As if your some superhero with this great theological ability..I think NOT If your not a little bit crazy your a little bit stupid...

Christ, folks, if he's a nutjob: ignore him.

If he's a troll: ignore him.

If he's both: ignore him.

Not a one of you is obligated to entertain him or his notions.

It's not that complicated.

Seriously. Put the freaking pitchforks away and get on with your lives. ;)

A wise woman once said that if she were wrong about a poster and they actually were trolling it would be ok with her because she erred on the side of kind.

I have to agree with that.

Oh, and JBK, I've always said "if you're not a little crazy (sometimes I substitute 'weird') you're boring."

:lol:

Teaching a person where they have gone wrong, and how to start down a path of improving themselves, is kind. Coddling them, letting them go unchecked, making excuses for them, not correcting their errors--these things are not kind. Being "nice" is not being kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Which I have tried to do, not by poking him with my pitchfork and yelling a lot, but by talking to him about where he went over the line into unacceptable.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, but I am starting to think I should be making excuses for why in the hell some are taking JBK not being banned as a personal affront. It really makes no sense; it's sandbox behavior.

And I'm the first person who will sling barbs at the deserving. It is my hunch that JBK is not deserving of that...do you think I have absolutely no clue at all about human behavior? Maybe if you yell at me enough, tell me how horrible I am, I can be coerced into the groupthink. But probably not.

Infi, that's unfair. Each of us come to this with different opinions. Several people share a similar opinion and voice them, and even agre with each other within the conversation. Likewise several other people similarly share an opposing view to the first, and they voice their opinion, and occasionally agree with each other within the conversation.

Neither side of that equation is 'group think'. Neither side is acting any differently to the other side. Both are being vocal, both are stating their opinions forcefully, and both seem to be attributing specific negative attributes and behaviours to the other side in their quest to be heard.

Can't stand on one side of the canyon yelling at the person on the other side to stop yelling and still claim any difference between you.

Oh come on.

Is this seriously happening here? Have I entered the Twilight Zone?

I haven't yelled once. Flint has vehemently called for bans, in the internet equivalent of podium pounding. I have suggested we not ban. I have, however, laughed at these goings-on. I've never seen anything quite like it.

Unfair? Wow. I see 'unfair' all over the place on this subject. My mouth is hanging open in disbelief.

Seems to me: lots of folks here are looking to get egos 'stroked' and 'fortified' by ganging up on the nutjob/troll.

Easiest thing in the world: find an obvious repugnance and then crow about how awful that person is...a body can't lose...similar persons of low character jump on the bandwagon...lynching commences.

Seems to me: if any and all were really interested in being rid of the nutjob/troll, then each would simply ignore, ignore, ignore.

*shrug*

i've been ignoring you for over 3 years, though!

;)

Maybe if we could get away from the "podium" and "pitchfork" characterizations and actually listen with the intent of understanding.

That being said, a very hard lesson I have learned, out of necessity, is that when there is a misunderstanding involving a breakdown in communication, it is the speaker that has to admit fault in order for things to move forward.

So, I am sorry that I haven't explained my position clearly.

What I have been trying to say is that helping people is hard. It's hard because they have to do it themselves. From the outside, all we can do is offer guidance--signposts. The person can ignore them, pay attention to them, act on them, or not.

Imagine if a car was speeding dangerously down the highway. The driver might harm himself, or others. He isn't reading the speed limit signs. He isn't paying attention to the flashing lights and sirens. He smashes through the roadblocks.

The only thing you can do is put down some tire strips. Disable that vehicle, get it off the road. Put the driver in jail. Take away his driver's license.

You aren't stopping his vehicle out of mean-spiritedness. He is a danger to himself!

You can't make him stop by being nice, by ignoring him, or by wording the signposts in a different way--he isn't reading them anyway. Obviously a different approach is called for if any positive outcome is to be made possible. I haven't heard any other feasible options besides removing him from the situation. He may reflect on what has happened, he may not. Nothing we can say or do has the power to directly influence that choice.

It was the groupthink comment, really. Just seems to me that it looks like group think from the other side of any argument.

And you have seen something exactly like it before. Every time the argument about whether or not to ban a member comes around.

I'd say you've been just as vehement about your opinion here. And, some of the people vehemently arguing for a ban have on previous occasions just as vehemtnly argued against a ban, and vice versa.

Whichever side of the argument you are on, you say the other is being ridiculous :p

PS, in no way do I want JB banned.

I like to read his threads. I don't care if he makes a new one for every hair that goes across his ass, either.

Has anyone considered that if he thinks it is okay to say these things in public, he will probably end up getting his teeth kicked in?

If we don't tell him, "THIS IS NOT OKAY." then we are doing him a disservice.