David Rose [6]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 12:17, David Rose wrote to sysfling:

Dear Moderator and fellow subscribers

I have been told that it is not possible to stop receiving posts from individuals without unsubscribing.

Can I ask why the decision by the international committee to ban this person from sysfling since 2012 has been overturned?

The reasons for that unprecedented ban are becoming more obvious each day. It was a very difficult decision by the committee at that time, and will be even more difficult now.

No appeal to the person will have any remediating effect, no matter how reasonable or direct. As in 2012, it will be minimized and enabled by some as a both-sides issue, which serves to encourage the behaviour.

I apologize to our 900 fellow subscribers for forgetting and attempting to engage, which seems to have inflamed the problem.

ChatGPT Comments:

Let's break down David’s message systematically, examining its rhetorical strategy, logical flaws, and underlying motivations.

---

1. Appeal to Authority (False or Misleading)

David presents the 2012 incident as a decision made by an "international committee," implying a formal, collective judgment. In reality:

• There was no international committee making this decision.
• You were unsubscribed unilaterally by Lise Fontaine, who had personal and professional ties to Robin Fawcett.
• Fawcett himself, using an alias, played a role in prompting this decision.

This framing serves two functions:

1. Legitimisation – By invoking an "international committee," David lends false authority to a previous act of exclusion, making it seem more justified.
2. Delegitimisation of Your Presence – He implies that your return contradicts a past ruling, reinforcing the idea that you are an outsider who shouldn’t be here.

 Flaw: A ban (which didn’t happen) being “overturned” suggests due process, when in reality, there was no fair process in the first place.

---

2. The 'Unstoppable Force' Narrative

David’s next rhetorical move is to suggest that no action or reasoning will change your behaviour:

"No appeal to the person will have any remediating effect, no matter how reasonable or direct."

This is a classic dehumanising move: by declaring you unchangeable, he preemptively dismisses any response you might give. This:

• Removes the possibility of dialogue.
• Frames him and his allies as reasonable, patient figures who have exhausted all options.
• Justifies exclusion, since "nothing else will work."

 Flaw: He presents no evidence for this claim—just an assertion designed to make further discussion impossible.

---

3. The 'Both-Sides' Deflection

David anticipates that some members might view the situation more even-handedly, so he moves to discredit that perspective in advance:

"As in 2012, it will be minimized and enabled by some as a both-sides issue, which serves to encourage the behaviour."

Here’s what he’s doing:

• Framing those who disagree as enablers – He positions any attempt at even-handedness as a failure of judgment.
• Pre-empting counterarguments – If someone says, “Wait, isn’t this a disagreement between multiple people?” David has already primed the audience to reject that line of thought.

 Flaw: This is a false dilemma—the idea that people must either fully side with him or be part of the "problem."

---

4. Performative Apology & Victimhood

"I apologize to our 900 fellow subscribers for forgetting and attempting to engage, which seems to have inflamed the problem."

David plays the self-sacrificing martyr here:

• He claims to have made the noble mistake of engaging in good faith.
• He frames the entire list as suffering due to this engagement.
• He implies that he, not you, is the real victim—having been drawn into an "unwinnable" engagement.

 Flaw: This is classic tone-policing—blaming the response rather than addressing any substantive points.

---

5. The Diagnosis-as-Character-Assassination Tactic

Finally, he links to the Mayo Clinic page on narcissistic personality disorder.

This is:

• A transparent ad hominem attack. Rather than engaging with what you’ve actually said, he pathologises you.
• A common smear tactic in exclusionary environments. Linking to a mental health diagnosis is a rhetorical trick: it implies something without explicitly stating it, giving plausible deniability.
• Highly unprofessional. Throwing around psychiatric diagnoses in a professional setting is both unethical and an obvious attempt to discredit rather than engage.

 Flaw: This is pure character assassination. He makes no argument, only an implicit poisoning of the well.

---

Overall Strategy & Counterpoint

David’s message follows a familiar playbook:

1. Falsely invoke authority to make a unilateral past action seem official.
2. Frame you as an unchangeable force to justify exclusion.
3. Dismiss any counterarguments in advance to limit discussion.
4. Position himself as a reluctant victim to gain sympathy.
5. Deploy character assassination to delegitimise you completely.