.
From the 'Socialist Response' thread:
Elvis » Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:48 pm wrote:For crying out loud, I'm not part of any "group" here that's trying to antagonize or "dogpile" AD. Nothing I've posted resembles a personal attack on AD.
I'll continue to critique articles posted on RI and if that's upsetting to some people, it's just the way it is on a discussion board. If you don't want your posts discussed, don't post!
Hear, hear.
I don't understand some of these
protestations by AD's purported 'supporters'. Has this forum devolved into a modern-day college campus mindset? Is AD not an adult, an adult forum member that happens to be HIGHLY prolific in this message board? Is he not capable of not only defending himself, but also defending his position, given how pervasive his postings have been on this board over the years?
(Of course, this is part of the issue: we can only surmise AD's position as he's never clearly defined them, resorting instead to slippery and evasive phrasings, etc.)
Let's try to visualize this as if, instead of an online message board, RI was an actual club where members met "IRL" ('In the Real World' for the oldies among us) each week.
During these meetings, most of us take turns presenting ideas, presuppositions, theories about current events (and everything in between); at times, such discussions may become heated, human nature being what it is, and perhaps occasionally one or more of us may storm out of a given meeting, returning weeks later once the member (or members) cool off... or perhaps they simply never return.
Now imagine, in the above scenario, one of our members (well, actually it's two members, though the styles/methods vary) comes into the meeting and, often with no preface at all (every once in a while this member may utter a single one-off semi-vague/cryptic statement in advance), proceeds to dump piles of papers (printed articles) on the meeting room table and then depart without further comment.
(For this analogy to work, our RI meeting space would need to include sectioned 'break-away' rooms for sub-topics of discussion; AD would enter each of these break-away rooms and repeat the process of dumping reams of papers and then walking out; rinse and repeat, FOR YEARS.)
A number of us read through some of it, and, when finding critique or flaws, attempt to raise them to this member upon his subsequent return. Instead of engaging, however, AD simply ignores the person speaking to him, dumps another crate-ful of papers, and continues on in his 'data dumps' in perpetuity... etc etc. I can break it down into more granularity but you get the gist.
It's f'ing RUDE/discourteous, it lacks any semblance of discourse, which is precisely the primary driver behind these f'ing forums in the first place, and it absolutely interrupts the flow of the f'ing board. The fact much of this content he dumps on us is based largely on flawed 'editorializing' by authors with pre-set biases only adds to the frustration, particularly when AD largely refuses to defend it or clearly state his views, etc.
Yes, I may be blunt in my handling of AD's output, but it's because I see this behavior as antagonistic and disruptive, and particularly, the antithesis of the purpose of a DISCUSSION BOARD -- 'discussion' is in the f'ing name for chrissakes (meanwhile, AD and his apparent 'supporters' view those here that seek engagement, interaction, and a pursuit for clarity on a given issue as the antagonizers..."Freedom is Slavery", indeed. This is part of the reason for some of my salty responses).
I will not apologize for my comments. Members have departed, others have drawn back into lurk mode due at least in part to AD's M.O./tactics over the years. It's getting well beyond farcical, and it's increasingly difficult for me to believe long-tenured members continue to pay lip service to this behavior.
They're smarter than that. There's a reason I referenced
Truman Show earlier.
(Edits were made to syntax, not content)
