|
|
 | | From: | unglued | | Subject: | Re: Stalking in Swedish | | Date: | 17 Jan 2005 03:29:03 -0800 |
|
|
 |
I.E_Johansson wrote:
> "unglued" skrev i meddelandet
> news:1105898079.953626.208820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> Lasse once said, an other question but related to this, that it's
easier
> when you know the person who has been stalked. What many here seem to
forget
> is that it's not be taken seriously that's up. I have had the
pleasure to
> know several of those who sits on posts in Parliament, earlier
Goverments,
> High posts in University and newspaper since the days we either
studied
> together or were working during the 70's together politically. Never
had any
> problems with anyone that really counts not taken me seriously.
Doesn't mean
> that every one agrees with everyone. Only that people who have known
each
> other for more than 30 years respect each others thoughts and
opinion.
>
> That's not a problem. But to be called names and have people
haressing me
> as a person, sending me abuse - yes one of the worst 10 showed the
other
> day how keen he is to do so no matter what he tries to 'tell the
world',
> that's stalking.
That's you own definition of stalking and not many people would agree
with you.
For most people it means having a maniac hanging around out side your
door, spying on you and following you around. Everyone with a e-mail
address has it filled with "abuse" and harassing messages everyday.
Everyone who participates on the usenet is subject to rudness and
provocations, that's a part of our modern life and it's self inflicted.
No one is forced to expose themselves to the whole world. With your
definition everyone is stalked.
>Apart from which, if you or anyone else don't agree with my
> writing or with anyone else writing, it would be better for you or
the
> someone who does if contra-argument(-s) were presented. No scholar
who wants
> to be taken seriously should try to pick on an other such as some
here have
> done on me. That's to write Ad Hominem or abusive lines instead of
showing
> capability to discuss subject line.
>
> Inger E
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it too much paranoia? Or is Inger more powerful than you
thought?
> > > Or is there a real problem?
> >
> > It's a real problem for those who are really stalked (not just
having
> > their posts on usenet made ridicule) but it's not a hotly debated
> > problem here in any sense of the term.
> >
> > >
> > > Andy.
> >
|
|
| | From: | I.E_Johansson | | Subject: | Re: Stalking in Swedish | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:50:01 GMT |
|
|
| unglued,
'every one is' you say. Well not everyone has been haressed, abused and
stalked on net by same 20 persons for more than two years. That's one thing.
Among those persons are 3 who definitely been cut of from access more than
once of the suppliers they have had due to them sending private mails to
me. There are also 2 others who have been told by their border of the
University faculties that they aren't allowed to use the University's
accounts at all if they continue and 1 who has been told that he risk his
own position. I have had great help of my own suppliers and others alike
around the world.
Inger E
"unglued" skrev i meddelandet
news:1105961343.334595.167570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I.E_Johansson wrote:
> > "unglued" skrev i meddelandet
> > news:1105898079.953626.208820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
>
> >
> > Lasse once said, an other question but related to this, that it's
> easier
> > when you know the person who has been stalked. What many here seem to
> forget
> > is that it's not be taken seriously that's up. I have had the
> pleasure to
> > know several of those who sits on posts in Parliament, earlier
> Goverments,
> > High posts in University and newspaper since the days we either
> studied
> > together or were working during the 70's together politically. Never
> had any
> > problems with anyone that really counts not taken me seriously.
> Doesn't mean
> > that every one agrees with everyone. Only that people who have known
> each
> > other for more than 30 years respect each others thoughts and
> opinion.
> >
> > That's not a problem. But to be called names and have people
> haressing me
> > as a person, sending me abuse - yes one of the worst 10 showed the
> other
> > day how keen he is to do so no matter what he tries to 'tell the
> world',
> > that's stalking.
>
> That's you own definition of stalking and not many people would agree
> with you.
> For most people it means having a maniac hanging around out side your
> door, spying on you and following you around. Everyone with a e-mail
> address has it filled with "abuse" and harassing messages everyday.
> Everyone who participates on the usenet is subject to rudness and
> provocations, that's a part of our modern life and it's self inflicted.
> No one is forced to expose themselves to the whole world. With your
> definition everyone is stalked.
>
> >Apart from which, if you or anyone else don't agree with my
> > writing or with anyone else writing, it would be better for you or
> the
> > someone who does if contra-argument(-s) were presented. No scholar
> who wants
> > to be taken seriously should try to pick on an other such as some
> here have
> > done on me. That's to write Ad Hominem or abusive lines instead of
> showing
> > capability to discuss subject line.
> >
> > Inger E
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is it too much paranoia? Or is Inger more powerful than you
> thought?
> > > > Or is there a real problem?
> > >
> > > It's a real problem for those who are really stalked (not just
> having
> > > their posts on usenet made ridicule) but it's not a hotly debated
> > > problem here in any sense of the term.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Andy.
> > >
>
|
|
| | From: | Philip Deitiker | | Subject: | Application of scholarly to a sci.* group | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:19 GMT |
|
|
| "unglued" says in
news:1105961343.334595.167570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[Breaking from my tradition I will respond to Inger's comments]
>> is that it's not be taken seriously that's up. I have had the
> pleasure to
>> know several of those who sits on posts in Parliament, earlier
> Goverments,
>> High posts in University and newspaper since the days we either
> studied
>> together or were working during the 70's together politically.
>> Never
> had any
>> problems with anyone that really counts not taken me seriously.
> Doesn't mean
>> that every one agrees with everyone. Only that people who have
>> known
> each
>> other for more than 30 years respect each others thoughts and
> opinion.
Irrelevant. The issue is what you present here, not your 'putative'
contacts. I can cite names of people far more important in science
than you can ever name, but do I? I don't, the reason I don't is
because glittering personalities, even if it is eluded to is a form
of propoganda. A form you use rather frequently and without shame.
This use of grade-school dsicussed propoganda technique is a reason
why ad-hominim attacks are propogated against you.
>> That's not a problem. But to be called names and have people
> haressing me
>> as a person, sending me abuse
A person who sends you abuse is not a problem of this group. It is
a problem of you, that person, your ISP and that persons ISP.
We don't want to here about it in sci.archaeology unless is was
abuse that occurred a very long time ago and in some important
context. This groups name is sci. "sci." = science.
..archaeology = study of ancients. You are not an ancient, abuse
is not ancient, and your email problems are not a study. YOur
evidence of email abuse has no place what-so-ever in this group.
>> - yes one of the worst 10
>> showed the
> other
>> day how keen he is to do so no matter what he tries to 'tell
>> the
> world',
>> that's stalking.
Inger, you encourage people to abuse you, I have made a great effort
to get people to stop abusing you, but if you continue to make
emotional arguments like the above, you invite further abuse, and
most importantly it is OFF-TOPIC in this group. Do not make emotive
claims and appeals in this group if you don't want to be personally
attacked.
> That's you own definition of stalking and not many people would
> agree with you.
> For most people it means having a maniac hanging around out side
> your door, spying on you and following you around. Everyone with
> a e-mail address has it filled with "abuse" and harassing
> messages everyday. Everyone who participates on the usenet is
> subject to rudness and provocations, that's a part of our modern
> life and it's self inflicted. No one is forced to expose
> themselves to the whole world. With your definition everyone is
> stalked.
>
>>Apart from which, if you or anyone else don't agree with my
>> writing or with anyone else writing, it would be better for you
>> or
> the
>> someone who does if contra-argument(-s) were presented.
[End of reply to Inger]
Notice the Inger cannot create a universal construct for how a
scholar should disagree with her, mentally she has not worked through
the issue of egoistic equality amoung colleages. The fact is the
contra arguments by gentle people and bonafida scholars have been
followed by ad-hominin attacks from Inger. In fact inger has gave
numerous mention of the superiority of her personal experience and
her family members while denigrating others. She has made numerous
mention of unnamed 'superior' contacts in Sweden while denigrating
the understanding of professional US historians and archaeologist.
The statement should read.
_If_ one writes something that presented in a professional manner
without leading the data, results or conclusion
_then_ _if_ someone [else] disagrees with that presentation
_then_ that someone should critique ones reply with evidence
and facts and not personal attacks,
_else_ one has opened oneself up to ad-hominim attack by
improperly inserting emotives into a scientific discussion.
[End]
The assumption in the above statement is that one did not lead ones
writing with a discussion of; 'Naysayers, or other inflamatory words
designed to elicit ad-hominim attacks'. When Inger has replied to
arguments she does not do kind, she responds with evidence that is
completely inpertinent to the discussion, creating a diversion from
the discussed topic, and using ad-hominim attacks and derogatory
insults. See below. Bascially what Inger expects us to forgive her
ad-hominim attacks by not reciprocating. A better solution is not
to respond, period.
>> No
>> scholar
> who wants
>> to be taken seriously should try to pick on an other such as
>> some
> here have
>> done on me.
Inger has never been in a thesis committee meeting.
The translation here is. No matter how credentialed a person is, if
they disagree with Inger they cannot be a scolar. Logically speaking
Inger is the ultimate scholar, for which all other scholars are judge
and if they disagree with her they are not scholars. To focus the
exact circumstance, if I create an argument lead by my emotional
attachment to something I believe to be a fore-gone conclusion,
no-one has a right to attack the position of my emotional linking
between the facts I select, how I interpret them and my conclusion.
This is called delusions of granduer.
If you throw out a garbage argument, expect it to be treated like
garbage. If you throw out a carefully constructed argument, then woe
to the person who treats it like garbage.
>> That's to write Ad Hominem or abusive lines instead
>> of
> showing
>> capability to discuss subject line.
The utter hypocracy of this statement is overwhelming. Again scholars
who want to be taken seriously have several attributes.
1. Scholars use facts and references to back up thier claims. They
are not afraid to make those references public. The critique with
facts that are meaningful and pertinent to the discussion at hand,
not diversionary to the subject.
2. Scholars do not shift the topic when challenged to areas that
are not-pertinent to a thread. Examples are
a. Changing a discussion of peruvian food culture to a discussion
of anchors in rivers in south dakota.
b. Changing the subject of an On-topic thread to discuss your
PRESONAL email problems, or to discuss the common problem
concerning graphic emails.
c. Changing the subject of ... to talk about posting styles or
copyright infringements in posting replies
d. Changing the subject of ... to talk about EU or Swedish law.
e . etc
3. Scholars provide references and in public when asked, not excuses.
In the 3 month period from april to july I counted from a single
female counting 60 different excuses for not provided material
she claims she has or had. Scholars do not razzle dazzle and
the rip the rug.
4. Scholars apologize when they have wronged people clearly. Like
Inger defemed George, Zolota, TK, Tom, Marianne, last year and
never apologized. [And until Inger apologizes to the people i have
but one opinion of her mental state]. As a matter of fact Inger,
to this date has defamed people, for example Alan just recently,
who were defending her opinion and she did not apologized. This
states something very critical about her psyche.
5. Scholars read and rely as heavily as possible on the peer-reveiwed
literature. They do not place their primary focus on amatuer or
paranormal websites. Whereever possible that literature should
be in a widely distributed journal and should be the primary
discription of the subject material. They do not overrely on
religious text, however there are times when such text can
be used to corroborate other sources. Scholars note the order
of a here-say source and make some effort to establish how
many times an oral story has been passed. They do not create
far flung dismissals of science or scientific methods, they do
not try to trump science with familial, cordial or personal
experiences, beliefs or opinions.
6. Scholars are reflective, both of what they say and the literature,
the do not conclude absolutes unless those conclusions are
warranted. They temper all the evidence. They do not place the
myths of their hometown above the traditions of other people. They
also do not reach a far-flung conclusion on a triviality of
evidence. Nor also do they exclude myths as having factual
value. Scholars reserve the right to reassess with more
evidence and they _WILLINGLY_ accept new evidence in their
reassessments. Scholars are openminded but with flexible limits.
7. Scholars do pick on their colleagues, you can find evidence of
this in the letter to editors of many journals, however, the
absolute best and most appropriate critic of ones believes is
oneself, ones associates. It is far better of a work to be picked
to pieces amoung once contributive colleages, than the referees.
It is far better for a work to be picked apart by referees than to
be picked apart after publication. The last paper I had accepted
had 7 single spaces pages of comments that had to be addressed,
some of them bordered on ad-hominim attacks. I welcome critique
or both colleage and referee as both have vastly imporved the
papers I have published. Scholars embrace the most well thought
critiques, not personally attack the critics. Certainly not
to call them criminals as one individual has done repeatedly.
A good scholar uses his most pointed critics to help him
refine his study, to motivate him to use techniques he has not
thought of using. A good scholar does not call his most pointed
critics 'Naysayers'. The UseNet is a more open forum of
discussion than a journal, it is reasonably expected that there
will be more rapid and intense picking than in a forum which is
moderated such as by an editor. We are all moderators here, the
moderation is via peer pressure, Inger has experience more peer
pressure because her tactics have been the most offensive to
others. This is an expectation of what happens in sci.* groups.
8. Scholars do not troll groups with threads built on hypotheses that
have been debunked, agreeably by everyone, recently and in the
same group, and that have no new evidence provided. Scholars
do not try to use every available opportunity to flare discussion
of their personal hypotheses by saturating public forums with
their single sided opinion. Archaeology extends from the tip of
south america to the tip of africa, its sole concern is not what
the Vikings did 1000 years ago. Scholars can engage in many topics
of their feild and gain meaning of any of those topics without
neccesarily interjecting the importance of their focus of study.
9. Scholars do not use propoganda techniques to puff their ideas up.
'I got this 3 AM email from [unnamed glittering personality] which
totally agrees with everything that I have ever said'. 'My
[un-namable family member] was the nations leading expert in
[whatever feild] and thus gave me the best education on these
matters, you americans know nothing what you are talking about
with regard to native american culture, only us well educated
[Country of people] know what we are talking about'.' If you
knew one thousandth of what [my family member] knows you would
not write the lines that you wrote'.
10. Scholars do not dig a hole for themselves with lies.
- 'george is lying, and, google is lying'
- 'george was unworthy' [No retraction fo the lying claim]
- 'actually I was forged!!!!!' [No retraction of the wothiness
claim]
- [the 'devil'(dyslexia,.....,.....) made me do it!!!!!!!!!]
- 'Everyone is abusing me and I don't know why'
- 'Don't cite my name you are a criminal'
- 'Zolota you are lying,...liar,....lying....liar...lying'
Scholars go back and investigate what they said before they
respond. If they made an error, even 4 years ago they can
apologize and diffuse the situation. Calling people liars to cover
ones errors is Wrong, defaming others to cover ones errors is a
civil injustice. Calling people liars without having read 2 words
of their post is also wrong. Constantly defaming people with words
like abusers, stalkers, liars, forgers, hackers (spammers and
graphy), unworthy, of lower breeding, criminals etc. is very
unscholarly. Constantly using dislexia as an excuse for ones
errors, without apologizing to others, is wrong and it is
offensive to other people who have dyslexia. No matter what
the cause of a faux-pau is, the best coarse is to apologize
and get it behind you. If you are calling someone a liar in any
public forum you should give the other person the benifit of the
doubt unless it is absolutely obvious that the other is lying.
[The exception would be if you are creating a educational ruse in
which you want that person to reflect on their false accusations]
Diffusing the situation cleverly and managing to
retract oneself from the knifes edge is scholarly. Not only is
making such defaming comments wrong, failure to recognize ones
error in making such statements and apologizing is representative
of deeper personality problems. Even if one does not apologize,
such instances of 'mea-culpa' should lead to greater discipline
in ones reply such that one does not repeat the faux-pau
repeatedly. Public apologies are part of that process, citing
a putative disease is not an apology, I have found no instance in
the literature where dyslexia is labeled as a cause of lying or
defaming. It is an insult to other dyslexics to associate a
persons wrong doing with their disease. A person who cannot
recognize their missteps as being something of an embarrassment,
worthy of change, is, by definition, exhibiting anti-social
behavior, a sociopath. In this case it might be acceptable in
normal society, but relative to expectations of science it is
to be considered deviant behavior. Since the person of question
here does not accept this opinion, I have to make the argument
that creating further discussion with the individual is of no
scholarly value, or remedial to the persons behavior.
Many people have diseases that affect their public behavior,
however, very few use that as an excuse for their public misdeeds.
11. The nature of science is interoggative, science is about asking
questions in order to get answers. People who think they know or
who reseach to prove what they already know lead the argument. The
best science is always interoggative and with open mind, and the
direction in which it leads is dependent on the data. It requires
alot of reflection and mental discipline to engage science at its
highest levels without placing personal bias into the picture.
When a good scientist acheives this level of objectivity new
knowledge and theories spring forth. IN archaeology and
anthropology the processes of human evolution were set forth
by expansions for what reason we do not know. But in the course
of time humans scattered themselves to the far corners of the
earth, and in due time managed to created artifacts of a wonderous
nature. The human capacity is to create and invent, and no people
is of a dullardly capacity to do so. I think archaeologist
appreciate the cultural creativity of all people with no
favoraticism toward a single people. Thus when new interesting
culture is found it warrants the opinion that the local people are
responsible for that culture, with influence from outside groups
which are generally local to that people. Claims of responsibility
from far-flunged places need to override the potential for
convergent evolution of culture as has been seen on numerous
occassionals and place the certainty of evidence otherwise.
Such evidence might include genetic evidence of migrations,
detailed artifacts that would not be convergent based on normal
expectations. Or linguistic similarities that were very
convincing.
From the person who has made the claim of 'unscholarliness', to
date, all I have seen from the person is data to followup a 'lead'
theory, and most of that data is weak, interpretive, or extremely
contravertable. This person was killfiled because she insults and
defames people without apology, because she eludes to references
but fails to provide them, because the evidence she does state
turns out to be no-evidence, an interpretation of a non-
professional, or her personal interpretation of evidence for which
no scholar has done study on.
A Person who 'leads' putatively scientific disclosures with their
personal believes about the conclusion, for which those beliefs far
predated the data in support of the conclusion have difficulty
disguising the emotional attachment to the conclusion. And because
emotion is at play in the argument, ad-hominin attacks are a
predictable result. The cause of the attacks are the means by which
the disclosure is made. The only means to avoid this is to divorce
onself from the conclusion and objectively present the facts with
multiple interpretations of those facts, as true scholars do.
It does not matter whether you like or dislike adhominim attacks.
What matters is whether the argument you create is an unbaised
aqusition, presentation and interpretation(s) of the facts. IOW, you
can't cry _foul_ if you come into an argument from a personal emotive
angle, subjectively presenting facts and conclusions. There is a
place for ad-hominim attacks. The basic thrust of these attacks are,
if you cannot present and defend like a scientist, then you should
not be presenting as if you were a scientist. If you are attacked in
an ad-hominim manner and you feel you are unjustly attacked the best
defense is to counter that attack with a suring up of ones data, ones
reasoning and a disection of the attackers data and reasoning.
On the topic of discussing the subject line, Inger IMHO is the
worst diverter of topics to Off-topic catagories relative to anyone
in this group. The first day I was reading this group on a regular
basis she was diverting the topic, and she is doing it still today.
When Inger does not like a thread, she diverts it to off-topic land,
when she runs into trouble in a thread she created she runs it into
off-topic land. The favored topics are her personal computer
problems, email problems, etc. When she asked me to send here email,
I refused, and to give her my email address, which I also refused.
Ergo as much as she would like to accuse me of stalking, everything
that she has of me is what I have publically said to her, including
this, nothing I have done is in private or out of public site, I saw
the mistakes others have made. Otherwise. I would probably be one of
those she is accusing of ing her computer or sending her spam
publically defaming people without warrant for stalking her. I do not
recommend that anyone here send her email as there is a potency that
she can twist this into a claim of harassment, abuse or stalking. IOW
keep Inger a good distance from your private persona.
This is a sci.* group, whether or not we have a desire to discuss
science is aside from the point, the engagement of people in
this group with science and by standards of science applicable to the
group are fair within this group. Emotions be damned. However, if you
find yourself in a situation where you are constantly dealing with
'A Person who 'leads' putatively scientific disclosures with their
personal believes about the conclusion, for which those beliefs far
predated the data in support of the conclusion have difficulty
disguising the emotional attachment to the conclusion', and the
reflections on that persons emotional attachement to their
belief do not result in reflective changes in the arguments the
person presents, then the best long term recourse is to ignore that
person. In the course of UseNet history such interludes are of
frequent occurance, and the question becomes how rapid should one
ignore such individuals.
[Expect this post to be followed up with a copyright message from
Inger on what scholarliness is, and futher threats and public
defamations]
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
|
|
|
