Dear Abd, we know the history; I think the solution is to answer strictly only those messages of Jojo which refer to LENR and ignoring the toxic ones. I am very worried why Bill Beaty does not answer to the complaining colleagues. Peter
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > I this post I review the early history of controversy involving Jojo Jaro > on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings on alternative > energy research. That went on for some time, until May, 2012, when a > problem appeared. > > Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does. He > imagines insult, then insults "back," initiating a cycle of insult, > escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong beliefs, > apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine discussion, on topics > that are likely to be inflammatory if brought here (and just about anywhere > on the internet, except for certain odd corners), and he readily drops > these into discussions. > > At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> Yes, I stand corrected. >> >> If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of his >> qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama. >> > > I will separately address this in another post. > > I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's sense > of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the contributions of Jojo > to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that he doesn't "start" insulting, > but that others insult him, and he responds with insult. > > He made comments early on that could indicate a certain combativeness, but > that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26 Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in > which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he mentioned that he disagreed on > "Darwinian Evolution." (By the way, source time confirms location in the > Philippines, I think.) > > However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not mention > "Darwinian Evolution," so this must have been a reference to some other > post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some support for Jojo, but > nobody started debating evolution. > > But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an > extensive post on "Darwinian Evolution." http://www.mail-archive.com/** > vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html> > > Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did. It was > in response to a casual comment by James Bowery: > > I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not >> been >> among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class. >> > > This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution. Yes, it > assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to understand this: > that importance is a routinely accepted fact, tantamount to a belief, among > most people interested in science. Were there some necessity to attack > Darwinian evolution -- difficult to understand for Vortex-l -- okay. But > there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution. > Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected it with > *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post! Jojo knew that > he was changing the subject. He knew that it would be highly controversial. > He anticipated "shots." He implied that he'd not be responding. > > Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this: > > I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it >> is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for >> so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to >> involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people >> would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude >> other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing >> wrt to Hot fusion. >> > > However, he then proceeded to "challenge" Jed Rothwell, who had responded > civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was "ignorant." That kind of > comment is typically taken by Jojo as an "insult." Rothwell promised to let > Jojo have the last word. He kept that promise for that thread. The > discusion of evolution continued a little, but other readers started to > complain about off-topic. > > A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion of a > discussion of "Darwinian Evolution," based not, as Jojo has often claimed, > on "propaganda," but a mere reference to Darwin as a man with ideas that > were not popular in his time, dicta. In the process, Jojo set up a > *political argument.* Read the post! > > Then Jojo started a new thread, specifically on Darwinian Evolution, > resent Sat, 26 May 2012 02:22:30 -0700. > http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.html> > > He did not keep to his intention. He continued to poke at Jed. Jed had > answered, and indicated intention not to respond further, and had not > responded further. Others had made small comments. Yet Jojo's post > mentioned Jed five times, in addition to continuing to quote Jed's original > response. The mentions were not complimentary. > > Jed Rothwell did not bite. However, James Bowery did, becoming incensed > that Jojo apparently would not consider an experiment to distinguish > between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. The interchange > revealed clearly that this was a *religious* argument. > http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66108.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66108.html>and > the incivility was quite what can be expected when people argue > religion *without listening.* So now there was a reader who had "insulted" > Jojo, though this was still somewhat within normal forum behavior. The > topic, though, generated a lot of posts, and this was now heavily > off-topic. Vortex-l allows limited off-topic discussion, and this was > straying outside that. > > Dave Roberson, who is perhaps sympathetic to Jojo's view on Darwinian > Evolution, objected to the uncivil comment, but also suggested that Jojo > move the discussion elsewhere. > > In a post resent Sun, 27 May 2012 10:10:57 -0700, Jojo wrote: > > This will be my last response to you. You're welcome to have the last >> word. >> > > Jojo, however, continued to respond in the thread. I jumped in with > http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66144.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66144.html> > > Ah, I do write lengthy posts! However, this did not insult Jojo, unless my > pointing to his self-revelation in his post would be an insult. It wasn't. > I took Jojo literally and looked at what his posts implied about him, and > described it. > > Just be aware, Jojo, that you are describing yourself, better and more >> accurately than you are describing Jed, whom you do not really know. >> > > Jojo responded to me, resent Mon, 28 May 2012 02:47:05 -0700. He sought to > move the discussion with me off list. He responded again, Tue, 29 May 2012 > 04:39:16 +0800 > > First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a >> hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the thread.), >> then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even though I have stopped >> responding, then you continue to keep this topic alive even though I and >> others have given it a rest. >> > > Here we can start to see a pattern. I had not "criticized" Jojo for > hijacking the thread. The thread, regarding which I'd mentioned hijacking, > was the *prior* thread. Jojo had renamed it (which was proper, but he left > out the OT tag.) What I had done was to respond to a series of Jojo posts, > not yet to the latest one. Now that I'd seen that, I responded Mon, 28 May > 2012 21:16:16 -0400 > > Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would >> I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere? >> >> I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great >> example of meaning created in the mind of the reader. >> > > We were now discussing what happened on-list. Not Darwinian Evolution, > about which we could argue forever. I declined Jojo's invitation to take it > elsewhere. I indicated that I thought the dicussion was not likely to have > value for me. > > (By the way, that could be considered my Favorite Debate Tactic, for > on-line discussion, where there is a *complete and accurate record* of the > discussion. It could be considered a test. If someone is going to firmly > insist on allegations regarding the record, and neither verify them by > reference to the record, nor acknowledge error -- or show alternative > interpretation *that respects the record,* it's hopeless to imagine that we > might come to agreement on difficult and abstract topics. As a "debate > tactic," it establishes the lack of credibility of the other writer. I'd > prefer they not do this. I don't like to "win debates" through the > stupidity of the other. And this tactic can backfire in some contexts where > people simply assume that anyone asserting a strong position will post > false evidence. They take compilations of evidence as proof of obsession. > That happens on Wikipedia.) > > Jojo replied, resent Mon, 28 May 2012 20:04:11 -0700 > > OK Whatever. This will be my last response to you ever. You are welcome >> to have the last word and deliver some parting insult or snide remark. >> >> No sense in arguing with Darwinian Evolution fanatics; who's only >> interested in blaberring about things he does not know. It's akin to >> arguing with Parks regarding cold fusion. >> > > It's quite visible here how Jojo created a highly contentious discussion, > then took offense when it was described dispassionately. He completely > ignores what he did: perceive a criticism where there was only a > description, and then solidify that perception as if it were a fact, which > he will remember, as people often do when they do this, as a "fact." To be > repeated and relied upon. It's a variation on what James Bowery saw and > responded to. Not interested in *evidence*. I know what's true, and even if > I can look at the evidence by just looking at my own email, I won't. Not > needed. I already know the Truth (TM). This was guaranteed to end badly, > unless Jojo wakes up, which doesn't happen very often. > > I did not respond again in that thread. Jojo did twice, tossing in claims > likely to set off anyone with strong opinions about Bible archeology (what > does this have to do with Darwinian Evolution, the subject?), Gnostic > Christians, and just about anyone with knowledge or established opinion on > a wide variety of topics, that happen to be topics that *often* lead to > useless flame wars in internet fora. What's amazing is that relatively few > readers took the bait. Jojo had the last word in the topic for over two > months, when it was reawakened by Axil Axil. > > The last word in this topic was http://www.mail-archive.com/** > vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg68373.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg68373.html>Jojo > would doubtlessly not like that post, but it probably represents a > very common view among Vorticians. He did not respond. > > But he continues to argue Darwinian Evolution, with claims that anyone who > accepts it is naive, ignorant, and hoodwinked. Which is the large majority > of us on this list. Yet he thinks he isn't insulting people! > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
