Public Information?

In onland law, this is a silly question that is addressed in many ways. But online law is a bit different.

A man publishes a web blog advertising his full name and a theme of which he is apparently proud. He then becomes a member on this and other forums wherein he uses the same first name and for years proselytizes his theme. How often he has linked to his own blog site is unknown, but would be expected to be reasonably high.

After years, he chooses that one particular man is “an enemy” to be attacked. In that vein, he starts a threat on this forum as a platform for his attack. For a short while, he actually addresses something relating to philosophy, but very quickly it becomes nothing but conspicuous personal attacks, such as “you are the greatest of all liars” and “the epitome of evil”, providing no sort of philosophically related evidence whatsoever for the accusations. Such ranting goes on for pages.

Eventually at one point, the person being attacked mentions that blog of the attacker wherein his full name is advertised, revealing the attacker’s full name. This is then promoted by the attacker (and his cohorts) as a “threat to privacy”, even though accessible to anyone who has bothered to merely look up the theme involved in the attacker’s years of preaching.

Due only to the reaction, one can assume that the attacker wanted to hide something that he had already revealed himself or perhaps merely wanted to inspire the “poor victim” response from authorities. In either case, it would appear that mischievousness is what is at hand. But in either case, the question arises as to whether linking to an obsessive attacker’s published works is in fact an inappropriate response to an attack, personal or otherwise.

The thread involved, although now edited by moderators, is this, most notably the last couple of pages. It has been proposed that such an “offense” is certainly a ban-able offense, even worse than the actual, very real death threats given on other threads and forgiven.

There appears to be a huge, huge inconsistency in moderating that has caused serious damage to this site. This appears to be another of those polarizing, “Us vs Them/Him” reactions from moderators who have no standard to which members can willingly conform and thus threaten banning to anyone whispered as “a bad guy” while totally ignoring and forgiving extreme violation to normative civil standards and published “rules of behavior” for presumed “friends” - a totally political, non-philosophical issue.

Thus it seems that site-admin preferences concerning banning due to unreasonable violations would be in order for this site to have anything at all to do with philosophy rather than merely political bigotry and propagandizing.

Well, I figure if you let folks know your name in any way, then its on you. I saw no threat. I just saw testosterone flying per usual.
Children fight, I saw childish crap from all involved not just James. I did not see threat.

Well, the silly thing is that I left it open for him to not confirm that such was his real name if he wanted. He chose to make it into a martyr issue on his own (I didn’t at first provide his public announcement of it. And no telling how many people were already aware of it). The issue is one of the moderators being able to see such things and act accordingly.

James, you are a button pusher of psychology.

James, every time you cross the line, you play martyr. When you bring a person’s real-life identity into an online discussion of philosophy, you are making an ad hominem argument, or seeks to silence your interlocutor through intimidation. In the best case, you are simply saying something that isn’t relevant. These aren’t proper arguments, they aren’t the tools of proper philosophy, they’re disruptive to discussions. They’re the kind of thing that gets a warning.

This kind of thing (exposing a person’s real-life identity on ILP) has only come up recently, but it’s come up several times in the past few months and when we’ve been aware of it we’ve always reacted the same way.

Which is exactly what my opponent did throughout that exchange.

Which he had done himself (in any onland court of law).

Which is 100% of everything that had been going on earlier in that thread and in a great many others.

As I had explained to them in that same thread.

But only if done by the “Unchosen”, it seems, totally ignoring the obvious evidence.

It is an old issue in onland reality. If a person publishes some idea or their personal identity, especially noted as a public figure either in entertainment or politics, they automatically give up all rights to privacy concerning those details. How else could it be? Everyone can’t figure out who wants to keep which public information that they have chosen to publish to be private versus public.

He chose to publish his name.
He chose to confirm that it was his real name.
He chose to blame-shift someone for revealing that it was his name, although never implying that he didn’t want it known.

And now you really choose to support such intentional and obvious maliciousness?

What you are now directly implying is that this site has absolutely nothing at all to do with any philosophy, but is entirely and solely the promotion of whatever bigotry happens to be predominate at the time.

Have you any reasoning that implies otherwise? Or do you even care?
Of all of the posts in that thread, which ones actually involved any kind of philosophy?

Evil motherfucking liar.

James is psychopathic troll who has done everything in three years to get me to destroy myself.

I have NEVER linked to that blog. That blog was put together in a week three years ago and I never visited it since.

@ Jakob aka Fixed Cross,

How would you call somebody who is posting here since four years with two different usernames, one supporting “the other”?
How would you call somebody who is - in a way which implies that he isn’t quite the master of his senses at that time - accusing people frequently of being crack-addicts?
And how would you call somebody who arranged such a shitstorm as you did, only because somebody challenged his pride?

Jakob, You confirmed your name, how is that a lie? If you did not create a link somehow then how could he know it? All you had to do was ignore your name. Instead you chose to confirm. And your post about James trying to get you to destroy yourself says more about you than it does about him. James did not behave with positive decorum but, neither have you. Childish behavior is what has been going on. You could have at anytime in 3 years ignored him.

DID ANYONE NOTICE IN WHAT CAPACITY JAMES CHOSE TO REVEAL MY NAME??

[size=100]MORONS![/size]

How the fuck can you not see the intent behind it? How can you convince yourself that this was not a deliberate act of malice?

You can not be serious.

ignore.

Mithus -
I can scarcely imagine your conniving little mind manages to convince itself. I can imagine you “verkneukelend” over your deceit, in the expectation that people will fall for it. A chance to beat on Fixed Cross! We can not let that lie. I suppose you crawled from under one of the rocks at KTS.

ignore.

I will have to get more realistic about the amount of people here who are strictly vulture. I’ll try a new tactic and add everyone who I catch making a point of lying to my foe list.

Another ILP thread that becomes a dogfight.

The moderators have to keep an eye on certain posters who have caused problems in the past. They have to skim threads and intervene before a thread goes completely out of control.

Here’s a sample of the sort of replies I gave in that thread.

Then this lie or deceptive suggestion followed:

This is very oobviosuly only intended to sabotage and confuse – James is nowhere near as stupid as to seriously conclude this from what I wrote.

Kris has never followed any of these discussions in science and technology, that is more than obvious – she comes running in at the momnent she smells fire, and starts to point fingers and adopt her spinleless holier than thou tactics.

Many of you may not realize this about philosophy, or about science – it has consequences.
It is one thing for you to not take yourself the least bit serious – another to conclude that nothing can be serious, and that all anger is just sensationalism or testosterone.

I also realize that those who have nothing to offer are quick to take offense in any pride a thinker has in his work. Such type of audience wishes only to see failure, evidently, as that is the only thing that can be of worth to it – any accomplishment or gift to mankind is an offense to the ones who would prefer to see man plummet back to the ape-kingdom, where they might have a chance at something.

Now to follow a discussion one has to post? Did I condemn just you? Is that what you read?

I know, I have moderated in the past. I have also stopped moderating due to mods not being neutral. A one or two time criminal is not always habitual, yet, when treated as a present criminal, the human mind will often give up and become what they are chronically accused of.
Moderators are human and just as prejudice as anyone. There is no training just general rules and forms. I can be as bad and knowing this is another reason I quit.

Don’t get paranoid.
I’m not interested in you, neither as Fixed Cross, nor as Jakob.
Get some help.

…and did I mention a bit delusionally paranoid as of late.

It is not up to Carleas, moderators, me, Jakob, or anyone else as to whether his name is private information. It is not. And it is not because he proudly published it. If he later decides that he doesn’t want anyone to know it, he must find a means to inform everyone to make a secret out of it.

There has been no breach of privacy. If that was my interest, I have much much more potentially condemning information than merely his name. He published his name himself. He now deludes himself into me being on an insidious mission for years to destroy him. He destroyed himself over the past year or so with the help of his “friends”.

He now contrives what he calls my deceptions. But look at the huge and relevant chuck he left out of the quote that he just used in such an effort. Who is really attempting to deceive whom.[tab]

[/tab]

I have not crossed any privacy line nor written rule. This is strictly an issue of the sanity in governing and/or moderating and their selective willingness to be lured into preemptive condemnation. This is the only question:

Jakob, how can you seriously blame James, of all people???

And to think that I once held that JSS would be fit for a moderator :open_mouth:

This is why I’m afraid to vote in politics. I always try to see the best in people. Translation? I’m naive and can be easily fooled.

Making ad hominem attacks usually indicates either 1) You’re uninterested in serious discussion and/or 2) You’re incompetent and try to hide it behind insults, having no real argument.

There’s a reason why it’s shunned in academic circles.

Wiz - if you don’t get that from what is public record, then there is only one way to find out; engage him and study his RM together with him for as long and intensely as I have. That is roughly 3 and a half years covering in detail the fields of logic, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, law and philosophy.

I can not say I have learned nothing from him! But more often than with anyone else who is deeply intelligent, what he taught me is quite opposite to what I finally concluded.
My attitude towards him started changing after I had understood his Stopped Clock Paradox. Or if he claims I have not understood it, after being able to solve it in a way that made sense to me.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=184216

Why did my attitude begin to change then? I was only aware of a vague disappointment at the time. Now I see I had lost the confidence that RM represents power.
I was able to disprove Relativity by arriving at the necessary existence of a neutral reference frame from the premises of RM. Bt it did not feel like a victory. Existence had lost its mystery and all the powers that we have as mankind were invalidated. It did not matter to James that Relativity works; there was an error to it he said, and this is how we solve it;

In the years before I dared to engage, I read all the Sopped CLock Paradox I could find on ILP and the rest of the internet. The oldest one on this board doesn’t come up in a google search, it involves people with actual scientific schooling; people I used to distrust in the time I was friends with James. I now see that I have been duped; so also with the thread about the island and the eyes, where phyllo, Silhouette, FJ and Carleas gave James a run for his money but to no avail. Their arguments weren’t good enough - to my eyes. They were formal arguments; James’ arguments are always practical. I liked that. But there is a strange twilight zone between formality and certainty in which practicality turned out to not be the ultimate answer.

James leads you into the dark and promises you he’ll light a torch at one point. Me he promised that I would be the torch. He had seen my 'cardinal sin; -
But he had missed that I had already set myself alight and was wandering happily around in search of faces to illuminate. He was one of them. He chose to be my teacher - great! Nothing more interesting, at least online, than a man of thought and experience who freely spends his wisdom. So I started to learn.

After a while I began to notice that the main point he’d make about VO is that it is valid in so far as it corresponds to RM, and that it would be earth shattering once it did so completely. But the problem has always been that the assertion of Affectance as a universal nature is equally problematic as the premise of Will to Power as one. The WtP is more accurate, but it is still inadequate in describing actual entities.
This has always been the cause of the war: what is entity? Implied; what are we? Some go so far as to eliminate entity all the way out of the equation. You must follow your instincts on this one.