![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Scott's posted more -- a response to our reponses.
Lord . . .
I started a short response here, just to point people to the comments on Scott's new post, and George's addition to his original post, and, more importantly, the lively comments there, which have become akin to a chat room.
But my short response became longer and longer, as I kept reading the comments from Scott and others piling up, and my attitude kept changing, from disgusted, tired anger, to peevishness, to amusement, and with the last few comments, to just plain disgust.
It's not worth pursuing in this form anymore, but it's made me think a bit more on the qualities of school bullies and grifters (both of which I have personal experience with), and I should have more to say on that in relation to Scott's supposed experiment. Maybe I can canniballize something out of what I wrote.
In any case, most of what I wanted to say has already been dealt with in the comments to Scott's new post -- thank George Hunka, Joshua James, Don R. Hall, Ben Ellis, and John Devore (and a couple others) for that -- and again in the update/comments at George's blog -- George and Joshua, now joined by Alison Croggon (who always seems to cut to the point), continuing the good work there.
So, if this actually holds any possible interest for you any more (and I'll understand if it doesn't), check out Scott's and George's new entries and especially the comments following. Scott's responses in particular convinced me not to pursue this in the same manner -- it's pointless. Isaac also has some final comments, and the comments to his "Quick Note" are also to be looked at, if your interest goes even further.
I am now a lot happier that I posted my long rant before, however. Earlier, I had worried a little bit that I was off-base. Now I know I was not. Trying to engage in discussion with someone whose idea of of a useful intellectual exercise is apparently "Let me see . . . if I punch someone in the face, will they be angry, and will some of them try to punch me back?" is a no-starter. I thought he wasn't a troll, given his history, apparently I was wrong.
Lord . . .
I started a short response here, just to point people to the comments on Scott's new post, and George's addition to his original post, and, more importantly, the lively comments there, which have become akin to a chat room.
But my short response became longer and longer, as I kept reading the comments from Scott and others piling up, and my attitude kept changing, from disgusted, tired anger, to peevishness, to amusement, and with the last few comments, to just plain disgust.
It's not worth pursuing in this form anymore, but it's made me think a bit more on the qualities of school bullies and grifters (both of which I have personal experience with), and I should have more to say on that in relation to Scott's supposed experiment. Maybe I can canniballize something out of what I wrote.
In any case, most of what I wanted to say has already been dealt with in the comments to Scott's new post -- thank George Hunka, Joshua James, Don R. Hall, Ben Ellis, and John Devore (and a couple others) for that -- and again in the update/comments at George's blog -- George and Joshua, now joined by Alison Croggon (who always seems to cut to the point), continuing the good work there.
So, if this actually holds any possible interest for you any more (and I'll understand if it doesn't), check out Scott's and George's new entries and especially the comments following. Scott's responses in particular convinced me not to pursue this in the same manner -- it's pointless. Isaac also has some final comments, and the comments to his "Quick Note" are also to be looked at, if your interest goes even further.
I am now a lot happier that I posted my long rant before, however. Earlier, I had worried a little bit that I was off-base. Now I know I was not. Trying to engage in discussion with someone whose idea of of a useful intellectual exercise is apparently "Let me see . . . if I punch someone in the face, will they be angry, and will some of them try to punch me back?" is a no-starter. I thought he wasn't a troll, given his history, apparently I was wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 03:38 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 04:32 am (UTC)From:Yeah, the school bully image of punching and then saying "I was only kidding" or "Can't you take a joke?" when finally challenged was one I had been working with, and may come back to. Glad you had the image yourself, and went with it.
In future, I'm going to try and work anything else that comes up on this subject in a craftman way into something more useful -- if I can't, I'll try and just stay informational, or silent.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 05:36 am (UTC)From:even on live journal people don't act like that !!!
:)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 04:53 pm (UTC)From:Even after his first post, hell, even after his SECOND post, I was still willing to listen to Scott and keep him in my blogroll, but his responses to everyone's comments just wound up convincing me that, intentionally or not, he is just a troll, and there's no dealing with him in any way, and contrary to what I had thought, nothing he can actually bring to our discussions online.
In the comments, it just got to this point where he reminded me of a guy on the Frank Zappa newsgroup I used to frequent who insisted for years that "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" is in 4/4 time. He claimed to be a percussionist, but seemed more interested in the "philosophy" of percussion than the realities of playing music. No matter how many times the accomplished composers and professional musicians who posted on the board tried to explain it to him, including multiple members of Zappa's bands from over the years, he would just keep saying the song was in 4/4 (of course, it isn't, it's in 7/8) He wouldn't budge and would say that everyone else were too wrapped up in their narrow notions of what "time" meant and that through some strange Eastern philosophy of music (which of course "swang" more and wasn't so "uptight"), the song was indeed in 4/4. He was a sharp guy who had a few things to say otherwise, but his repeated and rude insistence on a point that was objectively wrong eventually turned everyone off, but it took a while and a lot of wasted words before people realized there was no dealing with him, and tuned him out.
Scott finally reached that point for me last night about the third time he "misunderstood" a metaphor or deliberatly used someone's words out of context to say people were saying things they hadn't. Either he is an liar and dishonest, or he is an idiot. Once that had become clear, it was time to stop engaging with him.
Still, I'm glad I posted the rant -- it got out a part of myself I sometimes hold back too much, and it focuses me to let go sometimes and see what comes out.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 04:24 am (UTC)From: (Anonymous)