Apologists Harassing Critics

[_Res Ipsa]

But since we're spitballing here, how do you think MG experiences his own behavior? Does his through process go something like: "Man, that Grindael is a huge threat to Mormonism. Any Mormons who wander in here are sure to lose their faith after they read his stuff. I must stop him. How can I do it? I know, I'll jump in and troll all his threads. He's sure to fall for my trolling, and so will all those other critics on the board. They'll dog pile on me and mess up Grindael's threads so much that no one will remember all the damaging stuff he's posted." Or is it something else? I know you don't think it matters with respect to board rules and punishment. But I'm curious about your perception.

I think it is simpler than that. I think he gets something from having everyone's attention. What makes me think this is the case is some of the threads he starts; the grievance threads, the announcements of what he is going to start doing, etc. It takes a very over-inflated sense of importance to think anyone would care about those things, and some sort of narcissistic impulse to start a thread like that. I simply can't imagine doing that myself.

It may very well be that. On the other hand, it seems to me like he does a ton of over explaining himself. I recognize that because I do it too. Look at any of my threads explaining why I said something. Is it a sign of over-inflated self importance or a sign of insecurity? I'm pretty sure I know which it is in myself. Not sure about him.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think it is simpler than that. I think he gets something from having everyone's attention. What makes me think this is the case is some of the threads he starts; the grievance threads, the announcements of what he is going to start doing, etc. It takes a very over-inflated sense of importance to think anyone would care about those things, and some sort of narcissistic impulse to start a thread like that. I simply can't imagine doing that myself.

He's self involved to the point that he doesn't realize that the community doesn't care what he's complaining about or planning to do.

I've said this a zillion times on the board. Human beings only repeat behaviors from which they profit.

What does he get out of trolling?

What does he get out of complaint threads?

What does he get out of announcing whatever plan he's putting in place?

I can follow my take on all of those questions if you like, but notice how the trolling leads to the other behaviors.

I believe the answer is right there.

His behaviors are repetitive enough to suggest a pattern.

It begins with trolling or baiting. And then what happens?

There's your answer. Again, I can give my own take if you want, but if you follow the pattern, I think the answer is clear.

And ask yourself, why would he persist in these behaviors if he didn't profit from them in some way?

He does profit from them.

Could the answer be a reduction in cognitive dissonance?

[_Jersey Girl]

I'll just do it anyway. Bear with me.

1. What does he get out of trolling?

He gets to disrupt the thread.

2. What does he get out of disrupting a thread?

He gets attacked.

3. What does he get out of being attacked?

He gets to make a complaint thread.

4. What does he get out of complaint threads?

He gets to draw attention AWAY from the threads in question and gets the community's attention.

5. What does he get out of announcing whatever plan he's putting in place?

He gets to draw attention even further AWAY from the threads in question, gets the community's attention, and starts winning back their confidence.

Until he does it all again.

If you're following that,and if I've made the sequence of behaviors clear enough, I think this is what you'll ultimately see as his profit and I'm not making crap up there. You can see it every single time that the interaction leads to a public spectacle on his part.

So, he gets to blow up threads, draws community attention away from the thread, to the point that no one gives af about the thread any more. They leave the situation with a bit of confidence in him.

And the cycle repeats itself over and over and over again. So help me Hannah.

What's the ultimate profit? He kills the threads and on account of his public professions of wanting to work things out or employ a new strategy, he relieves himself of responsibility for killing the threads and builds just enough confidence in the eye of the community, that he's free to do it all again.

And he does it over and over and over again.

And here we all are, talking about HIM while grindael's content rich threads fall by the wayside.

See? It works.

[Guest]

I specifically picked out the in real life attacks because in real life attacks are specifically against the rules.

OK, what do you see as the difference between "you are a loser" and "you are an asshole?"

grindael said ""you are an asshole" to an anonmymous poster.

mentalgymnast's said "you are a loser" specifically regarding grindael's in real life professional work, with the intent to mock and harass.

context:

First mentalgymnast quoted grindael:

Thanks for the comments, people.

Note: Since Shades is away and I will have to wait to get all this TROLL stuff resolved, I will be posting Part II as soon as that happens.

then, next sentence in the same post, mg commented on grindael's in real life professional work:

I hope you get something more substantial than what we've seen so far. Pats on the back. Yay.

the very next sentence continued the commentary on grindael's professional work:

by the way, loser, we are already well aware that you don't believe in the Divine calling of Joseph Smith...so what's your point in preaching to the choir? You already know you're gonna just get high fives. So what's your point? Much ado about nothing, isn't it?

Not that the history isn't interesting in some respects.

That's it? It's just interesting? That's what drives you?

MG

I don't blame grindael for giving up. He has had his in real life professional output, methodology, and even his in real life professional integrity mocked incessantly for more than three years. this is just one example, the Strawman thread is another, there are many, many more.

Dr. Shades recently said this:

I'm sorry to be a "wet blanket," but I absolutely insist that MormonDiscussions.com NOT have any real-life negative consequences to anyone's family relationships, livelihood, or ecclesiastical status. Why? Because it's the right thing to do, legality notwithstanding.

We need to extend that protection to all.

[_Jersey Girl]

Could the answer be a reduction in cognitive dissonance?

I believe the answer is found in my new post that will appear just above this one, RI. I've made a living and long career out of behavioral observations.

Take a look.

[_Res Ipsa]

I see the killing thread parts, but I don't see any winning back of confidence. Where's that part?

[_Jersey Girl]

There should be now 5 items listed in that post I made. I modified it to better follow the sequence of behaviors and profits.

[_mentalgymnast]

Have you a link?

It would have been during the time period that I had the poster in question on ignore. I'm thinking it was within the last six months. During that time when I participated on threads, he would either be there and/or drop into the thread and make comments...but I didn't know what they were. That obviously impacts the thread when you don't know what is being said essentially behind your back. For a period of time I didn't UN ignore his posts because, well, that's the reason I'd put him on ignore. After a while I did look at a post of his now and then but it was sort of difficult to create any context because I wasn't looking at all of them.

I don't know whether or not there is any kind of 'cyber paper trail' that is left that shows the exact date I went to ignore to date I went off of ignore. But I do know that during this time I felt somewhat handicapped not knowing what was being said by a poster that I believed was probably saying stuff that was potentially antagonistic towards me. I was wearying of his fill in the blank bad mouthing and outright swearing, etc. when he could get away with it.

Back to a point that you referenced earlier. Let me be clear...there are times when I could have been the one to drop the back and forth crap that was going on...and I didn't. Instead of extinguishing the situation by taking the high road and bailing out...I would feed into the continued escalation that was promoted and seemingly encouraged. There was actually a period of time when crap was being thrown around that I would post the following:

Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Those words of mine ended up being used...cut and pasted... by at least one other poster to throw back to me after I'd posted it. As if it was their quote. With a copyright notice no less. Weird. And without attribution that the words were actually mine. It later developed into a situation where my quotes were being altered and changed and then quoted as if they were my words. And the so called quotes were done in a mocking manner.

Crazy stuff, to say the least.

Finally I had had enough and did what I did last Wednesday. I knew that putting this poster on ignore really wouldn't work so I decided to put an actual wall between that person and me that I would not climb or cross. And it was after I'd made clear that this was what I was doing...that he left.

Regards
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

I see the killing thread parts, but I don't see any winning back of confidence. Where's that part?

He starts winning back confidence in that he'll come up with a plan and folks will wait to see if he follows it. Most of know by now that he never will, and only because he repeats the behaviors. His complaint and pledge threads serve mainly to draw attention away from the original content rich thread.

He has Shade's confidence (or hope) right now for the time being, however, Shades rightly put a condition on that confidence.

That's why Shade's decision is so important here. Shades has seen what he's done, he's drawn a line, and the end is in sight should MG cross it.

Again, I say, the only way to test MG's agreement with the ruling is for grindael to return.

[_RockSlider]

But since we're spitballing here, how do you think MG experiences his own behavior? Does his through process go something like: "Man, that Grindael is a huge threat to Mormonism. Any Mormons who wander in here are sure to lose their faith after they read his stuff. I must stop him. How can I do it? I know, I'll jump in and troll all his threads. He's sure to fall for my trolling, and so will all those other critics on the board. They'll dog pile on me and mess up Grindael's threads so much that no one will remember all the damaging stuff he's posted." Or is it something else? I know you don't think it matters with respect to board rules and punishment. But I'm curious about your perception.

I think there are two major aspects to MDB.

A big part of this site, like any, is community. Friends to the point of family. We invest our time and a piece of ourselves here. So there are those that we do personally care for. Like any dysfunctional family there are those that we have have squabbles with and possibly some that we will never care for, personally.

The second aspect is that of discussion with an emphasis on exposing truth and rational thinking. Of late I've been consumed with formal debates on Islam, religion, morality, creationist etc. following the moderate theists and their postmodernist views thrown up against the likes of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra etc. The fair exchange of thoughtfully expressed differing world views such as in the formal debate would hopefully be the main desire here. Allowing all a fair forum to express their worldviews, but being expected to give support/evidence of their views.

So because of the community aspect of the site I'm hesitant in saying, I don't give a squat about what MG is actually feeling/experiencing. Yet, the second aspect must take precedence for this board to remain true to what I believe it's mainly intended to be. Nothing about MG personally is important here, only his presentation and defense of his worldview.

All should be given the respect to hold, present and support their worldviews here. True to form, Mormonism is a solid 40 years behind the times of current culture. The Bushman's, Given's, Patrick Mason's of nuanced Mormonism are yet to present us here with any progressive Mormons to debate. The old school just does not have a chance in rebuttals and will have nothing to turn to but what we have seen over and over ... negative apologetics.

But Shade's seems to take it a step further, where free speech is more important than a respectful forum for the presentation/defense of thoughts, beliefs, views, truths. It seems it's this difference which allows for the total loss of a nice debate/thought exchange forum to one of useless noise polluting any/all potential presentation/discussion of serious thought.

I would hope that the "the smooth operation of this message board" is number one; the formal debate concept of discussion, allowing the simple community conversations (unlimited free speech) to continue as long is it does not interfere with the main purpose. MG's personal life is optional to those in the community who care to engage. MG's personal life should play NO PART in management's decisions protecting the discussions aspect of the site.