I am prepared to accept that some of my responses were harsher than warranted.
Which is exactly what I said in my very first post (#212):
The fact that StarStuff and NOTF chose to keep the sibling nature of their relationship secret is equally unremarkable. Accusations of dishonesty or lying by omission are unwarranted.
Unfortunately, it's taken you 34 posts to acknowledge it. But better late than never.
I would even apologize for them.
Why the conditional? If you think that an apology is appropriate, then just give it. It may or may not be accepted, but that's up to StarStuff. Just do it.
But why is it that he gets the free pass? Why is it that I don't get a free pass for being taken aback by his admission?
Now this is a misrepresentation. I'm not giving SS a free pass, I have criticized him, and I've said that he has something to apologize for. From my second post on this thread:
To start with the conclusion: my considered opinion is that all of you have something to apologize for.
That included StarStuff; I said he handled the revelation badly, I also said that he said things in the heat of the moment which he shouldn't have done. (Do I think he should apologize for stonewalling and dodging? See below).
You are saying his outrage is okay because it is due to my alleged over reaction. But my initial outrage at his deception is irrelevant because...you think in the end it was fine?
There's an obvious difference. StarStuff and NOTF's 'deception' wasn't aimed at you personally. You happened to be one of the people talking to StarStuff at the time he decided to put his cards on the table, but that's still not a valid reason for you to be outraged. Nobody else was. So you over-reacted. On the other hand, your over-reaction was targeted specifically at StarStuff, so his outrage is understandable.
First of all, I have been saying all along that he was responding to his emotions and not my posts. Thank you for confirming that. That is not a reasonable way to conduct a conversation.
I refer back to my observation that the emotional tone of this thread was established by L6 referring to all previous posters who disagreed with him (which included StarStuff) as 'spineless cowards'. Both you and Azd endorsed his comments. ("F**k yeah", you said in your first post on this thread).
Is calling your opponents in a debate 'spineless cowards' a reasonable way to conduct a conversation (especially in your first contribution to the debate)? I don't think so. StarStuff didn't think so, and objected. And so did other members, which demonstrates that StarStuff's (at this point) concealed relationship with his sister was irrelevent to what he was saying. He was objecting to what L6 said on his own terms.
Wrong. It is a big fucking deal.
Swear-words tend to raise the temperature.
Your big hang up seems to be for people (1) use moderate language to keep the discussion at a civil level. That has to work both ways. Why do you not hold him to the same standard?
(1). by "people" you apparently only mean me.
See above. 'Spineless cowards' is also immoderate language. So I'm not only meaning you.
You intentionally cut out the part of my post that indicated why Star Stuff's style of argumentation was a problem
I was merely trying to answer the gist of your post, Azd, I wasn't trying to avoid anything. So I'll address your point:
Both Screwtape and I consider Star Stuff's use of hyperbole and fallacies to stonewall and dodge points to be the main issue in the thread at this point, since they prevent rational discussion.
StarStuff made his reveal at the top of page 4 (#93). Screwtape then made his accusations of betrayal and so on. StarStuff reacted angrily. Screwtape later accused StarStuff of dodging. At the bottom of the page (#119), you accused StarStuff of intellectual dishonesty.
So let's ignore anything that happened after that. The accusations have been made, so they should be judged on what's already happened. Agreed?
If so, I suggest you resolve the matter by asking the mods to make a judgment, by simply reporting one or more of StarStuff's posts prior to #119 for whatever you're complaining about, dodging, or dishonesty, or stonewalling, and letting them decide.
You are accusing StarStuff of flagrantly breaking Forum rules. So report him. Let's find out.
If they decide in your favour, hopefully StarStuff will accept it and apologize. And vice-versa.