Read on Twitter
https://twitter.com/_adamcostello_/status/1262915220009357318?s=20
We">https://twitter.com/_adamcost... are strangers, not friends, but in the spirit of this tweet of yours I am speaking up about honorless behavior by you Adam, regarding your ad hominem attack towards Mark Derian and your subsequent actions.
We">https://twitter.com/_adamcost... are strangers, not friends, but in the spirit of this tweet of yours I am speaking up about honorless behavior by you Adam, regarding your ad hominem attack towards Mark Derian and your subsequent actions.
Note here that I don& #39;t really know anything about Mark beyond occasionally having seen his tweets on the timeline and hearing good things from others.
I do not have any allegiance towards him, not that it would matter given that this is not about content but conduct from you.
I do not have any allegiance towards him, not that it would matter given that this is not about content but conduct from you.
You made a thread and criticized some of his tweets. I won& #39;t get into the details of who I think was right or wrong here because it does not really matter in the grand scheme, I& #39;ll get to that later.
Only the initial tweet is still up. The rest of the short thread is gone.
Only the initial tweet is still up. The rest of the short thread is gone.
Tweeted out less than a handful of disagreements, one sentence per tweet, not exactly an in-depth criticism which takes much time to formulate.
Then you finished with this:
Then you finished with this:
What exactly is going on here?
You disagree with a few tweets, then just throw out an ad hominem attack.
"He is dangerous."
That is an incredibly extreme thing to say. There are boundless people from the TRP/guru twitter sphere you& #39;ve called out for being wrong or dumb, but
You disagree with a few tweets, then just throw out an ad hominem attack.
"He is dangerous."
That is an incredibly extreme thing to say. There are boundless people from the TRP/guru twitter sphere you& #39;ve called out for being wrong or dumb, but
very rarely if ever did you accuse any of them of being "dangerous", despite some of them having huge followings.
What are the grounds for calling Mark dangerous? The ominuous nature of this vague statement implies malicious intent on his side, you should know that.
What are the grounds for calling Mark dangerous? The ominuous nature of this vague statement implies malicious intent on his side, you should know that.
You don& #39;t call yourself guru but are aware that you possess a large following, over 10k followers of people who look up to you, value your opinion.
You yourself have built this following partly off of calling out wrongdoings and exposing frauds.
Your judgement carries weight.
You yourself have built this following partly off of calling out wrongdoings and exposing frauds.
Your judgement carries weight.
So for you to call someone "dangerous", there better be a damn good reason for it, it& #39;s a heavy accusation to make.
You seem to feel quite strongly about the extent of his dangerous influence given that you "couldn& #39;t ignore it".
So, what comes next?
You seem to feel quite strongly about the extent of his dangerous influence given that you "couldn& #39;t ignore it".
So, what comes next?
Nothing, nothing at all. You do not elaborate on your disagreements with him or on the accusation of being dangerous. It carries a slanderous undertone.
You are offered the opportunity to engage in a debate with him, to elaborate on your disagreements. Then you do this.
You are offered the opportunity to engage in a debate with him, to elaborate on your disagreements. Then you do this.
... what? Given your lack of elaboration on why exactly Mark is so dangerous, I and other people reading this exchange must assume that the reason you called him out like this is rooted in the nature of your disagreements in the previous tweets of the thread.
So why no debate?
So why no debate?
We can semantically argue about what a debate means, call it whatever you want, a dialogue, a discussion, a conversation.
You have had the prime opportunity to expose the supposed dangerous charlatan for the world to see.
Why would you decline this?
You have had the prime opportunity to expose the supposed dangerous charlatan for the world to see.
Why would you decline this?
In a similar vein to your previous thread, where you since then deleted all of your tweets excluding the initial one, your tweets constitue short one sentence statements with no real explanation given.
"There is no basis", how is that given you disagree very intensenly?
"There is no basis", how is that given you disagree very intensenly?
It& #39;s one thing to call a person dangerous in public when your world carries a lot of influence, as long as you will back up your harsh choice of words with reason.
But to flat out refuse the perfect opportunity to expand on it?
Then silently delete your ad hominem attack?
But to flat out refuse the perfect opportunity to expand on it?
Then silently delete your ad hominem attack?
Maybe you changed your mind, you overreacted and the tweets don& #39;t express your current sentiments anymore?
If you had just called him an idiot then this wouldn& #39;t matter so much, but you called him "dangerous". You should apologize publically and retract.
If you had just called him an idiot then this wouldn& #39;t matter so much, but you called him "dangerous". You should apologize publically and retract.
Or you still think he& #39;s dangerous, in which case why delete said tweet, why refuse the opportunity to debate or to expose him as such?
If your aim is to uncover the truth and do what is right there is no reason not to debate him.
You look like Rollo running away from Pat.
If your aim is to uncover the truth and do what is right there is no reason not to debate him.
You look like Rollo running away from Pat.
You deleted your inflammatory accusation silently, yet keep these tweets up to obviously point out the hypocricy in your actions.
Why did you make a grand scene about calling him out, then silently cower away? What has changed since writing all these tweets?
Why did you make a grand scene about calling him out, then silently cower away? What has changed since writing all these tweets?
It is very ironic you call Mark out on textbook projection.
First you grandstand about how you needed to call him out, do so in 5 short sentences, then delete and tweet this.
Also change your profile away from just your face to you crossing your arms, signaling combativeness.
First you grandstand about how you needed to call him out, do so in 5 short sentences, then delete and tweet this.
Also change your profile away from just your face to you crossing your arms, signaling combativeness.
First advocate the need to call him out as "dangerous".
Then avoid any meaningful confrontation with him, stay silent on the subject.
Then delete your call out.
Then tweet about how doing nothing can be the right thing, while trying to signal combativeness with your profile.
Then avoid any meaningful confrontation with him, stay silent on the subject.
Then delete your call out.
Then tweet about how doing nothing can be the right thing, while trying to signal combativeness with your profile.
All in all this looks pathetic from you.
No matter how I spin this, whether Mark is actually as "dangerous" as you said he is or not, you signaled hypocricy and weakness of character.
Ad hominem attack, avoid discussion, then delete evidence.
Is this Upstream?
No matter how I spin this, whether Mark is actually as "dangerous" as you said he is or not, you signaled hypocricy and weakness of character.
Ad hominem attack, avoid discussion, then delete evidence.
Is this Upstream?
If Mark is truly "dangerous" then you calling him such yet refusing to make a meaningful case, engage him and expose him is cowardly.
If Mark is not "dangerous", then you not openly owning up towards your ad hominem attack being out of line and apologizing signals low character.
If Mark is not "dangerous", then you not openly owning up towards your ad hominem attack being out of line and apologizing signals low character.
You should own up to having handled this matter poorly and apologize to Mark.
I have lost a lot of respect for you for carelessly throwing out such a damning ad hominem attack, then refusing to prove it or own up to it& #39;s inappropriate usage.
Will you take any ownership?
I have lost a lot of respect for you for carelessly throwing out such a damning ad hominem attack, then refusing to prove it or own up to it& #39;s inappropriate usage.
Will you take any ownership?
