Insult Justification Discussion

There are several problems here:

1. You assume that sin A by the other party justifies committing sin B.

Let me guess: you're the type of person who would be rid of the Criminal Justice system on the basis that calling person a 'criminal' is a sin of rudeness and is not justified by various behaviors currently called 'criminal'.
Please clarify.
If someone commits a crime, and in my writing I call them criminal, there is no libel. If I believe you commit WishfulThinking, and I say you commit WishfulThinking, there is no slander. That is my understanding. You, however, claim that there is a "sin of rudeness" that must be 'justified'. You also suggest, by the "problem 1" you present, that this sin of rudeness is not justified by the 'sins' of others. For example, if someone committed a crime, by your logic you should still avoid calling that someone 'criminal', for that would be rude and would not be justified by the sin of the crime. If I'm incorrect, please clarify your logic.
For one, that's a very poor analogy. We are techies, not vigilantes. Second, there is an official body to determine "criminal", the court system. You ain't no court. Third, other than social intimidation, what purpose does it serve to repeat the same accusation over and over even if it were true? "Hey, OJ, you're a murderer"..."OJ, kill any white-girls lately?"..."OJ, how does it feel to be a murderer?"..."OJ, is your cat also a murderer?"...etc.
Did you understand the analogy or were you genuinely confused by irrelevant distinctions? As for purpose: Repeating a point that has not been answered is necessary when people continue to ignore it, sweep it under the rug with distraction tactics, or (more innocently) get lost in the minutiae of a given sub-argument. If that point is an accusation of fallacy, then you should confront it like any other - even if you complain about rudeness and how the accusation was worded, that doesn't make the fallacy go away. As far as being "techies not vigilantes", I'd say we are each entitled to be anti-techie-bullshit-vigilantes if we so choose.
Almost all your writing is confusing, and thus I don't bother to make a distinction between the confusing and non-confusing parts. And, repeating a point is not always necessary. If you don't like the evidence, complain about it very close to where it was given, and leave it at that. If another point depends on it, then create some kind of reference system that basically says, "This depends on discussion X, under which I disagreed with you." Or, just let it be left "unfinished". View it as a court case where both sides gave their best argument. The rest is up to the jury to decide, not you. In this case, the jury is the reader. Know when to let go. Nagging only works when done judiciously, not as a reflex.
[Actually, your correspondent's writing is very clear. You find it confusing because it's an academic style that presumes a level of knowledge, or ability to acquire it, that you deliberately reject.]
Ivy-speak? Wonderful. That's one of the problems with too much education: you forget how to speak English. Reminds me of: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/More10Codes02-08-06.pdf

2. You do plenty of things that in my opinion justify name-calling, such as your convoluted writing style and slipping in and out of precision-lawyer-mode as it suits your argument-of-the-day. But I usually refrain.

Argument certainly allows switching between different forms of reasoning, so long as those forms of reasoning are either sound or valid. If you can't follow, you should consider at least half of that to be your problem unless there is widespread agreement with your opinion - as is, your suggestion that things like DeclarativeGui are indistinguishable from SchizoidGibberishWikiAuthor suggest that more than half the 'convoluted' issue comes from you thumbing your nose at education. If you think a form of reasoning is invalid, you should say so and say why and ensure that the 'why' is actually a valid accusation against reasoning (e.g. your recent accusation of 'cherry-picking the anal level dial of the argument' is not a fallacy of any sort).
It's too screwy to be proven invalid. I'd bet a paycheck that at least 80% of production developers would be scratching their head at such a horrid piece of documentation.

3. I am not "intentionally disingenuous". I deny any purposeful agenda in that regard. I honestly think you are full of shit, or at the least a very poor communicator due to some mental defect. I assure you I'm not faking that belief. If you claim whatever the hell I am allegedly doing is intentional, then PROVE intention (conscience plan) first, and THEN insult. A mistake by itself does not prove malice.

Sure. A mistake by itself does not prove malice. But I didn't accuse you of 'malice'. I accused you of 'malice OR professional negligence'. Pick one. And certain mistakes can prove this 'or' conditional... e.g. an auto-mechanic that leaves a wrench in the engine has done at least one.
You said, "Being intentionally disingenuous [...] is worthy of accusation according to most people I know." Are you withdrawing this now? And, YOU are guilty of "professional negligence" for making no attempt to improve your convoluted writing style. -t
Regardless of what you inferred, that sentence did not accuse you of being intentionally disingenuous. If I said "Performing rape and murder is worthy of a prison sentence according to most people I know", would that be an accusation of rape and murder? No. It would be a statement about a relationship between a horrible act and a criminal penalty. The sentence to which you refer also occurs in context with a sentence about professional negligence.
In the context you used it in, it could be mistaken as an insult. Doing such is a common form of subtle intimidation. If you didn't intend it that way, it is a "risky" juxtaposition. I'm skeptical that you didn't intend it that way, but will give you the benefit of doubt this time. Example: "Stay away from that Child! Performing rape is worthy of a prison sentence according to most people I know." Most people would interpret that as an accusation of rape of the child even though in theory the two sentences may be unrelated. You really need to work on your writing style, dude. Until you recognize social norms naturally, you should be extra careful about how you word your criticism. You make a lot of "accidental mistakes" that most people would catch and fix to avoid even the appearance of rudeness.
It is a reference to prior accusations; its juxtaposition is not an accident. But it was not an accusation. Fact is, though, I expected you'd find even the reference rude - I know exactly how you react, which I explained earlier when I said you 'take criticism like a whining pansy'. Here you are. This whole page is a testament proving the truth of that insult.
It's not so much criticism that bothers me, it's the incessant repetition of the same criticism over and over such that it bloats up even summary information. And it makes this wiki seem unprofessional, full of shouting fan-boys. (I know you believe I do things that make it allegedly unprofessional, but even if true, two wrongs don't make a right.) -t
The answer, then, is to confront the criticism the first time so that people don't feel need to repeat it. Don't use distractions, including claims of rudeness, to skip out on confronting a point. Don't attack the 'weakest' point of an inductive pile then ignore the rest (e.g. "three problems with what you say" often means that "any one of these problems is enough to dismiss what you say", not "if all three are true then I can dismiss what you say"). Further, don't repeat controversial points as if they were true without also repeating the criticism against them - even if you don't agree with the criticism - lest you provoke a repetition of said criticism. (If you describe the opponent's criticism of your point when you repeat your point, your opponents won't feel you're rudely ignoring them and thus will feel less need to barge in and repeat their arguments. You claim to grok human nature better than I (whom you assert suffers 'AspergersSyndrome' by virtue of me not giving a damn about your feelings), so you should see the truth in this. Further, if you repeat the counter-points you can control where the counter-argument is positioned, i.e. by reference to a PageAnchor for the prior criticism.)
I don't (consciously) commit most of those sins. You are mistaking. But I will start if you don't cut down on your repetition of vague and rude nag-words, like HandWaving.
While I believe it less a sin for doing it unconsciously, innocence on your part would require an effort to improve your behavior. Further, you have in a straightforward manner claimed you will commit sophistry intentionally rather than curb your fallacy at our repeated requests. Your attempts to hide behind your ignorance are worth spit in the face of that. RK was banned for a similar assertion of intentional misbehavior, setting a precedent. Why should we not ban you?
If I decide to do such, I will mirror your insults and rudeness style such that it's clear that I am doing it on purpose.
Somehow, I doubt I'll be able to distinguish your intentional sophistry and rudeness from your usual fallacy and temper-tantrums. But I'll grant you this: I'll try to avoid 'vague' nag-words. When feasible. I make no promises if you use commit more than two fallacies in a single paragraph, or you start to build a new layer of bullshit to defend a previous one. I think that's fair.
OTOH, I still consider a technical opinion stated from ignorance - even from unconscious ignorance - to be on a technical forum about as rude as crashing a party - possibly on accident. And I consider repeated, unconscious ignorance offenses about as rude as repeatedly, accidentally crashing a party. And I consider failure to apologize for an opinion made in ignorance to be about as rude as failing to apologize for crashing a party. And I consider your complaints about other people not writing at your level about as rude as blaming the party hosts of the party you crashed for not providing your favorite liquor. Don't expect me to let up on the rudeness any time soon; to me, your habitual mannerisms are rude, rude, rude, rude, rude.
I know you want c2 to be only "academic" people, but that's not the way it is. Ward has welcomed both practitioners and academics. If you don't like that, tuff titties.
Despite what TopMind believes, practitioners do not have any social license to blurt technical opinions then hide behind a shield of ignorance. Practitioners are welcome. They're also expected, if they come to a forum about PeopleProjectsAndPatterns in SoftwareDevelopment, to willingly educate themselves.
'Continued at TheoryVsEmpiricalStalemate.

4. Unfortunately, most WikiZens don't want to get involved (VolunteerWikiModerators). We may get one part-timer if lucky, but 3 is too unlikely.

Considering that you usually ask to find '10' before you'll reconsider your behavior, I was not only being quite generous but having some fun turning your usual argument against you.
That was back in the days when C2 had a bigger population. We or something scared most away. -t
No. It wasn't. That was after even Costin had left.
I don't remember using 10 any time soon. Do you have a link?
Fortunately for you, I don't keep a list of all your sins. Unfortunately for you, I came to this WikiWiki a few months before Costin had left, so I am certain of the timing.

5. It is usually acceptable to clean the general outline statements of "bicker words". Signed content in the discussion portion, however, is usually not fair game for such correction. But since you refuse to use a handle, one cannot tell. If it starts out worded as part of the formal out-line, then in my opinion it's fair game to remove the bicker words. Perhaps I should have moved the bicker portion below with an Anonymous Donor tag. Would that be acceptable?

Let an independent 3rd party clean it up, or come back to it in a year or so when nobody will care.

--top

I was enthusiastic about c2 years ago. I stopped posting any of my opinions about software development years ago. I just cannot stand the idiotic flaming.

I still read c2, usually through RecentChanges. Sometimes I use it for reference, for which purpose it is usually good.

But there is no way I would bother with any of my approaches to software development. It just aint worth it.

In regard to the present discussion, I know Top has some very good ideas. I also know that the RKs of the world also have some very good ideas. The constant to-and-froing of people like these reminds me of the early days, when there was always a healthy argument between the fortranners and the cobolers. Never the twain shall meet.

Show some respect for opinions you do not embrace. You just may learn something. --PeterLynch

Yeah! We should stop deleting SchizoidGibberishWikiAuthor's contributions, too!

I agree that we shouldn't dismiss an opinion merely because we do not wish to embrace it. That's quite different from dismissing an opinion on the basis that there is no sound or valid justification for it. Sometimes TopMind has good ideas, and I don't hesitate to acknowledge those. RK was full of interesting ideas, though he was also an emotional powder-keg with a vicious streak who left about six months before I arrived (I chatted him up, later). But TopMind also likes to weigh in on subjects in which 'UnconsciousIncompetence' is a relatively positive description of his expertise (DeliberateIncompetence would often be more accurate). And if he has trouble following a counter-argument due to his incompetence, he shifts blame to everyone else - blame the 'academics' and 'ivy leagers', blame the anti-toppie conspiracy, blame anything but himself. Sometimes he even claims to be speaking for 'the masses' and 'the practitioners' arrogantly voting himself representative. (You won't see me speaking 'for' academics.)

Despite the fact that I acknowledge and respect some of TopMind's ideas (I refuse to dismiss ideas merely because they come from fools, babes, or TopMind), I cannot respect TopMind as a member of this society. I truly, honestly, believe he's of net negative impact and believe he should have been banned years before I joined WikiWiki, and I suspect the only reason he wasn't banned is that he was somehow 'grandfathered' in by people unwilling to ban members of the 'old guard'.

Anyhow, this present discussion isn't about whether Top has good ideas now and again. Nope. This isn't about insulting ideas. This is about behavior, and habit.

Continued at ShouldTopBeBanned.

QED

Nice to see u can reply without any flaming.

I give in.