Our Troll Problem

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 26 aug 2007 22:38:36

I have been engaged in a discussion with Stewart---in several threads---about our troll problem and about the way in which he has been addressing that problem. I intend in these comments to summarize only my own conclusions about three or four points. Neither Stewart nor I is able to speak for the other.

First, I believed when I began the discussion and I continue to believe that trolls are a real problem on this list and everywhere else on the internet where access is essentially open. I believe that everyone who participates in this list has a right to be concerned about the problem. (I shall have something more to say about the class of individuals that "everyone" here is quantifying over.) And I believe that Stewart has been sincerely and honestly attacking this problem through aggressive, persistent attacks---most recently and most obviously through attacks on Hines.

Secondly, I believe that anyone who is intelligent enough to recognize the troll problem will be intelligent enough to want evidence that a strategy will work before acting on that strategy. Stewart may believe he has such evidence but, if so, he has successfully hidden it from view.

In the absence of evidence that aggressive attacks can have desirable effects, reasonable list-members should adopt the view that the best policy is to do ignore the trolls, so far as that is possible. In addition to being the more prudent policy, it would appear to agree with the conclusions of the list-managers, though only they can speak to that. It is the more prudent policy because of the possibility that attention feeds the problem and makes it worse.

Thirdly, the actual operation of Stewart's strategy has some problems: His insistence on tit-for-tat results in long back-and-forth arguments in which it becomes unclear to everyone, including perhaps the participants, who are the good guys and who the bad guys. This problem is compounded by the fact that Stewart injects odious and harmful personal attacks into the most inappropriate and extraordinary contexts. He did that to me, several times, in our recent exchanges; his comments would anger me were it not for the fact that the context for them was so bizarre---a rather borings and mostly irrelevant set of comments on how concepts of causation relate to his strategy. He has recently done the same in an even more bizarre context, namely in comments on the list-managers, who give every appearance of being competent and well-meaning individuals and who have certainly done nothing to warrant abuse.

Finally, I should comment on one implication of one of Stewart's attacks on me. He appears to think either that those who do not post medieval genealogical information on this list have no right to comment on the troll-problem, or that they could not be expected to have anything useful to say about it. If Stewart were able to pry his brain away from its fixation with itself, he might take time to reflect on the fact that the troll-problem is a problem that more directly affects readers of the list, and not posters to the list. And, in truth, being an able investigator of early medieval genealogy confers no particular insights into what to do about trolls.

I don't do medieval research because I discovered many years ago that the operations of the market provided the best and most cost-efficient solution to my questions. I work surrounded by stacks of LDS film orders that measure in feet rather than inches. At what is now $5.50 a film they represent a large investment in access to primary records. The work that I would otherwise have to do on my seventeenth century lines is provided at a relatively trivial cost to me by genealogical entrepreneurs who are able to put food on the table for their children by supplying me and many others with information about our ancestors; and their work is regularly vetted for me in the genealogy journals. The curiosity I have about my medieval ancestors is over-supplied by the books and articles generated by the academic marketplace. (I discovered, many years ago, when I was chairman of our university library board, that the market for non-academic entrepreneurs was created by the snobbish attitude of university librarians and professors toward family history research---a disdain that does not extend to medieval family history. Since family history is work at the quantum level for studies of human history, this attitude is absurd and ought to be resisted.) In the majority of internet sites that I visit I give information about primary records and receive no such information in return. The idea that I should "Just go" or should not concern myself with the operation of this medieval genealogy list is absurd on its face.

In a recent posting Hines imagined that I have some affinity for Plato, who I actually rather loath. Aristotle, on the other hand, got many things right. Toward the end of his Nic. Ethics he remarks that humans are most like gods when then share knowledge, because knowledge is the one thing that they can give to others without decreasing what they have for themselves. That's an observation that is always at the back of my mind when I give or receive genealogical information. It is an observation that is perfectly consistent with my sentiments about genealogical entrepreneurs, because what they sell is the packaging of facts and not the facts themselves.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 23:46:06

Ho hum - a dreary screed from Smyth trying to justify himself for some
irrational and pompous remarks that sprayed his own face with egg.

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin), he doesn't understand the difference between an
indirect effect (causing Hines to compromise himself) and a direct one
(causing him to keep quiet or go away).

Obviously I do not consider that lurkers have no right to post their
opinions on newsgroup behaviour: I have been consistently trying to
encourage them ALL to DO SO.

The point I made to Smyth is that I would prefer not to hear more from him,
when his opinions were so flimsily constructed from poor logic, and his
representatioms of my opinions were just his own frivolous, vexatious and
self-contradictory distortions.

Peter Stewart



"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1356.1188164340.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I have been engaged in a discussion with Stewart---in several
threads---about our troll problem and about the way in which he has been
addressing that problem. I intend in these comments to summarize only my
own conclusions about three or four points. Neither Stewart nor I is able
to speak for the other.

First, I believed when I began the discussion and I continue to believe that
trolls are a real problem on this list and everywhere else on the internet
where access is essentially open. I believe that everyone who participates
in this list has a right to be concerned about the problem. (I shall have
something more to say about the class of individuals that "everyone" here
is quantifying over.) And I believe that Stewart has been sincerely and
honestly attacking this problem through aggressive, persistent
attacks---most recently and most obviously through attacks on Hines.

Secondly, I believe that anyone who is intelligent enough to recognize the
troll problem will be intelligent enough to want evidence that a strategy
will work before acting on that strategy. Stewart may believe he has such
evidence but, if so, he has successfully hidden it from view.

In the absence of evidence that aggressive attacks can have desirable
effects, reasonable list-members should adopt the view that the best policy
is to do ignore the trolls, so far as that is possible. In addition to
being the more prudent policy, it would appear to agree with the conclusions
of the list-managers, though only they can speak to that. It is the more
prudent policy because of the possibility that attention feeds the problem
and makes it worse.

Thirdly, the actual operation of Stewart's strategy has some problems: His
insistence on tit-for-tat results in long back-and-forth arguments in which
it becomes unclear to everyone, including perhaps the participants, who are
the good guys and who the bad guys. This problem is compounded by the fact
that Stewart injects odious and harmful personal attacks into the most
inappropriate and extraordinary contexts. He did that to me, several times,
in our recent exchanges; his comments would anger me were it not for the
fact that the context for them was so bizarre---a rather borings and mostly
irrelevant set of comments on how concepts of causation relate to his
strategy. He has recently done the same in an even more bizarre context,
namely in comments on the list-managers, who give every appearance of being
competent and well-meaning individuals and who have certainly done nothing
to warrant abuse.

Finally, I should comment on one implication of one of Stewart's attacks on
me. He appears to think either that those who do not post medieval
genealogical information on this list have no right to comment on the
troll-problem, or that they could not be expected to have anything useful to
say about it. If Stewart were able to pry his brain away from its fixation
with itself, he might take time to reflect on the fact that the
troll-problem is a problem that more directly affects readers of the list,
and not posters to the list. And, in truth, being an able investigator of
early medieval genealogy confers no particular insights into what to do
about trolls.

I don't do medieval research because I discovered many years ago that the
operations of the market provided the best and most cost-efficient solution
to my questions. I work surrounded by stacks of LDS film orders that
measure in feet rather than inches. At what is now $5.50 a film they
represent a large investment in access to primary records. The work that I
would otherwise have to do on my seventeenth century lines is provided at a
relatively trivial cost to me by genealogical entrepreneurs who are able to
put food on the table for their children by supplying me and many others
with information about our ancestors; and their work is regularly vetted
for me in the genealogy journals. The curiosity I have about my medieval
ancestors is over-supplied by the books and articles generated by the
academic marketplace. (I discovered, many years ago, when I was chairman of
our university library board, that the market for non-academic entrepreneurs
was created by the snobbish attitude of university librarians and
professors toward family history research---a disdain that does not extend
to medieval family history. Since family history is work at the quantum
level for studies of human history, this attitude is absurd and ought to be
resisted.) In the majority of internet sites that I visit I give
information about primary records and receive no such information in return.
The idea that I should "Just go" or should not concern myself with the
operation of this medieval genealogy list is absurd on its face.

In a recent posting Hines imagined that I have some affinity for Plato, who
I actually rather loath. Aristotle, on the other hand, got many things
right. Toward the end of his Nic. Ethics he remarks that humans are most
like gods when then share knowledge, because knowledge is the one thing that
they can give to others without decreasing what they have for themselves.
That's an observation that is always at the back of my mind when I give or
receive genealogical information. It is an observation that is perfectly
consistent with my sentiments about genealogical entrepreneurs, because what
they sell is the packaging of facts and not the facts themselves.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 aug 2007 23:51:19

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OonAi.26426$4A1.22582@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin)

To be more accurate, just in case this leads to another tiresome
theosophical screed: the direct cause of pain is not a pin in itself, and
not the act of sitting in itself, but the combination of sitting on a pin.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Our Troll Problem

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 aug 2007 07:33:31

Hmmmmmm...

His posts are also far too long, relatively content-free and meandering.

They have a budding-Alzheimer flavor to them.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OonAi.26426$4A1.22582@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Ho hum - a dreary screed from Smyth trying to justify himself for some
irrational and pompous remarks that sprayed his own face with egg.

He doesn't understand the difference between a medium of pain (the nerves)
and its cause (a pin), he doesn't understand the difference between an
indirect effect (causing Hines to compromise himself) and a direct one
(causing him to keep quiet or go away).

Obviously I do not consider that lurkers have no right to post their
opinions on newsgroup behaviour: I have been consistently trying to
encourage them ALL to DO SO.

The point I made to Smyth is that I would prefer not to hear more from
him, when his opinions were so flimsily constructed from poor logic, and
his representatioms of my opinions were just his own frivolous, vexatious
and self-contradictory distortions.

Peter Stewart

"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1356.1188164340.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I have been engaged in a discussion with Stewart---in several
threads---about our troll problem and about the way in which he has been
addressing that problem. I intend in these comments to summarize only my
own conclusions about three or four points. Neither Stewart nor I is able
to speak for the other.

First, I believed when I began the discussion and I continue to believe
that trolls are a real problem on this list and everywhere else on the
internet where access is essentially open. I believe that everyone who
participates in this list has a right to be concerned about the problem.
(I shall have something more to say about the class of individuals that
"everyone" here is quantifying over.) And I believe that Stewart has
been sincerely and honestly attacking this problem through aggressive,
persistent attacks---most recently and most obviously through attacks on
Hines.

Secondly, I believe that anyone who is intelligent enough to recognize the
troll problem will be intelligent enough to want evidence that a strategy
will work before acting on that strategy. Stewart may believe he has
such evidence but, if so, he has successfully hidden it from view.

In the absence of evidence that aggressive attacks can have desirable
effects, reasonable list-members should adopt the view that the best
policy is to do ignore the trolls, so far as that is possible. In
addition to being the more prudent policy, it would appear to agree with
the conclusions of the list-managers, though only they can speak to that.
It is the more prudent policy because of the possibility that attention
feeds the problem and makes it worse.

Thirdly, the actual operation of Stewart's strategy has some problems:
His insistence on tit-for-tat results in long back-and-forth arguments in
which it becomes unclear to everyone, including perhaps the participants,
who are the good guys and who the bad guys. This problem is compounded by
the fact that Stewart injects odious and harmful personal attacks into the
most inappropriate and extraordinary contexts. He did that to me, several
times, in our recent exchanges; his comments would anger me were it not
for the fact that the context for them was so bizarre---a rather borings
and mostly irrelevant set of comments on how concepts of causation relate
to his strategy. He has recently done the same in an even more bizarre
context, namely in comments on the list-managers, who give every
appearance of being competent and well-meaning individuals and who have
certainly done nothing to warrant abuse.

Finally, I should comment on one implication of one of Stewart's attacks
on me. He appears to think either that those who do not post medieval
genealogical information on this list have no right to comment on the
troll-problem, or that they could not be expected to have anything useful
to say about it. If Stewart were able to pry his brain away from its
fixation with itself, he might take time to reflect on the fact that the
troll-problem is a problem that more directly affects readers of the list,
and not posters to the list. And, in truth, being an able investigator of
early medieval genealogy confers no particular insights into what to do
about trolls.

I don't do medieval research because I discovered many years ago that the
operations of the market provided the best and most cost-efficient
solution to my questions. I work surrounded by stacks of LDS film orders
that measure in feet rather than inches. At what is now $5.50 a film they
represent a large investment in access to primary records. The work that
I would otherwise have to do on my seventeenth century lines is provided
at a relatively trivial cost to me by genealogical entrepreneurs who are
able to put food on the table for their children by supplying me and many
others with information about our ancestors; and their work is regularly
vetted for me in the genealogy journals. The curiosity I have about my
medieval ancestors is over-supplied by the books and articles generated by
the academic marketplace. (I discovered, many years ago, when I was
chairman of our university library board, that the market for non-academic
entrepreneurs was created by the snobbish attitude of university
librarians and professors toward family history research---a disdain that
does not extend to medieval family history. Since family history is work
at the quantum level for studies of human history, this attitude is absurd
and ought to be resisted.) In the majority of internet sites that I
visit I give information about primary records and receive no such
information in return. The idea that I should "Just go" or should not
concern myself with the operation of this medieval genealogy list is
absurd on its face.

In a recent posting Hines imagined that I have some affinity for Plato,
who I actually rather loath. Aristotle, on the other hand, got many
things right. Toward the end of his Nic. Ethics he remarks that humans
are most like gods when then share knowledge, because knowledge is the one
thing that they can give to others without decreasing what they have for
themselves. That's an observation that is always at the back of my mind
when I give or receive genealogical information. It is an observation
that is perfectly consistent with my sentiments about genealogical
entrepreneurs, because what they sell is the packaging of facts and not
the facts themselves.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»