LIAR....
I never initiate insults. I never inititate personal attacks. NEVER have,
NEVER ever.
You handpick my posts and build a fallacious history of the events here and
lie about it.
You're a BOLDFACE liar, just like your great HOLEY prophet.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Sent a message of query off to Mr. Beaty concerning
recent trolling activity
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.)
