On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:48:57 -0400, Awake <Awake@invalid.com> wrote:
>In article <tkl2f45n9r3cdrfk1mna1ktvkpqkih6i24@4ax.com>, NP-f31
><dudewiththe(REMOVE)hair@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Morpheus,
>>
>> I saw your post to Jerry in The Fort. I know I must confound you (and
>> Mephi) sometimes because I cooperate with Grant and Awake. But
>> fighting doesn't work. I used to be the most committed fighter in the
>> groups, but fighting made me look bitter and discredited me even when
>> I was right (when we were right).
>>
>> You may be confused about why I was so warm and friendly with Mikey
>> Dee. You might remember he posted in the discussion group in 2005-06.
>> He was a deeply troubed soul who started out by proselytizing in the
>> groups. He turned out to be a haunted, yet caring person. He has
>> survived a lot of shit in his life. I befriended him and I care about
>> him. You can see that he feels horrible about himself. He asked for Y
>> Not, because he was running that discussion group back then. He is the
>> reason I'm here, he's a man who loves boys but suffers the stigma that
>> goes with the territory. He cares more than ANYTHING about boys.
>> That's why he hurts so badly.
>>
>> Jerry is a troll, Morph. You say this, he'll say that- just to
>> disagree. I don't even respond to him. But you and I go back a long
>> way. I'm your friend, you're my friend. That hasn't changed. I'm
>> trying to make The Fort a safe place for boys and boylovers to play
>> together. I'm actually working very hard on it. In the past you and I
>> have collaborated on security stuff. Some of what you supplied me will
>> be in the new FORTFAQ.
>>
>> If you are upset with me, I hope you will address me directly and we
>> can talk about it as friends either here or by e-mail. Your last known
>> account expired, but you had said that it would.
>>
>> You're right most of the time about stuff in The Fort. When you're
>> right you don't have to respond to criticism. You don't have to
>> defend, you don't have to attack. The way you come across makes you
>> look like a troll sometimes (not always though). That ain't you,
>> Morph. Jerry is an idiot. He hates me because I stand for something.
>> But I'm right about protecting boys so I don't have to respond to his
>> insults.
>>
>> When insults come from a friend though, it hurts. Let me know what's
>> troubling you and we can talk about it.
>>
>> Yours in boylove,
>>
>> Doc
>
>I'm sorry Doc, but how you describe Jerry also applies to some of the
>posts and posters you consider to be your friends.
>KidHacker and Y Not had quite the running discussion regarding the
>identification of trolls. They never did agree on reliable criteria,
>because the judgement can only be based on behavior, which is subject
>to change, and often viewed with bias.
>
>It should be noted that Morpheus has accused Mikey of being Y Not in
>the past, and that he still believes so, along with at least two other
>of your friends.
>
I laughed when I read Mikey is Y-Not. Hardly. I am treated by
psychiatrists for mental anguish. Y-Not is a psychologist which in my
book is a story teller and liar to the psychiatrists.
>Aggression is not right in the Fort, even if the cause might have some
>justification. Demonization is not right, no matter how much one
>dislikes his opponent, because it creates false values, and so
>undermines the value of the post, its, and the poster. Posts comprised
>mostly of lies and personal degradations are never right, even if the
>poster has some just cause. This is not just because it is considered
>wrong by most civilized societies, but because it accomplishes nothing
>but showing the poster at his absolute worst, and reinforces the value
>of his opponent. Most of society's rules of behavior have practical
>reasons behind them.
>
>One intentional lie in a post should render the entire post valueless,
>and its intent suspect. If one can't contribute to a discussion without
>lies and personal attacks, one's cause is better served by allowing
>another to contribute in one's place. If there is no one who can
>present the argument without lies and personal abuse, who does this and
>who is known to be able to post with civilly and intelligence, it
>should be known that they have no useful argument, and they are unable
>to admit they are wrong, and post solely to disrupt. This can be
>likened to an infantile temper tantrum.
>
>One cannot win an argument about facts by posting non-facts. Such
>posting only disrupts. Considering how often this happens, one must
>assume this is intentional. He who does not justify his abuse on
>request, should be deemed a troll. This could be called the "if the
>shoe fits" principle.
>
>Trolls never win arguments in the Fort, in the estimation of reasoning
>BLs. They loose just in acting like trolls, whatever the merits of
>their arguments.
>Therefore, I advise BLS not to act like trolls.
>
>Another correction:
>Y Not was not respected as moderator of his discussion group. You and
>your friends contributed significantly to that, with no honorable
>intent. You know Mikey asked for Y Not, not because of the discussion
>group, or he would have posted there, but because, of all the posters
>here, only Y Not earned Mikey's respect as an educated Bible scholar.
>Mikey stated this himself before he left. Mikey is rewriting the Bible.
>Who else here would he ask for help in his work, but Y Not? You know
Let me remind you Y-Not had mentioned that the Bible was written by
catholics in 300 AD. Then there was the protestant movement in the
1500s for the basic Bible we have today.
I went back to study Hebrew and find out if there was anything amiss
in the current copies of the protestant Bible. Sure enough, there are
many things missing of which the Hebrews know about and the
protestants are ignorant about.
My goal is to rid the Bible of contradictions that came out of the
catholic Bible written back then. Many questions to be answered in the
current protestant Bible is to be answered in my copy of the Bible.
>all this. Your comments about this are disingenuous. Please be careful
>if you want to retain some credibility.
>This should remind you, if you hadn't known before this, real diplomacy
>is lying and back-room dealmaking. Therefore, it is best done where it
>can't be challenged with truth, in *private*. Do you understand this
>now? If you are unable to do this, you *will* loose friends in order to
>work towards achieving your goals for the Fort. Always be ready to
>accept that some compromises won't work.
>
>I'm Awake to the truth. Are you?
|
|