Hah! I see that when I added the tag to the subject, I mispelled Jojo Jaro....
At 04:14 AM 12/8/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

So, this libtard from Wisconsin claims that I do
not have emotional maturity and that I am 10 or
that I did not get feedback and all that
crap. O well, if I am a turd, what do you call
somebody who keeps playing with a turd knowing full well its a turd.
Someone who is not willing to give up on the idea
that a "turd" is a human being.
Foolish, perhaps. Jojo is giving us plenty of
evidence that he wants us to think he's a turd.
Libtard claims that I am emotionally volatile,
so why does he keep on provoking me other than
to elicit a strong reaction from me.
Jojo would not understand the reason, but there are many possibilities.
1. It's so much fun.
2. We like watching Jojo make an idiot out of himself.
3. We have a hope (foolish?) that the pimple will finally pop.
4. We have nothing better to do at the time we write the post.
5. We have something better to do and we are avoiding doing it.
6. Just because.
7. We care.
8. ???
This behavior from libtard seems to be what
is classically defined as trolling.
It could be, were it not clearly provoked.
Responding to trolling is not trolling. However,
not all "insult" is trolling. The essence of
trolling is an attempt to provoke outraged
response. The sequence here began with something
other than that, but Jojo responded to it as an
insult. It could be argued that it was mildly
insulting, but it clearly was not, from context,
trolling. It was just a comment on what had just
happened, and it did not insult, beyond calling
Jojo a "bible fanatic." Is that an insult? It can
be so. Am I a "cold fusion fanatic"?
Someone who said so would not necessarily be
insulting me. They might just be describing how my behavior looks to them.
It is a clear pattern with this individual that
he would say something to provoke me for the fun of it.
And then we might need to look at what "fun"
means. Why would it be "fun" to poke at a bear in
a cage? What I can say is that boys do this. It's
juvenile human behavor. Some of us never grow up.
Occasionally we poke the wrong bear, and we don't
survive. Jojo seems to want us to think that he
is that bear, because he threatens eye for an
eye, or two eyes for an eye. That's why I don't
agree with characterizations of Jojo as a
Christian. His behavior is quite distinct from
Christian behavior. He's hostile, pugnacious, and
he retaliates, quickly and readily.
If he does really think he's a Christian, he is
then the kind that his Lord will reject on the
Day of Judgment; he might well read his Bible on
that topic. The idea that "believing in Jesus"
will wipe all sin, even sin continually committed
after supposedly trusting Jesus, even defiant sin
that attacks everyone and refuses to surrender to
love, is surely naive or worse. It's actually evil.
But it costs me little to throw an insult back
so I indulge this retard, cause obviously, only
a retard would continually provoke an "attack
dog" knowing he'll be bitten each time he does.
So if you do it back, Jojo, surely, then, you
understand it. Answer your own question. Why do *you* do it?
One will clearly notice that I did not insult
him in this thread until such time as he started insulting me.
Actually, he explored the implications of your
logic, and tested your response. Jojo's claim to
only be responding to others does not match the
record. With regard to one sequence, I just
posted an examination of that history. I just saw
more. Basically, a speculation that wasn't aimed
at Jojo was posted. And then Joho showed up and
commented, with what had the effect of trolling,
and matching the speculation. Jojo explicitly
promised to "give back what he gets," but he
gives back, always, more. Many times, I've
directly examined his factual claims, and he
responds with insults. He's very ready to claim
that the posts of others are insults directed at
him, but this much should be clear: he
*deliberately* insults others. He's been quite explicit about that.
Here is what I wrote last night about Jojo's
behavior, with links, contradicting his claim
that he stops when others stop. Quite simply, he doesn't.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73717.html
He takes everything written about him as an
insult, if it isn't positive. Steven's exercise
with the name Jojo was obviously not serious, he
was simply applying the kind of logic Jojo uses
in his claims about "truth." He found evidence
that "Jojo" was an African name, and other
evidence that it was the name of a pet, so ... he
wrote that Jojo was obviously a black dog. And
then he cited the cartoon about, "On the
internet, nobody knows that you are a dog," with
a very interesting exchange being present on the
site hosting the cartoon, about net behavior.
People have written things about me, like that.
"Enemies" have done it. The sane response is to
laugh. Jojo isn't sane. Jojo read it as "racist,"
and responded that way, quoted below. Everything blows up.
t is quite easy to go back the archive record
and see that every insult I've directed at this
libtard is always a response to a recent insult
to me from him. No need to argue and spin
it. The archive records speak for itself in this matter.
I'm not doing the research, I just know that, in
my case, Jojo lies. He maintains his drumbeat,
even when the other person stops responding *entirely*.
Whatever Jojo has claimed, he remembers, and he
trots it out periodically. Like "moon god." It
had been mentioned here in early November;
apparently, at that time, Jojo expected he would
be banned; he stopped posting here entirely. Then
he noticed he wasn't banned, and raised the *same
claim* again. People had not continued to discuss
it. I have never before seen such obvious evidence of trolling.
(Actually, that's not true. A certain Wikipedia
editor, on another web site, identified himself
as "Professional troll, doing it harder and
better than you." And he really was a
professional troll, though being paid in cash has
never been obvious. He might just be paid in the
gratitude of those he serves. He attacks people
they don't like, and when they respond to him
normally, they can then ban the person.)
Moreover, not only did he make an insult with
"dog"; he made it racists by calling it
"black". What is the difference between a black
dog and a dog of any other color.
"Black" here was a pun. The source read
"African." The cartoon was of a black dog. So ... "black dog."
There is a difference between a black dog and a
dog of another color. It's black, that's the
difference. Steve did not claim that the black
dog was inferior or superiod. Just a black dog
being a black dog. On the internet, where nobody
knows you are a black dog, you think. Actually, everyone can tell. So to speak.
Alll dogs generally behave the same.
And differently as well. Dogs behave the same,
they must, because they must all pattern-match
the name "dog" in some way. But "The dog" is
unique. That's what the definite article
indicates. If I say "pet the dog," you know what
dog I'm talking about, or at least I think you do.
In English, it's awkward to say, "I worship the
god." Instead of using the definite article, we
capitalize the word to make it a proper noun,
which is often definite. "I worship God." And
then some idiot wannabe Muslim comes along and
says, "You are Wrong! You should worship Allah!"
No sect has a monopoly on idiocy. The Qur'an: "By
whatever name you call upon him, to him belong the most beautiful names."
So the post qualifying "black" to "dog" is
clearly a racists attempt to paint me as some
radical and stereotype all black people as
violent uncontrollable dogs. The intent was obvious.
Obvious to someone who lives in his own
fantasies, obvious because Jojo made it up. I'm
sensitive to racism, I have an African daughter.
I didn't see racism there, at all. There was no
attempt to express the idea that "race" is a
biological reality, which is racism in my book
(and that of academics). And discussion of "race"
can often blow up, because many people still believe the myth.
This trolling from libtard needs to be stopped
by banning him. Banning him would solve two
problems - his trolling and his repeated and
blatant disregard for the rules with his incessant off-topic posting.
Let anyone who calls for a ban be considered for
one. As well, however, what anyone claims,
reasonably, should be considered. Sometimes a ban is necessary.
My own recommendation is that if a member of the
list is causing problems, the member should be
*warned.* Only continued violation of the warning
would result in a ban. I was not thrilled by the
ban of Mary Yugo, because it appeared to have
taken place without warning. Perhaps the warning
was private, but, as an experienced list manager,
I'd also issue a public warning as a last resort,
and the reason would partly be to sense the
community opinion, and, as well, to make process transparent.
I was once active on a list promoting a voting
system. I wrote a post, with extended
consideration of a related topic, that the
moderator -- who was not generally active on the
list and who was not especially knowledgeable on
the topic -- considered off-topic, and he warned
me publicly. People chimed in and said that what
I'd written was on-topic, the relevance simply
had not been understood by the moderator. He backed off and apologized.
Later, when he again thought my comments were
off-topic, he, without warning or telling me, put
me on moderation, then lost a whole series of
posts (he was really inexperienced), and when I
objected, he blocked me entirely. He did this
without allowing comment on the list itself.
The result: the list died, surprisingly quickly.
I had gone to another list, a bit broader in
scope, and started writing and supporting that
activity, and it flourished (and a nonprofit
corporation has been formed out of this). The
original list, from which I remain banned, still
exists. I can't remember the last time a post
came through from it, seems like it might be once
every few months. The funny thing is that I'm
known as a prominent supporter of that list
purpose, and I've generated, with years of
effort, much of the political activity, the memes
to be used, toward implementing that voting method.
List moderators function best when they consider
their role as being service to the community,
consistently with the basic purpose of the list.
The owner here is not terribly active, I don't
know how much he's been following this. I have not pinged him. I do trust him.
