Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« on: 2004-09-13 04:33:35 »
now that joe dees' account has been disabled for flooding the list, i was wondering if we can replace all joe dees' flooding threads can be replaced by "http://news.google.com". it should be pretty easy as most of the threads have no replies except joe dees' own flood of cut and pastes.
even if there are a few replies by members, i am sure they wont mind if the list is hosed down for list hygeine. even suppose they mind, i am sure they can be convinced. it is the right thing to do.
Re:Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« Reply #1 on: 2004-09-13 06:22:07 »
It has seemed like quite a chore to get to this point: Over a two years of extreme disruptive behavior; dogmatic last wordism; aggressive victimology; collecively suffered abuse through his compulsive flooding, and voluminous cuts and pastes rendering huge swathes CoV unreadable and hence worthless. Other Internet domains he has haunted (the memetics list, and at least one other transhumanist list) have responded much more quickly, resolutely, and reasonably in censuring and/or removing him as was appropriate. By comparison and much to our detriment we have allowed his shenanigans to continue frequently unchecked, and often as central topic of CoV. It would seem like a failure if we didn't provide the viewing public with a sanitized version. My only wonder reveals itself in the question -- What is left? Have we really succeeded in becoming irrelevant by allowing the emotional weaknesses, whimsies, insecurities, and banal hysterias of this one otherwise uninteresting person to dominate the entire direction of the Church of the Virus, for weeks, for months, and for years? Perhaps the last two plus years really have been exactly that kind of waste of time for the CoV and its members. I'm still willing to start again without Joe Dees, but if we can't make some kind of binding decision at this point in our existence to part ways with Joe on a permanent basis, then I don't predict much involvement from myself.
Re:Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« Reply #3 on: 2004-09-13 17:44:36 »
Quote:
romanov said: Would a code of conduct for members be out of the question?
An agreed, short code of ethics to make everyone's lives easier, along with an agreed method of enforcing it.
Nothing too draconian, but something we can all live with, to prevent a recurrence of the cut and paste, must have the last word nightmare.
Any ideas? I have a few myself, but I want to think this through properly before I post them.
[Casey] romanov, et al.
I've created a topic to vote on which in some ways is draconian, but I believe also to be beneficial to the CoV. As of now I'd prefer those whose reputations do not exceed 3 to be unable to post to the BBS. At first it may seem draconian, but all of us who contribute to the BBS and are subjects of the Meridion system rate others and in effect create their reputation score. Those who do not add positively, in regard to upholding the Virion virtues, to the BBS are given lower values on the Meridion reputation system. Thus, those who neglect, abuse, or behave poorly on the CoV should then be deemed unfit to post on the BBS.
However, I've also asked that all members of the email list and those of the BBS post their suggestions as to how to alleviate the BBS of instances of article spamming. It matters not if this vote succeeds in what I want it to do. What does matter is that we come to some resolution to prevent the spamming of the CoV BBS with multiple articles without any thought provoking commentary or discussion.
Pitiful and pathetic, people. Just like Hermit and Afghanistan, you cannot stand being proven conclusively and publicly wrong, and attempt revenge on those who do so, whether it is Jake's Dean-mania, Mermaid's Michael Moore movie endorsement, or Casey's contention that forged memos aren't. I would ask you to take a good look at yourselves before you cast such aspersions, but this would require you to be honest, objective, and self-reflective, something that seems sorely lacking. If you succeed in morphing this list form one that considers all points of view and compares and contrasts them vis logic and evidence into a cognitively cloistered momomemetic circle jerk, your loss will be much greater than mine, although you seemingly lack the capacity to comprehend this.
Pitiful and pathetic, people. Just like Hermit and Afghanistan, you cannot stand being proven conclusively and publicly wrong, and attempt revenge on those who do so, whether it is Jake's Dean-mania, Mermaid's Michael Moore movie endorsement, or Casey's contention that forged memos aren't. I would ask you to take a good look at yourselves before you cast such aspersions, but this would require you to be honest, objective, and self-reflective, something that seems sorely lacking. If you succeed in morphing this list form one that considers all points of view and compares and contrasts them vis logic and evidence into a cognitively cloistered momomemetic circle jerk, your loss will be much greater than mine, although you seemingly lack the capacity to comprehend this.
Joe, it is you who has not added a point of view, or compared and contrast points of view vis a vis logic and evidence...all you have added to the BBS has been one copied article linked from a site after another, with nary a word of your own commentary or opinion on the subject matter at hand. There is AMPLE evidence showing how often you spam the BBS with copied articles without any added commentary, or attempt to discuss. Do you not have an opinion other than those of the writers you consistently and without pause copy and spam the BBS with? You're bordering on becoming the soap box preacher on the corner of the street. You constantly post, with no regard for the requests of the BBS site owner, copied articles, thereby spamming the list in an effect to drown out any and all discourse on the subject at hand. I can link to these posts, Joe. As I said before, there is ample evidence that highlights your belligerent behavior.
All you have to do to discuss these posts is to -- DISCUSS THESE POSTS!!!!! Believe me you, if you initiate discussion on them, I will reciprocate - as I have every time someone has directed a reply to the substance of the string. But your only answers have been to either post articles of your own (what few you can find), or to bemoan the fact that I produce much more - and better - evidence for my positions than you are able to produce for yours. BTW: Jake should not be so quick to invoke the Memetics list; it appears to be just about as dead as the proverbial doornail, as also happened to the ecofem list (which I was banned from after protesting reverse gender discrimination from another poster) and the critical list (where I was highly regarded and never banned) once diversity was stamped out and the remaining members had no more contending differences with which they could generate discussion.
Re:Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« Reply #7 on: 2004-09-14 15:59:16 »
Ok Joe, let's get this clear once and for all. I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself, to tell the truth.
I disagree with you Joe, on many things. That, however, is not the problem I, nor many others have with your posting habits. I've disagreed with many in the past.
My problem, is not your opinions.
The problem, put very simply (you're a smart person so you shouldn't have too much trouble with this) is as follows:
You, Dees, are rude.
Forgive the quaintness of the term, but I think it accurately sums up what is wrong.
Dees, if you want to express your opinion, talk about how great Bush is, whatever- do so. State your arguments. List your statistics, take quotations, use reasoned logic. That, I don't mind. I'll probably end up arguing against it, but that's okay.
Very simply, Dees:
Stop cutting and pasting. Stop cutting and pasting. Stop cutting and pasting.
Sorry to repeat myself but it will help you remember in future.
If you want to really stimulate discussion, suggest a topic of discussion, give both sides, then say why you fall on one side or the other.
You don't have to do it every time, Dees, but it will give all of us here the impression you actually give a flying **** about our opinions, rather than that you are so incensed that some people have different opinions from you that you willing to cut & paste them into oblivion.
It's just a question of manners, Dees, not the issues at hand. Incidentally, I think you do the issues you champion a disservice with what essentially amounts to plagarism.
Lose the persecution complex, drop the attitude, and stop cutting and pasting.
I will forgive your ignorance - just this once - because you appear to not have plumbed the archives. There has rarely- if ever - been someone who has been as abused as I have been on this list. I have had people call me ignorant, retarded, and insane - all without censure - and even had my mother viciously slandered by someone who has never met either one of us, simply because millions did not die in afghanistan, as he predicted, and i called him on it. You don't know what abuse IS, boy - until you have occupied my shoes. The way this list goes is that someone presents an opinion, and if someone else disputes it, then the respective parties present evidence for their differing opinions.. I have been exceedingly good at this - mainly because, when I engage in disputations, it is because I am not only certain that I am correct, but also because I can back it up big-time - and I do. Logic and evidence trump emotions every time. You are asking that I stop providing corroboration evidence - and that I will not do, because to cease in that practice would make every Einstein with an provable opinion equal - online - to every crystal-waving New-Ager with a differing but non-provable opinion.
It's clear to me, an impartial (because I haven't been involved in CoV very much for a long time) observer, that you're not wanted here. Whatever logic you may have used in the past obviously isn't going to change any minds here, and vulgar language won't help. Recently, a member of another organization in which I'm a member (also by the name Joe D., by some perverse coincidence) was banished for the same kind of behavior - he argued that it was because we all disagreed with his views, and we insisted that it was because he expressed his views in such an offensive way. Regardless, he wasn't welcome.
Don't do what our Joe D. did. As Mermaid requests, just leave of your own accord. Say awful things about this group in other media if you will, but spare yourself a bloody trial by the masses. You know which way it will go, and because of that you should surmise that the point of going out in a final blaze of profane glory will be lost on us.
You homicidal trolls sound like Dan Rathers - out to get someone and willing to engage in false and malicious attacks to do it for the sake of some 'greater truth' which you blithely and unreflectively believe that you possess. Well, it just ain't like that. As small, partisan, petty and snarky as Ol' Dan is, at least he apologized for his execrable behavior when it was publicly revealed; I, of course, do not expect as much of you - perhaps because you do not have millions on the line.
Re:Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« Reply #12 on: 2004-09-27 16:29:24 »
The Joe Dees Challenge
I challenge Joe Dees to come up with a topic/discussion that will engage the entire congregation and throw us all together in for a delightful orgy of interesting, at least partially civil and mostly illuminating online discourse.
Re:Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« Reply #13 on: 2004-11-15 13:49:02 »
This is the first time I have visited the Church of Virus in months. I was surprised and heartened to read the news in this thread that something has been done about Joe Dees.
Until I read farther down the thread and saw that he is still here. And that you are, for reasons I cannot fathom, still addressing words to him. The same things you said to him last time I visited. As if you expected it to change something rather than egg him on. The only explanation for what he gains from his behavior is that he must be obsessed with getting your attention and trying to change your minds. Why he has fixated on this group in particular can only be explained by the fact that you keep giving him what he wants.
I, by contrast, do not care. This is why I leave every time, like the rest of the world who has the good fortune to stumble on a worthy idea like CoV only to be turned off by reading this messageboard. I will check back briefly on this site every few months to check if you have either (a) the really truly actually "post- Joe Dees era," or (b) implemented software tools by which I can render his posts invisible. I will not participate regularly until then.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
Re:Suggestion for the post-Joe Dees era..
« Reply #14 on: 2005-05-12 02:24:10 »
woah, from the few of joe dees posts ive read he doesnt seem like that bad of a guy. I just joined CoV but I dont understand what the big deal is here. Why would you ever want to kick a member. Ive been in online groups before where everyone wanted to kicke me out and its not fun. I had hoped that a place like this would not resort to the sort of bullying i see everywhere else, but i guess it cant be avoided. But I dont like it.
I especially dont like comments in which people make it seem like the only reason to have anything to do with this church is its political discussions? thats weird. and that youre not going to participate in the chuch because the political discussion is flooded by this one member? why doesnt the moderator, whoever it is, david im guessing, just delete the copy and paste posts if joe dees does that so regularly?
Author
Logged
