"Stewart and at least one of the list-managers seem to disagree about a question of empirical fact. The
question is which behavior is more effective in silencing trolls: ignoring them or attacking them. I have absolutely no empirical evidence that bears on this question."
In reply to that question, Stewart said:
"An empirical answer to this has been given several times: Hines was ABSENT from SGM for a blessedly long stretch after a similar struggle from which he emerged fleeing with his tail between his legs."
In his most recent post he says:
"> In previous postings Stewart has said that the fact that Hines stopped
posting
after Stewart had whacked him was proof that Hines stopped posting because
Stewart had whacked him.
"This is not what I have said: my point is that Hines took off from SGM after
_he_ had made such a fool of himself in front of this intelligent and
critical audience that he thought it better to sit out of discussion here
for a time."
I do not believe that I falsely represented the meaning of Stewart's initial reply to the question I put to Elizabeth Moss.
Parsing Stewart must be as difficult as parsing Duns Scotus. Since I have great affection for Scotus, Stewart must not take that as anything but a compliment.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com