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.)
