Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:03:59 +0000, Daran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

[most of post snipped, down to the wee bits I want to respond to]

>It's not surprising that as successively more and more posters reach the end
>of their patience, they'll start piling in.  It's inevitable.  It would
>happen in any group.  You don't need to conjecture any kind of group IS or
>ISS.  And anyone with a modicum of intelligence and usenet experience could
>have predicted it.
>
>And you are intelligent, and you claim to have extensive usenet experience. 
>You could have predicted it.
>
>Maybe you did predict it.
>
>Maybe you intended it.
>
>You see, there's a major mismatch between your stated aim - to investigate
>us sociologically - and your actions.  A genuine investigator would go out
>of her way to avoid contaminating the data, and if she suspected that there
>was any risk of such contamination, she would reject the suspect data.  But
>you appear to have knowingly contaminated your data - you've acknowledged
>that much - yet it's the uncontaminated historic data you reject.
>
>So if your actions mismatch your stated aim, and match another aim, I must
>at least *suspect* that the other aim is, in fact, your real aim.  Now
>there's a word we use for someone who posts with that intent.  Unfortunately
>it appears to be one of your brain switch-off words.  If I use it, you will
>immediately yawn, accuse me of insulting you, and ignore the substantive
>point I'm making.  I don't want to insult you, and I don't want you to
>ignore my point.

Thank you Daran. I tried to make this point in my own rebuttal, but
you've done it so much more clearly and elegantly.

>>> If 'availability of data' is lacking, what basis do you have for judging
>>> t.r regulars' attacks on Sky as 'unprovoked' victimisation, and not
>>> 'responding in kind' to *his* abuse of us?
>> 
>> The data aren't lacking, I trust that which I see in real time. And not
>> from one or two posts, by a pattern of behavior.
>> 
>>> From my point of view, not having read many of the threads in which
>>> you've taken part, and therefore possibly lacking 'availability of data',
>>> I see several members of the group reacting to what appears to me to be
>>> the unprovoked disparaging characterisation by you.  I've also seen you
>>> insulting Cele in particular, characterising her in a way in which I
>>> know, from interacting with her for several years, to be a 180 degree
>>> reversal of the truth.
>> 
>> Why would you possibly imagine that I would pick on Cele for nothing?
>
>I'm not sure, but it would fit the 'alternative intent' hypothesis, the word
>for which I can't use.
>
>In any case, from what I see in real time, you *have* been picking on her
>for nothing.  And from many, many, posts of hers, by a pattern of behaviour
>of over a couple years, I don't believe she abused you first.  I don't
>believe she's abused you at all.  I think it would take a lot more than you
>to provoke her to abuse.  From where I'm standing, it's an extraordinary
>claim which requires extraordinary evidence - in the form of a quote and a
>Message-ID.  I'm not prepared to take your unsupported word for this.
>
>If your claim is true, then it should be easy for you to provide a cite.  If
>you don't, then I will simply note the similarity between your modus
>operandi and Sky's (abuse, then claim that it was provoked) and move on.

My first post to Ellen was the one in which I objected to her
characterisation of Heather. Here is the message ID.
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=g:thl453833889d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=pffupvc341o4996qfoavjcd9tq5gdgol7n%404ax.com&rnum=90
I guess Ellen's claim is that I abused her when I said that she was
demonstrating "supreme arrogance." My intent was to describe what I
saw.

Be well, Daran

Cele