Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list
can be handled without Bill having to get involved at all.
Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
stop completely.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Edmund
Storms<[email protected]> wrote:
How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find
normal? Of
course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency
of these
characteristics. In addition, I'm using this word as a catchall.
Insanity
has many characteristics too numerous to discuss here. My point is
only that
Grok does not show normal behavior in that his reality cannot be
changed by
rational discussion and he shows an addiction to a very
characteristic
pattern of behavior. While more information is needed to discover
if he is
physically harmful to himself and others, the usual concern, his
harm in the
circumstance we experienced is obvious. Of course, he might just
be a jerk
who likes to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather
treat him
as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him.
Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets
to
be too much without forcing a total ban on both.
I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging.
If
one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to
intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the
world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.
Ed
Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane.
Harry
