I\\\'m not sure what the issue of my choice of words regarding Brooks is about. Simply put, the stated reason here is that you are not sure if calling the author an idiot is acceptable and that you \\\"doubt it\\\" is. To be honest, I do not know how I am supposed to react. I\\\'m willing to listen, but all snark and defensiveness aside I\\\'d like some advice on how to proceed.
Let\\\'s be blunt here: what\\\'s the dilemma exactly? It\\\'s pretty much a solid fact that Max Brooks is militarily illiterate and has little grasp of what he wrote in terms of the performance of modern technology and tactics on the battlefield. What\\\'s worse is that he\\\'s refused to acknowledge said ignorance and has doubled down on it (as shown by things like his post-publishing record defending it like his performance on the episode of Deadliest Warriors). It\\\'s easily to churn up plenty of supporting evidence for this, and I could easily write a doctoral thesis on the matter. Should we somehow *avoid* mentioning this, and act as though his opinion is as valid as that of any?
I doubt it, especially given other material on this very Headscratchers page ripping into Brooks and the \\\"logic\\\" behind things like Yonkers, which to the best of my knowledge hasn\\\'t caused anything like this amount of trouble. Which brings me to my next point:
Is it a matter of \\\"language\\\"? It\\\'s ok to effectively call Brooks an idiot by compiling reams of issues with his writing and positions, but actually using the words \\\"Brooks is an idiot on military matters\\\" trips a line that should be avoided?
Again, completely aside from the debate, I\\\'m legitimately bedeviled here. I realize that I probably went too far somewhere(s), but I\\\'m a bit puzzled as to the where and how I have. That\\\'s why I\\\'d sincerely like to ask for help on this. Any advice would be much heeded and much appreciated.
