Re: Gay Equality (Re: New facebook group)



Cornelia Wyngaarden <corry22@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:C5FE1BFB.1D4EF%corry22@xxxxxxxxx:
[...] What is irritating is that throughout
the decades reasonable information arguments have come and gone.
Throughout this process at least I, and I'm assuming other
participants, made the odd discovery that trolls like David Kaye
and JTEM don't care about reasonable information. When the
conversation is *not* about them they intrude with very
provocative remarks so that once again the same old same old
unfolds.

I was getting tired of the "<so-and-so> is a jerk; you're clueless
if you can't understand that" comments and proof by repeated
assertion. So thank you for making an effort to explain it in terms
that I can relate to. There are some counter-arguments I could
make, but I won't bother, at least at the moment, because you have
given me some good food for thought. I'll digest it.

There are different tactics that can be used for dealing with people
who are perceived as being trolls. Mike Thomas uses one tactic that
I strongly disagree with, and I prefer a different tactic that some
people here strongly disagree with. You indicate that "throughout the
decades" there have been repeated arguments over the pros and cons
of different tactics. I'm curious: is there any reason why a
critique of different tactics didn't make its way into the soc.motss
FAQ? I don't expect consensus on such a contraversial issue, but I
think a summary critique of different tactics would be a useful
addition to the FAQ. In particular, I suspect it might have
short-circuited a lot of heated discussion over the past few weeks.

To whoever maintains the FAQ, please don't interpret that question as
an accusation that you're not doing your job properly. I'm asking out
of curiosity.


Regards,
Ciaran.
--
Ciaran McHale, www.CiaranMcHale.com
Email: ciaran _ mchale @ yahoo . co . uk
Mobile: +44-(0)7866-416-134
.