On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:53:30 -0400, Awake <Awake@invalid.com> wrote:
>In article <mqc8b5l99sh0u82l3uj33cs3bss8gn8nvg@4ax.com>, NP-f31 wrote:
>
>> Recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made another of his
>> series of speeches denying that the Holocaust ever happened.
>> Ahmadinejad made a very reasonable sounding speech in which he made
>> many compelling claims to prove his assertions. Everything he said was
>> completely wrong and anyone who has studied history in nearly every
>> country in the world would understand that his words are lies.
>> However, to millions of Muslims whose only formal education consists
>> of years at a madrasa studying the Quran, Ahmadinejad's arguments can
>> be quite convincing. That sort of thinking is dangerous to Israel and
>> Israelis who already have a PR problem in many Muslim countries. It
>> makes the possibility that history could repeat itself a real danger.
>>
>> Yet Ahmadinejad believes every word he says when he denies the
>> Holocaust. According to Grant's thinking that makes Mahmoud eligible
>> to be one of the most honest men in the world.
>>
>> In recent weeks Icicle and several of his associated identities have
>> spent considerable effort to defame me, my character, my aims in these
>> groups, my efforts to help keep newbies and lurkers safe, and has
>> attacked others and accused them of being me and vice versa. Anyone
>> who has been around the groups for a reasonable period of time knows
>> that what he says isn't true. However, many newbies and lurkers who
>> are unaware of Fort histories and have not learned to recognise some
>> of Icicle's identities for what they are, are confused and think that
>> 15 different people are attacking me and they wonder what it is I've
>> done to be such a bad guy. That sort of confusion is dangerous to
>> lurkers and newbies who might read my security information and think
>> it's bollocks because Icicle claims that my warnings are 'NP Cultist'
>> 'Mind Fucking' hysteria.
>>
>> Yet, according to Grant, Icicle believes every word he types and that
>> qualifies him as being 'much more honest than most of the people who
>> show up here'.
>>
>> So, let's get this straight, denying the Holocaust is a LIE.
>> Ahmadinejad is lying to millions of Iranians about a well documented
>> horror. We have film footage of what was happening. There were bodies
>> still in the ovens when the Allies arrived at the camps. The Holocaust
>> happened.
>>
>> It's not okay to deny it, no matter what you allegedly 'believe'.
>>
>> And in that spirit, let's get THIS straight. I did not post as the new
>> poster Nicky. Icicle is making a claim that is easily refuted, all
>> anyone has to do is check my headers and compare them to Nicky's
>> headers. He doesn't 'believe' that I posted as Nicky, he is accusing
>> me of something that is clearly not true. Icicle has accused me of
>> being a dictator and 'telling' others what they can and cannot do.
>> This is easily disproved by reading ANY of my posts. My security posts
>> are warnings and suggestions and are written as such. Icicle doesn't
>> 'believe' I'm bullying and 'telling people what to do', it is clear to
>> him that I am not, instead it is he who is bullying. He's stirring the
>> shit and it is clear that he is stirring the shit.
>>
>> Saying things that you KNOW to be untrue about another person is
>> lying. Let's call it what it is. It's wrong for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to
>> lie about the Holocaust and it's wrong for Icicle to make up lies
>> about me and treat them as fact.
>>
>> Does anyone disagree with my argument?
>>
>> Doc
>> NP-f31
>
>You asked, so I will try to help you understand.
>This admittedly long winded post may make you angry, but it would be
>best for your understanding, and aid the clarity of any possible reply,
>that you read this entire post, and read it a few more times, before
>you start writing a refutation. I have no desire to repeat myself with
>something you overlooked.
>
>
>It is my opinion that the purpose of Grant's honesty comment in his
>post to "The Multiplicity" ("Multi" in short version, my new sobriquet
>for his group of posting personalities) was two-fold. He was telling
>him that he understood him, and Grant was comparing him specifically to
>you and his other past attackers. The why of it follows.
>When you want to show you, and others who have fought with Grant and
>declared him a puppet, clone of, and in the control of another poster,
>dislike someone, you use sly innuendoes and other social clues and
>pressures, and misquotes, and quote out of context, and absolute lies,
>to try your best to mislead your readers to discredit your victims. You
>even try to redefine or discredit established concepts to help support
>your attacks. You can never have a disagreement with someone without
>trying to personally discredit him. Multi has learned much from you.
>You should never forget, despite how friendly to you Grant may be at
>times, he is never going to forget all you have done to him and his
>friends. Particularly now that he sees you employing those tactics
>against him again, when he is only trying to help you and The Fort.
>In contrast, Multi is a breath of open freshness. Rather blunt I'll
>grant you, but the paragon of honesty in comparison. He doesn't use
>social manipulation or redefine words, and rarely tries to manipulate
>others into joining him in his attacks. To use what could have been
>Grant's choice of description, Multi goes for the honest tactic of full
>frontal assault. There is nothing subtle about him. This is what I
>think Grant meant.
>
>
>In his first post to you regarding how you attacked Multi, he was
>trying to help you avoid being worse than your victim. As you always do
>when someone tries to help you stop being wrong, you took it as an
>attack, because you can't admit to being wrong in such a situation
>where you are so deeply committed to your position that you can't back
>out of it without being severely embarrassed in your own mind, instead
>of actually looking like the magnanimous honorable gentleman you could
>be in the minds of others. So, you then have to make the situation
>worse and attack in return. You have employed this pattern countless
>times.
>I see that you chose not to understand much of Grant's last post to you.
>I will explain it in two parts:
>
>The truth or falsehood of Multi being a cop is irrelevant to Grant's
>position that it is terribly wrong to use such personal real life
>information against another poster, and particularly another BL, for
>*any* reason. Why do you continue to deliberately misunderstand this?
>Didn't the exposer give you personal reasons to understand this is bad,
>in fact, utterly reprehensible? Are you being this obtuse in order to
>avoid apologizing to your victim? How honest is this of you? Grant
>obviously sees it as being dishonest. Grant treated you as a sane
>person who can accept responsibility for what he does, and can change
>when he needs to. He considers that Multi is unable to change his ways,
>and so saw only negative value in attempting to help him do it. Are you
>asking Grant to classify you as being the same as Multi in this regard?
>Surprisingly enough, it does look as if you are.
>
>Grant asked for story posts. After you and he had a disagreement. You
>posted some. Some people replied to them. You replied only to those
>people who were not Grant. You dedicated your posts to people other
>than Grant. These are obvious social clues that you are snubbing him,
>as everyone who knows you, or who is socially aware, can see. This, and
>that you so deceitfully attempt to deny it, and your other social
>manipulations, could qualify in his mind as "mind fucking", in an
>attempt to equate what he sees to what Multi might mean by his use of
>the term.
>
>
>In another group, an unspecified time interval ago, I advised Grant to
>leave the groups when he reached a level of anger or frustration,
>caused by his interaction with our population here, that could reduce
>his quality of life outside The Fort, that we (BLs in these groups) are
>not worth damage to his mental health. He has now done that. I support
>his decision. He will likely return when he feels better, be that days,
>weeks, or months in the future. It is my opinion that we will be
>enriched by his renewed participation, as we are enriched by your
>non-aggressive participation.
>
>
>In the event you still don't understand, I will try another approach:
>
>What exactly is "honesty"?
>I will define it this way. It is a personal expression that is what the
>person believes to be true, that is not intended to deceive.
>The insane can be the most honest people in the world, as can be the
>unfortunate people formerly labeled "retarded". That they often express
>other than what we consider to be factual, doesn't make them any less
>honest in what they tell us.
>
>What is a lie?
>It is expression that the person expressing it knows is not factual. If
>Ahmadinejad believes what he is saying, he is not lying, even though he
>is very definitely wrong. (It is my opinion about this that he doesn't
>actually know or care if it is correct or incorrect, but as you have
>similarity done in the past, he just views his position and comments
>about it as a weapon to suit his own political ends, which at least
>renders his comments deceitful.)
>Promulgating a lie is dishonest, if one knows it is a lie, and
>therefore advances to the realm of the lie.
>It could also be considered that expressing an opinion as fact, when
>there are no facts to support it, could be termed a lie, whether or not
>deceit was intended, if it had been later found to be not in accordance
>with established facts. This particular sub-definition is disputed. I
>would term it the mutterings of fools.
>
>What is "Truth"?
>It can't be objectively defined. Truth or falsehood (which are not as
>diametrically opposed as people might assume) is a personal or societal
>opinion of specific pieces of information. For example, for a Born
>Again Christian, creation is true, and evolution is false. For those
>people who are not, evolution is true. This doesn't make the *honest*
>exponents of these positions liars to each other, except to the
>ignorant who don't understand the concepts I'm trying to explain to
>you.
>
>The unfortunate Multi is obviously at least partially "insane". As
>such, should he be held fully accountable for all his actions? If he
>believes at the moment all he expresses in his posts, as Grant thinks
>he does, does that make it all lies and him a liar? No. Not factual,
>but not a liar.
>
>There is something I've noticed about you and similar ilk:
>You seem unable to look at any situation objectively. You personalize
>everything. You have demonstrated little ability to see, or consider
>they could be valid, the viewpoints of others when they differ from
>your own. You have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you, not
>even as human beings. They are only demons to attack and destroy, and
>you blind yourself to their human pain and their other human qualities.
>All this severely limits your ability to understand other people and
>events in social context, to see the "broad picture" outside of your
>own self-imposed filters.
>To go a step beyond this, you should try to see that to probably
>everyone who sees a week's worth of them, Multi's rants are obviously
>the ravings of a deranged lunatic, and aren't worth the bandwidth that
>propagates them, let alone be worthy of any belief. Therefore, they are
>not in need of much correction.
>You should be careful you don't stoop to his level, or below, so much
>you begin to look like him, or worse. I think you have at times. Do new
>visitors think so too? Are you able to see they could?
>I support your attempts to help posters. When you do the opposite, to
>anyone, you devalue your help. Who can trust a poster who attacks other
>posters, and used private information as well, with security advice? No
>reasonable person would, or should. That would be very bad for The
>Fort.
>
>
>Are you clear on all this now?
>
>Or stated in a more bluntly honest way, are you now going to give up
>your dishonest false (and immature) lack of comprehension of these
>basic human concepts which you misuse as the only way you can think of
>to discredit people, to support your blatantly egocentric
>I-am-wounded-and-I-can't-ever-be-wrong attack as a defense? You should,
>because you are wrong about Grant trying to discredit you. He could
>never do as good a job in that as you are doing yourself. Your "I'm
>always wrong" whine to him, which you can't believe, is only as right
>as you yourself make it. You will never rise above that until you can
>admit you can be wrong, and make a greater effort to be right.
>Are you now going to cease goading Multi into attacking you in order to
>continue to play the suffering martyr? Can you at least *try* to act
>like a responsible gentleman, and post well reasoned disagreements to
>incorrect facts other than personal, if you need to help visitors keep
>as safe as they can be, instead of appearing more vicious and deceitful
>than Multi? Are you going to do what is best for The Fort?
>
>
>A little smidgeon of personal advice from me to you:
>Humility.
>Look it up. Try some.
>Then read this post again.
>Repeat as necessary, for full understanding.
>
>
>This is in no way about me, however I expect you to consider this to be
>a personal attack, despite that you asked for disagreements. It is not.
>I will not grant attack replies my attention.
>
>
>I'm Awake, the explainer.
Thank you, Awake, for your patient and in depth post. I see your point
of view. My first point would be that there have been a lot of things
I've posted that have been called lies, but that I sincerely believed
and still believe. I hope, in future, you will take that into
consideration when calling me a liar. Is that asking too much?
My second point is about Icicle's infrequent posts that put newbies
into a possibly dangerous situation, such as the link to imgsrc.ru.
How does one respond to such a problem? The fact that he is insane
doesn't mean that all of his posts are harmless. My response to such a
post started this whole mess.
Thanks again,
Doc
PS - I have a lot more stories to post, I was planning to dedicate one
of these to Grant, I have a specific one in mind, I was simply waiting
until I was less irritated with him, not shunning. Let me know when he
comes back and I'll post it then.
|
|