Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Craig was kind enough not to restore several of the most disgustingly
offensive messages. Why don't you get on your high horse about that?

What I discovered is that some forum members were cheering Sean Love
in the same way that some Palestinians danced in the streets for
Osama bin Laden on 9/11.

Huh? I never opposed you having a moderated forum. My two objections (or concerns, since I am still unclear about the exact nature of your now defunct project) were to you being able to eliminate posts from before the point the moderation began, and to you being the end-all authority in the new forum, i.e., I hoped Craig would retain at least an ombudsman role there. Yes, I expressed this to Craig in a PM, but that is all I expressed to him. As for you cordoning off a section of the board to play "moderator", I had no problem, especially if Craig retained the power to halt any inevitable egomaniacal tyranny on your part.

Furthermore, whatever my opinion, it was Craig's (and I assume, Neil's) decision to make and apparently Craig unknowingly (at first) had structural differences with your take on matter that seemingly ended the experiment anyway.

Put it all together and I had nothing to do with the demise of your little proposed sideshow. So what gives? I mean, "Osama bin Laden", John? You give me that much credit? Wow, I didn't know I played such a big role in your psyche. Oh, the responsibility I now feel.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Did he get rid of the silliness about you claiming that Silifi was a sock puppet for Sean Love?

Silly. Everyone knows I am actually Brian Rush. Oh, Mustang too.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I mean, "Osama bin Laden", John? You give me that much credit?

Oh no, you misunderstood me. I would never say that a nasty little
Gen-X twirp like you had anywhere near the evil intelligence or
charisma of someone like OBL, or give you any such credit. I was just
making note of your greatest performances and commenting on the
predilections of your collection of wildly enthusiastic admirers who
admire you BECAUSE you're a nasty little Gen-X twirp.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Oh no, you misunderstood me. I would never say that a nasty little
Gen-X twirp like you had anywhere near the evil intelligence or
charisma of someone like OBL, or give you any such credit. I was just
making note of your greatest performances and commenting on the
predilections of your collection of wildly enthusiastic admirers who
admire you BECAUSE you're a nasty little Gen-X twirp.

John

Oh yeah? I have "wildly enthusiastic admirers"? Can they all be from Girls Gone Wild? Please, please.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Oh yeah? I have "wildly enthusiastic admirers"? Can they all be from Girls Gone Wild? Please, please.

Xenakis sounds envious!

BTW, can I have your autograph, dude? :lol:

Originally Posted by The Rani

> A flame war on the admin thread. Kewl.

> If I may be so bold, and risk a scorched ass myself, I don't think
> that being an Xer has anything to do with it. Mr. Love is one of
> the few Xers on this forum, the other of note being Mustang, who
> seems unable to disagree with others, especially others of his own
> generation, without turning it into some kind of personal
> vendetta. He is definitely not typical of our age group.

> So ... take that back!!!

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the nasty little Gen-X twirp is
typical of other Gen-Xers. Heck, I don't even think the nasty little
Gen-X twirp is even typical of other twirps.

John

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you really need it explained to you? Well, I guess you do.

Mr. X. got tired of personal attacks messing up a discussion that he was trying to have. He also realized that this pattern has been prevalent on these forums for a long time now, and he was willing to help out with trying to clean things up a bit. So he gave a bunch of posts the boot, not only written by others but by him in response. Then a buddy of the main abusive poster had a hissy fit, and others joined in on the complaining. The webmaster caved, and ... well ... we now return you to your regular, non-theory-oriented programming.

I used to post on John's thread a few years back since he was the only other one here who had really did a lot of work on this saeculum stuff. I challenged his theory much as I challenged your volcano theory. Being challenged had a different effect on him as it did on you or Bob or Justin and so I gave up posting on his threads. I thought everybody else from back then had thrown in the towel too. I guess not.

I thought participants in the GD thread had shrunk to just he and those who agreed with him. So when he e-mailed me about starting a moderated thread I figured some new guys had come in who didn't agree with him and he wanted to ban them. I figured banning them would save them a lot of frustration, so I didn't have a problem with it.

I now see it some of the old crew. It's clear to me now. Thank you

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> I used to post on John's thread a few years back since he was the
> only other one here who had really did a lot of work on this
> saeculum stuff. I challenged his theory much as I challenged your
> volcano theory. Being challenged had a different effect on him as
> it did on you or Bob or Justin and so I gave up posting on his
> threads. I thought everybody else from back then had thrown in the
> towel too. I guess not.

> I thought participants in the GD thread had shrunk to just he and
> those who agreed with him. So when he e-mailed me about starting a
> moderated thread I figured some new guys had come in who didn't
> agree with him and he wanted to ban them. I figured banning them
> would save them a lot of frustration, so I didn't have a problem
> with it.

> I now see it some of the old crew. It's clear to me now. Thank
> you

I debated you for you years, with hundreds of postings. I took all of
your criticisms seriously, and I made many changes to Generational
Dynamics as a result of them. You've had the greatest effect on
Generational Dynamics of any of the people who have criticized me.

Throughout those hundreds of messages, you always indirectly accused
me of cheating -- cherry picking wars, etc. I mostly ignored those
accusations.

Finally, you kept saying the same things over and over again, making
the same criticisms over and over. At some point it was clear that
you were no longer making serious criticisms, but were simply joining
in and supporting the offensive nonsense from the nasty little Gen-X
twirp.

What I did at that point was to challenge you. I went into your book
and I showed that all your data was inconsistent and slanted. I
pointed to many examples, but the most egregious example was the
1630s, where you taken events that occurred in the 1600s, 1610s and
1640s, and massaged them with your "33 year old rule" to magically
transport them into the 1630s. I also made some specific suggestions
as to how you could change your approach to make your results more
valid, something you didn't want to hear, especially from a Boomer.

THAT'S when you finally quit -- NOT when you were challenging me,
since I had answered all your challenges, but when I started
challenging you for the first time, and you couldn't answer those
challenges. Basically, you didn't want to hear those criticisms, and
since you had nothing new to say anyway, you ran away and sulked
about how you "don't believe" in Generational Dynamics. Since then
you've just been more comfortable talking about politics, where facts
are always irrelevant anyway.

John

Originally Posted by The Rani

... This pattern is what leads to comments such as the one above, where a post of mine is described as a "new low," because I describe another poster as using people on the Internet as a substitute for real friends. Never mind that this very poster has talked about seeing me strangled to death and hoping that another person gets killed in Iraq ... mine is the lower one.

You know, I read all three of the comments you describe, and only yours was more than a rhetorical exercise. I can say I want to strangle someone in his own entrails, and all it means is I'm mad a him. If I was serious of likely to be taken that way, I would expect a visit by a few of the local gendarmes.

By comparison, you meant exactly what you wrote. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... What to do about this? Obviously, there is nobody moderating what people say or setting limits, which has led to this pattern. If that's what the website owners want, then cool. If not, they will need to make some major changes.

Is it reasonable to expect that only on-topic discussion gets posted? Will your posts pass muster? You don't seen very interested in the topics here, only the people on the site. That's OK, by the way, but you mentioned change.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh I don't mind off-topic discussion. What I do mind is an atmosphere of bullying. Ironically, the crew in question does exactly what they accuse Mr. X. of doing, which is hounding anyone who doesn't agree with them to the point that they end up leaving the forum.

The atmosphere of bullying is perpetuated just as much by you continually playing Devil's Advocate during every single discussion.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do you not see the difference between taking a certain viewpoint, even in pretense, and talking about wishing someone dead, even in pretense?

That isn't the point.

If someone is wishing you death, yes, that is an extreme viewpoint and it isn't warranted. However, people don't have those kinds of thoughts for no reason.

Since my several arguments with you, I've had tons of people talk to me about how they dislike you and the way you argue. When it gets to the point of four or five people on the forum hating your guts, who otherwise have no discernable connections, that it has more to do with the atmsophere you're projecting.

The problem is that you aren't taking any viewpoint. You're just going through people's statements, cherry-picking flaps, and then proceeding to tell them that they are stupid and that their opinions are wrong based on a few little things. In only one of my discussions with you have I ever heard you go after the main point of contention. Instead, you pull everything apart into little sideshows, convoluting the discussion, and making it very hard for quite a few people to have a discussion.

Now, I'll admit, that this barrage of hatred against you is not helping the situation, and a lot of the times the frustration from the other end simply perpertuates the situation to worse and worse levels. I've seen this first hand, when I went a bit too far and made condescending statements towards you. That was unwarranted.

However, instead of simply lashing out at the people who have become frustrated with you, why can't you look inward and accept that there is fault on your end, and it's not just *everyone else* that's causing the problem?

I'm certainly willing to admit my faults, and admit that I have caused an escalation of the situation but you seem completely resistant to the idea that you may have caused some of these problems yourself, whether that was inadvertant or not.

However, the fact that people have described their frustrations with your style of discussion to you tends to suggest that you are simply doing this to manipulate and piss people off. That you know exactly what you're doing, and you're choosing to make people mad just for kicks. That's an easy perception for others to arrive at.

If this isn't your intention, then you should at least make an attempt to figure out what you can do to alleviate the tension.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Tension as a result of "playing devil's advocate," if that's what you want to call it, is something that I don't have a problem with at all. It's part of an open discussion, and mature adults should be able to take part in that kind of discourse without feeling a need to share their strangulation fantasies.

I'll also remind you of what I told M&L ... it's not "everyone else" that has a problem with me. It's a select group of a few who certainly are connected to each other, only you haven't been here long enough to know the history behind that.

There are four people who detest you.

At least three others who find you annoying and have chosen just to let it go, but not engage you.

How many people are there that frequent this forum?

Open discussion has a certain tone, and it's a tone you lack. You never submit your own ideas to be taken down. It is impossible to prove anything you say wrong, because your position is so fluid it doesn't really exist. You've essentially devoted yourself towards attacking other people's opinions.

If you're going to champion yourself as the mature adult in the room, then you should open your own views up to criticism.

Originally Posted by Silifi

> If someone is wishing you death, yes, that is an extreme viewpoint
> and it isn't warranted. However, people don't have those kinds of
> thoughts for no reason.

So you're saying that these people have a REASON for wishing to see
Sujatha killed? You are extremely vile. This really crosses a line.
You and the nasty little Gen-X twirp make a good, compatible unit.

Originally Posted by Silifi

> Since my several arguments with you, I've had tons of people talk
> to me about how they dislike you and the way you argue. When it
> gets to the point of four or five people on the forum hating your
> guts, who otherwise have no discernable connections, that it has
> more to do with the atmsophere you're projecting.

If this is really true, then it proves Sujatha's point -- that
there's a really repugnant social clique of people on this forum. No
wonder they were cheering for the nasty little Gen-X twirp. If they're
wishing for Sujatha's death, then I should consider myself lucky they
weren't also wishing for my death -- or maybe they were, given some of
the comments that were posted recently.

There's absolutely no excuse for any of this. Wishing people dead is
really repugnant. I've been in online forums since 1984, and I can't
recall ever seeing anything like this sickness. This is way across
the line, and may even begin to approach criminal behavior.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So you're saying that these people have a REASON for wishing to see
Sujatha killed? You are extremely vile. This really crosses a line.
You and the nasty little Gen-X twirp make a good, compatible unit.

Way to completely misunderstand what I am saying.

I do not condone anyone who gets that mad over an internet forum.

What I'm saying is that people don't get driven to that kind of anger because of nothing. It's an extreme overreaction, but that doesn't mean that it was unprovoked. The response overweighs the grievance, but that doesn't mean the grievance never happened.

Rani doesn't deserve to have people wishing her death, however, she should also look at the fact that there are a lot of people who are reasonably angry with her, and they aren't mad for nothing.

If this is really true, then it proves Sujatha's point -- that
there's a really repugnant social clique of people on this forum. No
wonder they were cheering for the nasty little Gen-X twirp. If they're
wishing for Sujatha's death, then I should consider myself lucky they
weren't also wishing for my death -- or maybe they were, given some of
the comments that were posted recently.

There's absolutely no excuse for any of this. Wishing people dead is
really repugnant. I've been in online forums since 1984, and I can't
recall ever seeing anything like this sickness. This is way across
the line, and may even begin to approach criminal behavior.

John

I agree that wanting people to be dead is sick and evil. I do, however, doubt that anyone literally wants her to die. It's harsh rhetoric, nothing else. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but let's keep our heads on here.

I think the no cursing rule is killing this board. Once upon a time, a simple "f*** you" would have gotten the same point across without much harm.

Originally Posted by Silifi

What I'm saying is that people don't get driven to that kind of
anger because of nothing. It's an extreme overreaction, but that
doesn't mean that it was unprovoked. The response overweighs the
grievance, but that doesn't mean the grievance never happened.

Rani doesn't deserve to have people wishing her death, however,
she should also look at the fact that there are a lot of people
who are reasonably angry with her, and they aren't mad for
nothing.

Look, maybe you don't realize the power of the words you're using
here, but the words you've chosen in effect condone death threats.

We're talking about political discussion on a forum here. This is
just banter. for heavens sake. I don't care if someone is the most
annoying, frustrating person in the world, there's NO justification
whatsoever for a death threat or physical violence in return for
annoying banter. Absolutely none. Period.

And there's no justification for condoning or excusing a death
threat or physical violence. Just don't do it.

John

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I think the no cursing rule is killing this board. Once upon a time, a simple "f*** you" would have gotten the same point across without much harm.

What no cursing rule? Where did you get that? This board has no rules.

John

I'd like to make this announcement to the TFT Social Clique: No
matter how nasty and vile any of you have been, I've never once even
come even remotely close to wishing any of you dead.

John

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's not what he said. He said that he envisioned me being strangled to death by one of my own patients. That strikes me as the words of someone who is very sick and disturbed. Perhaps this is another case where your own assessment of someone else's motivations is skewed. Look at the context. This is a self-admitted "flame warrior," who also self-admittedly wants to beat up on other people as some kind of bizarre revenge for real life events that he has experienced. How can you be so sure that he doesn't actually have such fantasies?

Well, I see that as both rhetorical and a bit hyperbolic, but not a serious desire to have you strangled to death. You tweak people constantly and not everyone can easily blow it off. The ones you pick on the most are the ones least able to put up with the crap. For them not to go all out occasionally would be the more surprising outcome. If I was concerned about this, I'd fear those that appear to ignore your insults and then stop posting altogether.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... Oh I don't mind off-topic discussion. What I do mind is an atmosphere of bullying. Ironically, the crew in question does exactly what they accuse Mr. X. of doing, which is hounding anyone who doesn't agree with them to the point that they end up leaving the forum.

I wasn't expecting you to moderate. Are you willing to accept moderation by others? Personally, I don't do well with a nanny, and I said as much as the beginning of this thread. You seem to be OK with it, which surprises me no end.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I think the no cursing rule is killing this board. Once upon a time, a simple "f*** you" would have gotten the same point across without much harm.

A voice of reason.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Look, maybe you don't realize the power of the words you're using here, but the words you've chosen in effect condone death threats.

We're talking about political discussion on a forum here. This is just banter. for heavens sake. I don't care if someone is the most annoying, frustrating person in the world, there's NO justification whatsoever for a death threat or physical violence in return for annoying banter. Absolutely none. Period.

And there's no justification for condoning or excusing a death threat or physical violence. Just don't do it.

John

<RANT_IN_2/4_TIME>
If any actual death threats have been issued, then you are absolutely right. If the comments are so much hot air being blown off, then no, it's not important.

I've criticized others here for going overboard at times, and have taken a round or two myself. I've criticized a few folks that are typically in my camp, and they, me. I've never had anything to say to or about you, since I've basically ignored you on the forum. You have done the same with me: no fault, no foul. I have engaged Suj on many occasions and have not felt constrained in whatever I might write. She doesn't seem to have any compunctions, either.

But there are more than a few folks here that do not do well with continuing assaults. It should be obvious who takes this stuff personally, and who doesn't care one way or the other. We all need to agree ... and I do mean all ... that we are not here simply to beat each other to a bloody pulp in an overheated debating contest. Sometimes the discussion needs to terminate with "we'll have to disagree", and we move on. But that has to be mutual, or this will just arise again.

There also needs to be a real effort to not act like we are personlly being raked over the coals. That's harder than not going after someone else, but it needs to be in the mix. Apparently, we all have folks that don't like us here.

There's plenty of space to post what you wish; use the Ignore funciton if that helps.
</RANT_IN_2/4_TIME>

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Look, maybe you don't realize the power of the words you're using
here, but the words you've chosen in effect condone death threats.

Uh, how is that?

I'm pretty sure I made myself very clear when I said:

"I don't condone it."

Anything else that you're inferring from my statements is your own imagination.

We're talking about political discussion on a forum here. This is
just banter. for heavens sake. I don't care if someone is the most
annoying, frustrating person in the world, there's NO justification
whatsoever for a death threat or physical violence in return for
annoying banter. Absolutely none. Period.

Yes, and I agree with you. However, you cannot tell me that there is no reason that they are angry. There is such a thing as an *overreaction.* That doesn't mean that there is nothing to be reacted to.

And there's no justification for condoning or excusing a death
threat or physical violence. Just don't do it.

John

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not condone, and I explicitly said that I don't condone it.

I must have missed something. What death threats? Would someone be kind enough to find the exact quote or quotes? I do not remember seeing anything like that, but then again, when I get overloaded at work and home I can disappear from this board for weeks at a time.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Rani

> And, back to the reality vs pretend question, like it would even
> matter but apparently some people seem to think that it does. The
> comment directed towards Chris involved him returning to Iraq, and
> the one about me involved a violent patient. Both are very REAL
> scenarios that could very well happen in our respective lives, and
> the one who made the comments was well aware of this.

And that's exactly why these death threats, and condoning and
excusing such death threats, comes very close to criminal behavior.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> I've criticized others here for going overboard at times, and have
> taken a round or two myself. I've criticized a few folks that are
> typically in my camp, and they, me. I've never had anything to say
> to or about you, since I've basically ignored you on the forum.
> You have done the same with me: no fault, no foul. I have engaged
> Suj on many occasions and have not felt constrained in whatever I
> might write. She doesn't seem to have any compunctions, either.

> But there are more than a few folks here that do not do well with
> continuing assaults. It should be obvious who takes this stuff
> personally, and who doesn't care one way or the other. We all need
> to agree ... and I do mean all ... that we are not here simply to
> beat each other to a bloody pulp in an overheated debating
> contest. Sometimes the discussion needs to terminate with "we'll
> have to disagree", and we move on. But that has to be mutual, or
> this will just arise again.

I appreciate what you're saying here, and I thank you for it.

But you're describing behavior in yourself (and in me, for that
matter) that apparently is not typical of the people on this board in
a certain group.

As I understand it, there have been at least two of these death
threats, with no action taken by the system administrator, and with
no objections from the other people in the conversation (the "TFT
social clique"). There's a real sickness on this board. This has
absolutely got to stop before someone gets REALLY hurt.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

... As I understand it, there have been at least two of these death threats, with no action taken by the system administrator, and with no objections from the other people in the conversation (the "TFT social clique"). There's a real sickness on this board. This has absolutely got to stop before someone gets REALLY hurt.

John

Wally (Pink Splice) writes his own FanFic and developes RPGs. In short, he is a creative. Assuming that what you see is actually reality is only supportable if you can show cause to believe that the post was something other than hyperbole. To me, that's how it read at the time, and it still does. I understand that those of less creative bent may see this as some sort of cyber-threat, but the reference to House is a tip-off. It's fantasy ... and that's all it is.

Now if you want to argue bad taste, you might have a solid point ...