Interesting how Lomax believes that off-topic posts are not harmful.
Essentially the same position as one of the other chronic off-topic posters
have said. This of course is wrong and selfish.
Of course, off-topic posts are harmful. It started way before I joined here
and I am not the first or the only member to complain about it. Though I am
the most vocal about it. Other members simply choose to leave instead of
highlighting the problem, leaving Vortex-l a lot less "intelligent" because
the membership left are simply not as smart as those who left due to
excessive noise. I am currently in communication with several members
(very old members) of this list who expressed agreement with what I am
saying though they may not agree with what I am doing to solve the problem.
They simply choose to not participate anymore, which is such a lost to this
community. Lomax and other chronic posters here simply do not think of the
greater good; it's all about them and gabbing with friends instead of
fostering a greater community trying to solve the Cold Fusion problem.
Lomax claims that my attempts to stop off-topic posts are "coercive". I'm
not sure which twilight zone Lomax live in, but of course they are coercive.
People must be coerced to follow the rules. We have laws in this country
where people must be coerced to follow. This forum has rules that people
must follow. It's that simple.
Lomax claims that I am the troll here. But have you ever found a troll
willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. I am willing to
sacrifice my participation here, which I find useful especially for my
Carbon Nanotube research, for the greater good of more signal and less noise
in this forum. If you ask me, Lomax and the other chronic off-topic posters
are the real trolls cause they insist on doing it their way or ban those who
disagree or don't like their off-topic trolling like me. Their solution is
a "gang" solution. Do it our way or we will insult you or better still, we
will ban you. It's fortunate that Bill appears to be more reasonable and
more objective than these gang of bullies.
If Bill changes the rules, I will follow. But in the meantime, people
should follow his rules and not "make it up as we go" - as famously said by
one chronic off-topic poster here.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 04:03 AM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am doing this is highlight a problem. If you call for the termination
of this thread, you need to call for the termination of all off-topic
threads. I believe that is only fair.
There is no general "off-topic" problem. Judging posts as "off-topic" is,
itself, hazardous, and is impractical. Most mature mailing lists create a
community, that chats a bit, including off topic chatting.
That's not the problem here. The problem is trolling for outrage. There
has been some level of teasing of Jojo Jaro, but trolls *always* attract
some level of that.
As I've reported in posts covering the history of these conversations, and
to respond to David, Jojo originally attracted my respose to his
"information" about the location of Obama's birth. I have a habit of
taking fringe positions seriously, of giving them some benefit of the
doubt, so I actually researched this, and reported what I found which was
essentially that what Jojo was telling us was very old hat, claims that
had been made, and thoroughly debunked, with Obama having provided --
without any legal necessity -- what was called the "archival" certificate.
He had to go through a special process to get that, the Hawaii department
of public records does not ordinarily provide it.
Jojo then began attacking me, on many fronts. At one point, he loudly
"resigned" from the list, as a "last comment." I responded, and left it at
that. (If you want to make a "last comment," that doesn't prohibit the
other person from responding! Making a "last comment" as a way to shut
people up is obviousy abusive."
Jojo came back and continued. So then I said that I was going to stop
responding, and I did, for quite a long period of time. When he kept it
up, kept mentioning the Moon God thing, kept referring to me as a
"self-declared expert" and whatever he could think of as something that
might be irritating, and when he turned to others and similarly attacked
them, I started to comment again, simply to document the history.
He's promising to stop responding if others respond. That did not work,
because he doesn't stop. He makes very few posts here which are on-topic.
The people he tangles with are regular posters, who occasionally comment
off-topic. He obviously watches the list for anything he disagrees with,
and dives in with extreme commentary, most of the time.
It was pointed out by others: he's trying to "win" here, by forcing those
he dislikes to "shut up."
There is little problem here with merely "off-topic" posts. Yes, this
thread has gone on and on. I continue to participate in it for two
reasons: I find the research interesting, and, in fact, sometimes I come
across ideas and material that do relate to our list purpose. For example,
how do we know what is true? How do people become attached to ideas and
stuck on them? That's very relevant to fringe science, in both directions.
For why should the Vortex-L membership only be subjected to off-topic
threads you consider "interesting". In other words, why are you the
arbiter of what off-topic posts should be discuss or not? They are all
off-topic and should be banished from Vortex-L forever. Isn't that what
I've always asked for only to be insulted, ridiculed and ignored? No
offense intended, just asking your thinking process on this.
I consider this discussion with Lomax interesting. So, on that aspect,
this thread has as much right to be discussed in Vortex as any other
off-topic thread you consider "interesting". Or are you saying that
because you are an longer time member of Vortex-L, that you opinion
carries more weight than mine? Isn't that what the chronic off-topic
posters are essentially saying?
It's all or nothing my friend. No off-topic threads or ALL off-topic
threads allowed. Am I not being fair? Is what I'm saying unfair?
To me, "fair" is not the question, but, yes, Jojo, what you are saying is
not fair, because it's radically imbalanced. You have *promised* to be
disruptive here until off-topic posting stops. That's *coercive*. And it
may well be met with a coercive response, I don't know, it's up to the
list owner. I am *not* the list owner.
One recommendation I'd make to him though: appoint some additional
moderators. I would never maintain a list like this, myself, without
having co-moderators, people to watch the list in addition to me, who can
make ad-hoc decisions. As list owner, I can overrule these, though my own
penchant is to consult the community before taking any permanent
administrative action (actually, the only decisions that are permanent are
post deletion from archive, and I don't know that the owner here can do
that.) I might put someone on moderation, as an alternative to banning,
and at the same time, inform the list I'm doing that, and channel
discussion to a place where it won't be disruptive. There are lots of
options.
Generally, I maintain the position of owner as trustee for the community.
And on many other lists, where I'm an owner, I have another owner, who can
then take over if something happens to me. (And there are other ways to
handle this.)
No more original comment below.
Jojo
PS, Of course, I am ready and prepared to stop all off-topic threads that
I participate in, but only if there is a corresponding commitment from
other chronis off-topic posters to moderate incessant off-topic posts.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>David Roberson
To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Guys, I would very much prefer it if this thread were to be terminated.
It is apparent that there will never be agreement between the parties
involved in the dispute and highly unlikely that one or the other will
modify his beliefs. Why not just shake hands (electronically of course)
and change the subject to LENR or something else more interesting.
I suspect that I am not the only one with this opinion.
Dave
