On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:48:07PM -0700, Mark Iverson wrote: >Grok is a coward. >If he really believed what he was preaching, then he wouldn't be afraid to use >his real name.
The U.S. government has said that people who deny the government story about 9/11, or who want the government to obey the Constitution, or who oppose the war against Iraq, etc., are to be suspected as terrorists allied with Al-Qaeda. U.S. government legislation and executive orders provide that suspected terrorists can be arrested, denied the legal rights provided in the Constitution, tortured, and killed. So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean >>"probably criminal element" ..."teenager," or "newbie user." Furthermore, Grok has _not_ >>[drawn] complaints from the entire community >I think most everyone I'm aware of on this list has apologized at one time or >another... It's what a >person with integrity does when they realize their mistake or transgression. >The fact that grok is >incapable of such behavior (all he knows is arrogance and condescension), >shows his true self; one >lacking humility, reflection, self-awareness consciousness... Asking for an >apology and real name >are justified in this instance. >He will, or already has, tried to blame others for his situation; he needs to >point the finger in >his direction. I doubt if he is even capable of that... Personal >responsibility is something he >hasn't shown either. That's an ad hominem attack made without supporting evidence. Mark S Bilk http://www.cosmicpenguin.com >-----Original Message----- >From: William Beaty [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:54 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily > >On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> > Grok said no thanks, to the above. >> I am not sure why he should apologize for his off-topic postings, > >Political posting sent here, rather than to vtxB. > >> If you expect him to reveal his true identity then that should be >> written in the rules. > >Nope. If any user misbehaves so badly that they draw complaints from the >entire community, then >I'll fix the problem, which includes crafting arbitrary and mysterious >requirements on a whim. > >As with any professional community, people with real names are welcome, and >people who hide their >identities have marked themselves as "probably criminal element" in the eyes >of the group >...although on internet, anonymity also means "teenager," or "newbie user." >(Which of the three is >worse?) To impress fellow professionals, always put your address and phone >number in your sig. >This is an unwritten societal rule which applies to the entire world, not just >online or on vortex: >try walking around downtown wearing a mask, see what happens. > >Perhaps vortex should require surrendering anonymity, but it's much work to do >it right (to avoid >fake identities.) > >> If the political commentary incorporates *personal* insults, instead >> of > >There is very specifically no rule against insults on Vortex-L. However, >people who habitually use >personal insults will attract complaints from the entire community, and >then... (see above.)
