Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Pots and kettles
Two to tango

But I wouldn't call Scooter a troll. That's just not right

Meade

[Lord Jim]

What I see happening here in this exchange Gen'l, is that you are allowing your personal conflicts with Scooter to play out in a way that is going to accomplish nothing but to provide a person who's behavior has become extremely destructive here with encouragement to continue that behavior.

If you want to fight with Scooter, it would be best if you found some other topic, (any other topic) to fight about....

[dales]

I'm with LJ on this.

Why not start a discussion about angelic hosts on the head of a pin?

[Joe Guy]

Who's on first?

[Andrew D]

Hey, Scooter; keep on reconsidering that whole homosexuality thing. After all, people change ....

You certainly did.

Actually, Gob, you have been pissy with me ever since you were unable to back up your claim that Cornish is a resurrected language.

Get over it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What I see happening here in this exchange Gen'l, is that you are allowing your personal conflicts with Scooter to play out in a way that is going to accomplish nothing but to provide a person who's behavior has become extremely destructive here with encouragement to continue that behavior.

If you want to fight with Scooter, it would be best if you found some other topic, (any other topic) to fight about....

I don't have personal conflicts with Scooter. I have personal conflicts with lies.

Now let me make this clear again - when Loca or anyone posts horrible things about others they and supportive friends (including me) are fully entitled to demonstrate her / their falsehoods. They could also choose to ignore some of the more stupid assertions and treat them with the contempt they deserve. In some specific cases, that would be the best response.

What I see happening here LJ is that any number of people can attack Loca with impunity (and cheers from the peanut gallery) but let any person step in to point out that a vicious lie against her is being put forward and the condemnation of the self-righteous falls upon their head(s).

I shall declare victory and go home.

Meade

[Andrew D]

What I see happening here LJ is that any number of people can attack Loca with impunity (and cheers from the peanut gallery) but let any person step in to point out that a vicious lie against her is being put forward and the condemnation of the self-righteous falls upon their head(s).

Spot on.

[Econoline]

And another thread bites the dust. Pity. It was (originally) about something worth discussing, even.

[Daisy]

I know. Econoline, I know.

Maybe everyone should take a step back from this and just have a look at themselves.

[Lord Jim]

General, I must say I'm quite puzzled....

If you consider Scooter to be a "troll" then why are you "feeding" him? Why aren't you taking the advice you so happily dispense to others and just ignore what he says?

As a wise man said:

Pots and kettles
Two to tango

Afterall:

No need to post "X" in response to "W". Just let "W" lay there. The members of the board can figure out what needs to be disgarded and what needs to be "entertained".

You lauded this when oldr posted it why aren't you following it?

You know, the practice/preach thingy...

the condemnation of the self-righteous falls upon their head(s)

You know, that just goes to show you how differently people can view things....

From where I sit, most of what you've said in this discussion fairly drips with "self-righteousness"....

General, I like you a lot, you're one of the best writers here, you've got a great sense of humor, and the board is a much better place for having your perspective and participation....

But in discussions related to LoCa's behavior....

Not so much....

What I've seen mostly from you on this are comments that will do nothing but encourage her to continue as she has, (your desire to fight with Scooter seems to have made you indifferent to this) misplaced self-righteousness, and now your issues with Scooter have led you into clear-cut hypocrisy. You have repeatedly lectured others to follow a path that you have revealed that you are unable or unwilling to follow yourself.

Not your best moments....

[oldr_n_wsr]

You know, there is probably no more useless a discussion we can have here, (because we've been having it for years, and to the best of my knowledge not one mind has been changed on the subject) than the debate between the "everybody who responds to an attack is just as guilty as the attacker for not ignoring it" crowd, and those of us who absolutely reject that "reasoning".....

I did not say those who respond are just as "guilty" (of what offense, I don't know) as those who hurl the first shot. What I am saying is that if it doesn't apply, let it fly. (another 12 step saying )

The main reason I believe this discussion is pointless is because we don't just disagree; we perceive reality in completely different ways.

Doesn't everybody.

To characterize what has been going on between LoCa and Hen and Strop as:

From what I have read, every time something is said the Isaac Newton law is observed. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Apparently makes sense to Oldr....

Yes it does. Seems anytime someone says/posts/writes something offensive it is met with an equal (sometimes unequal) response, name calling, etc. Wouldn't it be more condusive to the discussion to just either ask for proof or present proof for your own case? NAme calling, ganging up and other negative responses causes nothing but responses in kind. All one needs to do is review all of the threads that have degraded into a sh%^fest to see that. And many (all?) are tired of threads descending into that. If the offender takes the shot, and the next bunch of people stay on topic, the shot has missed it's target.

But to me, it is not merely wrong.....it is unfathomable....incomprehensible, that anyone could look at what has unfolded here and think that equivalence drawing analogy is somehow appropriate....

You are entitled to your opinion. I think that it is not "Incomprehensible" to see where people can/could/might take the high road and not even respond. Sometimes things htat are said are not even worth responding too. That they are so "screwed up" that responding only degrades and changes the discussion where-as no reponse would let the discussion to continue on topic.

To be honest, I find the sorts of "holier than thou" lectures and false equivalences that have been posted in these forums over the years not merely tedious and reflective of confused reasoning, but offensive. (And I would also note that three of the biggest pontificators we've had around here on the topic of how wise it is for others to ignore crap that was hurled at them are no longer here... Strongly indicating that they were unable to follow their own advice.)

I am still here and have (as far as I know) have followed my own advice.. I am sorry you find it offensive at my suggestion that when the slur is hurled, that the offended party should let it hit the fiield and dry out in the sun rather than pick it up and throw it back. I have found it causes more angst to the original sh%^ slinger when you don't throw it back than when you do.

I for one would like to see an end to these pointless lectures almost as much as I'd like to see an end to the trolling itself.

If the troll is not fed, then the situation is remedied and no need for the "post". I am sorry if you read my post as a lecture as I am not here to persuade anyone to my point of view. I am just pointing out an observation and a possible remedie for the situation.

There are many people here that I like and call my "cyber friends". ABut this is an internet discussion board and sh%^ is going to get slung. Our reaction to that is the only thing we can control and I have found on this board and past boards that our response can either escalate the crap and sidetrack the topic or return the thread to the discussion at hand.

I'll be quiet now as those who want to continue sh%^ slinging can have at it.

[Andrew D]

And another thread bites the dust. Pity. It was (originally) about something worth discussing, even.

Yep. Yet another thread has fallen victim to cliquish shitting on the target du jour.

[Andrew D]

What I've seen mostly from you on this are comments that will do nothing but encourage her to continue as she has, (your desire to fight with Scooter seems to have made you indifferent to this) misplaced self-righteousness, and now your issues with Scooter have led you into clear-cut hypocrisy. You have repeatedly lectured others to follow a path that you have revealed that you are unable or unwilling to follow yourself.

Find a mirror, Lord Jim. It is YOUR obsession, and that of others, with loCAtek's various transgressions that has poisoned so many threads.

She has posted things which, as far as I can tell, are groundless and mean-spirited. And calling her to account for that is a fine thing.

But it has not been she who has converted thread after thread after thread into dumping on her (let alone the threads which exist solely to dump on her). It has been you and the rest of the in crowd.

Here is a little bit of advice for loCAtek. Post something like this:

I remember things one way. You remember them differently. The evidence which would show the truth or falsity of your or my recollection is, through no fault of either of us, unavailable. Therefore, let's just walk away. I cannot prove that you are wrong; you cannot prove that I am wrong. So let's just walk away.

From what I have seen, she is more willing just to walk away than are the people who cannot restrain themselves from carping about her over and over and over and over and over ....

[MajGenl.Meade]

But I wouldn't call Scooter a troll. That's just not right
Meade

LJ I have to ask - in what parallel universe does the above equal this?

If you consider Scooter to be a "troll"then why are you "feeding" him?

And how come you haven't posted a single word to Scooter about his obvious desire to fight with me, his hypocrisy in perpetuating a lie that he constructed? I think it's fairly obvious.

And just to make this clear enough one more time - I have not lectured anyone on the need to "just ignore" crap from Loca or anywhere else. I have posted in this thread that there are times to ignore something - but that calling out lies is a correct response - and that another alternative is to just keep posting away back and forth and stop whining about it. You appear to suggest that it's OK for you to contra-post Loca but I'm not allowed to argue with Scooter?????

I declared victory - I hear the helicopters landing on the roof

Meade

[Lord Jim]

LJ I have to ask - in what parallel universe does the above equal this?

In the universe where I interpreted your comment as sarcasm, General....

I'm not allowed to argue with Scooter?????

In what parallel universe have I suggested that you're not "allowed" to argue with Scooter?

And how come you haven't posted a single word to Scooter about his obvious desire to fight with me

Oh, it's because he and I agree on so much, isn't that obvious?

But seriously....

There are a couple of reasons:

Yeah, he likes to fight with you too, but he hasn't embraced the position that crap should be ignored; you have.

This whole discussion began because you took it upon yourself to decide to criticize Hen for responding to LoCa. (You even picked out a specific post for criticism.)

No need to post "X" in response to "W". Just let "W" lay there. The members of the board can figure out what needs to be disgarded and what needs to be "entertained".

When you lauded oldr for that statement, I assumed you agreed with it. Is that not the case?

If I had the time now Meade, I'm sure I could come up with a number of other examples....

Another reason I haven't criticized Scooter over this, is that his comments to you obviously aren't going to provide justification and encouragement to LoCa to continue her behavior. Yours are.

calling out lies is a correct response

BTW, I don't see where you have at all proven that Scooter has "lied" about anything regarding this. I might not characterize it this way, but the fact is that writing about and publishing the sexual activities of a nine year old girl, (which is what LoCa accused Hen of doing) could well be interpreted as child pornography in many jurisdictions.

As for the derailing of this thread, that clearly began with LoCa's post here, where out the blue she makes yet another round of false accusations:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6370&p=79448&hilit=banning#p79448

[Andrew D]

... but the fact is that writing about and publishing the sexual activities of a nine year old girl, (which is what LoCa accused Hen of doing) could well be interpreted as child pornography in many jurisdictions.

Bullshit. What Hen supposedly said would not be interpreted as child pornography in any sane jurisdiction. The accusation would be laughed out of court in any jurisdiction in the English-speaking world.

The claim which loCAtek made is, as far as the evidence shows, groundless. It is baseless. It is nasty.

But it does not involve child pornography.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Jim lad, I see. No, see I made the Scooter not being a troll remark because you said "don't feed the troll" and I was joking that YOU we calling him a troll because that's who I was feeding.... no biggie. I know you were not calling him a troll - it was supposed to be a joke. All this "encouraging Loca" stuff is in your mind LJ. There is nothing in my consistent description of what she is doing as aberrant and wrong that should encourage even a lunatic to think he/she is being supported.

Yes loca derailed the thread
Yes Hen did NOT derail the thread.
No - you have it utterly wrong. I did not criticise Hen for "responding" to Loca; I have consistently said that Hen was right to respond to Loca. Hen had already responded to Loca - so had a cast of thousands - it was over and done and the thread was back on taken herself off to wherever she goes. Suddenly, Hen poked a stick into Loca's face with an open invitation to start up all over again. Read it without the blinkers Jim. Just admit that topic. Loca hadHen made a little mistake by inviting more trolling - encouraging it if you want to put it that way.

That's when Scooter came in with his "well its easy for you because you're not the one being attacked" or whatever the actual words were. I happen to recall that Andrew, oldr and myself have ALL said that - it's easy to opine ignoring insults when they are not directed at us. So thanks Scooter for pointing out the obvious that we have already stated. Probably I should have ignored it - but I've never said everything should be ignored. I have said "keep on posting and stop whining about it" is a perfectly OK alternative.

Again, and again until you get it, Loca's original attack crap needed (and got) a thorough whacking. But it is out of order for Scooter to attempt to turn his (I think innocent) misinterpretation of what Loca actually said into a new truth rather than admit he screwed the pooch. No one likes to admit when they are wrong. Not me, not anyone. The pornography thing - I didn't argue that much - it was obviously crap. What I did argue was his erroneous (and again, I accept innocent misunderstanding) statement that Loca was accusing Gob of being in the room when..... LJ she didn't say that and I proved that she didn't.

I appreciate your kind comments. I know this is trying your patience. Probably everyone else's as well. But damn it Jim - the lad was out and out wrong. But he's sticking to increasingly crazy-ass explanations to avoid admitting it. Doesn't that sound just at all familiar to you?

Meade

[The Hen]

Yes loca derailed the thread
Yes Hen did NOT derail the thread.
No - you have it utterly wrong. I did not criticise Hen for "responding" to Loca; I have consistently said that Hen was right to respond to Loca. Hen had already responded to Loca - so had a cast of thousands - it was over and done and the thread was back on taken herself off to wherever she goes. Suddenly, Hen poked a stick into Loca's face with an open invitation to start up all over again. Read it without the blinkers Jim. Just admit that topic. Loca hadHen made a little mistake by inviting more trolling - encouraging it if you want to put it that way.


Meade

Meade, the comment I made was not 'suddenly' in a thread that was over.

My comment was made 17 hours after Lo's last comment (after I had slept and woken), and only 40 minutes after the last post in the thread.

I think you are mischaracterizing the thread if you think it was dormant prior to that post of mine that you took so much exception too.

Now look how many pages have gone on?

This is not a dormant matter, obviously.

[Gob]

Hey, Scooter; keep on reconsidering that whole homosexuality thing. After all, people change ....

You certainly did.

Actually, Gob, you have been pissy with me ever since you were unable to back up your claim that Cornish is a resurrected language.

Get over it.

Funniest one yet.

Andrew I am not the only one here who has noticed and commented on your descent from respected and worth reading poster to rubato level childishness, nastiness and snideness.

In fact I started a thread on it over a year ago,long before you became Insane President Andrew the IV, who wanted America to rule the world by force, and decreed only the definitions of words he uses have any meanings.

Your postings of late have been very low quality indeed. Get help. When even dgs can point out how shitty your debating is you know you've hit a new low. (No offense Dave ) My god, you've even resorted to calling people here a "clique", that's down to Lo/Steve levels of idiocy.

As for Lo, well it seems we're getting a break from her, so I suggest the rest of the board enjoy it.

[Lord Jim]

All this "encouraging Loca" stuff is in your mind LJ.

No it is not...

It is a demonstrable fact...

Even when people have condemned her actions, she will seize on the thinnest reed of support to justify them.

Andrew for example, has made quite clear, that he has no truck for LoCa's behavior:

The claim which loCAtek made is, as far as the evidence shows, groundless. It is baseless. It is nasty.

There are a number of other quotes where he criticizes her extensively, and makes clear he isn't trying to support her behavior.

But nevertheless, she has shown that she will seize upon even the slightest expression of quasi support to justify her actions:

When, as you said AndrewD, others do far worse, and get no more than a 'tsk tsk'.

You're trying to look at this rationally, and from the perspective of what one could logically deduce from what's been said....

I'm looking at the record of the way LoCa has shown a determination to ignore every single word of criticism, from whatever source, directed at her and grab at even the slightest words of support as justification for her behavior...

And based on that record, I stand by my remarks.

I'm sure it's not your intent, but you are providing encouragement.