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.

As I understood it, the reasoning in your post was
substantially the same as that found in Dr. Norman's, so from
my point of view you're in the best of company.

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.

I covered this to the best of my ability in my post to Dr.
Norman. Would you read that for your reply please.

To a certain extent this idea smacks of censorship, and I am
not sure it is the correct response.

All I am proposing is that we withdraw ALL social reinforcement
from Mr. Kolker until he stops advocating for mass murder in
Talk.Origins. Calling it censorship seems a bit over the top,
but if it is, it is by far the lesser evil.

I suspect that Bob will never change his ideas, but then again
nor will Ray Martinez, 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 to insert the relevant notice after the
appropriate post, not as an organised thing, but as a
volunarty service to the uninitiated.

I believe this is one of those differences that makes no
difference: voluntary or organised, if the job gets done ...

Lets not make Bob even more paranoid 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.

I was going to say: Bob is a model of good behaviour except
that he advocates for the extermination of all Moslems, but
somehow it didn't sound quite right.

Nevertheless at a personal level, I too have no ill will toward
the man, and that, as I described in my Norman post is part of
the reason why he is so very dangerous.

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.

Do you think his personal suffering justifies his evil?
Even if it does, does it justify our inaction?

My 2c.

While I really appreciate your 2c's what I'd really like is a
commitment to meaningful action. You don't actually have to
say anything just insert a notice (with links as evidence) the
next time you see a Newbee replying to Mr. Kolker.

Just for the record, I already did a test (with some
variations to suite the circumstances) here:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/73243c9190bac36b

and although there was a bit of confusion, it appears to have
had precisely the desired consequences.

Shane

Note that I saw your reply to my initial withdrawal, and I am
grateful for your moral support. It helped to push me forward.


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 ---------

.

Relevant Pages