Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> Wally (Pink Splice) writes his own FanFic
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanfic) and developes RPGs
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_%28Game%29). 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
> ...

OK, let's grant that it was pure fantasy. Let's grant that he's a
really funny guy and that it was a joke.

Let's also grant that he's a really nice guy, and would never even
hurt a flea, let alone a person. Let's grant that he gives 90% of
his income to charities that help orphaned children around the world.
Let's grant that he's wonderful in every possible way.

You still don't make death threats. And you still don't tolerate
death threats.

It's like checking in at the airport and saying, "I've got a bomb.
Just kidding, ha, ha, ha!" Even if you're the greatest standup
comedian in the world, they'll still lock you up for a while.

John

The comments were over the top, and I told Wally so at the time.

Look, we can all keep recycling old grievances against each other ad infinitum, but I don't think it's going to be a very fruitful exchange. For my part, I'm going to count to at least five hundred before I post anything in anger again, because most of the time it is not going to be helpful.

There are some people here with whom I have become so frustrated that I just don't want to communicate with them anymore, so they are on "ignore." It is my choice to do so in accordance to how I want to experience the forum, and I accept that I may miss something important or interesting along the line, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.

If I can cut down my own snarky/unhelpful remarks by using "Ignore," I think the forum will be better off.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

OK, let's grant that it was pure fantasy. Let's grant that he's a really funny guy and that it was a joke.

Let's also grant that he's a really nice guy, and would never even hurt a flea, let alone a person. Let's grant that he gives 90% of his income to charities that help orphaned children around the world. Let's grant that he's wonderful in every possible way.

You still don't make death threats. And you still don't tolerate death threats.

It's like checking in at the airport and saying, "I've got a bomb. Just kidding, ha, ha, ha!" Even if you're the greatest standup comedian in the world, they'll still lock you up for a while.

John

H-m-m-m. I can make jokes about bombs in my luggage over beers on my dock, and it has no impact. At the airport, different story. What crosses the line?

Apply the same logic the criminal justice system uses; they expect to see some cause for concern. Here is a typical path of inquiry:

• Was the threat explicit or implicit?
• If implicit, then why should it be considered serious?
• Has the person making the implied threat stalked you or imposed him/herself on you?
• If not, has the person done anything else that contributes to the feeling that the threat was intended as serious?
• If so, what?
• Were these actions explicit or implicit? ... and so on

This can go on for a long time, but eventually, there has to be something credible that makes a comment or action dangerous, and I can't see one here. Merely claiming that its creepy or frightening is, at most, a basis for a constraining order. Even then, the constraint is limited to the seriousness the situation is perceived to present to a neutral observer.

Does any of this pass that standard? If so, then it should be pursued. If not then an accommodation needs to be reached. FWIW, there is plenty of blame to go around, so fault should be assumed ... by all. Threat, on the other hand, should not. I'm not sure how a constraining order would be imposed on an Internet Forum, in any case. I guess we can start excising anyone that we find unacceptalbe, but then, the forum is likely to become totally useless as some are expelled and others just leave in a huff. If we go that way, the last one out should turn off the server.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

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

Cherry picking is not cheating if you are unaware of it. And you were certainly unaware of it.

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.

And I took your criticisms to heart and redid my analysis, much more carefully. And I learned that with better control over the data (designed to remove unsconsicous cherry-picking on my part) all the correlations became statistically insignifcant. I reported this conclusion on your thread on 30 May 2007.

So I dropped the project because the method I chose doesn't work, and I was honest enough to admit that it doesn't. There are no statistically significant correlations between the saeculum and any other cycle that I could find. That is, unlike the findings I had earlier published, there is no valid empirical support for the existence of the saeculum . The same goes for the Kondratieff cycle, war cycles, political cycles or any of the other cycles I have studied with the sole exception of the Stock Cycle, the very first one I published on. And predictions based on that cycle (and none of the others) are the only ones that have actually come true.

My view now is the saeculum isn't real because after years of trying to obtain objective, statistically valid evidence that it exists, I found none.

There are correlations that look intriguing when viewed on the surface, but none of them stand up to rigorous tests.

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

The Fourthturning Community is in a 3T heading for a Crises of it's own. If you notice it does seem that most of the remaining activity in this forum is being sucked into non generational matters. Many of the other catagories have activity that only occurs every few days, while threads such as this one (and formally the politics 2008) are really the only active ones with a post made every 15 minutes or less.

I agree that something has to be done. And when Craig does it, it won't be pretty and may cause a lot of people to end up leaving.

You are creating controversy where none exists. Try doing a jigsaw puzzle or maybe some home or auto repairs. Start collecting coins or stamps....

This is still the best advice I've ever seen for self-moderation on the Internet:

The Mannerly Art of Disagreement

Originally Posted by The Rani

... This isn't just a one-time loss of temper, or a nice guy with a sense of humor. It's a pattern that repeats itself over and over again on this forum. Moreover, Chris did a little research, when we were both wondering if we actually might be in danger from this creep, and discovered that he had been booted off at least one other forum for similar outbursts.

OK, so what do you intend to do about it? If you have a case, then make it with someone that matters. I can't speak for Wally, and wouldn't even if asked. There's a reason I'm not a lawyer.

You are claiming offense, so asking for redress is technically up to you. If a defense needs to be offered, that's up to Wally. I only gave you my impression, which you reject.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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 ...

There's a difference between fantasy violence embedded within an artistic context (fiction, video-games, roleplaying games) and violent fantasies embedded within a real-world context (personal or public communications). That distinction, the one between fantasy and reality, is a big bright line that most genuine "creatives" recognize and avoid crossing.

What actually happened in this particular case was that Pink Splice got pissed off by something that The Rani wrote, and in a fit of anger he fired off a graphically detailed "fantasy" about her brutal and violent death at the hands of a murderer. Pink Splice didn't do this in his capacity as an author or a gaming enthusiast, he did it in his capacity as a poster to the forums. What's more important (and far more troubling) is that he turned The Rani, who is a living breathing person, into an unwilling participant in his violent and misogynistic fantasy.

When you get right down to it, that's jacked up.

Does this make it a "threat"? No. But Pink Splice's temper-tantrum brain-fart does offer an unfiltered view of what goes on in his head when The Rani pisses him off, and it's downright creepy.

The bottom line, Chris, is that she hasn't stopped tweaking him even after all this time, which shows me that she doesn't feel all that threatened.

Rather, it's either a game or drama. Or both.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

There's a difference between fantasy violence embedded within an artistic context (fiction, video-games, role-playing games) and violent fantasies embedded within a real-world context (personal or public communications). That distinction, the one between fantasy and reality, is a big bright line that most genuine "creatives" recognize and avoid crossing.

OK, but not really true, as you well know. Creatives are the most tragic types. A friend who was probably the best musician I'll ever meet also had more social issues and personal problems too. Sensitivity, passion and creativity are tightly linked ... at least in some people.

Originally Posted by Semo

... What actually happened in this particular case was that Pink Splice got pissed off by something that The Rani wrote, and in a fit of anger he fired off a graphically detailed "fantasy" about her brutal and violent death at the hands of a murderer. Pink Splice didn't do this in his capacity as an author or a gaming enthusiast, he did it in his capacity as a poster to the forums. What's more important (and far more troubling) is that he turned The Rani, who is a living breathing person, into an unwilling participant in his violent and misogynistic fantasy.

Let's be honest. Most of us have at least a semblance of anonymity on this board. I know your name and the city where you live. I wouldn't recognize you if I was standing next to you. Even the people that post photos are still ghosts in the machine. If we meet IRL, then we can claim personal connection or repulsion, if that applies. As it stands, we're disembodied avatars, without the luxury of a faux shape to stand behind. If you threaten Marx & Lennon or M&L, my alter ego takes the hit. I go to bed.

Originally Posted by Semo

... When you get right down to it, that's jacked up.

Does this make it a "threat"? No. But Pink Splice's temper-tantrum brain-fart does offer an unfiltered view of what goes on in his head when The Rani pisses him off, and it's downright creepy.

The Rani has that effect on many people on the board, so picking Wally out as an example is illustrative but only in a representational way. I think the one thing that works most strongly against Suj is the whole shrink-thing. Expectations and reality don't align very well. I don't' have that problem since an old friend from childhood is a shrink with plenty of issues of her own. It feels normal to me.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The bottom line, Chris, is that she hasn't stopped tweaking him even after all this time, which shows me that she doesn't feel all that threatened.

Rather, it's either a game or drama. Or both.

I'll vote for both and move on.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The bottom line, Chris, is that she hasn't stopped tweaking him even after all this time, which shows me that she doesn't feel all that threatened.

Rather, it's either a game or drama. Or both.

Out of curiosity, what should The Rani be doing to demonstrate that she feels threatened? Should she build a panic room and lock the door? Arm herself? Go into hiding? Even if she believes that Pink Splice is potentially dangerous (and I take her at her word that she does), there's not much that she can actually do besides inform the moderator and hope that he takes action, and I'm pretty sure that she has done that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, but not really true, as you well know. Creatives are the most tragic types. A friend who was probably the best musician I'll ever meet also had more social issues and personal problems too. Sensitivity, passion and creativity are tightly linked ... at least in some people.

I agree completely that sensitivity, passion, and creativity are tightly linked and that artists are frequently tragic figures. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Stephen King writes stories in which people meet horrific ends, but he doesn't write notes to his debate opponents describing the horrible deaths that he imagines for them. Generally, artists working in media in which we can talk meaningfully about fantasy violence don't cross that bright line I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's be honest. Most of us have at least a semblance of anonymity on this board. I know your name and the city where you live. I wouldn't recognize you if I was standing next to you. Even the people that post photos are still ghosts in the machine. If we meet IRL, then we can claim personal connection or repulsion, if that applies. As it stands, we're disembodied avatars, without the luxury of a faux shape to stand behind. If you threaten Marx & Lennon or M&L, my alter ego takes the hit. I go to bed.

While I can appreciate the fact that some people see the forum as a kind of roleplaying game where they can live out their fantasies, I don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The Rani has that effect on many people on the board, so picking Wally out as an example is illustrative but only in a representational way.

Who else among this group of "many people" has crossed the line that Pink Splice did in his post? To the best of my knowledge, nobody else has. If these "many people" have misogynistic fantasies about her violent demise, they've kept it to themselves so far. Pink Splice is unique in that he has not kept his fantasy to himself.

Actually, he's unique in a bunch of ways. He's the only poster I'm aware of who has stated an explicit desire to drive other posters from the forums. (And he has been successful to some degree.) The only one I'm aware of who posts an endless stream of vanity threads that clutter up the forums and drive older (usually more substantive threads) to the bottom. (Note that he himself has stated that he does this to get back at the people who have wronged him throughout his life, very few of whom seem to post here.) The only one that I'm aware of who had the incredible bad taste to use Bill Strauss' death as the lead-in to a slam against another forum member (in this case, me). The only one to attempt to get around someone else's use of the Ignore function by inserting that poster's real name into thread titles. And one of the only posters who puts people on Ignore and then continues to talk to or about those he is Ignoring. (Full disclosure: I had Pink Splice on Ignore for a while, but since I've begun talking about him, I've taken him off. It's only fair.)

When he enters into discussions about The Theory, it's frequently to attack other posters. When he enters into discussions about politics, it's frequently to attack other posters. When he enters into discussions about roleplaying games, it's frequently to attack other posters. Actually, when he enters into discussions about anything at all, it's often to attack other posters. Every disagreement becomes a personal vendetta with him.

Pink Splice is, as the kids say these days, a drama whore. Whether The Rani rubs other people the wrong way or not is irrelevant, because he was a drama whore before he picked his first fight with her, and he would remain a drama whore if she left the forums tomorrow. In fact, if The Rani didn't exist, he would have been forced to invent her.

Or you would have.

Seriously, haven't you figured out yet how Pink Splice gets you to run interference for him? He picks his targets based on their apparent popularity with you, CoS, Zarathustra, and others. And when he crosses the line into abuse and disruption, he lets you guys fight his battles for him. ("Sure Pink Splice was outta line, but you gotta understand that so-and-so was asking for it.")

That's how he operates.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

... Pink Splice is, as the kids say these days, a drama whore. Whether The Rani rubs other people the wrong way or not is irrelevant, because he was a drama whore before he picked his first fight with her, and he would remain a drama whore if she left the forums tomorrow. In fact, if The Rani didn't exist, he would have been forced to invent her.

I could exchange those two names and say the same. Suj has never been interested in the theory, history, politics or any of the related disciplines. Her interest is the people that are interested in that stuff. I won't go so far as saying we're lab rats, but we're not intellectual colleagues, either. BTW, that predates Wally's appearance, so its not just a reaction to one person.

Originally Posted by Semo

... Seriously, haven't you figured out yet how Pink Splice gets you to run interference for him? He picks his targets based on their apparent popularity with you, CoS, Zarathustra, and others. And when he crosses the line into abuse and disruption, he lets you guys fight his battles for him. ("Sure Pink Splice was outta line, but you gotta understand that so-and-so was asking for it.")

That's how he operates.

That's pretty Machiavellian. Personally, I don't have anything against you, and have only disagreed strongly with your take on the Iraq War and its execution. My only problem with Suj is her tendency to test people to get reactions. Xenakis, I ignore. I try to call zilch and HC68 on BS, and may cross the line with them from time to time.

So I'm finding all this to be a tempest in a teapot, though I could certainly be wrong. My skill-set is focused in other areas, as my wife points-out on a regular basis. I try to avoid factional infighting ... even with Marc Lamb. I don't always succeed. Apparently, I'm carrying water right now, at least you seem to think so. I'm trying to pour oil on troubled waters.

Wally has been wrong and will probably be again. That doesn't make him a poster-boy for all the ills of this board. We're all adults, and need to act like it. All of us fail at least occasionally. A little introspection won't hurt any of us.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Out of curiosity, what should The Rani be doing to demonstrate that she feels threatened? Should she build a panic room and lock the door? Arm herself? Go into hiding? Even if she believes that Pink Splice is potentially dangerous (and I take her at her word that she does), there's not much that she can actually do besides inform the moderator and hope that he takes action, and I'm pretty sure that she has done that.

She could stop baiting him.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Seriously, haven't you figured out yet how Pink Splice gets you to run interference for him? He picks his targets based on their apparent popularity with you, CoS, Zarathustra, and others. And when he crosses the line into abuse and disruption, he lets you guys fight his battles for him. ("Sure Pink Splice was outta line, but you gotta understand that so-and-so was asking for it.")

That's how he operates.

What you don't seem to recognize is that you're serving the same role for the Rani. Furthermore, there was a lot of history between other posters and her both on and off this forum before you decided to take up her cause last year. This is not just about Wally. I will acknowledge that he should change some of his behavior here, and I have engaged him on that subject directly several times, and I will continue to do so. I happen to think that's a more mature and respectful way of handling the situation.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> H-m-m-m. I can make jokes about bombs in my luggage over beers on
> my dock, and it has no impact. At the airport, different story.
> What crosses the line?

I certainly hope, for your own sake, that wouldn't do anything like
that. Somebody might overhear you and, not knowing whether or not
you're serious, feel an obligation to report you.

Or another scenario: A month or two later, a bomb goes off
somewhere nearby. Somebody remembers that you were joking about
bombs over beer, and you become a suspect.

I can't believe that people on this board are arguing that it's OK
ever to make death threats or talk about bombs. It isn't just about
the person making the threat "really" being threatening. It's about
creating a snowball effect, especially on this board, where nastiness
and hatred and sickness abound. In fact we've already seen it with
that vile posting by "Silifi," who backed off only when I called him
on it. And "Child of Socrates" is STILL posting messages indirectly
condoning these threats.

Once this snowball effect starts you have a similar danger -- someone
deranged seeing the messages, and seeing an opportunity to commit
violence and have somebody else blamed, or at least suspected. Or
if something happens to someone simply by accident, then people who
made or condoned threats of violence become suspects anyway.

If you want to attack someone in a forum like this, there are SO MANY
WAYS to go about it without threatening or condoning violence. Just
don't do it.

John

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> And I took your criticisms to heart and redid my analysis, much
> more carefully. And I learned that with better control over the
> data (designed to remove unsconsicous cherry-picking on my part)
> all the correlations became statistically insignifcant. I reported
> this conclusion on your thread on 30 May 2007.
> http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...postcount=2310

> So I dropped the project because the method I chose doesn't work,
> and I was honest enough to admit that it doesn't. There are no
> statistically significant correlations between the saeculum and
> any other cycle that I could find. That is, unlike the findings I
> had earlier published, there is no valid empirical support for the
> existence of the saeculum . The same goes for the Kondratieff
> cycle, war cycles, political cycles or any of the other cycles I
> have studied with the sole exception of the Stock Cycle, the very
> first one I published on. And predictions based on that cycle (and
> none of the others) are the only ones that have actually come
> true.

> My view now is the saeculum isn't real because after years of
> trying to obtain objective, statistically valid evidence that it
> exists, I found none.

> There are correlations that look intriguing when viewed on the
> surface, but none of them stand up to rigorous tests.

This is all very reasonable. You and I got along well for many
years. It was only when the nasty, loathesome little Gen-X twirp,
supported by his group of malicious admirers, interfered that you and
I began to have serious trouble. It was his overt objective for four
years to poison every relationship I had in that thread, and it may
be that his poison was the major problem between you and me.

I'm going to comment on this further, and I'll do so in the
"Objections" thread later today or tomorrow.

John

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

> The Fourthturning Community is in a 3T heading for a Crises of
> it's own. If you notice it does seem that most of the remaining
> activity in this forum is being sucked into non generational
> matters. Many of the other catagories have activity that only
> occurs every few days, while threads such as this one (and
> formally the politics 2008) are really the only active ones with a
> post made every 15 minutes or less.

> I agree that something has to be done. And when Craig does it, it
> won't be pretty and may cause a lot of people to end up leaving.

Where did this come from? Do you know something that hasn't been
posted?

I don't see anything like this happening at all. My conclusion from
the last few weeks is that Craig likes the incessant bickering, and
as we've discussing isn't even bothered by the death threats.

I was preparing to spend an enormous amount of time asking other
people -- professionals -- to make time commitments of their own to
host threads in the Generational Theory forum. In the middle of all
that, Craig made it clear not only that he didn't particularly care
about that project one way or the other, and didn't see any value in
it, but that he was going to second-guess every decision I made,
which was a sure road to disaster. That's why I pulled out.

So when you say, "I agree that something has to be done. And when
Craig does it ..." I just don't believe that Craig is going to do
anything, or that he even WANTS to do anything about it. I think he
likes things just the way they are.

Do you know something that indicates something different?

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

And "Child of Socrates" is STILL posting messages indirectly
condoning these threats.

I don't know how many times I can say that I don't condone it. It was wrong.

But this isn't about Wally right now. I am addressing the Rani's behavior, which I also see as disruptive -- just in a different way.

By the way, John, I had already decided that I didn't care for your hyperbolic posting style during our conversations about feminism.

It had nothing to do with Sean.

Just as an observation, I am watching one of my other professional forums going through a period of increased snarkiness and agitation. People in all sorts of situations seem to be reaching a breaking point.

My guess is that we're looking at a fairly significant catharsis in November.

Update: Man, it got even worse since I commented above. Don't mess with librarians.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. I can make jokes about bombs in my luggage over beers on my dock, and it has no impact. At the airport, different story. What crosses the line?

I certainly hope, for your own sake, that wouldn't do anything like that. Somebody might overhear you and, not knowing whether or not you're serious, feel an obligation to report you.

Or another scenario: A month or two later, a bomb goes off somewhere nearby. Somebody remembers that you were joking about bombs over beer, and you become a suspect.

Boy, you live in a paranoid world. I guess that's part of your attraction to all-war-all-the-time. Here's my philosophy in a nutshell: you treat people as you wish to be treated. I also recommend a sense of humor, which you apparently lack.

Originally Posted by Xenakis

... I can't believe that people on this board are arguing that it's OK ever to make death threats or talk about bombs. It isn't just about the person making the threat "really" being threatening. It's about creating a snowball effect, especially on this board, where nastiness and hatred and sickness abound. In fact we've already seen it with that vile posting by "Silifi," who backed off only when I called him on it. And "Child of Socrates" is STILL posting messages indirectly condoning these threats.

If this placid little beach on an island of relative calm is threatening to you, just how safe does life have to be for you to feel relaxed? The Internet is a raging sea, I'll grant you that, but the fourthturning is about as non-intimidating a site as there is.

Originally Posted by Xenakis

... Once this snowball effect starts you have a similar danger -- someone deranged seeing the messages, and seeing an opportunity to commit violence and have somebody else blamed, or at least suspected. Or if something happens to someone simply by accident, then people who made or condoned threats of violence become suspects anyway.

If you want to attack someone in a forum like this, there are SO MANY WAYS to go about it without threatening or condoning violence. Just don't do it.

John

OK John, you made you point. I agree that being intimidating is bad from any number of perspectives. Being insulting and demeaning is also bad, and that's one of your habits. I tend to be arrogant, so we can all wash our linen together.

So what's your solution? I doubt you can change human nature, and throwing everyone off the board that irritates one or two posters will leave the forum pretty empty.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Just as an observation, I am watching one of my other professional forums going through a period of increased snarkiness and agitation. People in all sorts of situations seem to be reaching a breaking point.

My guess is that we're looking at a fairly significant catharsis in November.

H-m-m-m. I hadn't thought of this as generic, but it may well be. Everyone is rapidly recalibrating to changes very few people anticipated. Those of us here should have been better prepared, but maybe that's part of the 3T/4T transition. We're all caught napping.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. I hadn't thought of this as generic, but it may well be. Everyone is rapidly recalibrating to changes very few people anticipated. Those of us here should have been better prepared, but maybe that's part of the 3T/4T transition. We're all caught napping.

Another thing I'm seeing is heavier use of public facilities like mine. Attendance at our free summer programs is going up. People are commenting on how they're looking for low-cost entertainment for themselves and their kids. We are working to provide this, and maintain or improve our level of service while still being budget-conscious. It's an interesting juggling act.