DiscussMormonism.com

rocket wrote:I have shared absolutely nothing about myself other than (1) my on-line resume and (2) my blog.

But your sig line gives you away: you're the Most Interesting Man in the World.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2SSZA0CjdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9GYocBqGyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ym2Jma04qo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC9mqbImrC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxw0_Pxymyk

Since bob has decided to grace us with his presence again, I decided it was time to resurrect this thread with an addition. There are several updates that need to be made. I may repeat a few things to make my current point.


Bob has long been an annoying character on this board. His primary comments usually consist of calling people anonymous cowards for not posting under their real names. Of course, there are real and serious reasons for not using one’s real name on the internet, and I have zero doubt Bob is aware of these issues. But he continually goads people about the issue nonetheless. Of course, when people do post with their real names, they’re often harassed in real life. And when Bob or others can figure out someone’s identity even when they’re posting anonymously, they may contact the family and “tattle”. This occurred on this board when Eric, who, at the time, was posting anonymously, posted his reaction to his believing step-father’s reaction to his sister’s illness and both Bob and DCP emailed the father to tattle. They both knew the step-father and recognized enough details to make the connection. Bob’s email bounced, and he decided not to try again, but that does not alter the fact that he did attempt to contact the step-father. This, of course, was a huge controversy. Here is the evidence that bob did, in fact, attempt to contact Eric’s family about his anonymous post on this board:

Yes, I did try to contact Eric's step father about derogatory things Eric was saying about his father. After all, Eric's father was a client, somebody whom I gave directions for advice. Why not? That's not stalking anybody.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12563&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=147

by the way, Eric denies that his step-father is a client of bob’s.

I'll tell you what. I have a screenshot of your last post. I'll give you an hour to issue an apology to this entire board before I email your partners and show them how you've been lying about my step-dad being a client of yours in order to libel me. One hour.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12563&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=168

Apparently, since most posters here are anonymous, that allows Bob to dehumanize us. We are simply characters in some sort of game.

I don't care one whit. I am dealing with anonymous posters. These are Second Life people. Why should I care about an anonymous person?

I am here for the rhetoric. I see weaknesses, I'll point them out. Just like the rest of you, but most of the rest of you hide cowardly behind your anonymous names so that no damage can really be done to you.

rcrocket

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5268&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=42

Crocket’s position on internet anonymity is frankly bizarre. On a thread in which an anonymous – and this time, yes, cowardly –poster posted real life information about bob, the conversation predictably turned towards the dangers of posting with one’s real name. I asked bob this:

So if, prior to their "exodus", a member of the Heaven's Gate cult who lost belief, anonymously posted critical information about the Heaven's Gate community, even accusing its leaders of plotting mass suicide - would you still be this critical of them?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3143&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=63

Bob predictably refused to answer:

Any argument may be reduced to the absurd. I am not impressed.

My response:

This is your coy way of refusing to give the only sane answer, of course.

Just how do you decide which belief systems merit this protection, and which don't?

Crocket’s direct response to me:

Why don't you go to your friends, people of responsibility and intergrity, and ask them (without referring to the internet) if you think it is honorable to post out on a telephone pole in front of somebody's house a flyer hurling vulgarties and defamations, anonymously, at the inhabitants?

Or, buying airtime on TV anonymously to make defamatory statements, and use vulgarities, in reference to the local Mormon stake president? Local rabbi?

For instance, we have four big catholic churches in my town. Would it be honorable for me to tack onto the front door of one of those churches in the early morning hours: "Father Flaherty here supports and endorses pedophiles."

Your honorable friends would say that this is sociopathic conduct. This is no different than what you do. And, I mean you.

rcrocket

Here’s the delicious irony. Bob accuses me (and, on another thread, Jason B) of “sociopathic behavior” while declaring that he doesn’t care one whit about posters on this board, because we’re “Second Life people.” Here’s crocket’s definition of sociopathy:

I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3383&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

In crocket’s world, anonymous critical statements about living persons is always sociopathic. I seriously doubt that any medical professional would agree with this assertion. However, I do think they might agree that asserting that human beings who post anonymously are “Second Life people” might be a problematic indicator, since sociopaths normally dehumanize other people and are not capable of even recognizing them as real.

Profile of sociopathy

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Interesting also is this:

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

But I’ll get to that momentarily.
Now I realize that when people post on the internet, they often behave in ways that they would not behave in real life. It is interesting that crocket thinks real damage can only be done to people when their real names are known…which seems to indicate a belief that damage only results from social disapproval. That also seems to point to an inability to simply recognize the feelings of others, outside any social “outing.” But perhaps these traits have nothing to do with crocket’s real life personality.

Now, to the lying. I have set this up in detail to help the reader understand that bob has a special disdain for people who post anonymously on the internet, believes we are Second Life people, not real people, and that no “real damage” can be done to us. So this might help explain why he feels no compunction against boldly lying about fellow posters. It’s all a game, anyway, a means to score “wins.”

Crocket:

In terms of the "game" and "winning," of course my young friend this is a "game" and it is about "winning." With you, who knows so little about LDS doctrine and secular history and literature, winning means getting a rise out of you. Winning with others is different. With Rollo, it is getting to get him to admit or come to consensus with something I've argued. With Scratch its more the same -- getting him to agree with something antithetical to his usual position. Perhaps you've noted that those two don't lose their tempers, but at least Scratch gets the biggest and the brightest to lose theirs. With Beastie -- well, she's more like you. Score three points for the next blast. And so on. It is a game. It is about winning. You're a loser. I mean, a real one.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12563&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=315

Aside from the sociopathic issues, this certainly is an admission of troll-like behavior.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I have long suspected bob is a form of a troll. I have long suspected he doesn’t even really believe half of what he says. He’s just trying to score a point by provoking some reaction that he has determined means he “wins.”

Here’s an example of an interaction which I believe demonstrates that it is practically impossible bob really believed what he was saying. I believe he was trying to provoke a certain reaction from me:

crocket

These codiecs are not "literature." The Mayans did not have a written language..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2633&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

It is simply not possible for a person who has read anything about the Maya to insist that they did not have a written language. Note this bizarre assertion occurred on the tail of other strange assertions – referencing a tour guide, for example, as a source of evidence that there were horses during the Book of Mormon time period in Mesoamerica.

Now, whatever bob’s other qualities may or may not be, it must be admitted that he is an intelligent person. This is why I find it literally unbelievable that he really believed the things he was saying. I think he was simply trying to provoke a reaction from me – calling him stupid, or something like that. That would have been a “win” for him.

This is a relatively minor example, and one that is debatable. Perhaps bob is truly uninformed regarding the Maya and ancient horses and just too proud to admit it. But I am suspicious. The fact that the Maya had a written language is one of the things for which they are most famous, after all.

I invite readers to read this thread and ask themselves: is it really possible that bob truly believes I have “stalked” him and his family? I think not. Bob is trolling for a reaction. Unfortunately for bob, even with his bizarre idea of “winning” by provoking an emotional reaction, he often completely fails to correctly judge my (and other posters’) moods. He’s only made me genuinely angry one time: the misogynist event. Every other time he’s attempting to provoke a response, my response has been bemusement and sometimes, disbelief.

But let’s look again at the definition of sociopathy, and ask ourselves if someone who openly admits to attempting to provoke an emotional reaction in a target might come too close for comfort:

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Oh, one more comment I forgot: what is really interesting about this is I suspect that bob really doesn’t care if his behavior reflects poorly on his “side”: internet defenders of the faith. Not only does he lie, but repeats the lie even when any sane person would admit it had been proven false. I think he does this to get a reaction from the target. He wants the target to call him names, blow up, something out of frustration. That “feeds” him, he’s gotten his “win.” No matter that it reflects really poorly on his side.

rocket wrote:
I agree with Beastie.

So one who is knowledgeable, sincere, honest, and has integrity is the most dangerous to the church? I can agree with that.

Themis wrote:
So one who is knowledgeable, sincere, honest, and has integrity is the most dangerous to the church? I can agree with that.

ironic, eh?

For whatever reason, Bob responded to my charges on a separate thread. Since I do not want to remove a discussion of his behavior from the evidence of that behavior I’ve shared on this thread, I’ve copied and pasted his remarks here and will only respond to him on this thread.

Bob’s rejoinder:

It is amazing that a mere spam bot has something substantive to say.

It was fun reading that old thread by Beastie.

I think my views have modified somewhat since that old thread. Trying to learn more.

First, I don't necessarily see Beastie's conduct as sociopathic. Not being a psychologist, I don't know the difference between sociopathy, pathiopathy, being disingenuous, or just plain unhappiness (and I'm not implying that Beastie is any of these). I'm sure there is room for sincerity in there someplace and I am certainly willing to grant that.

Second, I would want to say that posting anonymously does, in fact, weaken one's argument but given that so many people on this board post anonymously, my argument is pretty diluted. Certainly, there is safety in doing so as can be attested to the foolishness I'm having to endure -- state bar complaint, multiple complaints to my partners, etc -- which almost all of you, Beastie included, applaud and encouraged. Since I am doing this on a personally-owned computer, I wonder what relevance complaints to the bar and my firm have to do with my comments here.

Third, I do believe that the Mayans lacked what we consider a true written language, and that Coe overstates the point and is a polemicist, but far be it from me to claim expertise in this area. I don't have it.

Fourth, I like Jason and think he's a decent fellow.

Fifth, I don't think it necessary any more to condemn the bona fides of the doubter; after all, on this blog, we are dealing with anonymous posters and their personas just could be mythical fairy telling, as I think Scratch's is Instead of attacking the bona fides of somebody like Scratch, I think it more appropriate to attack the message. This is a point I have often tried to make to my FARMS friends.

Sixth, there is no doubt that I like to "win." Beastie condemns that view. But I am an evolutionist and a follower of Freud, and I think the desire to "win" is inherent in everything we do, even subconsciously. The suicide is, really, an attempt to "win."

Seventh, with respect to Beastie's comments about my wife and children, please note that in the recent thread with Eric I did not bring it up, and I haven't brought it up in a year. She jumped in with it

Eighth, Liz keeps referring to personal attacks I've made on folks. I think she just confuses the difference between an artfully shoved skewer in somebody's argument with what is truly a personal attack. I wonder what her best example of a personal attack might be? That I think Eric is uneducated (as he claims I have said)?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12617&p=313853#p313853

My first response:

Certainly, there is safety in doing so as can be attested to the foolishness I'm having to endure -- state bar complaint, multiple complaints to my partners, etc -- which almost all of you, Beastie included, applaud and encouraged.

This is another flat-out lie. I have never expressed any sort of approval of whatever contact may have occurred – and I certainly don’t take your word for any of these supposed events.

Sixth, there is no doubt that I like to "win." Beastie condemns that view. But I am an evolutionist and a follower of Freud, and I think the desire to "win" is inherent in everything we do, even subconsciously. The suicide is, really, an attempt to "win."

The problem is not with the desire to win. It is what you consider a “win” – such as provoking an emotional outburst.


by the way, I think falsely calling people stalkers and sociopaths are fair examples of attacking people.

Runtu also made some comments to which I replied, as well as quaker.

Runtu

I don't recall a lot of approval for anyone going after Bob in that way. I certainly don't approve of such stuff.

I don't recall any approval being expressed over it, but I may be misremembering.

Runtu

Sometimes I think Bob is trying to demonstrate what happens when you dehumanize your "opponents" and treat them as mere types or characters in a game. It's easier to do that if you consider your opponents to be sociopaths.

I see nothing that indicates he's trying to demonstrate what happens when you dehumanize his opponent. I think he simply is dehumanizing his opponent. His history is simply too overwhelming on this point. Yes, I know bob always denies attacking and dehumanizing, and always asserts that he's a polite, nice fellow, but it doesn't take much of a perusal of his past posting to see that assertion is yet one more lie.

I very rarely accuse people of actually lying, because I think that the human capacity for bias and misremembering is usually an adequate explanation for contradictions and problematic assertions. But in bob's case, I do believe he is consciously lying. It is the only explanation that makes sense given the evidence. For example, no matter how many times he's reminded that the only time I ever mentioned his wife and children (not by name, of course, I don't know their names) was in the context of ONE bad joke, he continues to lie about the event, such as referring to it as if I mentioned them multiple times, and as if I revealed information about them.

That's why I don't believe anything he asserts without hard evidence - and that includes his accusations towards Eric.


Quaker:

It would take a big man to take the punches thrown by some anonymous posters and not develop any judgment that makes it easier to deal with them. My respect to anyone who can avoid that tendency, but they are few. I notice those types tend to be smart enough to stay away from a board like this.

Do make this same concession to critics who post on MAD?