Speaking about civilty CMNS does not accept CV-less unidetinfiable members using nicknames saying what they want and not being accountable. Vortex used to be a nice place, it is not more. The Delete key is overused. Couldn't we discuss about the possible futures of LENR. I wrote a paper about this but only Gary Wright has sent a comment- not for the leading idea of the writing Peter
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > 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.) > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
