Padraig wanted to delete this post from his blog because he is sick of the fussing and fighting, which is not his kind of thing.
I thought it should be preserved for posterity, so I copied it.
APRIL 15, 2009 7:28AM
BECKOLA – another whiney OS meta post about OS ethics
With Gratuitous Nudity
I am averse to people putting up posts about other OS members. I am unfortunately compelled to post this because a false impression has been set out by Bill Beck in public about my actions and character.
I have been unable to defend myself because my comments have been deleted from his post and he has forbidden me from communicating with him man to man.
Bill Beck did a post
(http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_beck/2009/04/13/the_os_taliban)
He makes an analogy between, McCarthyism, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and something he detects going on in OS. He made it clear in his response to some people’s comments that the post was not about communism, so I infer that it is mainly about “group-think” and specifically how repressive conformity detrimentally affects OS.
That is a topic worthy of debate.
I became interested in the subject of witch hunts when I worked at the Child Protection Unit at the Department of Health in London. We commissioned the anthropologist, Professor Jean La Fontaine, an expert on witchcraft and witch hunts, to conduct a study of satanic ritual child abuse. I met Professor La Fontaine and helped to edit the resulting 1994 government report, The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse, and the book. Speak of the Devil, which contains a fuller account of her research.
This idea that there was a secret, highly organised cult of Satanists intent on the sexual abuse and murder of young children first appeared in California in the early 1980s and was exported to Britain towards the end of the same decade.
This was taken up by powerful advocates in the media in the UK. One of the most significant voices was that of the journalist Bea Campbell, whom I encountered at various conferences. Another strong advocate of the satanic conspiracy was Valerie Sinason, a psychotherapist, whom I also met many times. These conferences almost became religious rallies where one was afraid to voice any doubts about the doctrine and faith that satanic abuse was a huge problem.
These satanic rites supposedly involved human sacrifice, breeding children for sacrifice, child murder and cannibalism. I recall a forensic psychiatrist saying at one of these conferences that she had never, in many years of wide experience, seen any evidence of satanic child abuse. I thought she would be dragged from the hall for hanging, drawing and quartering as a heretic.
Social workers all over Britain were convinced that they had a divine duty to protect innocent children against an evil conspiracy whose tentacles stretched deep into the establishment, involved free-masonry and reached into the police forces who were supposed to be investigating it.
A number of police inquiries concluded that thorough investigations had produced no bodies, no bones, no bloodstains and that, if ritual abuse presentations did not cease, there was a likelihood of a witch-hunt developing which might result in grave injustice.
La Fontaine had previously been sympathetic to the Bea Campbell view of the existence of satanic abuse but in her report concurred with the police view that there was no evidence. She argued that what is presented as the testimony of children in most satanic abuse cases is almost always an adult construction. This comes about either because of selective over-interpretation of innocent remarks or through coercive or suggestive interviewing. The social workers shaped the evidence they were pre-disposed to find.
What happened in Britain from 1987 onwards was not just a national phenomenon, not just British social workers going crazy. It was a kind of viral mass hysteria generated as the result of a global village rumour whose specific origins, documented by Debbie Nathan and Michael Snedeker in their book Satan’s Silence (Basic Books, New York, 1995), can actually be examined.
Arthur Miller used the mass hysteria of the Salem witch hunts as an allegory for the situation in the USA in the 1950s when fear of communist influence gave Senator Joseph McCarthy an opportunity to further his own career.
“McCarthyism” has been defined as the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of analogous efforts to smear. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
In his post Bill Beck wrote: “The witch hunts and cyber witch trials still draw a crowd. People will line up to tell you that it matters to them how you live your life, and you need to make yourself available to their entreaty.”
If someone is being persecuted in OS it certainly should be brought into the open and discussed but I have no clue that anyone is being persecuted.
Bill Beck’s post is fascinating in that it raises the spectre of McCarthyism and itself employs McCarthyite smear tactics. No names are mentioned: who are the victims of the lynch mob? What are the issues that they are being persecuted about? Who are the members of the lynch mob?
This is the question I asked which gave offence to Bill Beck.
”How can you possibly equate the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Taliban with anything that happens in the playground that is OS? Does anyone in OS chop off limbs or force people to grow beards? Ain’t fighting, just asking.”
I think that is a fair question and I did not intend to be confrontational. I am making a serious point about OS being taken too seriously.
I have made similar points before in other contexts about a sense of proportion in relation to freedom of speech and censorship as it pertains to Os and as it relates to the real world. It would be very rare for anything really serious to happen as a result of anything that goes on in OS.
Bill Beck responded in a way that did not make his position any clearer to me or explain who was doing the witch hunting in OS.
What was loud and clear was that he told me never to comment on his blogs ever again and not to e-mail him again.
That’s cool.
I only ever e-mailed him in reply to messages he sent me. I only recall ever making a couple of brief comments on his blogs in the past and it will not be difficult for me to avoid his posts in the future.
The first time I commented on a Bill Beck post was when, for reasons baffling to me, he posted a picture of what appeared to be a pile of steaming human turds. In a, perhaps feeble, attempt at humour, I said that I was very impressed at the size of the pile and asked if he could claim credit for it, did he take the picture himself and did he wash his hands.
On another occasion my comment was simply, “Well said, Bill”.
Recently, I was trying to follow the thread of argument in the comments on one of his posts but was having difficulty because some comments had been deleted. I merely inquired what the gist of those deleted comments might have been.
He sent me an unsolicited PM which said in essence: “I do not have to answer to you”.
Of course he doesn’t.
I was merely under the impression that discussion and debate were part of the OS experience.
He responded thus to my question about the Taliban/OS analogy:
“Padraig, I knew someone would ask a question like that. It figures that it would be you. Lets face it, you have enjoyed this dust up, and you happen to have been on the side of the trouble makers. Now here is the answer to your disingenuous question.
First, the statement does not say that the issue is the same in matter of degree. It says that it is similar in construction. It is a group swarm, pressure, etc. Second Padraig, in order to make a point, it would not serve to take something smaller about which no one knows to use as an example. The result would be, "ok, but what is that thing about how does it relate". An example for comparison needs to be known Padraid. Generally that means a larger example in degree, not smaller.
Third Pardraig, this is the last time. I am tired of your ‘just asking’. Dont email me again. Dont comment to me again. You brag about how calm and peaceful and Buddhist you are. Be that off of my blog.
Here Padraig, here is an example that you can understand.
You call yourself a Buddhist. You are proclaiming a certain adherence to certain standards and styles of philosophy, or whatever. Calling yourself a Buddhist commicates your philosophy, it does not say that you compare yourself to Buddha in size, scale, or seriousness. This example from your own practice shows the disingenuousness of your question.”
I do not accept (or even follow) that argument but it would have been possible for him to make the same points without being confrontational.
I am not being disingenuous.
“You have enjoyed this dust up” – what dust up?
“You happen to have been on the side of the trouble makers” – what is the evidence for this? Who are the other troublemakers? What is the trouble?
The whole issue must remain nebulous if he is being coy about who he is referring to and what the “witch hunt” was about. Until I know that, I, and I suspect, most other readers, would be puzzled about the validity of his analogy. I genuinely do not know who the target of this post is or why he is linking me with this swarm of troublemakers.
I’m a writer not a fighter. I didn’t join OS to make enemies and I do not think that I have done anything to justify anyone seeing me as an enemy. I always comment in a rational manner and never employ profanity or abuse. I have made many good friends on OS. I joined OS to potter along writing lengthy boring articles that I would not be able to publish anywhere else and which nobody reads. I am not part of any clique or conspiracy. I’m living up a mountain in Sri Lanka doing no harm to anyone.
I responded thus to his injunction on his Taliban blog to leave him alone:
“I see that bbd asked a similar question to mine without being told to stay away from you. That's fine Bill. You will never hear from me again. I hope you will leave it on the record without deleting this that I did not e-mail you, you e-mailed me. I have never been part of any ‘swarm’. I really do not know who these troublemakers are or what the 'dust-up' you refer to was about. Therefore, I don't understand how I can have been one of the troublemakers. You are talking in riddles. I have rarely had any contact with you and I have never addressed you in anything but a civil manner.”
As I expected, he deleted my response.
He will perhaps argue that he has the right to manage his own blog. Unfortunately, he has left his own comments and deleted mine. That is unethical. This leaves the OS community with the impression that I have been harassing him by PMs. I haven’t instigated any exhange of PMs with him. I have only responded when he has sent me a message. He sent me rather a lot on April 11. I always let him have the last word.
He also leaves the impression that I have been part of a witch-hunt, that I am a trouble-maker, that I have enjoyed some “dust-up”. I do enjoy a free and frank exhange of views but I am totally mystified about what the hell he is referring to here.
I did not “brag” about being a Buddhist as he claims. In one of his many PMs to me he said he was “as calm as a Buddhist” and I merely indicated that I understood what he meant because I myself tried to follow Buddhist principles. Is it ethical to quote from private messages in public while at the same time deleting comments from the public forum?
I am not certain exactly what I am doing to upset him. It seems to have something to do with the phrase used in the Taliban post: “People will line up to tell you that it matters to them how you live your life, and you need to make yourself available to their entreaty.”
It certainly does not matter to me how anyone, Bill Beck in particular, lives their life. I don’t know anything about his life and that’s his business. I do not expect him to make himself available to my entreaty. How he behaves in OS is another matter.
I merely asked some civil questions on matters that arose out of pieces that I thought had been offered for public discussion. If Bill Beck does not want to answer those questions it’s no big deal but it is unethical of him to distort commenters’ positions and characters by managing his blog in such a way that only his point of view comes across to the detriment of other OS contributors.
As Annette 2009 said on Emma Peel’s Mea Culpa post: “When we disagree with an idea, it gives us the chance to examine why, and more clearly articulate our own thinking and position. This is a good thing.”
Author tags:
disproportion, irrationality, meta posts, gratuitous turds, gratuitous nudity, open salon, satanic abuse, group think, lynch mobs, witch hunts, character assassination, distortion, paranoia, conspiracy theories, censorship, deletion, bill beckComments
I was curious about the OS Taliban thing myself, but after I saw his replies to you, I figured if I didn't know what he was talking about, I must be labeled Taliban myself. Or a McCarthyite, or something. So I didn't ask. But I'm still curious.
No big surprises here. Beck has a reputation for this sort of thing. Every writer here can police their blogs as they see fit, but the ones who become known as censoring cunt ratfinks shouldn't be surprised if people do the sensible thing like you are and quit reading and commenting on their posts.
Who wants to take the time to write a comment that will only be deleted by a holier than thou, self righteous, only l0oking for sycophants blogger like Beck? monkey fingered.
Who wants to take the time to write a comment that will only be deleted by a holier than thou, self righteous, only l0oking for sycophants blogger like Beck? monkey fingered.
'I merely asked some civil questions on matters that arose out of pieces that I thought had been offered for public discussion.'
There was your first mistake. I did the same thing a few months ago for the sake of argument because, like you, I seek debate of issues that arise. He sent me PM after PM as if I was completely out of line or something. It finally took other members to comment on his blog about my intentions for him to stop PMing me.
What is so interesting to me about Bill's latest brush with you is that he spent a good two weeks worth of posts building up a witch hunt for conservatives and their ilk. Posts demanding answers to questions he wanted answered in his way with the same 'I'm just asking' attitude. The guy has really proven himself to be a complete schmuck in my eyes at least. Oh well.
PS, get ready for the backlash.
There was your first mistake. I did the same thing a few months ago for the sake of argument because, like you, I seek debate of issues that arise. He sent me PM after PM as if I was completely out of line or something. It finally took other members to comment on his blog about my intentions for him to stop PMing me.
What is so interesting to me about Bill's latest brush with you is that he spent a good two weeks worth of posts building up a witch hunt for conservatives and their ilk. Posts demanding answers to questions he wanted answered in his way with the same 'I'm just asking' attitude. The guy has really proven himself to be a complete schmuck in my eyes at least. Oh well.
PS, get ready for the backlash.
This is a very calm and rational and well written response. I don't want to get in the middle of anything....but you asked all the questions I was wondering myself.
I hate calling out posts. Hate them. But I understand why you did this.
I hate calling out posts. Hate them. But I understand why you did this.
Thank you, Persephone. I hate doing this kind of thing but felt I had no other way of clearing the air and defending myself.
Thanks Pam.
Calling out posts would not be necessary if not for inappropriate deletion.
Calling out posts would not be necessary if not for inappropriate deletion.
Bill Beck is guilty of everything he protests in others - which makes him unintentionally comical. His insecurities eat at him to the point he cannot carry on a civil discussion and that is sad. Let's hope he gets some therapy soon - I honestly think he needs a good spanking to make him feel better.
Just wanted you to know I read the post, Padraig. I've been away...and have not encountered Bill Beck, so I have no opinion other than: You always seem rational and reasonable to me...even on the several occasions where you disagreed with me appreciably.
I absolutely loathe the "delete" feature...and I pledge to never use. Probably the best thing to do is to avoid any thread in which ANYONE's comments have been deleted.
I absolutely loathe the "delete" feature...and I pledge to never use. Probably the best thing to do is to avoid any thread in which ANYONE's comments have been deleted.
Having managed a blog myself for several years, I understand the serious fury one experiences when another blogger deletes comments that challenge his/her worldview even a little. It's a sad thing and a product of how we educate people these days. No more broadminded liberal educations. All narrow, parochial focus. And this is what happens. People don't like to be challenged any more. Don't like their comfortable assumptions called into question. It's the deathknell for civil discourse. A pity and, well, I could go on forever. Rated for general all around excellence.
Thank you for your very kind words Frank and Sean. It's good that us old fellas can disagree amicably isn't it Frank?
"Is it ethical to quote from private messages in public while at the same time deleting comments from the public forum?"
Completely unethical in my opinion.
ha, been down this road, but then I try to live by Toaist principles. Maybe something about our "ilk" sets people off. All that live and let live crap really gets under some peoples skin.
my advice....step away slowly, don't turn your back, shhhhhhh.
Completely unethical in my opinion.
ha, been down this road, but then I try to live by Toaist principles. Maybe something about our "ilk" sets people off. All that live and let live crap really gets under some peoples skin.
my advice....step away slowly, don't turn your back, shhhhhhh.
Bill Beck sucks: Here's my very recent personal expereince with the deleter of comments:
Bill Beck wrote an asinine post about how great Rasheed Wallace is and how he should be a basketball hall of famer. As an avid NBA fan, I pointed out in the comments section that Rasheed Wallace isn't even close to being the best player at his position in his generation. I posted some stats to back this up.
Then Bill responded and said, stats don't tell the whole story, so I went back and produced more evidence as to why Wallace is more of a liability than an asset (to the Pistons) when one considers that Detroit let gave up Mehmet Okur after Sheed was acquired in 04.
I come back to his blog to see his response to my comments and guess what, both of my lengthy comments and his original response to my first comment are gone. WTF??
Beck even admits in his original post that he's not a big fan. I am 100-percent sure he does not follow pro hoops like I do. I was making points about a basketball player. Apparently I offended his sensibilities by factually stating that while Rasheed Wallace has led the league in technical fouls for each of the past 5 seasons, he's never once been better than the third best scorer on his Detroit teams.
Bill Beck deletes comments about basketball. I'm done with him. How damn pathetic. If you're gonna delete comments, why not just move to wordpress? or start your own blog (I hear the skeptical OB is looking for other writers)
Bill Beck wrote an asinine post about how great Rasheed Wallace is and how he should be a basketball hall of famer. As an avid NBA fan, I pointed out in the comments section that Rasheed Wallace isn't even close to being the best player at his position in his generation. I posted some stats to back this up.
Then Bill responded and said, stats don't tell the whole story, so I went back and produced more evidence as to why Wallace is more of a liability than an asset (to the Pistons) when one considers that Detroit let gave up Mehmet Okur after Sheed was acquired in 04.
I come back to his blog to see his response to my comments and guess what, both of my lengthy comments and his original response to my first comment are gone. WTF??
Beck even admits in his original post that he's not a big fan. I am 100-percent sure he does not follow pro hoops like I do. I was making points about a basketball player. Apparently I offended his sensibilities by factually stating that while Rasheed Wallace has led the league in technical fouls for each of the past 5 seasons, he's never once been better than the third best scorer on his Detroit teams.
Bill Beck deletes comments about basketball. I'm done with him. How damn pathetic. If you're gonna delete comments, why not just move to wordpress? or start your own blog (I hear the skeptical OB is looking for other writers)
Thank you JK.
Edgar, I seem to recall that you and I disagreed quite strongly on your hard atheism post. As mature adults we were able to do so without disrespecting each other and without deleting.
Edgar, I seem to recall that you and I disagreed quite strongly on your hard atheism post. As mature adults we were able to do so without disrespecting each other and without deleting.
Bill's evidently like that. It makes commenting on his blog kind of a crapshoot and sort of pointless in the end. No biggie. Just let it go. Bill wants a fight he can win. So, he makes sure he does win it. Let him win it. The whole thing sounds kind of imaginary anyway and so can't hurt anyone but him in the end. You're a good guy. Who could dispute it? Only someone who isn't paying attention.
Padraig, thanks for this. I asked a simple question on the blog in question re the equating of Coulter and McCarthy with what he calls an OS Taliban, which turns out is simply logorrhea from him. I was disappointed with a ridiculous nonsensical answer, which just confirmed that I don't need to spend a minute more looking at anything else he does. I have limited time and vanishing brain cells, so he gets neither from me anymore.
Maith thú, sláinte.
Maith thú, sláinte.
I saw the Taliban post and went over to see how anyone could make the comparison between anyone at OS and Taliban because that is so out there. Well, it's an out there comparison but you know I agree that everyone should be able to put out their theories, whether I like them or not.
Then I saw the exchange with you on that post and it is confounding. I do not understand anyone wanting only comments that are 100% in agreement, whether it be on an OS Taliban, on basketball or on movies.
I have seen your comments and you are always civil and thoughtful. The deletions are not about the commenters at all but about the one who deletes.
Then I saw the exchange with you on that post and it is confounding. I do not understand anyone wanting only comments that are 100% in agreement, whether it be on an OS Taliban, on basketball or on movies.
I have seen your comments and you are always civil and thoughtful. The deletions are not about the commenters at all but about the one who deletes.
Too bad about all this. Bill should consider himself lucky when people post good, argument-inducing comments on his blogs. They tend to be the meat that attracts attention even if a post itself is not that worthy. Deleting well-meaning, contrary (non-offensive) comments is downright un-American! It's frankly, Talibanish!
Forgot to ask: what's with the handsome nude guy up there? A fighter, I gather. Still won't make me like gladiator sandals.
Instead of answering here, Beck is running around posting responses on his old posts. Perhaps he fears being treated in the manner in which he treats others.
For example, he posted a long and confused comment directed at Colman on the very post he deleted Padraig's comments from prompting this whine and he posted a response to Alverson on the Rasheed Wallace basketball post Edgar mentioned. Maybe it is a sickness?
For example, he posted a long and confused comment directed at Colman on the very post he deleted Padraig's comments from prompting this whine and he posted a response to Alverson on the Rasheed Wallace basketball post Edgar mentioned. Maybe it is a sickness?
Thanks for alerting me to that BBE. Pretty incoherent. I'm not allowed to respond, of course. Odd that he bans me from his blog but won't come over here and is still addressing me from over there from which I am banned.
D - I don't recall where the picture came from. I cut it out of a newspaper some years ago and recently found it. I was thinking of using it as my avatar but it might be too exciting.
Thank you Ariana, Barry and Odette.
D - I don't recall where the picture came from. I cut it out of a newspaper some years ago and recently found it. I was thinking of using it as my avatar but it might be too exciting.
Thank you Ariana, Barry and Odette.
Paddraig, your voice is one of the reasons why OS is of value. Your "boring long articles" are wonderful.
There seems to be a constant thread of a "them" on OS. The "them" here morphs into different factions. I never quite get the
stripes and shapes of the OS factions. I lose track who is in "them", who is "us" and if there are any "they". So, confusing.
There seems to be a constant thread of a "them" on OS. The "them" here morphs into different factions. I never quite get the
stripes and shapes of the OS factions. I lose track who is in "them", who is "us" and if there are any "they". So, confusing.
Padraig, I have read some of your blogs and comments and have always found you to draw very well-thought out conclusions and pointed questions. This post is unusual in that most of the time these posts come across in anger and name-calling. What I read here was simply a defense of yourself and an explanation of your ideas. Very, very well done, as always.
I am in the camp that Open means Open here. Deleting comments is chicken shit and self serving, unless the comments are extremely offensive or hurtful. Just leave them and let others absorb differing views and reactions as the "openness" here is intended and meant to stimulate thought.
Whether here on OS or anywhere in life, everyone will not always like or understand us as we want to be known and understood. That is the risk we take putting anything out there in the written word and will be criticised or judged accordingly. On the other hand, we can be seen, heard and appreciated for our points of view and validated for having the courage to speak out truth. Peace.
Whether here on OS or anywhere in life, everyone will not always like or understand us as we want to be known and understood. That is the risk we take putting anything out there in the written word and will be criticised or judged accordingly. On the other hand, we can be seen, heard and appreciated for our points of view and validated for having the courage to speak out truth. Peace.
P, you said it very very well. I also was attacked in private message by Beck after posting a comment to one of his threads. He could have been pollite and told me it was too bold or whatever he didn't like about it. Instead he cursed and swore at me in private message.
His ego knows no bounds.
rated
His ego knows no bounds.
rated
Thank you Cathy. I can understand him deleting comments from Rebirth Unit who seemed to be trying to hijack a post. All i did was ask a simple civil question.
JLee it seems a lot of people have had the same experience.
JLee it seems a lot of people have had the same experience.
Padraig, I would like to rescind my previous assessment of Bill. He is not a schmuck. He is a totally fucking asshole. He even tried to stand up for the-doctor-who-shall-remain-nameless-lest-she-return. I guess he wanted to protect his own.
P, I apologize for the profanity, but his complete lack of respect for other people's perspectives, especially when they counter his, has frustrated me even more as I look back at his responses to my comments. He's just a jerk who likes pushing people around in his little sandbox. When they push back, he pushes them out. Rather juvenile.
I know his methods too well. There is a behind-the-scenes side of him that many will never know and probably wonder what the heck we're all complaining about.
To answer Stellaa - he is US and everyone else is THEM. Now go read his stuff if you still want to.
You are a gentleman, sir. I am happy to know you and I applaud you sticking up to a bully.
To answer Stellaa - he is US and everyone else is THEM. Now go read his stuff if you still want to.
You are a gentleman, sir. I am happy to know you and I applaud you sticking up to a bully.
Thanks Duane and Aaron.
After telling me not to send him PMs (which I never did anyway) he has sent one to me.
Bill Beck has chosen not to respond to me on this post but he has sent me a PM alerting me to a long and incoherent comment on his own blog. In it he says:
“Now, I have never had pleasant exchanges with Padraig. I dont like his style as he has dealth with me. So I avoid him. That settles it.”
I don’t know what he is referring to. There is overwhelming evidence here that most people have pleasant exchanges with me. I have addressed him only on a couple of occasions and done so in a civil manner. If he wants to avoid me he should not send me PMs. If he wants to delete my very rare comments on his blog he should also delete his own comments which give a distorted idea of what I have said in the deleted comment.
After telling me not to send him PMs (which I never did anyway) he has sent one to me.
Bill Beck has chosen not to respond to me on this post but he has sent me a PM alerting me to a long and incoherent comment on his own blog. In it he says:
“Now, I have never had pleasant exchanges with Padraig. I dont like his style as he has dealth with me. So I avoid him. That settles it.”
I don’t know what he is referring to. There is overwhelming evidence here that most people have pleasant exchanges with me. I have addressed him only on a couple of occasions and done so in a civil manner. If he wants to avoid me he should not send me PMs. If he wants to delete my very rare comments on his blog he should also delete his own comments which give a distorted idea of what I have said in the deleted comment.
Padraig--I haven't got a clue about any of this stuff you are talking about. However, I don't believe in the deletion of comments even as we have the means to (I might delete nanatehay's comments...hehehe). I SO SO agree with this by Sean:
"It's a sad thing and a product of how we educate people these days. No more broadminded liberal educations. All narrow, parochial focus. And this is what happens. People don't like to be challenged any more. Don't like their comfortable assumptions called into question. It's the deathknell for civil discourse. A pity..."
OS is a hotbed of everything described above, but so is the world. But, Padraig, I say that if you are pissing someone off, then you are doing something right. Congrats!
"It's a sad thing and a product of how we educate people these days. No more broadminded liberal educations. All narrow, parochial focus. And this is what happens. People don't like to be challenged any more. Don't like their comfortable assumptions called into question. It's the deathknell for civil discourse. A pity..."
OS is a hotbed of everything described above, but so is the world. But, Padraig, I say that if you are pissing someone off, then you are doing something right. Congrats!
I read an article in main Salon recently about having people respond right away to your work. It is good in that mistakes can be corrected and you could see the effect you are having on your readership right away. But it can be kind of off-puting. If there is a wide-spread negative reaction it can be hard to take. In the past you never knew what most people thought. Now you have to forget about the reader to write, but it can be harder if you have gotten very bad feedback. One has to tough it out, and try to stay positive.
Thanks Ghost Writer and Kathy.
He is still not coming over here to address this issue but making more and more bizarre comments over on his own blog from which he has banned me.
He says he deleted invective from me. He could not have done that because I never sent invective to him.
“Your particular method of dealing with me has always been confrontational on points not worth addressing, and when the same sort of question is returned, you flee.”
This makes it sound as if I am constantly harassing him. I have only commented on two or three of his posts and that briefly and with civility. The confrontation has been supplied by him behind the scenes in PMs. Other people seem to have had the same experience.
His answer to legitimate questions is that I have no right to be questioning him. I did not flee he told me to go away.
He is still not coming over here to address this issue but making more and more bizarre comments over on his own blog from which he has banned me.
He says he deleted invective from me. He could not have done that because I never sent invective to him.
“Your particular method of dealing with me has always been confrontational on points not worth addressing, and when the same sort of question is returned, you flee.”
This makes it sound as if I am constantly harassing him. I have only commented on two or three of his posts and that briefly and with civility. The confrontation has been supplied by him behind the scenes in PMs. Other people seem to have had the same experience.
His answer to legitimate questions is that I have no right to be questioning him. I did not flee he told me to go away.
Ok Padraig, I will address you on your blog about a personal matter. I think it is just ugly clutter to do so, but it is the only way you will address it.
Like you pasted of mine, I said that I dislike you. I came to that decision based upon my contact with you. I did explain that. The PM is yours. You can paste all of it.
The reason you dont know it is that I did not address it to you. I did not make a big deal about it. I dont see the purpose of doing that. I dont like the tone of our communication, so I stopped doing it. I did not ask publicly "should I dislike Padraig". I dont see the point of that. I decided that for myself. It only concerns myself. That is not to say that others might. Clearly others do. My personal like or dislike of you is in no way related to how someone else feels. I dont knwo why it would be. And I did not say, "I dont like you Padraig, and here are the reasons why", because what would that do but insult you? I did state my disagreement about the manner of our interection, then when it did not change anything, I quit. I am not saying I am a teddy bear. I am not. I am not saying you are a universal villain. you are not. I said, I dislike how it goes when we communicate. How you communicate with anyone else has zero to do with that.
Like you pasted of mine, I said that I dislike you. I came to that decision based upon my contact with you. I did explain that. The PM is yours. You can paste all of it.
The reason you dont know it is that I did not address it to you. I did not make a big deal about it. I dont see the purpose of doing that. I dont like the tone of our communication, so I stopped doing it. I did not ask publicly "should I dislike Padraig". I dont see the point of that. I decided that for myself. It only concerns myself. That is not to say that others might. Clearly others do. My personal like or dislike of you is in no way related to how someone else feels. I dont knwo why it would be. And I did not say, "I dont like you Padraig, and here are the reasons why", because what would that do but insult you? I did state my disagreement about the manner of our interection, then when it did not change anything, I quit. I am not saying I am a teddy bear. I am not. I am not saying you are a universal villain. you are not. I said, I dislike how it goes when we communicate. How you communicate with anyone else has zero to do with that.
Pad, he will not post here.
He doesn't like posting anywhere where he has no control over deleting.
It's cowardly, but there it is.
He doesn't like posting anywhere where he has no control over deleting.
It's cowardly, but there it is.
Wow....amazing.
I won't be back on this post, Padraig, friend.
He lies and manipulates posts, comments, private messages.
I won't be back on this post, Padraig, friend.
He lies and manipulates posts, comments, private messages.
well his comment above reminds me of the aphorism "it's better to keep you mouth shut and have people think you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
a waste of electrons to respond further to him
a waste of electrons to respond further to him
Good of you to drop by Bill. I will not delete you.
I was just checking out your blog to try to find some evidence of the invective you accuse me of.
I found this. Problem for you is that that was not me. The only brief comment I had on your smoking post was to ask what you had deleted because I couldn't follow the argument. Your complaints about me are pure fantasy.
"When I wrote, ‘I get it’ referring to why smokers do what they do, you commented saying, ‘there is nothing to get.’ I thought that was rude. I did not advocate for smoking. I hate smoking. Hate it. I was exploring trying to see the other side. That is not exactly egotistical.
My objection to you comment was this. You seemed to want to invalidate just trying to be open with something I already disagreed with. I dd not see the need for it. It seemed mean. I did not want to make a post saying I understand why smokers smoke, only to have someone say that somers are wrong, or that I was fooling myself about what I "got". You can make your point, and yes I thought it was too strong, like you said. But to say, "there is nothing to get" is unnecessary.
You went on to say that you smoked for years, and had quit for years. Great. That is what I want everyone to do. But to just say, there is nothing to get? That was unnecessary.
Also, I dont get how that statement did not seem egotistical to you. People seem to want to be told nicely when they are mean. Why? isn't that on you as an adult?
~Bill
***********************************************************
I didn't read your shit message, nor will I ever read your shit
.
You are not someone I will ever read a word from again.
do NOT message me again Beck. I didn't read this one and I won't read others.
Fuck you, as you said to me.
***********************************************************
I believe I said, "go fuck yourself". Just for the record, it was actually worse than you stated. And you are welcome to. But lets not pretend that this is something that it isn't. I returned heavy rudeness to mild rudeness. I absolutely admit that. I do that on purpose. It always surprises me that people desire politeness in return for their rudeness. So you say it is all my doing. So be it.”
I was just checking out your blog to try to find some evidence of the invective you accuse me of.
I found this. Problem for you is that that was not me. The only brief comment I had on your smoking post was to ask what you had deleted because I couldn't follow the argument. Your complaints about me are pure fantasy.
"When I wrote, ‘I get it’ referring to why smokers do what they do, you commented saying, ‘there is nothing to get.’ I thought that was rude. I did not advocate for smoking. I hate smoking. Hate it. I was exploring trying to see the other side. That is not exactly egotistical.
My objection to you comment was this. You seemed to want to invalidate just trying to be open with something I already disagreed with. I dd not see the need for it. It seemed mean. I did not want to make a post saying I understand why smokers smoke, only to have someone say that somers are wrong, or that I was fooling myself about what I "got". You can make your point, and yes I thought it was too strong, like you said. But to say, "there is nothing to get" is unnecessary.
You went on to say that you smoked for years, and had quit for years. Great. That is what I want everyone to do. But to just say, there is nothing to get? That was unnecessary.
Also, I dont get how that statement did not seem egotistical to you. People seem to want to be told nicely when they are mean. Why? isn't that on you as an adult?
~Bill
***********************************************************
I didn't read your shit message, nor will I ever read your shit
.
You are not someone I will ever read a word from again.
do NOT message me again Beck. I didn't read this one and I won't read others.
Fuck you, as you said to me.
***********************************************************
I believe I said, "go fuck yourself". Just for the record, it was actually worse than you stated. And you are welcome to. But lets not pretend that this is something that it isn't. I returned heavy rudeness to mild rudeness. I absolutely admit that. I do that on purpose. It always surprises me that people desire politeness in return for their rudeness. So you say it is all my doing. So be it.”
I may very well be a fool. That is for you to decide. As to the matter at hand, there are the issues to discuss. Discuss with the fool or dont. But being a fool is legal, and my business. It is no burden to you.
This is what I mentoned before. The post was not about smoking pot. That is another post. This comment about smoking was not by you. So again, it was not about you Padraig. Like I said earlier, none of it is about you.
Second, the invective was removed. You cant find the invective because I remove it. That is the issue, right? Why do I remove things. You cant find it because it was removed. if you go looking for it, you wont find it. Know why? It was removed.
The post was about smoking cigarettes. The PM's as between myself and JLee. She understated the severity of my rude comment so I included it to make the record more clear. I did not want to dodge the responsibility. FULL disclosure. And again Padraig......nothing to do wth you.
Second, the invective was removed. You cant find the invective because I remove it. That is the issue, right? Why do I remove things. You cant find it because it was removed. if you go looking for it, you wont find it. Know why? It was removed.
The post was about smoking cigarettes. The PM's as between myself and JLee. She understated the severity of my rude comment so I included it to make the record more clear. I did not want to dodge the responsibility. FULL disclosure. And again Padraig......nothing to do wth you.
Cutting through all the crap. A simple question for Beck. Answer honestly:
How many comments do you delete per post?
How many comments do you delete per post?
Generally I am against censorship. Manipulating responses and comments by deleting some while leaving others that were linked to the discarded seems wrong to me. At the very least it is impolite.
I thought the above was written with much thought and clarity.
I thought the above was written with much thought and clarity.
I have to chuckle here. I guess I got an earlier warning about this. :-)
Behind Blue Eyes, I have a few conditions for you specifically. You have called me a "censoring cunt". I am not sure if it gets more severe than a "cunt". Maybe there is another level. You can let me know. but now you're asking me about how much. If I can be a "cunt" and you dont know how much or how often, what does specificity do fo me? Will it, 1. get you to identify yourself and stand behind your comments? 2. get me a better or worse insult e.g. pussy, scrotum, polyp, whatever is in the official rule book of insulting? 3. will it change anything about how anyone does anything? Clear that up for me. With what little I do know, from being the "fool", I dont see a point.
Fuck you and your conditions.
Can you answer a simple question or not?
Can you answer a simple question or not?
Look BBE, I am already determined to be a "fool" and a "censoring cunt". By that I can't answer a simple question, and I censor. You can make up the answer for yourself like you already have. And you can stay safely behind your mask. I would personally like you to deliver that insult in person. Face to face. Not online. I think it is falsely brave to do it online AND behind a mask. But like I said, you already made the determination.
I already know the answer.
Just wanted to see if you would admit to being the biggest censoring cunt ratfink on OS.
But you are so deluded you can't even answer a simple question.
Which is why I have never bothered with your blog and never will.
Just wanted to see if you would admit to being the biggest censoring cunt ratfink on OS.
But you are so deluded you can't even answer a simple question.
Which is why I have never bothered with your blog and never will.
This seems to have gone quiet. Let me know if you have more concerns. If this is it, I dont see what we accomplished.
Some pretty infantile and infuriating behaviors when a blogger hits that delete key frequently. There are a couple of prolific bloggers on OS who argue, delete, criticize, personalize any little disagreement (even when repectfully presented).
These types enjoy keeping things stirred up rather than have a rational discussion of disagreements on the issues. It appears to be the case where their personality patterns override their judgment. Most of the faults they find in others are of course their own inner demons - better to project it onto someone else than to deal with it honestly! Psychological terms like narcissism, borderline personality disorder, etc., come to mind.
I completely understand why you wrote this.
The best thing for me is to simply ignore them, but I do confess that every now and then I like to make a comment just to get them all riled up. It's the "little man in me."
These types enjoy keeping things stirred up rather than have a rational discussion of disagreements on the issues. It appears to be the case where their personality patterns override their judgment. Most of the faults they find in others are of course their own inner demons - better to project it onto someone else than to deal with it honestly! Psychological terms like narcissism, borderline personality disorder, etc., come to mind.
I completely understand why you wrote this.
The best thing for me is to simply ignore them, but I do confess that every now and then I like to make a comment just to get them all riled up. It's the "little man in me."
I would love to see an arguemnt respectfully presented. Its the disrespectfully presented ones that are my concern. Padraig makes a great case. It just had nothing to do with me.
Ok, lets say I am "delusional" Behind Blue Eyes. Do you aregue with someone who is delusional?
Look, your assessment of what did happen is based upon lots of false tellings. For starters, Padraig repeatedly says that this has to do with him. I stopped dealing with Padraig months ago. This has nothing to do with him. he even copied and pasted PM's that had nothing to do with him. Your perception is somewhat based upon the fact that my post had something to do with Padraig. It did not. This is one reason why it does not bear arguing. The issues do not connect. "Who's on first?" It's not Padraig.
Look, your assessment of what did happen is based upon lots of false tellings. For starters, Padraig repeatedly says that this has to do with him. I stopped dealing with Padraig months ago. This has nothing to do with him. he even copied and pasted PM's that had nothing to do with him. Your perception is somewhat based upon the fact that my post had something to do with Padraig. It did not. This is one reason why it does not bear arguing. The issues do not connect. "Who's on first?" It's not Padraig.
Of course I am dealing with Padraig now. That was requested. Here I am. I hold a similar opinion of you BBE. You like to, as another blogger put it, test the limits of discourse. That's cool. That's your thing. You do it your way, which includes using a mask. Not my choice, but it is your thing. I dont deal with that sort of thing either, if I say "go fuck yourself", I say it as myself with all of the responsibility and scorn that comes with it. That is my way. is it wrong. Hell yes. But at least there is no mistake about who sad it. Now tell me about delusions, BBE.
You know what's hysterical about this?
In a week, none of this shit will matter. In a month, people won't even remember and in a year, well, who knows if any of us will be here that long.
Park your anger and get a life. Christ, people... And I had a thread about deleting comments. I realized that deleting comments is usually not the correct way to handle people.
Now, get over it and stop pouting. The both of you!
In a week, none of this shit will matter. In a month, people won't even remember and in a year, well, who knows if any of us will be here that long.
Park your anger and get a life. Christ, people... And I had a thread about deleting comments. I realized that deleting comments is usually not the correct way to handle people.
Now, get over it and stop pouting. The both of you!
This is terrific. I love a good debate/fight. I can't understand why people delete comments. If you stand behind what you write, deal with the comments. Critical ones are often the most interesting. Rude ones are the easiest to deal with.
Gonzoid is right but I'm not angry. Might be pouting a little, though. This is getting very silly. It's past midnight where I am. I'm going to sleep now and Ithink I'll wrap this up in the morning.
I think the most disturbing thing about this is that he claims to have had an "interection" with you. I'm trying to imagine such a thing and to banish it from my thoughts at the same time.
If I've learned one thing since I've been on OS Padraig it's that no one can win these kinds of battles. You're too smart and too good of a writer to tilt at windmills forever. :)
I'll share with you what I almost wrote over there: "Please don't hate me for being an incredibly slow reader, but this is three days I'd like to have back."
Emma and Gonzoid are right. None of this is going to matter in time.
Also, if Mr. Beck wants to delete comments (rightly or wrongly) he does have that right. It is his blog after all and he can do as he wishes.
I do not believe in censorship whatsoever! There are OS writers who I simply cannot stand and whose views go against every cell of my body, and even a few who go against my calm sensibilities of being a gay man of color in the United States.
Mr. Beck does have a reputation, and it can't be ignore either. He is a formidable individual to say the least. And I am not surprised that he hasn't backed down. In fact, in my view, he never will.
With that said, your post here Mr. Colman was thoughtful with clarity and class. And I'm grateful there are still individuals who can keep calm in an eye of a raging storm. So I give much thanks for this post!
Also, if Mr. Beck wants to delete comments (rightly or wrongly) he does have that right. It is his blog after all and he can do as he wishes.
I do not believe in censorship whatsoever! There are OS writers who I simply cannot stand and whose views go against every cell of my body, and even a few who go against my calm sensibilities of being a gay man of color in the United States.
Mr. Beck does have a reputation, and it can't be ignore either. He is a formidable individual to say the least. And I am not surprised that he hasn't backed down. In fact, in my view, he never will.
With that said, your post here Mr. Colman was thoughtful with clarity and class. And I'm grateful there are still individuals who can keep calm in an eye of a raging storm. So I give much thanks for this post!
Padraig, I have always found your posts to be thoughtful and well reasoned.
That said, I do suggest that you consider closing comments on this post. Time for us all to go to bed.
That said, I do suggest that you consider closing comments on this post. Time for us all to go to bed.
I too, saw the post to which you refer, and found it much too difficult to wade through. If I were to compare it to one of Verbal Remedy's "5 paragraph essay formations", it would take the shape of a gratuitious, meandering turd, perhaps.
I like your ethics, sir. And your writing is pretty good too.
: )
I like your ethics, sir. And your writing is pretty good too.
: )
you know what? I take that back. The post was meandering and I couldn't follow it. (sorry for calling it a "turd", I was playing off of your tags... but it was rude)
I find you to be one of the most calm, rational, and intelligent voices here on OS. I aspire to your considered style of discourse when in disagreement. Then again, I've been accused of being part of a golden clique, a disingenuous liar, a bitch who kicks others when they are down, etc. etc. so what do I know?! I'll tell you what I know: I recognize quality people when I hear them speak at length, and observe how they treat others - and you are a quality person, Padraig. It's why you felt driven to delve into the OS Taliban issue to begin with - not because you enjoy tilting at windmills, but because yo honestly wanted to understand where the sense of persecution was coming from. My guess is that question, no matter how clearly and rationally put, will never receive an equally clear and rational answer.
Just to amend my comment - I went over and read Bill's post. I think he made some excellent points about McCarthyism. And also about the way Dr. Amy was treated on this site. I was very mystified by the title OS Taliban - the post didn't make any over references to what if any point he was making by the juxtaposition of the title to the essay. So, I'm in no position to know or speculate what if anything Bill was saying about OS or its members in this post. Though the essay discusses the issue of group think and persecution at length, it's not clear to me how these issues were being applied to the OS environment to arrive at that title.
I see a lot of writers on OS that take themselves very, very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that they seem to take their blogging here as a full time job and get very. very irate when people don't comment/rate/pay attention/agree with them at levels they deem necessary.
Personally, I've been attacked here due to total misunderstanding and I've had random people make new blog profiles JUST to bash me in... get this... my dog food recipe blog posts. Honestly, I think leaving the comments there speaks volumes more about the people leaving them than it does about me. That's why I choose not to delete any comments left in my blog. (I guess I'd make an exception for death threats, but that hasn't happened yet. Knock on wood.)
I figure I just need to laugh at the people getting their panties in a bind about my dog food blog posts, gay rights posts, political posts, or anything else. I just can't dredge up the willpower to get truly furious or concerned about a bunch of people I don't know that are simply providing me with three things -
1) Idle, sometimes fun conversation and banter in the form of comments and
2) Critiques on my own writing, as I'm trying to hone my own skills in that realm and
3) Fun things to read.
That's it. Get off the PC, people, if you feel yourself getting that heated about an online community. Get some Sun. Make love to your wife. Play with your dog. For chrissakes just get off the computer for a bit.
Personally, I've been attacked here due to total misunderstanding and I've had random people make new blog profiles JUST to bash me in... get this... my dog food recipe blog posts. Honestly, I think leaving the comments there speaks volumes more about the people leaving them than it does about me. That's why I choose not to delete any comments left in my blog. (I guess I'd make an exception for death threats, but that hasn't happened yet. Knock on wood.)
I figure I just need to laugh at the people getting their panties in a bind about my dog food blog posts, gay rights posts, political posts, or anything else. I just can't dredge up the willpower to get truly furious or concerned about a bunch of people I don't know that are simply providing me with three things -
1) Idle, sometimes fun conversation and banter in the form of comments and
2) Critiques on my own writing, as I'm trying to hone my own skills in that realm and
3) Fun things to read.
That's it. Get off the PC, people, if you feel yourself getting that heated about an online community. Get some Sun. Make love to your wife. Play with your dog. For chrissakes just get off the computer for a bit.
Oh - one more comment.
If I post a comment in somebody's blog and they delete it, fine. I won't complain. I won't PM.
I'll just never read the blog again, because obviously my participation isn't needed or appreciated. This leaves me dozens upon dozens of blogs I can post in, however, where my comments don't get deleted.
If it got bad enough, I might blog a "worst offenders" list of people who constantly delete commentary, but only to warn off those people who might have something to contribute to the argument that their words may be wasted on the "delete" button.
I say, everyone - police your blogs as you see fit and we will all read and comment as we see fit. See how "free market economy" that solution is? If I like to comment and you like to delete, I can stop commenting! If I like to comment and you leave even my disagreeing posts up for readers to see, then I'll keep commenting.
The simplicity is breathtaking in its beauty. ;)
If I post a comment in somebody's blog and they delete it, fine. I won't complain. I won't PM.
I'll just never read the blog again, because obviously my participation isn't needed or appreciated. This leaves me dozens upon dozens of blogs I can post in, however, where my comments don't get deleted.
If it got bad enough, I might blog a "worst offenders" list of people who constantly delete commentary, but only to warn off those people who might have something to contribute to the argument that their words may be wasted on the "delete" button.
I say, everyone - police your blogs as you see fit and we will all read and comment as we see fit. See how "free market economy" that solution is? If I like to comment and you like to delete, I can stop commenting! If I like to comment and you leave even my disagreeing posts up for readers to see, then I'll keep commenting.
The simplicity is breathtaking in its beauty. ;)
on these matters, BBE makes so much sense I will agree with the quote
"Every writer here can police their blogs as they see fit, but the ones who become known as censoring cunt ratfinks shouldn't be surprised if people do the sensible thing like you are and quit reading and commenting on their posts. " --rated--
"Every writer here can police their blogs as they see fit, but the ones who become known as censoring cunt ratfinks shouldn't be surprised if people do the sensible thing like you are and quit reading and commenting on their posts. " --rated--
So this big bully traffic cop pulls me over and starts ranting and raving and carrying on in disjointed sentences that are really hard to follow until I finally asked him what the heck is going on here, so he finally gives in and kinda sorta realizes/admits that he probably should not have pulled me over at all, then just to show me what a great guy he is he says he'll only give me a warning this time because actually he wasn't pulling me over, he was checking to see what the guy in the back seat was doing even though he never looked at him or said a word about it until he was done trying to make himself look like a hero for keeping us all safe on the road.
Hope you slept well.
Hope you slept well.
Deleting comments should be done in the rarest of circumstances and then only if they are abusive personal attacks -- and never because the commenter disagrees. I even leave harsh ones on my posts as proof of the adage that opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one -- and some people are one.
Those who regularly delete comments soon enough find themselves departed -- like a certain lapsed doctor whose name cannot be spoken.
Those who regularly delete comments soon enough find themselves departed -- like a certain lapsed doctor whose name cannot be spoken.
Beck is the human example of how the Hard Left has an engrained and unstoppable momentum towards an ideological purity that must, by its nature, condemn and censor all dissent. He is a de facto justification of conservatism as counter-measure.
He once launched a blog post against me and several other OSers, one of whom is from my vantage, a left-winger, who had made a mildly critical comment on his blog. The post was not much more than a picture of Uncle Sam flipping a bird. He deleted it quickly, suggesting that it was an emotional response he thought better of, but he will still present himself as Mr. Reason.
His flock is often hilarious. This is dynamite, but I don't care here goes: lots of white racial fetishism. He wrote a gun piece in which he boasted that if somebody tried to use a gun against him, he WOULD kill them with their gun. The commenters drooled over his bravado, "I'm sure you would Bill." Funny stuff. Hey libs, "miscegenation" is legal! If you're curious, get it over with.
He once launched a blog post against me and several other OSers, one of whom is from my vantage, a left-winger, who had made a mildly critical comment on his blog. The post was not much more than a picture of Uncle Sam flipping a bird. He deleted it quickly, suggesting that it was an emotional response he thought better of, but he will still present himself as Mr. Reason.
His flock is often hilarious. This is dynamite, but I don't care here goes: lots of white racial fetishism. He wrote a gun piece in which he boasted that if somebody tried to use a gun against him, he WOULD kill them with their gun. The commenters drooled over his bravado, "I'm sure you would Bill." Funny stuff. Hey libs, "miscegenation" is legal! If you're curious, get it over with.
Interesting post. I've been away a while and now will check out Beckola. He must be related to Glenn.
Padraig,
Man, you are one of my favorites here on OS, just so you know. Also, I had a similar experience with Beck sometime back close to when I think he joined OS. I have simply avoided him complete ever since. Basically, Beck is a person who masquerades as an intellectual, and cannot handle being challenged. He incessantly responds with points off topic, much like his Buddhism analogy that you posted. Professing to be a Buddhist is not analogous to comparing actions by OS bloggers and the Taliban. As you stated, it doesn’t follow; this is how he often thinks. His comments are often disjointed, contorted, and illogical.
I can tell by the amount of energy you put into this that you are so totally perplexed by his behavior that you simply don’t know what to think, at all. I understand this, as many others obviously do, too, so you’re clearly not alone here. Beck is a totally baffling personality --- perhaps he’s on meds? --- and is best avoided completely. I’m glad to see all of these Os-ers out in number lending you support.
Man, you are one of my favorites here on OS, just so you know. Also, I had a similar experience with Beck sometime back close to when I think he joined OS. I have simply avoided him complete ever since. Basically, Beck is a person who masquerades as an intellectual, and cannot handle being challenged. He incessantly responds with points off topic, much like his Buddhism analogy that you posted. Professing to be a Buddhist is not analogous to comparing actions by OS bloggers and the Taliban. As you stated, it doesn’t follow; this is how he often thinks. His comments are often disjointed, contorted, and illogical.
I can tell by the amount of energy you put into this that you are so totally perplexed by his behavior that you simply don’t know what to think, at all. I understand this, as many others obviously do, too, so you’re clearly not alone here. Beck is a totally baffling personality --- perhaps he’s on meds? --- and is best avoided completely. I’m glad to see all of these Os-ers out in number lending you support.
In Australia,one of our favourite sayings is:
"Fight on yer bastards,I hate peace".
"Fight on yer bastards,I hate peace".
Padraig, I had a similar experience. PMs and all. I'm extremely uncomfortable mentioning it publicly because I have an ethical aversion to complaining about others in the third person. Ironically, I'm in complete agreement with Beck on Dr. Amy, whom I thought was bullied mercilessly here. It doesn't matter what she did or didn't do; others' responses to her were a reflection of their own values, imo. In complete contradiction to my principles, I'm weighing in here b/c I think it would be disingenuous of me to see this topic, so remarkably close to my own experience, and not publicly affirm your confusion regarding your interaction with Bill Beck. I thought his post on OS Taliban was unintentionally ironic. 'Nuff said.
On a more general note, deleting people's challenging or questioning comments, while certainly within anybody's right, is misleading, unfair, and unethical. People who stick to legalistics on this matter are missing the point.
On a more general note, deleting people's challenging or questioning comments, while certainly within anybody's right, is misleading, unfair, and unethical. People who stick to legalistics on this matter are missing the point.
Padraig, I had to go over and read his post to understand yours. I accidentally skipped the title and had no idea what he was talking about. Then it emerged in the comments threads.
For what it's worth, the current status with his long replies and yours deleted sounds like someone arguing with an hallucination.
For what it's worth, the current status with his long replies and yours deleted sounds like someone arguing with an hallucination.
Oh, that thread...
I used to post on a little known site called TheSmirkingChimp. You want to talk about cat fights and blog whoring... YIKES! =8-O
One guy was banned, for life. He came back, using a friend's computer, and started a thread about how damn judgmental everyone was. How he was only there to 'spark conversation' and that he, well actually it was for everyone else that had been banned and had posts deleted or been forced out, how they were all treated so harshly by the 'masses' and the owners on the site. I just had to say 'Oh please...'
Bitching and twitting on about how 'the OS Taliban' forced out 'Dr.' Amy or some such twaddle is devoid of logic and facts. 'Dr.' Amy was a shit slinging fraud. She pushed so many 'corporate speak' agendas and was so rude to so many so often that she was hard to take (at least to me). No one was ever as good or as right or as fantastic as her. People like that shit in their own bed. Recognizing it for what it is and calling a spade a shovel isn't being 'Taliban', it's being intelligent and using common sense. I had started directly avoiding her posts like the plague. 'Dr.' Amy got the idea that she was 'wasting her time' here and left. After being on the receiving end of a few of her tirades, I can't get all weepy eyed that she is gone.
Over the years, it's become clear that blogging and posting in the relative anonymity of online groups sometimes, perhaps often' brings out the bad in so many people. There are divas, royalty, psychos, perverts, crybabies, retards, neanderthals and many other freaks and trolls.
I don't know if this helps of not but on TSC, the attitude of the site would ebb and flow from harmony to all out warfare. Heck, I received a few death threats there...
We either choose to behave and be nice to each other or we lose people and perhaps the site's purpose.
I used to post on a little known site called TheSmirkingChimp. You want to talk about cat fights and blog whoring... YIKES! =8-O
One guy was banned, for life. He came back, using a friend's computer, and started a thread about how damn judgmental everyone was. How he was only there to 'spark conversation' and that he, well actually it was for everyone else that had been banned and had posts deleted or been forced out, how they were all treated so harshly by the 'masses' and the owners on the site. I just had to say 'Oh please...'
Bitching and twitting on about how 'the OS Taliban' forced out 'Dr.' Amy or some such twaddle is devoid of logic and facts. 'Dr.' Amy was a shit slinging fraud. She pushed so many 'corporate speak' agendas and was so rude to so many so often that she was hard to take (at least to me). No one was ever as good or as right or as fantastic as her. People like that shit in their own bed. Recognizing it for what it is and calling a spade a shovel isn't being 'Taliban', it's being intelligent and using common sense. I had started directly avoiding her posts like the plague. 'Dr.' Amy got the idea that she was 'wasting her time' here and left. After being on the receiving end of a few of her tirades, I can't get all weepy eyed that she is gone.
Over the years, it's become clear that blogging and posting in the relative anonymity of online groups sometimes, perhaps often' brings out the bad in so many people. There are divas, royalty, psychos, perverts, crybabies, retards, neanderthals and many other freaks and trolls.
I don't know if this helps of not but on TSC, the attitude of the site would ebb and flow from harmony to all out warfare. Heck, I received a few death threats there...
We either choose to behave and be nice to each other or we lose people and perhaps the site's purpose.
And if it is true that Bill Beck deletes your and others comments, than he is really no different than the astoundingly ignorant right wingers that stick their fingers int heir ears and scream 'LA-LA-LA' so they can't hear you, and you are like the guys that waste their breath trying to reach the unreachable. They argue in their own self reinforced echo chambers.
I had to laugh just now. At a tea bagging party (tee hee) a guy was interviewed about what he thought of Obama and he said that 'He's a fascist'. Well, the interviewer asks, why is he a fascist? 'Because he is'. Well, you really can't argue with that brilliant display of logic. the omnipotence of the idiot class is paramount to any display of logic or even knowing the definitions of the damn words.
Over educated parrots, and usually drastically overfed too...
I had to laugh just now. At a tea bagging party (tee hee) a guy was interviewed about what he thought of Obama and he said that 'He's a fascist'. Well, the interviewer asks, why is he a fascist? 'Because he is'. Well, you really can't argue with that brilliant display of logic. the omnipotence of the idiot class is paramount to any display of logic or even knowing the definitions of the damn words.
Over educated parrots, and usually drastically overfed too...
Thank you Lainey. Your point about Dr Amy is a good one. When I first saw her odious views about Palestinians I told her directly that I found them misguided and mean-spirited and that I had removed her from my list of friends. She made comments on my cholesterol post which were not hostile but off-topic. I challenged her in a civil fashion on some statistics and she never answered. It was not my style to get into a flame war with her so I just avoided her. I am sure it will be easy enough to avoid Beck also.
Like you I have an aversion to criticising other members in public like this. One good thing that has come out of it is the wonderful support from people I respect. And it’s not a clique because with some of you this is our first interaction.
Thank you Sao Kay, grif, Rick, RickyB, Peter, latethink, schmadoff, Tom, alsoknownas, Mr Mustard, incandescent, Sandra, Karin, Wayne (you are probably right about closing comments),Luis, Stacey, Emma, overworked, Man Talk.
Gonzoid sanely suggests that this will soon be all forgotten. As John Maynard Keynes said: “In the long term we are all dead”. Although it seems like a lifetime, this has only been going on for about 24 hours.
I want to get a sense of closure before moving on by trying to summarise some sense out of Bill Beck’s incoherent ramblings.
He put up a post the main purpose of which was to suggest that there was a group of troublemakers in OS persecuting other members. He did not name these troublemakers.
I asked a civil question and he responded by saying I was one of the troublemakers. I made a comment denying this. He deleted my comment leaving his own accusation in place.
He told me that he would accept no further communication from me.
He continues to refuse to explain what he means by this conspiracy of troublemakers and is unwilling to name them. However, he has named me. I am the only named troublemaker.
He is also saying this is not about me although he repeatedly says he dislikes me. He justifies deleting me on the grounds that I used invective. I deny this and he says that he cannot produce evidence because the invective has been deleted. “Second, the invective was removed. You cant find the invective because I remove it. That is the issue, right? Why do I remove things. You cant find it because it was removed. if you go looking for it, you wont find it. Know why? It was removed.” It was never there in the first place.
He said that he dealt with me months ago. This cannot be true because I have had minimal interaction with him and the incident being discussed only occurred on 11 April.
Someone mentioned delusion. I think there is a strong possibility that he is confusing me with someone else. He has done this before. He gets confused because of his penchant for deleting comments. He misremembers who made a comment and can’t go back to check because it isn’t there any more.
As Gonzoid says none of this is really important. However, if we are to enjoy playing in this sandbox that is OS we should remember that if we are looking for civilised discourse we should be wary of commenting on Bill Beck’s blogs.
I reluctantly posted this piece because Bill Beck had closed off the possibility of defending myself on his blog. (Now he is accusing me of “fleeing”!) I felt vulnerable in my incomprehension at why he was picking on me like this. I now realize that this is a consistent MO with him. We all have a right to manage our blogs however we wish but we should be wary of one who uses blog management and deletion to manipulate and distort. As incandescent suggested market forces will judge someone who deletes.
Having condemned deleting, I am tempted to delete this whole post. Any thoughts?
Like you I have an aversion to criticising other members in public like this. One good thing that has come out of it is the wonderful support from people I respect. And it’s not a clique because with some of you this is our first interaction.
Thank you Sao Kay, grif, Rick, RickyB, Peter, latethink, schmadoff, Tom, alsoknownas, Mr Mustard, incandescent, Sandra, Karin, Wayne (you are probably right about closing comments),Luis, Stacey, Emma, overworked, Man Talk.
Gonzoid sanely suggests that this will soon be all forgotten. As John Maynard Keynes said: “In the long term we are all dead”. Although it seems like a lifetime, this has only been going on for about 24 hours.
I want to get a sense of closure before moving on by trying to summarise some sense out of Bill Beck’s incoherent ramblings.
He put up a post the main purpose of which was to suggest that there was a group of troublemakers in OS persecuting other members. He did not name these troublemakers.
I asked a civil question and he responded by saying I was one of the troublemakers. I made a comment denying this. He deleted my comment leaving his own accusation in place.
He told me that he would accept no further communication from me.
He continues to refuse to explain what he means by this conspiracy of troublemakers and is unwilling to name them. However, he has named me. I am the only named troublemaker.
He is also saying this is not about me although he repeatedly says he dislikes me. He justifies deleting me on the grounds that I used invective. I deny this and he says that he cannot produce evidence because the invective has been deleted. “Second, the invective was removed. You cant find the invective because I remove it. That is the issue, right? Why do I remove things. You cant find it because it was removed. if you go looking for it, you wont find it. Know why? It was removed.” It was never there in the first place.
He said that he dealt with me months ago. This cannot be true because I have had minimal interaction with him and the incident being discussed only occurred on 11 April.
Someone mentioned delusion. I think there is a strong possibility that he is confusing me with someone else. He has done this before. He gets confused because of his penchant for deleting comments. He misremembers who made a comment and can’t go back to check because it isn’t there any more.
As Gonzoid says none of this is really important. However, if we are to enjoy playing in this sandbox that is OS we should remember that if we are looking for civilised discourse we should be wary of commenting on Bill Beck’s blogs.
I reluctantly posted this piece because Bill Beck had closed off the possibility of defending myself on his blog. (Now he is accusing me of “fleeing”!) I felt vulnerable in my incomprehension at why he was picking on me like this. I now realize that this is a consistent MO with him. We all have a right to manage our blogs however we wish but we should be wary of one who uses blog management and deletion to manipulate and distort. As incandescent suggested market forces will judge someone who deletes.
Having condemned deleting, I am tempted to delete this whole post. Any thoughts?
To be clear, and on the chance that I inadvertently suggested it somehow, I am not suggesting that Bill Beck's talk about the OS Taliban had anything to do with Dr. Amy. I only referenced her b/c I wanted to make the point that given that drama, I normally refrain from commenting third person but was making an exception here. And also to note that I agreed with Beck on Dr. Amy. So...this mysterious group of troublemakers to which Padraig, previously unbeknown to himself, is a part of probably does not have anything to do with Dr. Amy.
I understand your feelings of reluctance, however I think this posting is valuable for many reasons, not the least of which is that this allows us to share a common frustration with one individual, and since it's obvious this person's behavior will not change then those he victimizes in the future can see his history and not take it personally.
I know when my comments got deleted (for being an unruly student was the best I could understand ) I was shocked and confused and I had no idea this was common practice, and had I known that (a) I would never have commented and (b) been spared the confusion and shock of something happening I couldn't see the reason for.
So let this posting and its comments stand as testimony so that the next person who is blindsided we can point them here and let this explain it all. Well done.
I know when my comments got deleted (for being an unruly student was the best I could understand ) I was shocked and confused and I had no idea this was common practice, and had I known that (a) I would never have commented and (b) been spared the confusion and shock of something happening I couldn't see the reason for.
So let this posting and its comments stand as testimony so that the next person who is blindsided we can point them here and let this explain it all. Well done.
I haven't commented so far and I'll refrain from making any substantive one now. I'd much rather argue with you about your Sri Lanka Part III post :-).
I will say one thing though. I think this is your WORST post (in terms of content, style, erudition, wit, wisdom, concision - not the strongest suit for either of us - etc. etc. etc.), but, if I'm not mistaken, your HIGHEST RATED and MOST READ. Go figure. Jaysus weeps.
WOOF
I will say one thing though. I think this is your WORST post (in terms of content, style, erudition, wit, wisdom, concision - not the strongest suit for either of us - etc. etc. etc.), but, if I'm not mistaken, your HIGHEST RATED and MOST READ. Go figure. Jaysus weeps.
WOOF
Leave it up for the OS record. Close the comments. Just suggestions.
I take your point CCC.
This is not something I felt comfortable about. I won't be doing anything similar in future. I didn't do it for the attention or the ratings but agree that it is sad that my more worthy posts have not got similar ratings. But, hey, I'm not the one doing the ratings.
And it is not SO badly written.
Thanks for the suggestion, George.
This is not something I felt comfortable about. I won't be doing anything similar in future. I didn't do it for the attention or the ratings but agree that it is sad that my more worthy posts have not got similar ratings. But, hey, I'm not the one doing the ratings.
And it is not SO badly written.
Thanks for the suggestion, George.
Padraig,
Not to get off topic, but is that a picture of Victorian strongman Eugene Sandow?
Not to get off topic, but is that a picture of Victorian strongman Eugene Sandow?
Top man Libertarius! Thank you for identifying this fine big lump of a man with muscles in his spit.
I've have been racking my brains for years trying to remember his name and you've got it - Eugen Sandow is the fella. There are pictures on the internet of him showing his todger!
I've have been racking my brains for years trying to remember his name and you've got it - Eugen Sandow is the fella. There are pictures on the internet of him showing his todger!
No, you must not close this post!! It's too important of a topic to let it disappear forever.
The fury will certainly die down, but there will be others who will roam OS one night very late and will stumble across your words.
There will be other Becks in other times during the life of OS, and they must be confronted for who they truly are.
99% of the time we write for ourselves. But it's that 1% of OS writers who bring in so many people onto a topic that will touch us all.
I mean look at the comments you've received!! My goodness, it's so rare to bring so many of us out because we live in our own OS bubble world.
Of course, you have the right to do as you wish. But after reading the post along with the comments it generated it is one of those times that do make OS what it is and that is a true forum of intellectual thought and views.
The fury will certainly die down, but there will be others who will roam OS one night very late and will stumble across your words.
There will be other Becks in other times during the life of OS, and they must be confronted for who they truly are.
99% of the time we write for ourselves. But it's that 1% of OS writers who bring in so many people onto a topic that will touch us all.
I mean look at the comments you've received!! My goodness, it's so rare to bring so many of us out because we live in our own OS bubble world.
Of course, you have the right to do as you wish. But after reading the post along with the comments it generated it is one of those times that do make OS what it is and that is a true forum of intellectual thought and views.
CCC - I can do concision. Most of my days are spent distilling vast amounts of research into a mere 800 words. OS gives me the opportunity to loosen my corsets and let rip (another farting post?)
Without a real life editor breathing down my neck I can allow myself to be a little more expansive. The words are always well chosen and I don't succumb to verbiage.
I am not a great fan of meta OS navel gazing posts and would rather get on with some real writing on quirky topics. I recall from my early days on OS that you did a lot of posts about OS.
Without a real life editor breathing down my neck I can allow myself to be a little more expansive. The words are always well chosen and I don't succumb to verbiage.
I am not a great fan of meta OS navel gazing posts and would rather get on with some real writing on quirky topics. I recall from my early days on OS that you did a lot of posts about OS.
I am one person. My blog is one blog. I dont tell people how they should manage thier blog. That is how my position is not ironic. The difference between managing my blog by my principles, and managing everyone's blog by my principles is all the difference in the world.
Padraig, this thing that you are doing is the "Taliban-ish" tactic. The entire point is to intimidate by focusing negtive attention. here is the point, if you dislike deleting, you dilike deleting. That is a fairly defined concept. What goes to the absurd are comments like the many that you encourage. Some people are attracted to such things like they are to melodrama. We all know this. Many wont touch it. That is not part of the record, but it is part of the community.
I have my differences with you, and always have. But this is childish and playground. One dude said something about I need to be "confronted as to who I am". That is an absurdity.
The notion of censorship is way overblown. You and everyone are not prevented from using your blog space. You can say what you wish. I dont control what you say. The issue of agreement has never been the case. The record exists to refute that. On and on.
I have my differences with you, and always have. But this is childish and playground. One dude said something about I need to be "confronted as to who I am". That is an absurdity.
The notion of censorship is way overblown. You and everyone are not prevented from using your blog space. You can say what you wish. I dont control what you say. The issue of agreement has never been the case. The record exists to refute that. On and on.
I agree with you Bill that this is undignified for me as well as you and I will end it.
However, you continue to manipulate by LYING about having major differences with me over a long period. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Why can’t you get it into your thick skull that I have had minimal interaction with you and my contacts with you have always been civil on my part?
YOU MUST BE MISTAKING ME FOR SOMEONE ELSE!
So many decent people (most of whom I have never had any contact with before, so it’s not a conspiracy) have spoken up in my support and testified that you have behaved to them in the bullying, arrogant and manipulative way you behaved with me.
Not one person has spoken up on this thread in your support. To you that must mean that there is a lynch mob out to persecute you. To any rational person it would mean that you pissed off a lot of people by your bad behaviour.
You still don’t get it do you? It’s not about your right to manage your blog the way you see fit it’s about manipulating and lying.
However, you continue to manipulate by LYING about having major differences with me over a long period. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Why can’t you get it into your thick skull that I have had minimal interaction with you and my contacts with you have always been civil on my part?
YOU MUST BE MISTAKING ME FOR SOMEONE ELSE!
So many decent people (most of whom I have never had any contact with before, so it’s not a conspiracy) have spoken up in my support and testified that you have behaved to them in the bullying, arrogant and manipulative way you behaved with me.
Not one person has spoken up on this thread in your support. To you that must mean that there is a lynch mob out to persecute you. To any rational person it would mean that you pissed off a lot of people by your bad behaviour.
You still don’t get it do you? It’s not about your right to manage your blog the way you see fit it’s about manipulating and lying.
Padraig, the reason that there has been minimal interaction with you is because way back when I disliked it. We stayed apart, and I prefered it that way. I presume you liked it that way too. I would not be on your blog now had you, and several others not requested it. I would prefer a personal argument to be person to person. This is just ghetto. Its stupid. But you insisted. You prefer for this to be done so a concencus of the angry can be shown. It works. What it does not show is those who prefer not to engage in the ugliness. But yes, we have had minimal contact. I think this is a good demonstration of why that is a good idea. You're a smart man Padraig. I presume you're wise too. You have lived in various paces in the world. Not everyone likes everyone. The fact that some dude in Ohio does not like some dude in Sri Lanka is no great loss to either of us. THAT is why it just makes better sense to avoid. The period of no contact was great. Suddenly you appeared on my blog again. And here we are.
And Padraig, think about it. What do I need to manipulate for? I run my blog for me. That is it. What you do, or anyone else is of no concern to me. I have nothing to earn from it. I know NONE of you personally. I dont say how you should run your blog. I dont see the "manipulation".
As for lying, the same reasons apply. I have no desire to lie about anything. Nothing in it for me. Now, am I infallibly acurate, no. I can make errors. But I have not lied once.
I once confused you for Frank on a small comment. I saw two old white dudes with a wite beard on a tiny avatar. Both used real names rather than pseudonyms. I thought one of you said something that the other had. You corrected me. That was not a lie. That was a mistake in identity. Other than that, I have not lied Padraig. That accusation is completely false. And I just supplied more substance in YOUR accusation than you did. If I lied, say where.
As for lying, the same reasons apply. I have no desire to lie about anything. Nothing in it for me. Now, am I infallibly acurate, no. I can make errors. But I have not lied once.
I once confused you for Frank on a small comment. I saw two old white dudes with a wite beard on a tiny avatar. Both used real names rather than pseudonyms. I thought one of you said something that the other had. You corrected me. That was not a lie. That was a mistake in identity. Other than that, I have not lied Padraig. That accusation is completely false. And I just supplied more substance in YOUR accusation than you did. If I lied, say where.
Padraig, this is your blog and you do what you want, but I think all that can be said to this point has been said. From here on out it's going to be more along the lines of 'yes you did' and 'no I didn't'. You might want to seriously consider closing the comments. Bill is too stubborn to admit when he is mistaken and you are only going to get more upset about the continuing debate. Either way, take a break or something.
Thanks for the venue to vent and bringing together people's experiences.
Be well.
Thanks for the venue to vent and bringing together people's experiences.
Be well.
The thrust of my statement about you, which is for you, and not for the public is that I disliked you, and avoided contact with you. My choice. Maybe every other person on OS likes you. That's great. I never gave it a thought. It was not in the terms of service that I needed to. I did not like the things that you said. So I chose to avoid locking horns with you. I think personal fights on computer is idiotic. I think it is false. I think it has HUGE potential to be about everything and effectively nothing at the same time.
Now, those who feel differently can claim that it is about deleting and disagreement. That is most obviously false. No one has looked and said, I see Bill's point. The disagreement is still there. Not one. Its all about a computer fight. That is beyond silly.
Now, those who feel differently can claim that it is about deleting and disagreement. That is most obviously false. No one has looked and said, I see Bill's point. The disagreement is still there. Not one. Its all about a computer fight. That is beyond silly.
That is all they ever are Aaron Rury. That is why they are silly to begin with.
Nasty stuff Shmadoff. Your dynamite was completely uncalled for in the context of this "discussion" such as it is. Surprised no one else called you on it. I will.
I failed to address "bullying and arrogant".
I dont see how I can be buulying on my own blog. I am not going to other blogs and calling them "cunts", or whathave you. I have raised some controversial subject but tried to keep the focus narrow to AVOID bullying by anyone. I removed negative comments about gays and women, and various ethnicities. I think those things remaining in cyberspace or anywhere else are the things left for bullying. I oppose it. Saying to someone that I wont discuss that or I wont allow it here is not bullying. If you feel bullied, that is your own issue. I have admittedly said "fuck off" or similar such things, but that it so back someone off who advanced to a GROUP disrespectfully. I received a comment that I thought SMOKERS would take as an insult so I STOPPED it harshly. There are other comments regarding the smoking left on the thread that diagreed respectfully. I make efforts to make it more comfortable for everyone who will be friendly. I have put my life on the line for stangers, innocent strangers and criminals. I would not put my life on the line in the flesh and seek to "bully" on a computer screen. Am I perfect, no. Can something be perceived as bullying, sure. But at some point there has to be a benefit of the doubt.
If you go a lifetime without being misperceived, congratulations. I seriously doubt that is possible. But if you have that good fortune, good for you. But to say that deleting a comment on a blog thread is more of an indication of WHO I am rather than a lifetime of real interaction, and ten years of public service is not even close to reasonable. I dont presume to say who you are, or anyone else who disagrees in this thread. I can't determine that. Neither can you. To say so is absurd.
I dont see how I can be buulying on my own blog. I am not going to other blogs and calling them "cunts", or whathave you. I have raised some controversial subject but tried to keep the focus narrow to AVOID bullying by anyone. I removed negative comments about gays and women, and various ethnicities. I think those things remaining in cyberspace or anywhere else are the things left for bullying. I oppose it. Saying to someone that I wont discuss that or I wont allow it here is not bullying. If you feel bullied, that is your own issue. I have admittedly said "fuck off" or similar such things, but that it so back someone off who advanced to a GROUP disrespectfully. I received a comment that I thought SMOKERS would take as an insult so I STOPPED it harshly. There are other comments regarding the smoking left on the thread that diagreed respectfully. I make efforts to make it more comfortable for everyone who will be friendly. I have put my life on the line for stangers, innocent strangers and criminals. I would not put my life on the line in the flesh and seek to "bully" on a computer screen. Am I perfect, no. Can something be perceived as bullying, sure. But at some point there has to be a benefit of the doubt.
If you go a lifetime without being misperceived, congratulations. I seriously doubt that is possible. But if you have that good fortune, good for you. But to say that deleting a comment on a blog thread is more of an indication of WHO I am rather than a lifetime of real interaction, and ten years of public service is not even close to reasonable. I dont presume to say who you are, or anyone else who disagrees in this thread. I can't determine that. Neither can you. To say so is absurd.
A white person does not face the risk of comments like "miscegination" like Shmadoff posts. You judge me by everyone's standards, but this could not have happened to a white person. I have this sort of thing to pre-empt with deletion. Rebirth Unit made death threats. Many probably received those. But if a white woman, or several said something complimentary about a white man, that wont garner any attention. Let it happen here, and ONE nut says "miscegination". Yes, it is only one, but I cant see what people are up to before they do it. So I keep mine whittled down. And like Lisa said......NO ONE called Shmadoff on it. So I can't count on support for such a thing. And would you call that sort of thing "bullying"? You should.
“Your particular method of dealing with me has always been confrontational on points not worth addressing”. That is - how shall I put it if you don’t like the word “lie”? – not strictly accurate.
I’m trying to think back on the very few interactions we have had. They were few not just because you dislike me but because I had very little to say to you. It is difficult to prove the nature of my comments because you deleted them. I reiterate that you have every right to do that but the problem is that it leaves you with the power to manipulate the facts to suit your version of events.
I first commented when you were pursuing a vendetta against Ricky B, whom you were accusing of misogyny. I said that I also did not like the style of that particular post of his to which you were referring. However, I pointed out that Ricky should not be treated as a pariah. I did not know if you were aware of the fact that he regularly posted very informative bulletins from inside Israel expressing the point of view of an Israeli citizen critical of the actions of the Israeli government. I mildly expressed my opinion that Ricky B was a valuable member of the OS community not a pariah.
Your response was that you were not interested whether he was a decent man or not. You used some phrase like “Do you expect me to give him sugar cookies?!”
I replied that would be an excellent course of action and cited the example of how our fractious neighbours were mollified when I sent then a box of avocadoes from our trees.
Around about this time you posted a distasteful rap video aimed at RickyB which you later deleted.
You also illustrated a post with a photograph of a pile of turds. I asked you if they were your own and if you had washed your hands. You may have found that confrontational but I was merely expressing humorous bafflement. Someone commenting before me also questioned why you were using such a photograph. You replaced the turds with a cartoon which caused some confusion with subsequent commenters.
I teased you about your avatar picture asking you why you were wagging your finger in an aggressive manner. You pointed out that the picture was not of your good self but of Mohammed Ali. You kindly explained to me that Ali was a famous boxer.
You soon after that became obsessively agitated with Frank Apisa about this avatar. I owned up that I was the culprit not Frank but that didn’t stop you.
“I saw two old white dudes with a wite beard on a tiny avatar.” Hey all us old white guys look the same- just can’t tell us apart!
I did not see any of this as “confrontational”. I thought I was being wryly humorous.
That was about it until the Taliban thing. Hardly a history of obsessive confrontation on my part.
The other “inaccuracy” was you giving the impression that I was harassing you with PMs when the truth was you bombarded me with incoherent messages on April 11.
I’m trying to think back on the very few interactions we have had. They were few not just because you dislike me but because I had very little to say to you. It is difficult to prove the nature of my comments because you deleted them. I reiterate that you have every right to do that but the problem is that it leaves you with the power to manipulate the facts to suit your version of events.
I first commented when you were pursuing a vendetta against Ricky B, whom you were accusing of misogyny. I said that I also did not like the style of that particular post of his to which you were referring. However, I pointed out that Ricky should not be treated as a pariah. I did not know if you were aware of the fact that he regularly posted very informative bulletins from inside Israel expressing the point of view of an Israeli citizen critical of the actions of the Israeli government. I mildly expressed my opinion that Ricky B was a valuable member of the OS community not a pariah.
Your response was that you were not interested whether he was a decent man or not. You used some phrase like “Do you expect me to give him sugar cookies?!”
I replied that would be an excellent course of action and cited the example of how our fractious neighbours were mollified when I sent then a box of avocadoes from our trees.
Around about this time you posted a distasteful rap video aimed at RickyB which you later deleted.
You also illustrated a post with a photograph of a pile of turds. I asked you if they were your own and if you had washed your hands. You may have found that confrontational but I was merely expressing humorous bafflement. Someone commenting before me also questioned why you were using such a photograph. You replaced the turds with a cartoon which caused some confusion with subsequent commenters.
I teased you about your avatar picture asking you why you were wagging your finger in an aggressive manner. You pointed out that the picture was not of your good self but of Mohammed Ali. You kindly explained to me that Ali was a famous boxer.
You soon after that became obsessively agitated with Frank Apisa about this avatar. I owned up that I was the culprit not Frank but that didn’t stop you.
“I saw two old white dudes with a wite beard on a tiny avatar.” Hey all us old white guys look the same- just can’t tell us apart!
I did not see any of this as “confrontational”. I thought I was being wryly humorous.
That was about it until the Taliban thing. Hardly a history of obsessive confrontation on my part.
The other “inaccuracy” was you giving the impression that I was harassing you with PMs when the truth was you bombarded me with incoherent messages on April 11.
Padraig, the avatar is very small and I can hardly see it. To me here, at a close glance, in one thread, they looked the same. I realize that it was a mistake. But to say that "you all look alike" and what it implies is not what I said. I said two tiny pictures looked alike at a glance. And they do.
About RickyB, I said that calling Kennedy a "Bitch" was misogynistic, and I stand by that. That fight is water under the bridge, but I am not ashamed of it. I think it is not appropriate for attacking the woman with that word, I think it is "bullying" in general, and I voiced my opposition to it. RickyB has his stiff spine and defended himself just fine. The fight ended before Christmas and stayed that way. You call it a "vendetta", that is your word. But I opposed calling the public figure a "bitch". I hate it. I think that is threatening to more women than just Ms. Kennedy. That is why I did that.
As for MP's Padraig, I did not say you harassed me with PM's You like to harass in comments. You like an argument to be public so that you have others to read it and join. I happen to think that is flithy. The PM's are used to DE-ESCALATE, or correct misunderstandings if possible. You avoid those and redirect the conversation to make it more public. So some of it is misperception. But be clear, the effort to discuss WITH you in PM was the effort to RESOLVE it. You appeared to have no interest in that so I said....forget it.
What we are left with now is no change from where we were a week, a month, or several months ago. We still dont like each other. While having however many people in addition to yourself express what they dislike about me may serve your purposes or not, it does not serve mine. So if it does not serve your purpose, this is a waste of time. What it does not do is change anything. I would prefer to just agree to disagree and go our separate ways in this ginat world.
And if I am incoherent, you're not required to read my blog. I may very well be, but we both know that is just another ad hominem. It is beneath you, Padraig. And no, you're not angry. Of course you're not.
About RickyB, I said that calling Kennedy a "Bitch" was misogynistic, and I stand by that. That fight is water under the bridge, but I am not ashamed of it. I think it is not appropriate for attacking the woman with that word, I think it is "bullying" in general, and I voiced my opposition to it. RickyB has his stiff spine and defended himself just fine. The fight ended before Christmas and stayed that way. You call it a "vendetta", that is your word. But I opposed calling the public figure a "bitch". I hate it. I think that is threatening to more women than just Ms. Kennedy. That is why I did that.
As for MP's Padraig, I did not say you harassed me with PM's You like to harass in comments. You like an argument to be public so that you have others to read it and join. I happen to think that is flithy. The PM's are used to DE-ESCALATE, or correct misunderstandings if possible. You avoid those and redirect the conversation to make it more public. So some of it is misperception. But be clear, the effort to discuss WITH you in PM was the effort to RESOLVE it. You appeared to have no interest in that so I said....forget it.
What we are left with now is no change from where we were a week, a month, or several months ago. We still dont like each other. While having however many people in addition to yourself express what they dislike about me may serve your purposes or not, it does not serve mine. So if it does not serve your purpose, this is a waste of time. What it does not do is change anything. I would prefer to just agree to disagree and go our separate ways in this ginat world.
And if I am incoherent, you're not required to read my blog. I may very well be, but we both know that is just another ad hominem. It is beneath you, Padraig. And no, you're not angry. Of course you're not.
Thanks Lisa. I must confess I did not notice the "miscegination" reference and I am still not sure what was meant. Thank you for drawing attention to it. I am strongly opposed to racism in any form.
Thanks Aaron.
Your latest comment was not there when I posted my latest response to Bill.
You are correct. This has run its course and there is nothing fresh to be said.
Time for this old white guy with a beard to move on and get back to some proper writing.
Thank you all for your comments.
Thanks Aaron.
Your latest comment was not there when I posted my latest response to Bill.
You are correct. This has run its course and there is nothing fresh to be said.
Time for this old white guy with a beard to move on and get back to some proper writing.
Thank you all for your comments.
I don't understand the censorship or deleting comments. I also don't get bill beck. OS certainly offers plenty without him. he's a prisoner of his own making; no reason to join him.
What ageism Padraig? I did not express any disparaging comments about age. I happen to value age. "Old dude" is not a dispaging comment on my part. The two of you have white beards, and are both white, as far as I can see on this tny picture. There is no value judgement in that. That is merely a description of what can be seen. That is how I made the mistake in your idetentities. MY MISTAKE. If you infer an insult there, that is yours alone.
I dont see how I or anyone else is a prisoner. Just dont get that. I think my view is quite the opposite. We are free to go wherever we want, however we want.
Oh, and the "I oppose ageism" comment implies a stand on principle. But you made no comment about opposing racism with the miscegination comment. You said, you missed it. That is another reason why I am careful to eliminate stuff like that. I take the command responsibility approach with regard to my blog. You are somewhat responsible for what remains. Sometimes I allow something to remain and just say, I oppose that view. I did that today with someone that I agree with on the issue. I disagreed with how he treated another blogger. You certainly saw the references to "cunt" etc, so the "didn't see it" excuse it a poor out. You are laudable for your standards that apply to ageism, just as you are not for your tacit acceptance of the "miscegination" slur but not addressing it.
The ageism comment was joke. silly of me to attempt humour.
I will close the comments now as there is no more to say.
I will close the comments now as there is no more to say.
Unable to justify his censoring cunt ratfink ways, Bill Beck pulls the race card.
Obviously ALL the people on this thread who testified to his bullying ways are racist meanies picking on him because he is black.
Never mind that it was ONE guy which Lisa caught and Padraig has condemned.
No.
Each and every one of us would have to return to this thread and condemn smadoff's words and even then Beck would not be content. Never mind his ageism and reverse racism towards Apisa and Padraig.
Once again, he is delusional.
The more Beck comments, the more he displays the truth:
Comment on Bill Beck's blog at your peril. He will delete your words because he has decided he doesn't like you or because it is a day with "y" in it. Spare yourself the trouble.
Obviously ALL the people on this thread who testified to his bullying ways are racist meanies picking on him because he is black.
Never mind that it was ONE guy which Lisa caught and Padraig has condemned.
No.
Each and every one of us would have to return to this thread and condemn smadoff's words and even then Beck would not be content. Never mind his ageism and reverse racism towards Apisa and Padraig.
Once again, he is delusional.
The more Beck comments, the more he displays the truth:
Comment on Bill Beck's blog at your peril. He will delete your words because he has decided he doesn't like you or because it is a day with "y" in it. Spare yourself the trouble.
Comments are now closed.
Comments
Comments closed at Padraig's request.
Heh,
I can understand why Padraig wanted to remove this from his blog, but I'm also glad you preserved it.
I can understand why Padraig wanted to remove this from his blog, but I'm also glad you preserved it.
I think some of you GET OFF on constant drama. You may want to see a professional about that. If your position on a subjuct is firm, why go out of your way to prove it to another? Why waste the time and head space posting personal blogs about others? Have you nothing better to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment