At 12:45 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Herein is the fallacy of your comments.
You claim that the insults are "mild", and that I do not have the
right to respond to "mild" insults.
Beautiful. My post is quoted below. I did not claim that Jojo did not
have the right to respond. I don't see that I called "the insults"
"mild." Some comments that Jojo responded to were mild, one was
essentially "Fuck you."
This is the lie you keep on propagating. Whether the insult in
"mild" or "grave" is not for you to decide.
I didn't say "mild." But I do have the right to my opinions. Opinions
like "mild" or "grave" are not fact.
The person that the insult is directed at is the person that has
the right to decide whether the insult was mild or grave. You have
no right to claim that I "should not" be offended because in your
eyes, the insult is "mild". That's bullcrap.
I did not say that Jojo "should not" be offended.
Heck, in my eyes, calling allah a moon god and calling muhammed a
sex pervert is a "mild" insult; yet I do not go around and lie that
your response to me was improper because I only "mildly" insulted
you. The graveness of the insult is the gravenes of how the
recipient have percieved it. The recipient's perception is the only
valid basis for deciding whether an insult is mild or grave.
By this standard, then, given that many *would* respond to those
statements as highly offensive, and given that one list member was
obviously so highly insulted by Jojo's comments that he responded
with "fuck you," Jojo has just condemned himself as having issued
grave insults without grave provocation. Jojo's comment in that case
was actually mild -- my opinion --, by comparison with others, but it
had an effect that could have been predicted.
All my insults have always been a response to an insult, whether
personal, as in "F*** yourself" or general as in "the Bible is a
fairy tale" or "The Bible is written by illiterate goat
herders." Both statements are false, and insulting whether they are
personal or general. For the same reason why you feel that I have
insulted you by calling muhammed a sex pervert.
No, you did not insult me by saying that. You insulted friends of
mine, and you insulted me by calling me a liar when I described what
you had done *accurately,* often with links, and by dismissing the
product of my sincere research as "lies," without actually pointing
out *one lie,* and totally disregarding evidence.
You seem to think that my vigorous response to an insult is
unwarranted because the initial insults are "mild".
"Seem" is the operative word here. It seems so to Jojo. I don't think
Jojo's response was "unwarranted," but I'll say right now that it was
insane, it was excessive for Vortex, which is a *social judgment.*
That is not for you to decide my friend. You have no right to
dictate the level of response I give out.
That's correct. Jojo decides, and Jojo is responsible for what Jojo
does, and cannot shift responsibility to others because he perceives
them as "insulting" him.
But I can assure you, I take great pains in deciding the level of
nastiness I give back. I take considerable consideration that it
is always calibrated to the level of nastiness directed my way.
Jojo
From this mail, as is common here, the judgment is deranged. Insults
have been perceived when there was none. Jojo fantastizes about what
has been said about him. When the truth is written, he *reads
contempt into it.* That reveals how he actually thinks about himself.
A "turd," he called himself in several posts.
It's all made up. He is not a turd. Satan tells him he is, and he
fights with Satan, something that Jesus advised against. He projects
this war all over us.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity
I this post I review the early history of controversy involving
Jojo Jaro on this list. Jojo began with clearly relevant postings
on alternative energy research. That went on for some time, until
May, 2012, when a problem appeared.
Ultimately, this study leads to a clear example of what Jojo does.
He imagines insult, then insults "back," initiating a cycle of
insult, escalating. At the same time, he holds a series of strong
beliefs, apparently not suscpetible to evidence or genuine
discussion, on topics that are likely to be inflammatory if brought
here (and just about anywhere on the internet, except for certain
odd corners), and he readily drops these into discussions.
At 04:46 AM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Yes, I stand corrected.
If calling for the open, transparent and proper accountability of
his qualifications is an insult, then yes, I've insulted Obama.
I will separately address this in another post.
I decided to look back and see if I could find the origin of Jojo's
sense of Vortex and the Vortex community, so I reviewed the
contributions of Jojo to this forum. Jojo has repeated claimed that
he doesn't "start" insulting, but that others insult him, and he
responds with insult.
He made comments early on that could indicate a certain
combativeness, but that is not unusual here. In a post, resent 26
Apr 2012 20:33:31 -0700, in which he complimented Jed Rothwell, he
mentioned that he disagreed on "Darwinian Evolution." (By the way,
source time confirms location in the Philippines, I think.)
However, the post to which he was responding, apparently, did not
mention "Darwinian Evolution," so this must have been a reference
to some other post. Another list subscriber chimed in with some
support for Jojo, but nobody started debating evolution.
But on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:37:50 -0700 (resent time), Jojo sent an
extensive post on "Darwinian Evolution."
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66036.html
Jojo might think that this post did not insult anyone. But it did.
It was in response to a casual comment by James Bowery:
I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been
among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
This comment is, in no way, propaganda for Darwinian Evolution.
Yes, it assumes a certain importance to Darwin, but we need to
understand this: that importance is a routinely accepted fact,
tantamount to a belief, among most people interested in science.
Were there some necessity to attack Darwinian evolution --
difficult to understand for Vortex-l --
okay. But there was not. The subject was not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo escalated, with a rant on Darwinian Evolution that connected
it with *everyone who accepts Darwinian Evolution.* Read the post!
Jojo knew that he was changing the subject. He knew that it would
be highly controversial. He anticipated "shots." He implied that
he'd not be responding.
Resent Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:54 -0700, Jojo wrote this:
I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution;
and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about
Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum
so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum
other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum
for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of
view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion.
However, he then proceeded to "challenge" Jed Rothwell, who had
responded civilly to Jojo. However, Jed noted that Jojo was
"ignorant." That kind of comment is typically taken by Jojo as an
"insult." Rothwell promised to let Jojo have the last word. He kept
that promise for that thread. The discusion of evolution continued
a little, but other readers started to complain about off-topic.
A thread on a cold fusion topic had been hijacked by the insertion
of a discussion of "Darwinian Evolution," based not, as Jojo has
often claimed, on "propaganda," but a mere reference to Darwin as a
man with ideas that were not popular in his time, dicta. In the
process, Jojo set up a *political argument.* Read the post!
Then Jojo started a new thread, specifically on Darwinian
Evolution, resent Sat, 26 May 2012 02:22:30 -0700.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66051.html
He did not keep to his intention. He continued to poke at Jed. Jed
had answered, and indicated intention not to respond further, and
had not responded further. Others had made small comments. Yet
Jojo's post mentioned Jed five times, in addition to continuing to
quote Jed's original response. The mentions were not complimentary.
Jed Rothwell did not bite. However, James Bowery did, becoming
incensed that Jojo apparently would not consider an experiment to
distinguish between Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. The
interchange revealed clearly that this was a *religious* argument.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66108.html and
the incivility was quite what can be expected when people argue
religion *without listening.* So now there was a reader who had
"insulted" Jojo, though this was still somewhat within normal forum
behavior. The topic, though, generated a lot of posts, and this was
now heavily off-topic. Vortex-l allows limited off-topic
discussion, and this was straying outside that.
Dave Roberson, who is perhaps sympathetic to Jojo's view on
Darwinian Evolution, objected to the uncivil comment, but also
suggested that Jojo move the discussion elsewhere.
In a post resent Sun, 27 May 2012 10:10:57 -0700, Jojo wrote:
This will be my last response to you. You're welcome to have the last word.
Jojo, however, continued to respond in the thread. I jumped in with
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66144.html
Ah, I do write lengthy posts! However, this did not insult Jojo,
unless my pointing to his self-revelation in his post would be an
insult. It wasn't. I took Jojo literally and looked at what his
posts implied about him, and described it.
Just be aware, Jojo, that you are describing yourself, better and
more accurately than you are describing Jed, whom you do not really know.
Jojo responded to me, resent Mon, 28 May 2012 02:47:05 -0700. He
sought to move the discussion with me off list. He responded again,
Tue, 29 May 2012 04:39:16 +0800
First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not
a hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the
thread.), then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even
though I have stopped responding, then you continue to keep this
topic alive even though I and others have given it a rest.
Here we can start to see a pattern. I had not "criticized" Jojo for
hijacking the thread. The thread, regarding which I'd mentioned
hijacking, was the *prior* thread. Jojo had renamed it (which was
proper, but he left out the OT tag.) What I had done was to respond
to a series of Jojo posts, not yet to the latest one. Now that I'd
seen that, I responded Mon, 28 May 2012 21:16:16 -0400
Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would
I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere?
I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great
example of meaning created in the mind of the reader.
We were now discussing what happened on-list. Not Darwinian
Evolution, about which we could argue forever. I declined Jojo's
invitation to take it elsewhere. I indicated that I thought the
dicussion was not likely to have value for me.
(By the way, that could be considered my Favorite Debate Tactic,
for on-line discussion, where there is a *complete and accurate
record* of the discussion. It could be considered a test. If
someone is going to firmly insist on allegations regarding the
record, and neither verify them by reference to the record, nor
acknowledge error -- or show alternative interpretation *that
respects the record,* it's hopeless to imagine that we might come
to agreement on difficult and abstract topics. As a "debate
tactic," it establishes the lack of credibility of the other
writer. I'd prefer they not do this. I don't like to "win debates"
through the stupidity of the other. And this tactic can backfire in
some contexts where people simply assume that anyone asserting a
strong position will post false evidence. They take compilations of
evidence as proof of obsession. That happens on Wikipedia.)
Jojo replied, resent Mon, 28 May 2012 20:04:11 -0700
OK Whatever. This will be my last response to you ever. You are
welcome to have the last word and deliver some parting insult or snide remark.
No sense in arguing with Darwinian Evolution fanatics; who's only
interested in blaberring about things he does not know. It's akin
to arguing with Parks regarding cold fusion.
It's quite visible here how Jojo created a highly contentious
discussion, then took offense when it was described
dispassionately. He completely ignores what he did: perceive a
criticism where there was only a description, and then solidify
that perception as if it were a fact, which he will remember, as
people often do when they do this, as a "fact." To be repeated and
relied upon. It's a variation on what James Bowery saw and
responded to. Not interested in *evidence*. I know what's true, and
even if I can look at the evidence by just looking at my own email,
I won't. Not needed. I already know the Truth (TM). This was
guaranteed to end badly, unless Jojo wakes up, which doesn't happen very often.
I did not respond again in that thread. Jojo did twice, tossing in
claims likely to set off anyone with strong opinions about Bible
archeology (what does this have to do with Darwinian Evolution, the
subject?), Gnostic Christians, and just about anyone with knowledge
or established opinion on a wide variety of topics, that happen to
be topics that *often* lead to useless flame wars in internet fora.
What's amazing is that relatively few readers took the bait. Jojo
had the last word in the topic for over two months, when it was
reawakened by Axil Axil.
The last word in this topic was
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg68373.html Jojo
would doubtlessly not like that post, but it probably represents a
very common view among Vorticians. He did not respond.
But he continues to argue Darwinian Evolution, with claims that
anyone who accepts it is naive, ignorant, and hoodwinked. Which is
the large majority of us on this list. Yet he thinks he isn't insulting people!
