For over a year, on various forums, there have been vicious cowardly attacks on a considerable number of women, posters and yes even sysops. Where I come from, in real life, this sort of behavior would not be tolerated for a New York instant. But here on the Internet, these creeps feel able to be their real selves. So now it's Cherri, and even sumer, for God's sake, who has never harmed anybody.

Back in the TB2000 Uncensored days, I think I was the only one who said that in extreme cases there should be censorship. The crap I have described above was the sole reason I said this.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 16, 2001

Answers

Peter, your chivalry and courtesy are admirable. Unfortunately good manners are not a prerequisite for posting on this forum. You, sir, are to be commended.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseydefranco@mindspring.com), February 16, 2001.

With an anonymous "handle", no one knows your gender....just an inside tip for those who contantly bitch about it and wonder "Why?"

-- x (y@z.com), February 16, 2001.

I don't know about the censorship part, Peter; not sure if I'd agree with that (I'm an advocate of leaving it as is so the world can see the *true nature* of the "attacker"). But you raise an excellent point about the Internet.

It seems that, in some instances, it camouflages otherwise "wimpy" people. The only way to "make up for" their failings in their real lives (such as they may be) is to mindlessly attack others on a level that is simply uncalled-for; a level to which most civilized people would never lower themselves.

Having experienced the idiocy myself some time ago on TB2KUS, I can empathize with Cherri and 'Sumer. But it's not reserved for women; oh no, these cowards will take on anyone, especially if that "anyone" is perceived as a "better" in some way. Instead of simply disagreeing with or debating the points with which they disagree, these cowards attack the *person*: their possible misspellings, less-than-stellar grammar, their personal lives - pieces of which may have been revealed in the "spirit of community" one feels on a forum like this, etc.

I think what amazes me more than anything is the ability of these cowards to "file away" such personal snippets "for future use". That borders on the psychotic. I shudder at what such people are like IRL.

The best that can be done (IMO) is to either (a) ignore them; or, (b) do as was done on the "Cherri" threads. Simply blast the spinless coward.

Kind of childish, but when you're dealing with childish behavior.....

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 16, 2001.

boo

-- Michael (Michael Roskoff@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

It does seem true that most of the abusive trolls are men. (Hawk, you are a guy, right?). Laura-ladylogic is the only exception that I can think of.

Why is this? Some kind of a road-rage, cyber-testosterone thing?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.

Unfortunately, on an "uncensored" forum such as this, the worst and the best contributions are allowed equal access.

It is very difficult with the written, or electronic, word, to invoke the manners or civility common in face to face interactions. With the lack of accountability inherent with the ability to use a different name for each post, even the normal inhibitions of personal email communication are removed.

Rude and crude responses an individual would never dream of making in person, or through an identifiable email persona, become too tempting to resist for some.

I believe that it is not the lack of censorship on this forum that encourages this behavior, but the lack of accountability that would be obtained by requiring registration under a single pseudonym.

Just a visitor, FWIW.

-- (Wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

I have been perfectly honest with my opinion of those two women. Why would you call me a troll? It seems to me some of you people call anyone with a strong or descenting opinion a troll. Wouldn't that make Cherri a troll because of her strong opinions about Bush? Wouldn't sumer be a troll because of her drug abuse?

I would say the same thing to them in person if I met them. I have certainly done so with other women of their caliber.

For what it's worth, the name "Wild Wild West" caught my eye on the Lusenet board. If Uncle Deedah should password protect this board I would like to participate on ocassion. Any objections?

Until we meet again.

-- Michael (Michael Roskoff@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

The best that can be done (IMO) is to either (a) ignore them; or, (b) do as was done on the "Cherri" threads. Simply blast the spinless coward. -Patricia

Over the years I've been a regular reader/contributor on many public forums. Regardless of the themes which the forums were built around, there were always an abundance of so-called "trolls" who would stick around for apparently no other reason than to piss people off. The more "buttons" they could push and the more replies they could draw out of people, the longer they stayed around. There was however, one particular sports forum who's members amazingly all agreed on taking the same approach to the trolls. They all agreed to totally ignore them. It was really interesting to watch as their new policy took hold and people stopped responding to the trash. Initially the trolls stepped-up their efforts by posting cruder and cruder messages but after a week or two of being totally ignored they drifted away, never to be heard from again. There were still the occasionally troll who would stumble in once in awhile and invite people to "play his game". They never survived more than a day or two of being ignored though. It was quite humerous to watch actually. It was as though you could "see" the people actively "ignoring" the jerk.

I realize some people get a kick out of "blasting" a troll, but after witnessing the benefits of that forum's policy, I am convinced it's the only approach that truly works in a forum such as this one.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

Cherri has something to say. She doesn't say it perfectly, but she does get her point across. Now one can quarrel with her message - that she jumps to unwarrented conclusions, or whatever. So what the intelligent person does is to confine himself to the flaws, as he sees it, in her argumentation. This vicious personal attack of yours, absolutely out of the blue and unprovoked as far as I can tell, shows that you are just a sick fuck picking a fight. And as far as your opinion of sumer, what I have said above goes double. Let me repeat what I have just said: Only a sick fuck goes around picking a fight like you just have.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 16, 2001.

Michael, no one cares if you contribute and/or participate (the more the merrier). But you blew in here and made some pretty low-life comments about a couple of people about whom you basically know absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

You've told us some things about you; how do we know they're true? How do you know anything you read about anyone on this or any other board is true unless you've communicated with that person? I've known some of these people for years.....yes, years. Cherri is one of those people. She's one of the kindest, most caring human beings I've ever met. But how would you know that? There's no way you could. I don't know 'Sumer very long but you won't find a much more solid woman than she is; and you want her on *your side*. She has a hell of a sense of humor and isn't afraid to show it.

How can you NOT like someone like that?

You have an opinion; fine, no one has a problem with that. But unless you have a pretty damn solid foundation from which to fling personal attacks such as you have, you don't really have a leg to stand on. And even then you're probably going to go through exactly what you've gone through, with most of the participants here "attacking back".

It's what we do -- we stand up for each other; if we're not bashing each other or laughing our butts off at some stupid joke. If you had let down that tough, holier-than-thou exterior you put up you would have seen the community for what it is -- a bunch of freaking misfits who like to yell at each other a lot. Did you know a bunch of us got together in Las Vegas last October? We sure did; had one of the greatest weekends just laughing and hanging out and getting to know each other. Funny thing is that the group that got together is so opposite in their political, spiritual and other basic human beliefs -- yet we became the closest of *real-life friends*.

Is it irrational? Sure, in some circles. But not in THIS one, and that's all that really matters *here*.

I could be way off base here, but you just don't seem like the type I described in my post above. So what gives? Sit down, relax, enjoy the wackos, have a cyber-drink.

(BTW, I can't speak for him, but I seriously doubt Unk would ever password-protect this place. It would kind of defeat the purpose; and at that point, it would probably just fold.)

CD, you're absolutely right, except you never know where your next great idea is going to come from ;-)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 16, 2001.

As everyone knows, I only post to this forum to tell other people they're wrong. But a couple things have to be true -- first, in some way they have to BE wrong, and second, they have to be making a serious, addressable point.

Cherri is serious, and wrong, in her attitude toward Bush. NOT in her facts, necessarily. But her attitude is what causes her to collect which facts she does (and ignore all the rest), and to support wildly unlikely conclusions using those facts. That is, the conclusion led to the facts and not vice versa. This is worth discussing, because it's how we all arrive at our facts, but some of us disguise this better than others.

But if someone wants a forum where everyone spends their time telling everyone else how right they are, you have the censorites all over again. I don't regard Michael as a jerk, but I really have to wonder what he's trying to accomplish. What would success look like? At least he seems to respond in a way that suggests he reads what's written to him -- there is a sense of feedback there. Contrast CPR, who has always been content to rave at nobody but himself. If nobody responds for a while, then an anonymous post shows up by someone using a suspiciously similar style, followed by more ranting. CPR is CD-proof, impervious to being ignored.

Cherri hasn't shown much analytic ability, but enough to make the "hawk" types look much worse. And being attacked by words on the screen is only as harmful as anyone chooses to let it be. I always feel if someone disagrees with me, I must not have explained clearly enough, or been entertaining enough to make it worthwhile for someone to actually think about something. No harm is ever done here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 16, 2001.

Peter, give up the "macho hero" crap. You might think this makes you more of a man in the eyes of the ladies, but most women are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They are not the stupid, barefoot, pregnant, and helpless bimbos you think they are. We have been able to see through the selfish ignorant motives of that kind of mentality for about 30 or 40 years now. Perhaps Mrs. Cleaver will appreciate it, but no one who has self respect and a mind of their own will.

-- Jane Fonda (you@chauvinistic.ignoramus), February 16, 2001.

But Jane, DeFranco issued a commendation, and that should count for something.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 17, 2001.

Yes Flint, everybody knows your here to tell us right from wrong.

Man, you are a serious mental case. There's nothing analytical about your stupid opinions. That's your ego, asshole.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 17, 2001.

Jane, I'm not trying to be a macho hero, I just have a thing about bullies. Do you have a problem with that?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 17, 2001.

Jane, it took me a second reading before it sunk in, the total stupidity of your "contribution." You say that women are not the "stupid, barefoot, pregnant and helpless bimbos you think they are." Where in God's name did that come from?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 17, 2001.

Since you are obviously a chauvinist pig still hung up on decades-old tradition, you probably aren't even conscious of your own behavior. The fact that you come out here posting in defense of women, as if we need to be saved by a mach idiot, indicates what your opinion of women really is. Go back into the cave you crawled out of, fool.

-- Jane Fonda (we are women @ hear us. roar), February 17, 2001.

Well, Jane, you really have the old blab down pat, I'll say that much for you.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 17, 2001.

Bravo Pat,

Yep,she has it nailed down tight.Mike you could stand to listen to her words,they are very true.Hell,Iv'e spent time with a few here,Pat,Doc,Aunt B,Carlos,Anita,Carlitta,Rich,Cin,Flash,Dan the powerman,and I might be fergettin' someone.

While we might be millions of miles apart in philosophy "we agree to disagree" and conduct the discourse civilly,without the extraneous bullshit of name calling.I personally have had face to face conversations with some of this forums IMO most radical liberals,and they knowing full well I'm just a little to the right of Attilla the Hun,and got along just fine.

Opinions are like assholes,everybody has one.

CD,I couldn't agree more,that tact is far and away the best logic to employ in these cases,leave it to the sports nuts to use common sense.

Flint,I love logic but it's allright to be a regular feller too.

Mike,I respect your right to post here anytime and for whatever your reasons and opinions,but try to see the forest for the trees,unless you are truly clueless.I don't know Cherri personally or very well online either but you dude are out of line and TOTALLY out of line fuckin' with Sumer,she's damn good people,and least she doesn't post like you do with some sort of cowardly fake addy.Have you been castrated?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), February 17, 2001.

Peter,

Women on this forum are perfectly capable of dealing with "bullies" as we see by the responses of Patricia, Sumer, and Cherri. Although Sumer resorts to profanity, women for the most part use their brains to put these attackers in their place. Contrary to what you may think, we are not impressed by macho idiots who try to start fights with the bullies.

-- Jane Fonda (get back in cave @ ape. man), February 17, 2001.

Jane (or should I say Laura?) why do you think I give a poop in hell about what you think, about my picking a fight with a bully. For example, anytime I get Louis Polly (Mr. Mindstench) in my crosshairs, I'm going to blast that asswipe to Jesus (figuratively speaking, of course).

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), February 17, 2001.

WOW ain,t humans awesome-----no wonder Jesus said''wars & rumors of wars'' until the=END!! IT SURE IS HARD TO BE HUMBLE NOW-A-DAY'S HUH?? then we DIE , and what was it all about?????? ''lousy preparation huh?

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), February 17, 2001.

Peter,

I wouldn't worry too much about "Jane." Her rhetoric is such pure, unadulterated radical 1970s feminist boilerplate, to the point of caricature, that I think she's probably just trying to "yank your chain." There IS a possibility that she's for real, though, and therefore (as you can observe) full of irrational hatred towards men, and may have great difficulty seeing them as individuals. So, either way, I wouldn't take it personally.

Regarding Michael --

I think he should be ignored at this point. He's obviously a troll, and gets off on the attention -- positive or negative. I think the fact that he knows how to put a sentence together is the reason he's elicited such a huge response so far. Yeah, I know -- he suckered me in, too.

Flint,

You only post when you see something wrong? Well, now, THAT's why I haven't seen very many replies to my posts from you. :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001.

Jane, you ignorant slut!

( Just had to say that )

-- Orangeman (not@there.anymore), February 17, 2001.

Some folks attack anyone and everyone, Peter. I suspect that a lot of which you speak has to do with the threads that began with someone putting a name in the thread title. I've heard something of those threads via E-mail, but I still refuse to look at them. I'm reminded of how my oldest daughter would say, "Mom...this tastes terrible! Here...taste it!" DUH!

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

Anita:

You might sniff it even if you don't taste it. Very few threads here hew strictly to the opening topic, and some abandon a personal topic entirely within a few posts and become quite rewarding discussing something completely unrelated.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.

eve, I like when you drop in. it lends an air of legitimacy and fun to the discourse!

Of course, you're wrong about a lot of things. Fistcuffs!

I suspect there are some lurkers out there...

I can't claim any forum citizenship before 1/1/2000, so it would also be nice if the lurkers among us would chime in with historical asides...

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 17, 2001.

Flint:

I "dipped my toe in the water" on the threads Maria started on Doc and Patricia, and [although I enjoyed a few hours batting the topic back and forth with you], what was gained?

There will always be some posters who feel a need to criticize others. In just remembering OUR history, the Big Dog vs. Flint threads come to mind. I lost a lot of respect for Big Dog when he started those threads, and I no longer have an interest in engaging folks who feel the need to criticize, whether it be on the defensive or offensive ends of the playing field. Life's just too short for this shit.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

Peter you can come to my rescue anyday.

It's nice to see a true gentleman still exists. =)

-- (cin@cin.cin), February 17, 2001.

Jane you go and play with your dildo. I'll take the real thing any day.

-- (Catherine@thegreat.one), February 17, 2001.

Anita:

I actively look forward to disagreement, because I can always learn something from it if whoever is doing the disagreeing has any meat on those bones. Even if they don't (like Big Dog) or are too self- righteous to recognize that disagreement might be legitimate (like Brian or Patricia sometimes), these threads are still entertaining to me. I haven't yet lost interest in the common practice of picking a conclusion, supporting it with carefully selected and interpreted "evidence", and then claiming that *any other viewpoint* must have been arrived at by "twisting" somehow! How else could it be, when you have defined your opinions as "facts"? In that case, disagreement simply *cannot* be other than deliberately mendacious, right?

What I don't like are (1) The brainless ranters, like CPR or KoFE or Hawk or coup2k, who take an unsupportable position and "discuss" it by repeating the same slogans over and over; (2) Those who cut and paste and then don't discuss the opinions of others that they are echoing; and (3) Those who do nothing more than show up under one fake name after another, say "X is a jerk", and then vanish. Where oh where is the entertainment in such a technique?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.

Barbarella,

Now that you've dumped Ted Turnip, what are you doing? Not going back to the dweeb Hayden I hope.

What's this stuff with Christianity? Are you that lonely? Are you growing big-hair?

Let's get together and swap yarns about manning the barricades. Give me a call, I'm still in Berkely.

Nice work on Vagina-Victory day!

-- (LeonTrotsky@tuna.union), February 17, 2001.

Flint:

IMO, the beauty of fora such as this is that members of the human species can come together and share. Unfortunately, the medium itself limits the populace involved to those who have keyboarding skills, a PC, and at least a rudimentary knowledge of the written English language.

Real life offerings are oftentimes much more rewarding because we can sit down with people from all walks of life and appreciate the diversity of the species [and even argue simply for the sake of argument] without the concentration on keyboarding/spelling skills to distract us from the "meat."

My kids and I did a "round-robin" of sorts via E-mail this week wherein we discussed our strengths and weaknesses. I've been encouraging my son to attend University overseas. I related how his sister would "kill" for the opportunity but didn't have the measurable intelligence. Having studied various cultures, he found it offensive that I thought his sister less "smart" than he. He sees her as someone more capable in MANY areas, and he's correct in so stating.

One thing led to another and we terminated the "round robin" on a discussion of the eight different areas of intelligence, of which only one seems to be measured in society. He's got the math skills, the written language skills, and scored the 32 on the ACT. She's got the creative skills, the real-life skills, and didn't bother to take the ACT. Who gets into the University? Well...the one with the "measurable" skills.

I pay little attention to the anonymous distractions presented here or on other fora. Much like the T.V., channels can be changed. We're not committed to any one offering, and programs we enjoyed at ONE time may no longer be of interest.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

Who can have a civil debate with entranced robots? I've made plenty of attempts to present documented,factual, evidence, ie; the law that we live under, which, by the way, you Flintoid, have obviously not read; however, your brainwashed responses, and blatant innacuracies have been illuminating, to be sure. Just like the lackey poole, you're here to serve as an example of someone who is locked into cocksure stupidity.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 17, 2001.

Bemused,

Thanks for your sweet compliments; you're too kind.

But you say that I'm wr.............wr....... Let me try this again: You said I was wrrro........wrroooooo........ Ok -- you kinda said I wasn't always right about things.

Actually, I relish being wrong, because It's a great way to learn -- sort of like what Flint was saying. And I'm in absolute bliss when I learn something that's important to me. Learning for me can be a wondrous experience. In fact it can often be better than se...........

Hmmmm. As I was sayin' -- I love learning.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 17, 2001.

Flint, there is (IMO) a chasm of difference between a "legitimate disagreement" and "discussing someone's personal life" or "bashing the hell out of someone seemingly without cause or simply because you disagree with them". I cannot imagine you of all people gain anything from the latter, despite having the label of "anthill kicker" at some point in time. Perhaps there is a modicum of "guilty pleasure" to be derived, but I would hope those instances would be few and far between.

And, FWIW, neither Brian nor I have a lock on self-righteousness in this forum. People who live in glass houses and all that.....

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 17, 2001.

Patricia:

You are right. However, I can afford to be self-righteous, since I am so very rarely wrong! (<---joke!!!)

I get pissed at you sometimes because, at least at first, I always try to build a legitimate case and take what you are saying seriously. If my efforts are rewarded by name-calling, then why bother being polite anymore? But nonetheless, I'll continue taking you seriously and addressing real points the first time in each thread. I don't like name-calling any more than you do.

I think Brian's case was subtly different. His points were always intelligently made, but nonetheless embodied an abiding worldview not everyone shares. And this is fine, and normal. What Brian could never understand was that other intelligent people, viewing the same information, could *legitimately* come to different conclusions. So he could not view criticism as anything but ill-intentioned and small- minded.

Most people (myself included) have a very hard time seeing those underlying assumptions we take for granted, and which color our interpretation of all we see. When someone else explicitly points them out, we are more likely to consider that person to be misrepresenting us or "reading into" our words something we were not saying, than to recognize that our assumptions are visible from their perspective and not ours. And this is a notion that Brian ran away from rather than admit and recognize. Such a shame.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.

I obviously can't speak for Brian, but I think I can empathize with how he felt (not that I've discussed it with him, mind you; call it a "feeling").

I was close to jumping ship, too. I'm just considerably more stubborn than he is (and even more stubborn than YOU are). I try to avoid certain discussions with you because you simply refuse to listen to reason. (<---joke!)

It's like you said, Flint; two people can look at exactly the same information and come to completely opposite conclusions. I understand this (usually); I just wonder why you can't. And that's not a "dig" at you either. You say that you understand this, but you really can't understand how anyone could possibly see it differently than you can.

And I understand this because I do the same thing; we ALL do the same thing. "Convictions" are a large part of what make us human, I suppose. I'm grateful for the opportunity to read/hear different opinions, even if I *know* they're wrong ;-)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 17, 2001.

Patricia:

Another thing I can't understand is how I could have been so wrong about some things last year, or the year before, or the year before that, etc. It was all so *obvious* to me at the time. And of course it still is, I just used to be wrong, that's all...

You remain one of the more reasonable people around here, though, most of the time. I'll avoid talking politics with you as well, because we share the same large-scale vision of how things ought to be, it's just that I believe your methods lead you in the opposite direction. Let's just say we want the greatest good for the greatest number, but I consider the shmoo to be a threat, while you consider it a blessing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.

Is it the beer? Did I just read what I thought I read? Has Flint admitted to human traits?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

Not to fret Anita, I have emailed Rush and this will all be taken care of on Monday.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

I would say the same thing to them in person if I met them. I have certainly done so with other women of their caliber.

Just checked in. First of all thank you Peter for your defense as well the rest and my dear bud capn.

To the idiot above, although I need no defending, it does make me feel cared for that I unlike you have friends.

Now to your above statement:

IF you ever spoke to me the way you do hiding behind your fake ass internet persona I PROMISE you this dude:

#1 with the shit I've been going thru and the anger I have pent up right about now, this lil girl would be in handcuffs and YOU the hospital.....I PROMISE. I was raised to speak my peace period. I had the worlds best mom, of that I can assure you she was HONEST and FULL OF HUMOR.

I would have guessed you have no respect for women period by the second comment that you HAVE already done so.

But budball, your days a comin see one day your gonna open up yer lil mouth w/that lil pecker of yours and someone is gonna put yer lights out baby.

Only sad part is NONE of US will get to watch. Damn.

Now back to your recliner and your tv tray.

-- member me (Old@forum.member), February 19, 2001.