My Response: Re: [Vision2020] Liberal Moscow (correction)

[Chasuk]

On 6/12/06, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Look in the mirror, chasuk at gmail.com!

> So chasuk at gmail.com thinks he has not engaged in conduct similar to trolls and flamers on Vision2020?  I disagree.  Everyone read the post from Chasuk at  gmail.com forwarded below.

Concerning the word "troll," as snipped from Wikipedia:

"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an
established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts
inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to
annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of
discussion."

Next, "flame," same source:

"Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile
and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on
the Internet. Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes
posted in response to flamebait. Flaming is said by some to be one of
a class of economic problems known as The Tragedy of the Commons, when
a group holds a resource (in this case, communal attention), but each
of the individual members has an incentive to overuse it. Flamers
usually call their flames justified attacks."

I've looked in the mirror.  I plead guilty to the accusation of
(occasional) flaming, but deny ever having been a troll.  I could have
just said "I've added you to my killfile, Ed," but I chose to be more
colorful.  Still, I'm guilty as charged.

> While some Vision2020 participants represent viewpoints I disagree with vehemently, and I feel like attacking them with no restraint, the following post by chasuk at gmail.com should not, in my opinion, have been sent to this public list, regardless of how much he found his opponent offensive and/or morally corrupt.  Send this sort of crap privately, please!  Your post below does not contain one significant element of reasoning or fact, but solely aims to use derogatory language and images to vilify an opponent.  While I agree with chasuk at  gmail.com that the person this post was aimed at has posted hate speech to this list (at least I think chasuk at gmail.com would agree with me on this point), this does not excuse returning hate for hate with no significant ideas or reasoning.

Again, guilty as charged.  However, I'm not making any pompous
declarations of purity.  I acknowledge that some of my retaliatory
remarks were ugly and childish.  I undoubtedly considered them, at the
time they were composed, as "justified attacks."  I apologize if I
offended your sensibilities.  However, I object to the
characterization that I returned hate.  I don't hate Ed.  I feel
genuine pity for him.  My response was childish and unkind, but I
tried reason first.  Logic and reason aren't always options when you
are dealing with those who have never learned to use them, which is
how I perceive Ed.