Re: Not filtering = Tacit Approval (hmmm where'd you learn to use names in subject lines?)

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: 20 Jun 2004 00:04:12 -0700

jae@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message news:<b7af43cb.0406191438.35bbe737@posting.google.com>...
> algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.0406181755.68151362@posting.google.com>...
> > jae@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message news:<cat41k$nef$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> > > Pauline M Ross <pmross@ross-software.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:13:26 +0000 (UTC), jae@vidi.ucdavis.edu (Jason
> > > >Eshleman) wrote:
>
> > > I filtered Marc long ago. If people didn't respond to him, I'd never know
> > > he even existed at this point. I don't know quite what you mean by
> > > ignoring the insults. If you don't march lock-step with Marc, all you see
> > > is insults and consequently ignoring him in toto is the only possibility.
> > > That you don't similarly filter him strikes me as tacit approval. Perhaps
> > > when those who see through his rather ridiculous "science" similarly
> > > ignore him he'll change, but so long as he has the tiny audience that
> > > doesn't recognize just how crappy his "science" is continue to engage him,
> > > he won't change. Sorry, Pauline, but while you respond to him, you too
> > > are part of the problem.
> >
> > That is an astonishing position to hold. 'If you don't filter him you
> > give him tacit approval'! That is the sort of totalitarian mindset
> > that leads Communist dictators to resort to censorship. I understand
> > that by making this very point I would be likely to incur the most
> > vitriolic kind of abuse I have had on this newsgroup ("*** you, you
> > pathetic little prick") - which is far, far worse than anything Marc
> > has ever uttered. I say 'would' because, of course the great censor
> > has filtered me out too, so he will probably never read this.
>
> Saw the subject line and decided to read anyhow. Seems you're taking
> the Verhagean tactic now and using subject lines to single people.
> Huh Algis? Cute. You're becoming a nice little disciple. Nice. You
> disapprove of his behavior yet go right ahead and mimic it.

I put a new subject line because I thought the matter raised was a
seperate issue to that being discussed in the thread it came from
(Bipedal substrates). I thought this was the standard etiquette.

I too dispise people starting new threads for the purpose of slagging
people off. With hindisght I regret putting your name in the heading.
That was wrong and I apologise.

You make the allegation that my doing so mimicked Marc's tactics. Well
I think he shouldn't do that but there are several of Marc's opponents
who do so too. It is a regular trick of 'firstjois' in particular, for
example. I notice you didn't criticise him, though, only Marc.

> Yeah, you made me snap once, Algis. You did it by repeatedly not
> dealing with the content of my posts, by repeatedly insisting that the
> only reason I didn't bite at your ridiculous notions was because of a
> prejudice, a double standard and derided my tactics as Stalinistic.
> That was a rather severe insult in itself and you knew that it was
> meant to be insulting, deriding my professional credibility by
> juxtaposing it with a genocidal regime. Don't get all high and mighty
> Mr. K, or are you really believe you didn't think that such a parallel
> was to be found insulting?

I think that reference was justified in the context of the debate.
There was no way I was suggesting you were anything like a Stalinist.
You shouldn't be so sensitive. You accused me of similar level stuff
(amateurish, wasting my time, poor scholarliness) many times. You were
like a footballer at Euro 2004 looking for a slight knock to roll over
on the the ground with theatrical anguish so that the ref might give
you a free kick. It was just the excuse you were looking for to get
out of a debate that you were going to lose if you couldn't resort to
double standards. You saw that I wasn't going to let you get away with
that so you went off in a childish screaming tantrum.

> Did I snap? Yeah. Is this the pattern of all my postings. Yeah, I
> called you a pathetic little prick. Once, after a long series of
> exchanges where you kept railing me, questioning my integrity (your
> own version of calling someone a liar) repeatedly.
>
> You really want to compare that to Marc's *regular* behavior? You
> wanna generate a list of the number of times Marc has called someone a
> liar, an idiot, an imbecil/imbecile? You think it was once? You
> wanna see how long the average back and forth is before he resorts to
> this? Objectively? Didn't think so. You know full well that he does
> this all the damn time and with the only provocation of someone saying
> they don't believe his wet-ape tripe.
>
> Verhaegen's *first* encounter with me ended when he decided that
> instead of
> "Eshleman" that I was "Eselman," a way of calling me an ass in a
> germanic language. What the hell prompted that?

That was mind-numbingly dreadful. I've attacked Marc's abuse many
times on this newsgroup, as you should know. I've defended you from
him and publicly praised your participation in this newsgroup more
than once.

I am not making any judgement about who's the worst offender on this
ng. I agree that Marc's record for calling people
embiciles/liars/idiots etc is very poor and, frankly, I cringe
whenever I read it. But, you know, he's not the only one. A certain
Michael Clark is not exactly Mr Friendly and your hostility to me on
that ocassion was far worse than anything Marc's written. You justify
it, if you like, on the basis of my use of term 'Stalinist' in
alluding to your tactics or whatever it was, but that was also just my
response in a rather silly tit-for-tat escalation of language. Let's
get a grip, please.

> > And what say everyone else on this matter? Is there no-one else that
> > is shocked by it? Or is everyone going to turn a blind because it was
> > made by one of the few professional scientists that participate?
> >
> > What kind of discussion forum is it where *not filtering* someone's
> > postings can be seen to give tacit approval to the views of that
> > person?
> >
> > I think this is a very serious issue. It questions the very essence of
> > free speech.
>
> Everyone has the right to free speech. I'm not enforcing censorship.
> You ought to recognize the difference, but perhaps you don't. I'm
> exercising my right by telling people that when they respond to Marco
> as if he wasn't calling people idiots and liars on a near-daily basis
> they're allowing his behavior to continue. Ignoring him isn't
> censoring him, it's acknoledging that his behavior is *regularly*
> objectionable.

I'm not suggesting that you must read anything. I'm not suggesting
that people should not ignore or even filter whoever they want to. I
*am* expressing disgust, however, in the idea that anyone who doesn't
follow your line in filtering out a particular person is, somehow,
tacitly supporting him/her. There's a big difference.
 
> It is a very serious issue that you equate my personal decision to
> filter him (like I have filtered you when I didn't think you could
> restrain from posting without resorting to regular attacks on my
> credibility) with censoring him.

No. I don't equate *your* filtering of him with censoring, I'm
suggesting that your call for others to filter him (else they give him
tacit support) as the sort of mindset that *leads* to people who have
that kind of power to do censorship. You see the difference? These
witch hunts belong in the middle ages not on public internet forums.
 
> I believe that when you respond to Marc (and when you leap to his
> defense) you are allowing his behavior to continue. By not ignoring
> him, by not ignoring the *regular* sociopathic nature of his behavior,
> you are allowing it to perpetuate. This is not the same thing as
> censorship. Not even close.

You say only that I leap to his defence. Sometimes I have leapt to his
defence, sometimes I have attacked him. Sometimes I have defended you
against him. I have just tried to be fair minded.
 
> I saw Pauline's leap to call for the thread to get back on track when
> someone pointed out what Marc was doing as a defense of him. I don't
> think that anything justifies the way Marc *regularly* treats other
> people and telling people that they shouldn't point it out strikes me
> as tacit support for it.

Hold on. Who's telling people they shouldn't point it out? No-one.
I've tried pointing it out to him myself, for God's sake. My point
is...

> Is not filtering him tacit support? Perhaps
> I went to far on that one,

... exactly. If that was an apology... apology accepted.

> but I do believe that the only way to deal
> with someone so insulting and rude as Marc is to completely ignore
> him, and this goes for people who for whatever reason actually think
> he has something to say with his "science."

Ok. Ignore away. I don't filter anyone but I ignore almost everyone. I
only pick out the bits I'm interested in to respond to.

I don't need to filter people who are hostile to me, I can just ignore
them, if I don't care to take them on. I use google groups usually so
I don't need to spend any time waiting for postings to download.

If you want to filter (and hence cover your eyes and ears to
alternative views you don't like) that's up to you. I don't think it's
very open minded though. It reminds my of an old man, set in his ways,
who just doesn't want the aggro of hearing things he doesn't like to
hear any more. But if it makes you feel happy, fine. What I think is
not fine is when you a) advertise the fact you're filtering someone (a
subtle call for others to engage in the same tactic) and b) actually
equate not filtering with giving tacit support. The next step on that
sequence would be stopping that person participating on the forum at
all - and that *would* be censorship.

I'm glad to see that you're not suggesting we go to that next stage,
though, and in fact admitting that you perhaps went too far by taking
the step you did.

In that case - fine. All's well that ends well. (Except, of course,
you're never going to read this because you're filtering me again!)

> Yes, I believe that those who engage him while he continues to act as
> he does are enabling him and they're perpetuating the problem. And
> it's entirely their right to do so. I am not cesoring them or him
> when I say this. Understand the difference?

Don't reply to him if you don't want to encourage his abuse. I've
stopped replying to Jim McGinn because of this. Practically every
single paragraph is an insult - so he can just write to himself until
he treats me with a bit of civility. But I won't ever filter Jim
McGinn or stop, ocassionally, reading what he has to say.
 
> Now that your Verhaegen-esque tactic of singling me out in subject
> line has drawn me out, I'll go right back to letting you post whatever
> tripe you want and filtering you away.

I'm sorry I put your name in the subject line. It was a mistake.

I'm even more sorry that you think my postings are tripe. I don't
think they are. Specifically, I'm particularly sadenned to know that
the wading hypothesis is so easily dismissed by someone in the
profession. That is also astonishing.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast