From: "Ron House" Subject: Re: Healthier discussions Date: Sunday, April 09, 2006 11:40 PM jimhabegger@gmail.com wrote: > Ron House wrote: > >> How, then, is anyone supposed to answer the post? > > > No answer required. I proposed the idea, for anyone who might be > interested. Of course I would be glad to answer any questions from > anyone who might want to know more about it. > > >> In short, the whole thing is nothing but trolling. (Trolls, in >> internet jargon, are people who post just to start an argument.) > > > I disagree. I don't think I posted that, just to start an argument. > In fact, as far as I can tell, starting an argument was not part of > my purpose at all. Let's add to that what you said in another post: > My purpose when I started this thread was not to help improve the > quality of trb discussions in general. My purpose was to offer, and > possibly discuss, an idea about how to help a few people I'm > personally interested in find some healthier and less harmful ways to > occupy themselves in Internet discussions. Right off there, that's so outragiously patronising that I for one don't believe anyone could seriously propose it with any hope that it ever be taken up. We don't know who you are thinking about, of course, so how anyone can help you find these "healthier and less harmful ways" is a mystery. Then, of course, given that people post what interests them, the mystery remains how you think you'll ever persuade your unrevealed targets to stop posting their critiques of the Baha'i AO. And at that point, it is self evident that you never will be able to do so. So, getting back to your repost about my trolling remark, if that is incorrect, I believe it can be so only if your real goals are worse. You could be trying to inoculate naive readers against paying attention to critics by 'taking it for granted' that critics are indulging in something unhealthy. Or you could be trying to smear critics by making it appear that criticism is unhealthy. You see, I am intrigued by the fact that, every six months or so, a different loyalist each time pops up here with one of these carefully constructed 'out of the blue' posts that didn't arise from anything discussed so far; usually that person is a previous non-poster here, or an infrequent poster; and the article is just so syrupy nice. But behind the treacle is a hidden or not so hidden message about the fallen characters of those who criticise the AO. Very convenient. So I don't buy all this altruism you tell us is motivating you, not by a jugful. This is not a newsgroup for a crusade to save fallen souls; its charter makes it perfectly clear that it is for discussion of any matters relevant to the Baha'i Faith. So if I ask who is behind all or most of these periodic posts and whether some of them were put up to it by representatives of the admin, that is on-topic. Your telling us, for example, that you think criticism of the AO makes people sick, that would be on-topic. But you conducting a fake discussion to "help" people, that makes its true message only by inuendo and subterfuge: sorry, not on-topic. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house Ethics website: https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house/goodness