Gary Marcus

The statement 'I had to block him after further ad hominem' by @DerekJCardwell in response to a series of tweets does constitute public discourse as it engages with the issue of respectful communication and the use of ad hominem attacks in public discussions. The tone is defensive and indicates a response to perceived personal attacks.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement does not directly cause harm but indicates a response to harm (ad hominem attacks) already perceived. It is neutral in this regard.
2. Principle 2:

   I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.

   The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in further harassment or hate speech. It takes a step to block the individual rather than continuing the conflict. [+1]
3. Principle 4:

   I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.

   The statement mentions ad hominem attacks but does not engage in them. It indicates a move to disengage from unproductive dialogue, which is a positive step towards constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]