Re: In Support of Haddadian Prejudice (depending on context, of course)

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:10:10 GMT, gekko
<gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mairzydoats and dozydoats, but little Josh Hill
<usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> posts to misc.writing, saying ...


On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:00:50 GMT, gekko
<gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> fought off the bad guys, rescued
the hostage, phoned Mom on her birthday and then posted to
misc.writing:


On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:29:03 GMT, gekko
<gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If you are interested in stories with happy endings, you would
be better off reading something other than misc.writing, where
Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> said, in apparent response to
Count Olaf:

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:29:16 GMT, gekko
<gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And it came to pass that Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Stan's a stalker.

Um, no.

Zen's (or was it Alan's?) characterization.

Right, they're paragons of accuracy and fairmindedness.

"Zen and Alan aren't always paragons of accuracy and
fair-mindedness, hence nothing they say is true."

Well. If you say so. However, given their tendency to, er, lie
at the drop of a hat just for the sheer trollery of it, everything
they say must at least be suspect. And, after reviewing the
evidence along with the usual and commonly accepted definitions of
"stalking," it's easy for persons of average and higher
intelligence to laugh their asses off when a weepy little boy
comes along and says "Alan and/or Zen sed Stan's a stalker and I
agree with them!"

If lying for the purpose of trollery is a disqualification for
truth, I'd say that pretty much anything anyone says here ever is
suspect. In any case and whatever his motives, I thought that Zen
-- I think it was Zen -- used the word aptly, and I borrowed it.
(Though note if you're questioning his objectivity in this case
that he withdrew his support when I eventually did respond to one
of Stan's posts.)

The term itself was a sardonic way of saying that in trailing me
and flaming me within this group despite the fact that I wasn't
flaming him Stan was being no less creepy than the activity of
those who follow posters from group to group.

Well, Josh, here's how I see it: You're flat out wrong. You're
wrong to misappropriate the term -- which has a pretty well
established meaning -- and you're wrong in your characterization.

When you "ignored" Stan, you referred to him with catty, snotty
little quips and remarks. Oh, sure, you had killfiled him, and even
for a very short time managed to avoid replying to him via other
peoples' quotes of his words, but you continued to make references to
him.

When he flamed you during that period, it was only when you responded
to his quoted words OR when you referred to him and insulted him to
other people.

He didn't "follow you around the newsgroup", creepily or otherwise.

But that's grotesquely wrong. He went about appending insulting and
intentionally provocative comments to my posts. When I saw those
comments quoted in other peoples' posts, I responded. I had no desire
whatsoever to provoke or engage him, or I wouldn't have killfiled him,
but neither was I comfortable ignoring comments that I happened to see
until IIRC fairly late in the game.

Further, no one is under any obligation to ignore someone who has
chosen to ignore them. Failing to ignore someone who has chosen to
(presumably) "ignore" them does not constitute stalking.

No one is under any obligation not to do anything within the law,
including not to stalk. Nevertheless, what Stan did was decidedly
creepy.

And,
finally, when the reason someone flames you is because they think
you're an ass or a fuckwit, and you continue to behave like an ass or
a fuckwit in their eyes, it is hardly "stalking" to continue to flame
you for being an ass or a fuckwit (per their assessment).

Chasing a legitimate poster around and flaming them despite the fact
that they have made it very clear that they don't want to do the same
to you or attack others is precisely that. In all my years on the
Internet, I don't think I've seen many cases of it. Certainly none
like this one: there are always a few brave souls who pick on
psychotics and others not their own size, and from my perspective
they're even worse than Stan.

You're being a numbwit about this, Josh.

I think you're over-analyzing this, Gekko. Bottom line is, I have no
desire to flame the guy. I have no desire to be flamed by the guy. I
have made that clear. He, nevertheless, persists in attacking me, and
has said repeatedly that he will continue attacking me no matter what.
He does so not because I'm attacking others, or trolling, or spreading
hate speech or anything of the sort. He does so because he finds it in
his interest to tell lies about me in an attempt to get my goat. At
times, he has done it virtually to the exclusion of all else. He has
done it for years. He resumed doing it despite the fact that I came
back after an absence of a year.

That, Gekko, is the definition of a creep.

Ah, then Stan is _not_ a stalker, and now we're calling lies
"poetic license."

So it's "poetic license" to say you claimed to be half black,
n'est ce loch?

It is indeed. A sarcastic exaggeration, a hyperbole. It differs
from my example only in that it's not justified, since I never
misrepresented my ethnic background.

A difference without distinction.

So it is "lying" when it suits you to call it lying (aka when someone
else does it and you dislike it) but "poetic license" when it suits
you to call it thus (aka when you do it).

Yet, poetic license is poetic license, a little lie, but a lie
nonetheless, yes?

Ergo, Stan is not a stalker, and my "um, no" was correct and your
attempt to argue it is, well, silly.

Fiction isn't a lie, even though it's technically false, because a lie
requires intent to mislead. Similarly, figures of speech are not
intrinsically lies, even though fictitious, because they are used to
enhance communication: "That cockroach was as big as a whale!" "If I
have to hear that song one more time, I'm going to die!"

It is when the figure of speech is used with intent to mislead that it
becomes a lie: "Gekko is a bat!" "Josh's *** is big as a whale!"

I used the borrowed term "stalker" to depict honestly the essence of
Stan's behavior, as I've described it above.

Others have used "half-black" to imply, dishonestly, that I lied about
my ethnic heritage.

Elaborations:

Even if you don't agree with my assessment of Stan's behavior, there
was no intent to mislead, and hence no lie.

Similarly, if someone did genuinely believe that I had lied about my
ethnic heritage, they wouldn't be lying, but merely repeating a lie.

What they said could nevertheless be referred to as a lie.

Also, both could be referred to as lies if the figurative expression
were chosen with dishonest intent, e.g., in an attempt to misrepresent
the underlying phenomenon. The distinction is a bit dicey, since for
example a hyperbolic expression works through exaggeration to begin
with. But it can nevertheless be the case. And of course the lie could
be one of the lesser senses of lie, which can contradict.

Got way creepy. I
suspect I'd still be ignoring him right now if it weren't for
the creepiness factor -- a few mild insults hurled his way at
least make it seem like a tit for tat.

Uhyah.

Lessee, you mention him ever third post while you've got him
killfiled, but *he's* creepy for responding and disbelieving
you. Gottit.

Er, I completely ignored him for long periods, Gekko, e.g.,
after Zen flamed me for responding to the posts of his you were
so careful to quote. Made no difference whatsoever. Completely
ignored him when I got back. Made no difference whatsoever.
Unilaterally halted my end of the flame war, said he could have
the last word, and asked him to do the same. Implied he would,
then refused. Has claimed here frequently that he flames me for
pleasure and has no intention of stopping.

The guy's a stalker.

Responding to your posts makes a person a stalker.

'k.

Devoting most of your time on a newsgroup to following someone
around who's killfiled you and flaming them, even when they aren't
responding to your responses to their posts, makes someone a
stalker, yes.

No.

Or do you have a better name for it?

A troll?

Doesn't describe it. I can't think of many trolls who devote their
posting lives to one person, particularly someone who's killfiled
them. The handful of examples that come to mind could probably be
referred to as stalkers or obsessives, but you wouldn't think of their
behavior merely from having heard the word "troll."

Because I'm not
bound to the terminology -- I merely used it because it seemed to
me to capture the essence of the deed.

I suppose that you feel "raped", then, when someone violates your
privacy?

Essence of deed: following someone about like a creep. "Stalker's" a
pretty good description, though "Gollum" might do in a pinch.

Coming next: Alan's "fishwife."

It's Tuesday. Haven't seen all the season's shows on CBS yet.
Maybe tonight's whatsit is new for me.

kthxbai

mgrkph.


nt a txtr, I take it?

No, I'm such a Luddite that my tin can still has a string on it. I
had to look it up.


I hear they've moved on to wax on the string, these days.

Whacks on the string break it.

--
Josh

"Paranoia results from a proper perception
of the food chain." - Boots
.

Loading