[Vision2020] ignore trolls

[jeanlivingston]

changing the subject line, and AMEN!


-----Original message-----
From: Steven Basoa sbasoa at moscow.com
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:45:07 -0700
To: Vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

> This is a plea on the behalf of the other 3 or 4 hundred of us on 
> this list whose delete-button fingers are getting extremely worn 
> out. Will you people please stop with this asinine thread. You all 
> know what a troll is and you also know that a troll thrives on
people 
> responding to his/hers/it's posts. So maybe, just maybe, if you all 
> stop responding to this troll, it will go away. Or maybe, if "NW" 
> really wants people to take it's message seriously, then it will
grow 
> up and start posting with it's real name (haha, I am so funny). "NW"

> won't post under it's real name because it and it's buddies in the 
>back room are having a great laugh at your expense. The troll baits 
> and you all jump at the line. Every time. Especially you Joe C. 
> Won't you realize that it has purposely targeted you because you
grab 
> hold of that line and won't let go? It doesn't matter how much money

> you offer to meet it in a public place. Trolls live and thrive in 
> muck and feces and excel at throwing it about. Money means nothing 
> to them. This troll baits you so well that the best thing I can say 
> about NW is that it is a master baiter. You respond, it spews. Once 
> you all figure this fact out and start ignoring NW's posts, you just

> might find that you have more time for the finer things in life. And

> the rest of us might start getting some feeling back in our delete- 
> key fingers.
> 
> And no GC, before you ask, I'm not trying to be the "conversation 
> monitor",I'm just trying to get the maturity level of this forum out

> of the gutter and back up to at least a juvenile level.
> 
> Sardonically yours,
> Joe Bob Whatever
> 
> (PS: I know, I know: delete, delete, delete...)
> 
> (PPS: Carl, Angelina called. She wants to have dinner with you on 
> the second tuesday of next week.)
> 
> SB
> 
> 
> On Oct 4, 2008, at 11:33 AM, wrote:
> 
> I'll play for one minute but I really am busy today.
> 
> Remind me again of argument (A) and tell me the fallacy that you 
> think I committed. I'm curious.
> 
> This is not a condition but please tell me why you don't want to 
> collect an easy $100. Honestly,
> I'm interested in knowing why you could possibly want to hide your 
> identity unless my assumptions
> are correct. I'm lookingfor one reason and you owe it to others to 
> give it if we're to take you seriously. Again if you want to ignore 
> this and just reply to the first question, I'll play a bit longer.
> But I feel like a bit of a fool, in all honesty, so I won't play
long.
> 
> --
> Joe Campbell
> 
> ---- No Weatherman wrote:
> > Dr. Campbell,
> >
> > I applaud you for changing the subject and I will applaud you even
> > more if you (A) answer my question or (B) identify for this forum
the
> > fallacy you committed.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com wrote:
> >> This is evidence that I'm not reading your posts very carefully, 
> >> nothing more.
> >>
> >> I'll give you $100 to have lunch with me today. If not, you set 
> >> the time and place. You won't do it.
> >> Am I supposed to act like this is not evidence that you are 
> >> afraid to let folks know who you are?
> >> Am I supposed to pretend that this is not relevant information to

> >> the issue at hand? Should I
> >> ignore it? Why on earth would someone forgo an easy $100 and the 
> >> chance of proving me wrong?
> >>
> >> Try explaining that and maybe people will listen to you.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Campbell
> >>
> >> ---- No Weatherman wrote:
> >>> Dr. Campbell,
> >>>
> >>> Actually, you asked several questions but here is how I answered

> >>> this
> >>> particular question the first time:
> >>>
> >>> "I am in the country and I sincerely appreciate the offer but
I'll
> >>> take a rain check. Now, what fallacy, if any, are you committing

> >>> when
> >>> you infer a false conclusion from my answer?"
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully, this will satisfy you.
> >>>
> >>> Now, you have not answered my question: Did you, or did you not
> >>> describe your "as far as I can tell" "reasoned opinion" as a
"fact"?
> >>>
> >>> I hope your schedule is not so busy that cannot give an honest 
> >>> answer
> >>> to this question because in answering it truthfully, you can 
> >>> begin to
> >>> deconstruct the straw man you've been struggling with.
> >>>
> >>>
>>>>
> >>> On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com wrote:
> >>>> I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding this as a 
> >>>> response to my last question, so I'll
> >>>> be more direct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you want to have lunch today or not? I'll treat. If you 
> >>>> can't make it, I understand. You respect
> >>>> me so why not sit down with me for lunch and we can talk this 
> >>>> all out. If you convince me that
> >>>> you are not either a critic of Christ Church or affiliated with

> >>>> Christ Church, I'll issue an apology.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a busy schedule today. I need to know asap. If you can't

> >>>> make it, just let me know.
> >>>>
>>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Joe Campbell
> >>>>
> >>>> ---- No Weatherman wrote:
> >>>>> "This is really a silly game. Below is just another bad 
> >>>>> argument. Some
> >>>>> of your opinions are facts and some not and it is doubtful
that 
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> are the best judge about which is which."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I noted your fallacies and you call it "silly" and "another
bad
> >>>>> argument." I wonder what the technical name for that one is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Also, why should I answer your questions if you don't answer 
> >>>>> mine?
> >>>>> That's notfair."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I caught you equivocating, or having it both ways, with the
word
> >>>>> "fact" and when I called you on it, you ignored my question
and
> >>>>> proceeded to ask me a string of loaded questions. If this is 
> >>>>> not true,
> >>>>> please show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, don't complain
about 
> >>>>> "fair"
> >>>>> to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "And why are you so upset about this? If you are not either a 
> >>>>> critic
> >>>>> of Christ Church or affiliated with Christ Church, why would
it 
> >>>>> bother
> >>>>> you that someone thought that you were?"
> >>>>>
>>>>>> I am not the least bit upset, I am not bothered at all, and you

> >>>>> cannot
> >>>>> produce any evidence to the contrary. However, I can produce 
> >>>>> several
> >>>>> posts written by you, Ms. Mix, Ms. Lund, and Mr. Hanson where 
> >>>>> you four
> >>>>> have been extremely upset and bothered. You are projecting
your 
> >>>>> traits
> >>>>> on me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "I must say if you are trying to prove that you're not, you
are 
> >>>>> doing
> >>>>> a very bad job. Not nearly as bad as your case against Obama 
> >>>>> but still
> >>>>> pretty bad. And it is silly indeed since you could prove your 
> >>>>> point
> >>>>> easily by using your real name, or meeting me for lunch later 
> >>>>> today.
> >>>>> I'll treat! Of course, if you can't since you're, say, out of
the
> >>>>> country, that would explain a lot!"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am in the country and I sincerely appreciate the offer but 
> >>>>> I'll take
> >>>>> a rain check. Now, what fallacy, if any, are you committing 
> >>>>> when you
> >>>>> infer a false conclusion from my answer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Anyway, if you won't use your name or meet me for lunch, I'll

> >>>>> have to
> >>>>> go back to trying to ignore you. Not that I'm very good at it 
> >>>>> but I'll
>>>>>> try to be better!"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're very good at misquoting me and misrepresenting me, and 
> >>>>> you're
> >>>>> even better at evading responsibility for your dishonest 
> >>>>> statements.
> >>>>> But I'm struggling with all those posts that you wrote 
> >>>>> insisting that
> >>>>> you never read a word I wrote, yet, now, suddenly and 
> >>>>> miraculously,
> >>>>> you have the uncanny ability as a trained logician to describe
the
> >>>>> previously and until-now ignored posts as full of "fallacy
after
> >>>>> fallacy."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rather than ignoring me, I would appreciate it if you actually

>>>>>> tried
> >>>>> to engage me — or better yet, engage my one single point
that 
> >>>>> has thus
> >>>>> far gone unnoticed by the handful of extremely vocal Obama 
> >>>>> supporters
> >>>>> on this list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Barrack Hussein Obama is 47 years old but 20 of his years are
a
> >>>>> complete mystery to America. In the modern history of the US 
> >>>>> the press
> >>>>> has never given any candidate such a pass as they have given 
> >>>>> Obama,
> >>>>> and yet none of the Obama supporters on this list appear the 
> >>>>> least bit
> >>>>> bothered by these facts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since Ioriginally engaged you, I have had one question in 
> >>>>> mind: How
> >>>>> do you account for this, Dr. Campbell?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com wrote:
> >>>>>> This is really a silly game. Below is just another bad 
> >>>>>> argument. Some of your opinions are facts
> >>>>>> and some not and it is doubtful that you are the best judge 
> >>>>>> about which is which.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, why should I answer your questions if you don't answer 
> >>>>>> mine? That's not fair.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And why are you so upset about this? If you are not either a 
> >>>>>>critic of Christ Church or
> >>>>>> affiliated with Christ Church, why would it bother you that 
> >>>>>> someone thought that you were?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I must say if you are trying to prove that you're not, you 
> >>>>>> are doing a very bad job. Not nearly as
> >>>>>> bad as your case against Obama but still pretty bad. And it 
> >>>>>> is silly indeed since you could prove
> >>>>>> your point easily by using your real name, or meeting me for 
> >>>>>> lunch later today. I'll treat!
> >>>>>> Of course, if you can't since you're, say, out of the 
> >>>>>> country, that would explain a lot!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, if you won't use your name or meetme for lunch, I'll 
> >>>>>> have to go back to trying to ignore
> >>>>>> you. Not that I'm very good at it but I'll try to be better!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Joe Campbell
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---- No Weatherman wrote:
> >>>>>>> I read your words very carefully, because you concluded by 
> >>>>>>> jumping
> >>>>>>> from "as far as I can tell" to "isn't this FACT telling?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As far as I can tell you concluded by calling it a "fact."
Is my
> >>>>>>> reasoned opinion wrong, good Doctor?
>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I said as far as I can tell, it is a reflection of my own 
> >>>>>>>> reasoned opinion. And I said anonymous
> >>>>>>>> posters are either supporters or critics. Please read my 
> >>>>>>>> words more carefully.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And that conclusion follows with a good deal more certainty

> >>>>>>>> than any of your conclusions about
> >>>>>>>> Obama, which are all -- everyone of them -- based on 
> >>>>>>>> fallacies.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What reason isthere for your curious double-standard, that 
> >>>>>>>> I need to prove my claims yet you can
> >>>>>>>> make any reckless statement you want without a hint of real

> >>>>>>>> support?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And why not deny the allegation if you thought I made it 
> >>>>>>>> and it is false. You are curious indeed!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And as others have asked time and time again, what possible

> >>>>>>>> reason is there for you to post
> >>>>>>>> anonymously if you are not trying to hide some affiliation?

> >>>>>>>> Use your real name and I'll be done.
> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Joe Campbell
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---- No Weatherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> AHA!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What evidence can Dr. Campbell produce to show that I am 
> >>>>>>>>> either a folk
> >>>>>>>>> of Christ Church or a critic of Christ Church?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Some of you would do well to answer this question and do 
> >>>>>>>>> some self-examination.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/4/08, joekc at roadrunner.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> What evidence is there that the five noted by Gary below 
> >>>>>>>>>> are "left wing"? In fact, what they all
> >>>>>>>>>> have in common is that they were critics of Christ 
> >>>>>>>>>> Church. That is it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So the anonymous posts, as far as I can tell, are either 
> >>>>>>>>>> from folks at Christ Church or from
> >>>>>>>>>> critics of Christ Church. Does anyone have a 
> >>>>>>>>>> counterexample to this and isn't this fact telling?
>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ---- "g. crabtree" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I believe that Rodger means that the names were brought 
> >>>>>>>>>>> up (listed) by
> >>>>>>>>>>> myself and someone else as examples of anonymous
posters. 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not that those
> >>>>>>>>>>> vision members were posting currently.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> g
> >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Craine Kit" 
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: "Chasuk" 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:24 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get any postings by either "heridotus" or
"Ford 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything from either in quite some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. Am I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> missing something?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kit Craine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Chasuk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:31, lfalen 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There were about 5 listed in posts yesterday by Gary 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and someone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Two of them were Heridotus and Ford.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. I would consider J.Ford more a harmless crank than

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "left-winger." The others I am unfamiliar with.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
=======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
=======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>=======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================
> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>> =======================================================
> >>
> >>
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services madeavailable by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
> http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081004/7e7e23a5/attachment-0001.html