Text 20886, 136 rader
Skriven 2011-07-16 09:33:45 av ANSWERING ROBOT (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Vicious comments
========================
THIS IS AN ANSWERING MACHINE. SORRY, THE SYSOP OF THIS SYSTEM IS UNAVAILABLE
FOR ANSWERING MESSAGES. HE IS BUSY PREPARING FOR AN IMPORTANT SPORTS EVENT.

AS A COURTESY TO USERS UNABLE TO PROPERLY DISPLAY LOWER CASE CHARACTERS, THIS
MESSAGE IS IN UPPER CASE ONLY.

THANK YOU FOR CALLING.


 RB> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Thursday July 14 2011
 RB> at 12:31:

 MV>> You don't call names and you did not start this. But you certainly
 MV>> help in keeping it going by zooming in on Bjùrn and condemning
 MV>> him for everything he says that you do not like.

 RB> No, I call him out on vicious statements that are not only untrue, but
 RB> are insulting in the extreme. He appears to enjoy making them, but he
 RB> doesn't enjoy it in the least when some of the dirt flies back at him.

 RB>>> I also don't adhere to the doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is
 RB>>> my friend".

 MV>> Neither do I.

 RB> Given some of your messages, that appears questionable to me. Here I'm
 RB> thinking of Lee in particular.

 RB>>> I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your present love affair with
 RB>>> Bjorn and get back to some worthwhile subject.

 MV>> But if you don't adhere to that doctrine, why do you project it on
 MV>> me? And why do you completely ignore the venom coming from Ross?

 RB> Because Ross is a) not anywhere near as vicious as Bjorn continues to
 RB> be, b) Ross is _reacting_ to long-term, and more important continuing
 RB> venom, rather than having started the affair himself, and c) because
 RB> Bjorn styles himself as the "moderator" here and, if he were really
 RB> that, would _never_ write what he does, inflaming instead of
 RB> moderating the echo.

 RB> Ross may think that Bjorn "appointed" him Z1 "moderator", but as Bjorn
 RB> isn't a moderator himself, he can hardly "appoint" anyone else to the
 RB> position. I see Ross as a normal participant here, and Bjorn as a
 RB> self-styled "moderator" who simply isn't, first of all because he
 RB> doesn't moderate and secondly because he gives the worst possible
 RB> example of bad behavior in an echo, not something anyone else should
 RB> follow.

 RB> You confuse action with reaction, and if your message base search
 RB> system is so good that you can immediately find an insulting message
 RB> from Ross, just try it out on Bjorn. You'll find that few messages are
 RB> totally free of digs at the USA or specific persons in some form, and
 RB> often contain really vicious vitriol. I personally wouldn't defend
 RB> that, or associate myself with it.

 MV>> It would help your credibility if you would practise what you
 MV>> preach and really did look at it from both sides. You may have
 MV>> missed the bucket of venom that Ross poured over Lee.

 RB> Recently, and only _after_ Lee popped in to praise Bjorn's "noble"
 RB> sentiments. You still confuse action with reaction, and there's still
 RB> a difference between a normal participant and a _real_ moderator.

 RB> A _real_ moderator would, in the first place, never write as Bjorn
 RB> does. Secondly, he would never have given Lee cause to write such
 RB> adulation. Thirdly, given that situation, Ross would have had no
 RB> reason to reply as he did.

 RB> An added factor, which you strangely overlook, it the fact that Lee
 RB> has a long-running battle with Ross and Janis, and has made no secret
 RB> of that. It would be strange if neither of those two reacted to
 RB> negative comments by Lee.

 MV>> Lee may be a kook, but after reading the above, can you honestly
 MV>> say that response was justified?

 RB> It went pretty far out, but Lee provoked something like this and can
 RB> hardly complain. You much less, as it wasn't even directed at you.

 MV>> Do you honestly believe you can retain your credibility as a
 MV>> neutral observer if you keep on harping on Bjùrn and ignore the
 MV>> venom coming from Ross?

 RB> I have no credibility with either you, Bjorn or hanger-on Lee, so the
 RB> question is baseless. Anyone who disagrees is the enemy, and it's my
 RB> habit to disagree. It's also my habit to distinguish between action
 RB> and reaction. And here - now I'm thinking of you - _not_ "reaction"
 RB> months or even years after the "action".

 MV>>>> When was the last time you saw me write a personal insult?

 RB>>> You? Never. But nobody can consider you as an isolated case as
 RB>>> long as you throw in your lot with Bjorn. Ever heard of guilt by
 RB>>> association? It's not that rare.

 MV>> I do not "throw in my lot" with Bjùrn.

 RB> That may be your feeling, but it sure doesn't look that way to me. I
 RB> call out Bjorn on some outrageous comment, he spews me with truly
 RB> libellous venom and you write nothing. But if Ross writes a heated
 RB> message - not as far out as Bjorn, but still heated - you start
 RB> lambasting him at length, and me in the process because I don't join
 RB> in.

 RB> You may worry about _my_ credibility, I worry about yours.

 MV>> I am merely pointing out that your demonising does not help. Maybe
 MV>> it would be better if you put him in your twit filter and simply
 MV>> ignored Bjùrn for a couple of month.

 RB> I think the echo would be better off if _everyone_ put him in their
 RB> twit filter. Unfortunately, if only one does that, you still get the
 RB> venom as quotes in other messages.

 MV>> And if you believe in guilt by association, you might want to
 MV>> consider how the relation between you and Ross and Roy looks like
 MV>> to the rest of the participants...

 RB> You mean to you, Bjorn and hanger-on Lee.

 RB> Sorry, but the rest is more of the same, and I get tired of repeating
 RB> myself.

 RB> I called Bjorn a disaster for the echo and I stick to that. Agree to
 RB> disagree, or lambaste me as long as I stay in the echo, as you wish.

 RB> Cheers, Bob

 RB> --- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 RB>  * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)