Re: Proposed Robert J. Kolker info pack


Shane wrote:
On 30 Apr 2006 17:28:42 -0700, Friar Broccoli wrote:

Proposal:

I believe there is pretty general (but not universal)
agreement among those who are aware of him that Mr. Kolker's
constant restatement of his view that all Moslems should be
exterminated, presents a problem for this group at several
different levels.

I further believe that much of the harm he does could be
attenuated, if we as a group could minimize our replies to him
on topics other than the extermination of people, when I believe
we need to express active disagreement.

Getting people to stop replying to him is complicated by the
fact that new users who don't know about him are constantly
entering the group. I know it took me more than six months to
click. Other long time participants appear to have just given
up on the effort to isolate him.

The following short FAQ (really an Info package), may be able
help with both these problems:

/**************** Beginning of FAQ *************************/

Dear (Insert new poster's name);

This note is intended to make you aware that many (but not all)
users of Talk.Origins are strongly opposed to any replies to
posts from Robert J. Kolker.

The following recent posts by Mr Kolker should make it clear
why:

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/2ce11bcaea90ae14
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0e3072cfe580cb4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1b565f8e66e7e067

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.battlestar-galactica/msg/b9d4a8c5fe44b9b9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/9c77df1e57770423
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d86efe66b23fb066

/********************** End of FAQ *************************/

A new user who has received this FAQ after posting to Mr Kolker
will be made immediately aware of what he is, and can then take
whatever action he sees fit.

Long time participants will thus be periodically reminded that
there is an active campaign on, and will be less inclined to
reply as well.

I think it is self evident that such a campaign can only work if
there are a large number of ACTIVE participants, so that it is
clear to new and regular users alike that providing this
information is a group effort.

Thus I would hope that the very first person to see an
unintentional reply to Mr. Kolker, would post this information
package. I believe it should also go to the creationists who
pop in from time to time.

If there is general acceptance of this type of action, I will be
happy to post a FAQ note similar to the above on the first of
every month so that people can find it easily. (Unless somebody
else would like the honor.)

Comments, suggestions, condemnations ... ?

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

I'm not sure about this one, Bob is indeed an unusual case in that his
science posts are, AFAICT, relevant, generally correct, and reasonably
stated. So at the very least this proposed FAQ would need to clearly
define the suggested non-response to just the posts where Bob's
monomania occurs.

To a certain extent this idea smacks of censorship, and I am not sure
it is the correct response. I suspect that Bob will never change his
ideas, but then again nor will Ray Martinez,

As unchristian as much of Ray's remarks are he has as yet suggested as
far as I'm aware genocide.
so they are less extreme and less consequentially hateful.

and some of his ideas are
no less extreme or hateful. I would suggest that instead of a FAQ like
the one proposed, it is up to those who know of Bob's particular blind
spot

Genocide qualifies as more than a blind spot.

to insert the relevant notice after the appropriate post, not as
an organised thing, but as a volunarty service to the uninitiated.

Lets not make Bob even more paranoid

Bob is not paranoid. He appears to be sociopathic.

than he already feels on this
subject. I have gone a few rounds with Bob, and bear him no ill-will
for his baseless and senseless views of Moslems. My feeling is one of
sadness that a person can persist in such views against all evidence,
which is a betrayal of the science and reason he defends so staunchly
elsewhere. I could be wrong, but I suspect that being Bob is
punishment enough; people who hold such views are seldom, in my
limited experience, happy.

This may be true but his espousal of genocide should be derided for
what it is. Evil equal to the evil he perceives in Muslims. His
justification is, as I beleive he states, simple reciprocity.

What is of more relevance I believe is that Bob is like the creationist
he criticizes. He refuses to understand the Muslim world from a social
scientific perspective because that would require him to develop
understandings that are not based in a destructive ideology that he
celebrates. He clearly has the ability to understand science but
refuses to even begin to look and understand Muslim extremism from an
informed social scientific (anthropological, sociological and
psychological) perspective which would seem reasonable for a scientist
employ.

The profound failure of the present administration is in large part a
result of their failure to understand the fundamental concepts of the
social sciences. This is particularly true of the neocons and their
Straussian/Platoian view of politics and human behavior. The neocon
weltanschauung revolves around varied moral/value absolutes and no
shades of gray in the understanding of people and politics. Such a
decisive view of human events leads to serious distortions of empirical
reality. Bob shares their anti-social science view of the world. I
leads to fundamental misunderstandings about people.

This is not to assert or imply that the social sciences can provide a
resolution or complete understanding of the complexities that exist in
all cultures/societies, but only that it has some foundational insights
that let you know when you are dramatically misinterpreting
cultural/social behavior. Bob like the neocons appears to know truth
when he spouts it and if it fits his empirically unrealistic
understandings of Muslim culture.

RAM


My 2c.

Shane

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposed Robert J. Kolker info pack
    ... The following recent posts by Mr Kolker should make it clear ... A new user who has received this FAQ after posting to Mr Kolker ... I'm not sure about this one, Bob is indeed an unusual case in that his ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Inclusive, not exclusive
    ... > Arny should be aware that Bob's FAQ influences far more ... Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue. ... abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob. ... As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Baptize in antibacterial soap
    ... >> Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue. ... > Arny, we know you are an internet addict. ... >> abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob. ... As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Baptize in antibacterial soap
    ... > Anybody who posts on RAO for fame and fortune needs a clue. ... Arny, we know you are an internet addict. ... > abuse recommend you for a personality award, Bob. ... As an added benefit, Neidorff's FAQ tends ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: OT: betting against global warning
    ... not the rude one. ... Global Warming models. ... posts" with anything but careful consideration. ... Sorry that you feel that way, Bob. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading