Sure, you could perceive it that way. It doesn't really make a difference in the outcome. Once the Mods step in and attempt to restore order, you undermine that action by continuing to focus on it in your public posting. This makes you part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution. The continuation of the topic ad nauseum becomes the second round of trolling.
Can we be done with it now? On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 5:34 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've been wrong enough and/or misunderstood things enough in my life that > I > > wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case here, Twirl. That being > > said, too many instances of extended trolling have started out with an > > angsty post about their persecution; forgive me if my knee jerks in > > reaction. > > Do tell me if this is arguing too much (this thread was actually > supposed to be about the generalities of what might constructively > happen when something goes "wrong" in a philosophical discussion > forum, but I might have to resign myself to going on living the life > of a "wrong" person, playing the villain, for a bit longer!), but: > > Would it not strictly be more accurate, i.e. in accordance with the > easily observable facts, to say that this started with someone > attacking my "Credo" (which was invested with some personal > significance) without pausing to read it properly (even when asked > politely and argued with rationally), and then was greatly intensified > when someone else started a thread specifically to attack me in > personal terms, and my first reply was angry but not abusive, and my > second reply was polite and completely rational, and it then turned > out that this person was a troll, a fact which simply could not have > been evident to me as a newcomer? > > I am telling this as I remember it, and not giving myself any > advantage by consulting the public record of those threads. In this > way, if my memory is distorting my perception of those past events, > then anyone reading this should easily be able to demonstrate this > fact to me, simply on the assumption that I am a rational being. > > More generally, any misperceptions by me of other individuals, or of > the general social situation here at Minds Eye, should be easily > demonstrable, on the basis solely of the public record and the > assumption that I am a rational being. If I turn out not to be > rational, I can be banned (regardless of any opinion I might have > about the matter). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > >--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
