Addressing Change

We have some very dysfunctional posting criticizing Bisbee politics, its residents and past residents in our forums. It isn’t the opinions, personal politics, or age of the poster that is responsible, it is the poster’s absolute intransigence and ability to hold civil discourse. They no longer query or discuss, they speak in absolutes. Though intelligent enough to know and use multi-syllabic words their personal intransigence and name calling makes it almost impossible for them to be eloquent. Why? Eloquence is the writer’s ability to persuade through
written discourse; but these otherwise creative writers are no longer persuasive. In order to be persuasive one must be willing to listen to and respect others. These posters have deserted that ability and have replaced eloquence with riposte and wit with sarcasm. As to the talent sometimes evident in their writing, this combination of a strong skill in one area and a shortcoming in another isn’t uncommon; the idiot savant is an extreme example and also suffers from a similar if more severe lack of communication skills. A healthy personality approaches discourse as the give and take of opposing views, rarely
as a personal affront; but too often these posters give or respond to an alternative view not with interest or appreciation but abuse and scorn. They go out of their way to alienate fellow posters then decry the eventual results. A casual forum reader may have noticed a preoccupation by some with a poster’s identity and
felt ambivalent on the issue. On most forums the true identity of a poster is a closely guarded secret meant to
prevent discourse from devolving into personal wars. Only in Bisbee is that anonymity decried and posters encouraged to post under their own identities. Does a name affixed to an opinion truly increase understanding of a post or simply offer the potential to excoriate the poster? Simply watching the number and intensity of personal
remarks which increased on the forums should answer that question. Beyond the presentation of expert testimony or external source, when has an opinion ever needed a
pedigree? Identity waxes important when discourse wanes and the goal is no longer the elevation of ideas but the ability to employ ad hominem attacks. Discourse isn’t important to diatribe. The vitriolic nature that replaces discourse in this manner stems not from genius but from a lack of it. Those who feel the need to defend their positions with personal attacks do not grow in appreciation they shrink into an isolation that requires an ever more aggressive stance. Forums populated by the young frequently have such problems but rarely where the population is over thirty. The result isn’t only a reduction in the quality of posts it is the backlash that comes from the reader’s opinion of it. Personal attacks evoke strong emotions in all of us. If anyone needs an answer to the question why certain people were not elected to public office, look no further than the content of their posts and the personal attacks those posters employed on these
forums; familiarity with their attitudes toward others influenced those results.

We also have some dysfunctional local posters in reflexive lockstep with the local establishment. Those people are no less likely to engage in disparaging attack and tainted argument, but do seem more likely to use truly savage tactics.

Let us face some facts here: The odds are that we can all identify the offenders of whom the original post speaks, as well as those referenced in this post. Just as did the original poster, I will call out no names; there is neither need nor reason to do so.

Speaking for myself alone, I can only say that in the absence of vicious attacks and off-topic demeaning and distracting posts, I will not avoid nor shrink from discourse with even those I think are most reprehensible. The caveat here is that the discourse needs to remain issue-centered, with a commitment to exchange of information, ideas, and relevant opinion. (I will cite here the exchange which took place only yesterday concerning taxation and tax policy on another forum.)

I have tried to live up to that approach. I've too often failed, as have we all. We are humans, with our own strongly-held ideas of what is right and proper. I would really like civility -- but cannot allow myself to be vilified and attacked. And on a related note: attack on and disparagement of political figures is not the same phenomenon; those who place themselves in that position -- those who actively seek public position and responsibility -- should realize that the entire history of politics virtually insures attack. It's an old and established fact and tradition, engaged in historically by all.

Jack wrote:

We also have some dysfunctional
local posters in reflexive lockstep with the local establishment. Those people
are no less likely to engage in disparaging attack and tainted argument, but do seem more likely to use truly savage tactics.

Let us face some facts here: The odds are that we can all identify the
offenders of whom the original post speaks, as well as those referenced in this
post. Just as did the original poster, I will call out no names; there is
neither need nor reason to do so.

Speaking for myself alone, I can only say that in the absence of vicious
attacks and off-topic demeaning and distracting posts, I will not avoid nor
shrink from discourse with even those I think are most reprehensible. The caveat
here is that the discourse needs to remain issue-centered, with a commitment to
exchange of information, ideas, and relevant opinion. (I will cite here the
exchange which took place only yesterday concerning taxation and tax policy on
another forum.)

I have tried to live up to that approach. I've too often failed, as have we
all. We are humans, with our own strongly-held ideas of what is right and
proper. I would really like civility -- but cannot allow myself to be vilified
and attacked. And on a related note: attack on and disparagement of political
figures is not the same phenomenon; those who place themselves in that position
-- those who actively seek public position and responsibility -- should realize
that the entire history of politics virtually insures attack. It's an old and
established fact and tradition, engaged in historically by all.

Shame on you sir, aren’t you the man who touted his skills in debate? You support personal attacks against local public servants because the history of politics virtually ensures attack? Don’t you recognize argumentum ad antiquitatem? Just because something has always been done doesn’t lend it acceptability or credence. War, murder, racism, and sexism also have a long history but you’re not defending them are you? Let’s be frank, we stoop to personal attacks because they're easy and viscerally satisfying not because they're intelligent or fair. When we are lazy and abandon discourse we are harming more than our argument. The average reader may not know the terms but they sense the tendencies behind them and react just as viscerally. We're dealing with intelligent adults; if they've been expecting demonstrable and legitimate complaints but have only heard endless personal animus they can become angry or worse... apathetic.

By the way, your argument
that you like civility but can not allow yourself to be vilified and attacked is simply post hoc ergo propter hoc; an argument in defense of continuation.

Jack wrote:

...The caveat here is that the discourse needs to remain issue-centered, with a commitment to exchange of information, ideas, and relevant opinion. (I will cite here the exchange which took place only yesterday concerning taxation and tax policy on another forum.)

WRONG sir, wrong. The thread of which you speak did NOT remain issue-centered. You, and/or your friend took it down the path you claim to disdain.
http://www.topix.net/forum/city/bisbee-az/TB0V1TE7FTAG8UBB6/p2#c30
Maybe you missed that, or maybe it just shows that you have no clue whatsoever about the nature of your own actions or of those of your friends.

Au contraire, mon frere. I took the topic back to the topic of the thread (at the same time I 'bumped' the Obama thread, so that both sides could get equal attention / ridicule). The tax conversation, while civil and informative, was off-topic. Besides, the subject is important and complicated enough to deserve its own thread.
I just looked, and can see nothing in the nature of personal attack in subsequent posts except for one by one of the trolls who will always be with us. I see some posts which call attention to the same kind of effort put forth here by "Travesty", and which are (as his) humorous to a greater or lesser extent.

Jack wrote:

...I just looked, and can see nothing in the nature of personal attack in subsequent posts except for one by one of the trolls who will always be with us...

Subsequent to WHAT?
Barnum is YOUR friend, and has been a guest at your house, apparently. Your friend is a troll?

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Jack wrote:

...I just looked, and can see nothing in the nature of personal attack in subsequent posts except for one by one of the trolls who will always be with us...

Subsequent to WHAT?
Barnum is YOUR friend, and has been a guest at your house, apparently. Your friend is a troll?

Subsequent to the tax discussion, of course; that's what we were talking about. There were no Barnum posts then; she's been very quiet the past couple days, since she's out of town. But, yes, she is regrettably unregistered, as she explained to you a couple days ago. She tried not to be, in hopes that if she registered, you would go back to posting as a registered user. But she explained all this to you.
And don't you share my feeling that a "troll" is one whose ID is carefully masked and mutable? In legalistic terms, you are a troll on that forum, and yet we all know who you are (even when you post as someone else) -- and so, whatever else we may call you, "troll" doesn't quite fit. Just so, it seems not to fit Barnum, whose sole and only mission seems to be your discomfiture.

Jack wrote:

...And don't you share my feeling that a "troll" is one whose ID is carefully masked and mutable?

From MY point of view, her identity IS masked and mutable.

You may find that you are somewhat more certain of her probable identity, when she's sitting in your living room, typing on your computer.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

From MY point of view, her identity IS masked and mutable.

You may find that you are somewhat more certain of her probable identity, when she's sitting in your living room, typing on your computer.

Masked, certainly -- but not mutable; she's never anyone else (you need to brush up on your Webster's).
Concerning your other accusation: Sirrah, that is a base canard and a swipe at my escutcheon! I have never - repeat, NEVAH - had a computer (or a TV) in my living room! Books, yes; the piano, yes; music, yes; friends, yes; even the occasional political candidate . . . but NONE of these vile modern appliances!

Jack wrote:

Masked, certainly -- but not mutable; she's never anyone else (you need to brush up on your Webster's).

We only have your word to rely on for that.

And considering the ease with which Jeff Harris has inhabited various names, roles and styles, I don't think it would be too difficult for anyone else.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

We only have your word to rely on for that.

And considering the ease with which Jeff Harris has inhabited various names, roles and styles, I don't think it would be too difficult for anyone else.

Nonetheless, 'tis true, 'tis true. And Jeff Harris is, as usual, irrelevant to what we're talking about. Finally, someone who has used as many aliases as you have should be careful of throwing stones.
Sure, Barnum could do. She doesn't want to, doesn't need to, and doesn't. (I was going to add, "as she''l tell you when she gets back to town", but she doesn't come over here. You're safe here.)

Jack wrote:

... Finally, someone who has used as many aliases as you have should be careful of throwing stones...

How many aliases HAVE I used, Jack? Would you like to give that allegation some specificity?

There are those who DO use multiple aliases. It's nearly imossible to keep track of all of them. People then begin to assume that darn near EVERYONE does it. Then, posts made by Person A are said to have been made by Person B, and then, as time goes by, "everybody knows Person B is a reprehensible person because of all the vile things he/she wrote."

And THEN, just to add a little spice to the situation, newbies come in and plop themselves down in the middle of a war, and pick sides based upon what one side or the other has told them, without context and without a sense of the history.

Come to think of it, Jack, YOU did exactly that, as a newbie.

As I recall, you set out to find out "the truth" and a few people (who quite possibly might have had some self-serving interests,) were more than eager to tell you "everything there was to know" about me. And you took a side based on that, and you even joined the attacks with gusto.

By and though your actions, you have even encouraged an atmosphere of the feeding frenzy.

There's a hell of a lot more to a person than what his or her enemies on an internet forum have to say about them. I bet they don't even know what high school I went to, but they claim to know everything about me that matters?

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

How many aliases HAVE I used, Jack? Would you like to give that allegation some specificity?

There are those who DO use multiple aliases. It's nearly imossible to keep track of all of them.".

You mean, aside from --
Magnum, P.I.
SP Hanes
Bisbee Avenger is Happy
Jim Marshall
EricthePsycho (my personal favorite!)
and others I've forgotten?
The ones I HAVEN'T forgotten are those of my wife and my daughter you used in your most recent terrorism campaign.. I finally figured out that you also posted under the name of the person who bought my house in Vegas (that took me a while; I only met the lady once).
I venture an estimate that you have used at least 20 names on Topix in the year I've been around. Talk about 'mutable'.
Is that 'specificity' enough? I have used 3 only one of which was masked for a short time, and then admitted. Other than "Buffalo Boo", I have posted only as Lucifer or under my own name -- even here on this board on which (god knows) I have no allies.
"There are those who DO use multiple aliases. It's nearly imossible [sic] to keep track of all of them." Buddy, you oughta know....

Magnum, P.I. and Jim Marshall?

Jack wrote:

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

We only have your word to rely on for that.

And considering the ease with which Jeff Harris has inhabited various names, roles and styles, I don't think it would be too difficult for anyone else.

Nonetheless, 'tis true, 'tis true. And Jeff Harris is, as usual, irrelevant to what we're talking about. Finally, someone who has used as many aliases as you have should be careful of throwing stones.
Sure, Barnum could do. She doesn't want to, doesn't need to, and doesn't. (I was going to add, "as she''l tell you when she gets back to town", but she doesn't come over here. You're safe here.)

BTW Jack, I recall that you have been in frequent contact with Marilyn Jones. Is the third paragraph just a coincidence?
http://www.goatview.com/april15.htm

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

BTW Jack, I recall that you have been in frequent contact with Marilyn Jones. Is the third paragraph just a coincidence?
[url=http://www.goatview.com/april15.htm

http://www.goatview.com/april15.htm[/quote[/url]]

I've no idea what relevance you think the third paragraph in your link has to anything. But I assure you that MJ has no connection with Barnum; I'm in "frequent contact" with a lot of people.
So?

[quote="Jack"]

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

BTW Jack, I recall that you have been in frequent contact with Marilyn Jones. Is the third paragraph just a coincidence?
http://www.goatview.com/april15.htm[/quote]

I've no idea what relevance you think the third paragraph in your link has to anything. But I assure you that MJ has no connection with Barnum; I'm in "frequent contact" with a lot of people.
So?

Your assurances are ever so assuring.

Thank you.
Has this exchange now reached its conclusion? I see nothing else whcih needs be said, do you?

Thank you for that interlude. Back to the regularly scheduled program.... which seems to have been cancelled.

Looks like this whole board's been "cancelled" -- no posts in six days

Just Me wrote:

Looks like this whole board's been "cancelled" -- no posts in six days

That long, h'uh? guess nobody has much to say.

I think we all need something light and funny. Where is that Travesty? Cartoon block?/size]

Tom Tom wrote:

Just Me wrote:

Looks like this whole board's been "cancelled" -- no posts in six days

That long, h'uh? guess nobody has much to say.

Maybe people are just worn out saying it, for the time being.