This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> My Conscience wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But...are you posting in any other threads? I wouldn't know.
>>>>>>>> You see the dilemma here.
>>>>>>> Well, it's not a dilemma for me. Most of the posts in auk go
>>>>>>> straight into my bit bucket anyway.
>>>>>> So I take it all your answers refer to AUK when you say things
>>>>>> like "here," "this group," et al?
>>>>> Not exactly. I'm currently subscribed to nearly 50 groups (divided
>>>>> among 7 different servers).
>>>> This is one of the things I'm talking about. You say things like
>>>> "here" when you're posting to multiple groups, yet expect someone
>>>> to know which "here" you mean. I don't see why you do that.
>> No answer?
>
> I blew by it the first time.

Whether you saw it as unimportant or whether you found the thought of
answering uncomfortable does make a difference.

> How about instead of being such a trolling hairsplitter, you just take
> "here" to mean alt.*

I presume there are more than 50 groups in the alt.* hierarchy on yours
news server, yet you still dodge away from the question about how I am
supposed to know which ones you are referring to, or which ones you are
subscribed to. You may believe in mind reading but I am not, generally,
so inclined.

> Or, if you want to be more specific, you can
> interpret "here" to mean "in one or more of the groups set forth in the
> groups line."

So some place like talk.answers or misc.misc might be more amenable to you?

>>>>>>>>> Of course, if
>>>>>>>>> you were right here in my living room, I might try to fit you
>>>>>>>>> for a ball gag.
>>>>>>>> Promises, promises. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a Valentine's Day this might have been!
>>>>> lol
>>>> !0!
>
> No answer here, either. Please try not to take offense.

None taken. Of course, here I was not asking you to clarify yourself.

>>>>>>> I have no problem having the discussion. I just won't have the
>>>>>>> discussion in any of these groups or any groups like them.
>>>>>> Bearing in mind that, no matter where they happen, someone else is
>>>>>> likely to see them, I don't know as I think that gains you much in
>>>>>> the way of non-interruption, but OK.
>>>>> I don't know of anyone here who has the energy or motivation to
>>>>> stalk such a conversation.
>>>> So why do you object to having that discussion "here," as you say?
>>> It's even worse than that. I also object to having the discussion
>>> about why I object to having the discussion.
>> This all sounds terribly fraught with mystery to me.
>
> I don't want to talk about it. You're the one making a ruckus over
> someone saying, "I choose not to discuss this in the here and now."

I'm making a ruckus over the manner in which claim to be saying it.

> If it's a mystery, it's because you've made it one.

Remember, I cannot read your mind.

>>>>>>>>> Unless of course you were trying to control me by wearing me
>>>>>>>>> down with repetition.
>>>>>>>> I trust you see now that that is not in fact my raison d'etre.
>>>>>>> I just threw that in for laughs.
>>>>>> It's always funny until someone loses an eye.
>>>>> This is usenet; nothing here is real.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I don't really believe that, btw.)
>>>> Then outing shouldn't be a problem. ;-)
>>> It seems not to be except to the extent that the "rule" against it is
>>> paid lip-service.
>> Who do you think outs people while decrying the outing of people? Or
>> is this something you'll also not discuss "here," wherever that is,
>> but will in some other public on-topic Usenet group where no one will
>> bother to stalk the thread?
>
> Google for it. Lionel posting Mike's name, address and bar number with a
> link to the Washington State Bar website and encouraging people to
> report him (for what, I'm not sure) comes to mind.

That sounds like a bad thing to do, unless there were extenuating
circumstances. I take it there weren't?

> How many examples do I need to give you before you stop asking for
> examples? Isn't just one blatant outing from a "core kookologist"
> sufficient?

It's enough to show there is one bad one; that hardly indicts the entire
body. If you could show that half or more of them do it, then you'd be
on to something.

>>>>>>> Never forget where you are. Nothing you read in these groups
>>>>>>> should be taken as truth or taken to heart.
>>>>>> Or taken as false, either. Every post, like every person, must be
>>>>>> judged on its own merits.
>>>>> Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often "here."
>>>> It is the sad part of life that many things which should happen
>>>> don't, and vice versa; but that does not free us from trying to do
>>>> the right thing anyway.
>>> Some of us, not all of us.
>>>
>>> Or were you speaking idealistically?
>> Well, both, actually. When I say each post must be judged on its own
>> merits, I do not mean that each post must be taken as a monad. The
>> poster's reputation influences the weight one should assign a given
>> post, but that weight should not blind you to obvious problems in an
>> otherwise reputable poster's missive.
>
> But it seems to happen anyway. I wonder why.

Humans are never entirely predicable or consistent. But they all have
motivations for what they do.

>>>>>>>>> Trust you?
>>>>>>>> "You can believe it or not, just as you choose."
>>>>>>>> --Doctor Judd, "The Seventh Victim"
>>>>>>> This is auk. Nothing here is believable.
>>>>>> I wouldn't say that. Rather, it has its own set of criteria for
>>>>>> judging verisimilitude, none of which necessarily intersect the
>>>>>> non-Usenet world.
>>>>> A lot of it intersects the "non-Usenet world," but the party line
>>>>> would have it that this is role-playing, nothing more.
>>>> Which party would that be?
>>> The one that does not exist, of course.
>> As I was going up the stair
>> I met a man who wasn't there
>> He wasn't there again today
>> O how I wish he'd go away!
>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, dear. I did not mean to imply that I think you're
>>>>>>>>> simple.
>>>>>>>> One wonders what a true census would produce. I might not be
>>>>>>>> reading the proper sample of threads, but it seems to me that
>>>>>>>> most AUK posters are complex, if abundantly varied in personal
>>>>>>>> magnetism. lol
>>>>>>> Further deponent sayeth not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Complexity doth not always imply intelligence.
>>>>> It is often an indication of an intractable character disorder.
>>>> What is--complexity or intelligence?
>>> Complexity.
>> That's the first time I've ever heard someone make that assertion.
>
> You must not get out much.

Feel free to shower me with widely-distributed sources of that
particular assertion, such that the well-traveled person will nod
knowingly upon hearing it.

>>> Although I must admit that the vast majority of the
>>> character disordered I've run into appeared to be quite bright.
>> Present company included, though I believe I referred to you as
>> emotionally disturbed, while still acknowledging your obvious
>> intelligence.
>
> Well, a psychologist with many years of experience disagrees with your
> assessment. Shall I trust his diagnosis or yours?

I'm not diagnosing you. I'm commenting on what I see in your posts.

> Actually, though, I am kinda wonky mentally right now. That's not
> emotional disturbance, but high TSH, which means I'm having an acute
> episode of low thyroid. What it does to my brain is disheartening, but
> the (new) doctor wouldn't listen to what I (and my records) had to say,
> so I'm not as coherent as I should be.

I'm not in any hurry. Take as much time as you need to feel coherent
again before answering.

> It's still not emotional disturbance, but something akin to mild
> dementia.

Sounds anywhere from oneours to disturbing. I hope that you feel better
soon.

>> Personally, I see a greater link between emotional
>> disturbance and intelligence than I do between complexity and
>> character disorder.
>
> If you say so.

I do. In fact, I have several times.

> But you have diagnosed me over the internet, and, based on a
> professional assessment, you were wrong, so why should I take your word
> without some kind of proof?

What I profer is not a medical diagnosis, it is a statement of the
feeling I get from the posts of yours that I have read. I read your
posts because I find them intriguing.

>>>>>> I give you the
>>>>>> ramblings of nearly any VVF award-winner as an example.
>>>>> <veer> On the other hand, most VVF winners are pretty harmless,
>>>>> and I seen no reason why their delusional thinking should get a
>>>>> further boost by providing a wall against which they might throw
>>>>> themselves.
>>>> Derision is hardly a boost, and the awards are not handed out for
>>>> the consideration of the awardee.
>>> Any kind of attention is good attention to a crazy person. No matter
>>> the reason for the awards, they're still a moment in the spotlight.
>> If that's true, then the awards are actually a form of kindness. I
>> don't necessarily think it is true, though, that crazy people find any
>> attention good--only the right sort, which can be negative at times
>> even while not all negative attention is seen as good.
>
> <sigh>

Should I take that as disagreement?

>>>>> It is commonly understood that history is replete with genuises who
>>>>> were neither understood nor revered in their own time. How easy to
>>>>> tell oneself, then, that kook awards are just more evidence of this
>>>>> in one's own case?
>>>> I would counter that for every unsung genius, there were cornucopias
>>>> of madmen who thought themselves unsung genii
>>> That was cute.
>> The fact that you caught it denotes your intelligence.
>
> No it doesn't.

Sure it does--unless someone else pointed it out to you.

> You know nothing about me, and as far as I'm concerned, this
> conversation has gone over the line.

I don't pretend to know anything about you. I comment on what I see in
your Usenet posts. Presumably you wouldn't post them if you didn't want
them to be read.

>>>> and would not be
>>>> dissuaded of that even when their kooky theories were torn apart
>>>> with unassailable logic.
>>> Ah, so we wish to make them recant?
>> No, we wish to make sure others do not fall for their pseudo-logic.
>> For kookiness such as perpetual motion machines, there is no overt
>> harm except where investors lose money; but when medical kookery is
>> promulgated it becomes even more important to debunk it quickly and
>> forcefully.
>
> Only if you're a doctor.

One does not have to be a doctor to debunk medical kookery. One only
has to be conversant with where to find the evidence that torpedoes the
quackery in question.

> And you're certainly not doing very well as a shrink.

Or as a nuclear scientist, either; but then, I don't claim to be.

>>>> Show me a single VVF award winner who has had their theory become
>>>> accepted in any scientific arena.
>>> Not until at least one hundred years after they die. That's how it
>>> works with kooky theories, remember?
>> But not with those promoted by real, if unsung, geniuses. This is one
>> way they can be sieved from one another with great, if not perfect,
>> accuracy; and the abundance of antiquarian theories which remain kooky
>> to this day (such as the hollow earth) far outstrip in quantity the
>> occasional before-its-time one (such as the extraterrestrial origin of
>> meteorites).
>
> I guess it's the exception that proves the rule or something.

Unfortunately, every quack thinks they are the exception, but none of
them are; and it is their failure to learn from history that, in part,
makes them kooks.

> Sheesh.
>

My Conscience wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> My Conscience wrote:
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>>>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But...are you posting in any other threads? I wouldn't know.
>>>>>>>>> You see the dilemma here.
>>>>>>>> Well, it's not a dilemma for me. Most of the posts in auk go
>>>>>>>> straight into my bit bucket anyway.
>>>>>>> So I take it all your answers refer to AUK when you say things
>>>>>>> like "here," "this group," et al?
>>>>>> Not exactly. I'm currently subscribed to nearly 50 groups
>>>>>> (divided among 7 different servers).
>>>>> This is one of the things I'm talking about. You say things like
>>>>> "here" when you're posting to multiple groups, yet expect someone
>>>>> to know which "here" you mean. I don't see why you do that.
>>> No answer?
>>
>> I blew by it the first time.
>
> Whether you saw it as unimportant or whether you found the thought of
> answering uncomfortable does make a difference.
>
>> How about instead of being such a trolling hairsplitter, you just
>> take "here" to mean alt.*
>
> I presume there are more than 50 groups in the alt.* hierarchy on
> yours news server, yet you still dodge away from the question about
> how I am supposed to know which ones you are referring to, or which
> ones you are subscribed to. You may believe in mind reading but I am
> not, generally, so inclined.
>
>> Or, if you want to be more specific, you can
>> interpret "here" to mean "in one or more of the groups set forth in
>> the groups line."
>
> So some place like talk.answers or misc.misc might be more amenable
> to you?
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if
>>>>>>>>>> you were right here in my living room, I might try to fit you
>>>>>>>>>> for a ball gag.
>>>>>>>>> Promises, promises. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What a Valentine's Day this might have been!
>>>>>> lol
>>>>> !0!
>>
>> No answer here, either. Please try not to take offense.
>
> None taken. Of course, here I was not asking you to clarify yourself.
>
>>>>>>>> I have no problem having the discussion. I just won't have the
>>>>>>>> discussion in any of these groups or any groups like them.
>>>>>>> Bearing in mind that, no matter where they happen, someone else
>>>>>>> is likely to see them, I don't know as I think that gains you
>>>>>>> much in the way of non-interruption, but OK.
>>>>>> I don't know of anyone here who has the energy or motivation to
>>>>>> stalk such a conversation.
>>>>> So why do you object to having that discussion "here," as you say?
>>>> It's even worse than that. I also object to having the discussion
>>>> about why I object to having the discussion.
>>> This all sounds terribly fraught with mystery to me.
>>
>> I don't want to talk about it. You're the one making a ruckus over
>> someone saying, "I choose not to discuss this in the here and now."
>
> I'm making a ruckus over the manner in which claim to be saying it.
>
>> If it's a mystery, it's because you've made it one.
>
> Remember, I cannot read your mind.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless of course you were trying to control me by wearing me
>>>>>>>>>> down with repetition.
>>>>>>>>> I trust you see now that that is not in fact my raison d'etre.
>>>>>>>> I just threw that in for laughs.
>>>>>>> It's always funny until someone loses an eye.
>>>>>> This is usenet; nothing here is real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I don't really believe that, btw.)
>>>>> Then outing shouldn't be a problem. ;-)
>>>> It seems not to be except to the extent that the "rule" against it
>>>> is paid lip-service.
>>> Who do you think outs people while decrying the outing of people? Or
>>> is this something you'll also not discuss "here," wherever that
>>> is, but will in some other public on-topic Usenet group where no
>>> one will bother to stalk the thread?
>>
>> Google for it. Lionel posting Mike's name, address and bar number
>> with a link to the Washington State Bar website and encouraging
>> people to report him (for what, I'm not sure) comes to mind.
>
> That sounds like a bad thing to do, unless there were extenuating
> circumstances. I take it there weren't?
>
>> How many examples do I need to give you before you stop asking for
>> examples? Isn't just one blatant outing from a "core kookologist"
>> sufficient?
>
> It's enough to show there is one bad one; that hardly indicts the
> entire body. If you could show that half or more of them do it, then
> you'd be on to something.
>
>>>>>>>> Never forget where you are. Nothing you read in these groups
>>>>>>>> should be taken as truth or taken to heart.
>>>>>>> Or taken as false, either. Every post, like every person, must
>>>>>>> be judged on its own merits.
>>>>>> Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often "here."
>>>>> It is the sad part of life that many things which should happen
>>>>> don't, and vice versa; but that does not free us from trying to do
>>>>> the right thing anyway.
>>>> Some of us, not all of us.
>>>>
>>>> Or were you speaking idealistically?
>>> Well, both, actually. When I say each post must be judged on its
>>> own merits, I do not mean that each post must be taken as a monad.
>>> The poster's reputation influences the weight one should assign a
>>> given post, but that weight should not blind you to obvious
>>> problems in an otherwise reputable poster's missive.
>>
>> But it seems to happen anyway. I wonder why.
>
> Humans are never entirely predicable or consistent. But they all have
> motivations for what they do.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Trust you?
>>>>>>>>> "You can believe it or not, just as you choose."
>>>>>>>>> --Doctor Judd, "The Seventh Victim"
>>>>>>>> This is auk. Nothing here is believable.
>>>>>>> I wouldn't say that. Rather, it has its own set of criteria for
>>>>>>> judging verisimilitude, none of which necessarily intersect the
>>>>>>> non-Usenet world.
>>>>>> A lot of it intersects the "non-Usenet world," but the party line
>>>>>> would have it that this is role-playing, nothing more.
>>>>> Which party would that be?
>>>> The one that does not exist, of course.
>>> As I was going up the stair
>>> I met a man who wasn't there
>>> He wasn't there again today
>>> O how I wish he'd go away!
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, dear. I did not mean to imply that I think you're
>>>>>>>>>> simple.
>>>>>>>>> One wonders what a true census would produce. I might not be
>>>>>>>>> reading the proper sample of threads, but it seems to me that
>>>>>>>>> most AUK posters are complex, if abundantly varied in personal
>>>>>>>>> magnetism. lol
>>>>>>>> Further deponent sayeth not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Complexity doth not always imply intelligence.
>>>>>> It is often an indication of an intractable character disorder.
>>>>> What is--complexity or intelligence?
>>>> Complexity.
>>> That's the first time I've ever heard someone make that assertion.
>>
>> You must not get out much.
>
> Feel free to shower me with widely-distributed sources of that
> particular assertion, such that the well-traveled person will nod
> knowingly upon hearing it.
>
>>>> Although I must admit that the vast majority of the
>>>> character disordered I've run into appeared to be quite bright.
>>> Present company included, though I believe I referred to you as
>>> emotionally disturbed, while still acknowledging your obvious
>>> intelligence.
>>
>> Well, a psychologist with many years of experience disagrees with
>> your assessment. Shall I trust his diagnosis or yours?
>
> I'm not diagnosing you. I'm commenting on what I see in your posts.
>
>> Actually, though, I am kinda wonky mentally right now. That's not
>> emotional disturbance, but high TSH, which means I'm having an acute
>> episode of low thyroid. What it does to my brain is disheartening,
>> but the (new) doctor wouldn't listen to what I (and my records) had
>> to say, so I'm not as coherent as I should be.
>
> I'm not in any hurry. Take as much time as you need to feel coherent
> again before answering.

We're done here.

>> It's still not emotional disturbance, but something akin to mild
>> dementia.
>
> Sounds anywhere from oneours to disturbing. I hope that you feel
> better soon.
>
>>> Personally, I see a greater link between emotional
>>> disturbance and intelligence than I do between complexity and
>>> character disorder.
>>
>> If you say so.
>
> I do. In fact, I have several times.
>
>> But you have diagnosed me over the internet, and, based on a
>> professional assessment, you were wrong, so why should I take your
>> word without some kind of proof?
>
> What I profer is not a medical diagnosis, it is a statement of the
> feeling I get from the posts of yours that I have read. I read your
> posts because I find them intriguing.
>
>>>>>>> I give you the
>>>>>>> ramblings of nearly any VVF award-winner as an example.
>>>>>> <veer> On the other hand, most VVF winners are pretty harmless,
>>>>>> and I seen no reason why their delusional thinking should get a
>>>>>> further boost by providing a wall against which they might throw
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>> Derision is hardly a boost, and the awards are not handed out for
>>>>> the consideration of the awardee.
>>>> Any kind of attention is good attention to a crazy person. No
>>>> matter the reason for the awards, they're still a moment in the
>>>> spotlight.
>>> If that's true, then the awards are actually a form of kindness. I
>>> don't necessarily think it is true, though, that crazy people find
>>> any attention good--only the right sort, which can be negative at
>>> times even while not all negative attention is seen as good.
>>
>> <sigh>
>
> Should I take that as disagreement?
>
>>>>>> It is commonly understood that history is replete with genuises
>>>>>> who were neither understood nor revered in their own time. How
>>>>>> easy to tell oneself, then, that kook awards are just more
>>>>>> evidence of this in one's own case?
>>>>> I would counter that for every unsung genius, there were
>>>>> cornucopias of madmen who thought themselves unsung genii
>>>> That was cute.
>>> The fact that you caught it denotes your intelligence.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> Sure it does--unless someone else pointed it out to you.
>
>> You know nothing about me, and as far as I'm concerned, this
>> conversation has gone over the line.
>
> I don't pretend to know anything about you. I comment on what I see
> in your Usenet posts. Presumably you wouldn't post them if you
> didn't want them to be read.
>
>>>>> and would not be
>>>>> dissuaded of that even when their kooky theories were torn apart
>>>>> with unassailable logic.
>>>> Ah, so we wish to make them recant?
>>> No, we wish to make sure others do not fall for their pseudo-logic.
>>> For kookiness such as perpetual motion machines, there is no overt
>>> harm except where investors lose money; but when medical kookery is
>>> promulgated it becomes even more important to debunk it quickly and
>>> forcefully.
>>
>> Only if you're a doctor.
>
> One does not have to be a doctor to debunk medical kookery. One only
> has to be conversant with where to find the evidence that torpedoes
> the quackery in question.
>
>> And you're certainly not doing very well as a shrink.
>
> Or as a nuclear scientist, either; but then, I don't claim to be.
>
>>>>> Show me a single VVF award winner who has had their theory become
>>>>> accepted in any scientific arena.
>>>> Not until at least one hundred years after they die. That's how it
>>>> works with kooky theories, remember?
>>> But not with those promoted by real, if unsung, geniuses. This is
>>> one way they can be sieved from one another with great, if not
>>> perfect, accuracy; and the abundance of antiquarian theories which
>>> remain kooky to this day (such as the hollow earth) far outstrip in
>>> quantity the occasional before-its-time one (such as the
>>> extraterrestrial origin of meteorites).
>>
>> I guess it's the exception that proves the rule or something.
>
> Unfortunately, every quack thinks they are the exception, but none of
> them are; and it is their failure to learn from history that, in part,
> makes them kooks.
>
>> Sheesh.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk


Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity...

....but keep your eyes open. Robert A. Heinlein

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

> We're done here.

How about misc.misc, then?