I've gone over the history, and Jojo is lying again. I'll be happy to
apologize if I erred in my analysis. Jojo, below, says I "nandpicked"
his posts. If I cherry-picked the posts, I certainly did not attept to do so.
But the cherry-picking claim is a cheap shot. If I cherry-picked,
then Jojo could point to the others, for balance.
Here, I just summarized. I presented actual links before, that show
that if Jojo isn't just lying, he doesn't realize what he himself
did, so certain is he that others are just picking on him.
Let him cast the beam out of his own eye before he attempts to remove
the splinter from his neighbor's.
At 06:31 PM 12/23/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
LIAR....
I never initiate insults. I never inititate personal attacks. NEVER
have, NEVER ever.
You handpick my posts and build a fallacious history of the events
here and lie about it.
You're a BOLDFACE liar, just like your great HOLEY prophet.
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Sent a message of query off to Mr. Beaty
concerning recent trolling activity
At 10:32 PM 12/22/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Then maybe, he can see that I was discussing with civility on a
thread I started before Lomax, SVJ and others started the
insults. Yes, I am the troll for responding appropriately to
insults. Maybe, he'll notice that my responses are with insults
that are calibrated to the level of nastiness thrown my
way. Maybe. he'll notice which people really start the insults around here.
He can see it by looking at the history of each thread. He can see
that Jojo initiated the uncivil exchanges, converting civil
disagreement into personal attacks. I've documented this in the
past, and if Mr. Beatty wants some support in finding the
documentation, if he actually needs that -- he may not --, I'll be
happy to provide whatever he asks for, either on or off-list.
He'll be able to tell that, in the most recent exchange, the
discussion had gone cold, with Jojo having made the last comment,
and other people just leaving it at that. He can then see that Jojo
re-initiated it.
[...]
I am fighting to keep a little sanity in Vortex-L and keep people
like you from dragging down this fine fine forum with your
incessant trolling of off-topic posts. We have lost fine fine
great men with great ideas because of incessant off-topic posts
and noise and you still maintain that it is your right to do
so. May I remind you that this problem preceeded my joining
Vortex-L, so I am not the problem. I am one fighting to highlight
this problem and people like Lomax and SVJ and others just can't
handle the fact that I am trying to fix this forum that has become
dysfunctional.
So, If Bill does what you want, I wouldn't care too much. After
all, I am not really interested in joining a mob group.
The list owner knows that some level of off-topic posting is useful socially.
If it were true, however, that I were using this group for "Muslim
propaganda," to argue about Islam, that would be a problem, but
Jojo introduced the whole issue of Islam. It appears to have been
done to troll for my response. There was no relevance to ongoing
discussions, which weren't about Islam. This was entirely
introduced here by Jojo. The same is likely true about Jojo's
attacks on President Obama. I first became involved in discussion
with Jojo, as I recall, over his "birther" claims.
I hadn't been familiar with the claims, generally trusting that if
Obama really were not born in Hawaii, the truth would out -- and
there might then be a constitutional problem, the resolution of
which would be tough, and probably the Supreme Court would punt,
i.e., consider that it would be an issue for Congress to resolve.
But that's moot here.
Jojo attacked me precisely because I researched his claims, and
found them *preposterous*. And I reported that here.
It's quite like the Moon God claims. I.e., if you search, you can
find "evidence" for them. But we don't decide issues one-sidedly,
only fanatics do that. We look at the balance of evidence.
This is actually relevant to common Vortex discussions. For
example, we can find evidence that Rossi is a fraud. We can find
evidence that he's for real.
What's the balance? Someone who is a fanatic only looks at one
side. To actually come to sane conclusions -- or to recognize that
no clear conclusion is yet possible -- one must consider *all the evidence.*
Someone like Jojo, arguing about Vortex topics, will cloud the
issues, taking only one side. That happens all the time, we accept
it here, *when it's on topic.* We also allow people to express
unpopular opinions about other topics here. It is only when this
totally dominates participation that it starts to be a problem.
I'll repeat my position: the list owner should warn anyone the list
owner sees as having a problem with participation here, giving
guidance on what is acceptable and what is not, and if the person
neglects the warning, they should be banned. That's very simple,
and the list owner is completely free to, for example, warn me or
Steve or anyone. I'm not going to leave because of such a warning,
if there is one. I'd respect it, to the degree possible.
I survived on Wikipedia as long as I did because, until I concluded
that due process was a waste of time, there, and because Wikipedia
has a stated mission that causes a broader common law than "owner
rules" to apply, I followed community process and heeded
administrative warnings. -- and what ultimately happened was that I
was pursued in spite of this, that bans were re-interpreted to
include what they clearly had not originally been intended to
include. The faction I'd confronted -- successfully! -- was *going
to retaliate* no matter what I did, and enough members of ArbComm,
from leaks from their private mailing list on Wikipediareview.com,
were complicit that compliance became useless. My purpose on
Wikipedia was to experiment with community process, and that
mission had been accomplished, completed when I also checked out
community response to banned editors.
(Previously, I'd tested alternative responses, more likely to
result in the consensus that is essential to wiki theory, as a
WikiMedia Foundation sysop, on Wikiversity. Basically, we know what
to do, but mostly we won't do it. Too much trouble.)
(Participation in the vortex list was important to me at one time,
it's less important now, because I' m active on the CMNS list, the
private list for cold fusion researchers. But I still read this
list and respond on occasion, when I have time. When I have time, I
might respond a lot. At other times, I'm too busy and don't
necessarily respond.)
