New SCJM poster
cindys
Would you guys be okay with that?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
> Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on SCJM.
> Would you guys be okay with that?
>
Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
a regular poster here?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
KarenElizabeth
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> > Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on SCJM.
> > Would you guys be okay with that?
>
> Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
> a regular poster here?
> --
Karen Elizabeth
Don Levey
As I understand it, he's a character from SCJ unmoderated, who occasionally
manages to sneak in a post over here.
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m363w07...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on SCJM.
>> Would you guys be okay with that?
>>
> Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
> a regular poster here?
Might be.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>> Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on SCJM.
>> Would you guys be okay with that?
>>
>Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
>a regular poster here?
I suppose she is suggesting that, although given her subject line....
For myself, I think I'd want to know, but at the same time I think it
probably violates the newsgroup charter as it'd be speculating as to
poster's real identities. If they post under the same name that's one
thing, but if not...
I'm much more curious about the real motivations of jameshanley, ccyec,
mm, etc., etc. All the anony-mice. And FlaviaR for that matter, who's she
really? Where do these people live? What's the Jewish backgrounds, if any?
What's their point of view? Are they married, single, how old are they? Do
they have kids? Where did they go to school? What sort of work do they do?
All of these factors are things I take into account when evaluating
people. For most of the regular posters, I have at least a sense as to the
answers.
But per the charter, I have no real "right" to know any of that
information, people are free to keep it private if they wish. So now
you're suggesting, it seems, that each of us can individually decide
arbitrarily if we think it's relevant to breach this privacy?
Sounds like a slippery slope to me.
--s
--
cindys
"KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbfa5883-354d-46c7...@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
--------
The Reverend Terrance Fformby-Smythe. One of the most well-known and well
established SCJ antisemites, currently posting undercover as our very own
"Eli Grubman."
Cheerio, mon chere! ;-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fqn3ni$711$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In <m363w07...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> Don Levey
> <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
>>"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>> Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on SCJM.
>>> Would you guys be okay with that?
>>>
>>Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
>>a regular poster here?
>
> I suppose she is suggesting that, although given her subject line....
>
> For myself, I think I'd want to know, but at the same time I think it
> probably violates the newsgroup charter as it'd be speculating as to
> poster's real identities. If they post under the same name that's one
> thing, but if not...
I'm not "speculating" anything. It's the reverend. If you want him as a
regular poster to SCJM rather than violate his privacy, please enjoy him,
he's all yours!
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
> KarenElizabeth <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Mar 5, 3:07 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> >> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >> > Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on SCJM.
> >> > Would you guys be okay with that?
>
> >> Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
> >> a regular poster here?
> >> --
> > Who or what is the *phoney reverend*?
>
> As I understand it, he's a character from SCJ unmoderated, who occasionally
> manages to sneak in a post over here.
Actually, to be technical, he is a poster to s.c.israel
Don Levey
Well, if it really is Eli, then he's posting to both. All three.
Whatever.
cindys
DoD <danski...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 5, 2:15 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> KarenElizabeth <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > On Mar 5, 3:07 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>> >> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>> >> > Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on
>> >> > SCJM.
>> >> > Would you guys be okay with that?
>>
>> >> Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
>> >> a regular poster here?
>> >> --
>> > Who or what is the *phoney reverend*?
>>
>> As I understand it, he's a character from SCJ unmoderated, who
>> occasionally
>> manages to sneak in a post over here.
>
> Actually, to be technical, he is a poster to s.c.israel
Well, if it really is Eli, then he's posting to both. All three.
Whatever.
----------
He (Eli/the rev) was posting to SCJ unmoderated for years and years. He's
also a brand-new poster to alt.messy. Fancy that! ;-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>I'm not "speculating" anything. It's the reverend. If you want him as a
>regular poster to SCJM rather than violate his privacy, please enjoy him,
>he's all yours!
Fine.
So I officially suggest that the Moderators hereby ban the following email
addresses from posting to SCJM:
eli.g...@googlemail.com aka "Eli Grubman"
fla...@verizon.net aka "Susan Cohen"
dans...@gmail.com aka "DoD"
with the caveat that it's all of them or none of them.
--s
--
cindys
>
> But per the charter, I have no real "right" to know any of that
> information, people are free to keep it private if they wish. So now
> you're suggesting, it seems, that each of us can individually decide
> arbitrarily if we think it's relevant to breach this privacy?
>
> Sounds like a slippery slope to me.
Oh please. This wasn't a breach of privacy and he didn't want to keep it
quiet. He's been dropping hints since day one. The hints were escalating
exponentially, and in the last few days, his hints have been positively
brazen. He craves attention. He wanted to be found out. He wanted to be
discovered. Why do you think he was copying and pasting SCJM posts to other
newsgroups? So that I (or someone else) would announce on SCJM that he was
copying and pasting our threads to other newsgroups. I walked right into the
trap. You even started an entire thread just about him. Now, here's another
thread all about him (courtesy of me). He got everything he hoped for and
more. This couldn't have played out better for him than if he had written
the script himself.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
And this is because? Are you suggesting that Susan and DoD are secret
antisemites?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>Oh please. This wasn't a breach of privacy and he didn't want to keep it
>quiet. He's been dropping hints since day one. The hints were escalating
>exponentially, and in the last few days, his hints have been positively
>brazen. He craves attention. He wanted to be found out. He wanted to be
>discovered. Why do you think he was copying and pasting SCJM posts to other
>newsgroups? So that I (or someone else) would announce on SCJM that he was
>copying and pasting our threads to other newsgroups. I walked right into the
>trap. You even started an entire thread just about him. Now, here's another
>thread all about him (courtesy of me). He got everything he hoped for and
>more. This couldn't have played out better for him than if he had written
>the script himself.
Oh don't blame me for this Cindy - the point of my thread was to STOP
this. As you say, YOU walked right into the trap. The point of my thread
was to STOP people from walking into the trap.
The "trap" as you yourself say was posting info about SCJ back here. If
you and Susan hadn't done that, then this wouldn't have been a whole lot
of fun for Eli. This is YOUR fault. Yours and Susan's. Own it, and don't
blame us.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>And this is because? Are you suggesting that Susan and DoD are secret
>antisemites?
Yes.
I don't know about DoD, but I think "Susan Flavia" is "one of them." One
of the various sock puppets, etc., that infest those sewers.
It takes two to tango, and when the dance is close enough the players
become impossible to distinguish. If we're throwing out the trash, then
let's throw out the trash.
I'm totally serious btw.
--s
--
Don Levey
One of the reasons why Dr Josh chose to stop his participation here was
because reportedly-anti-Semitic posters from SCJ were coming here to
post and then going back to the sewer to gloat about it. He wanted to
ban them based upon their participation in that group.
I objected to that. I don't think that one's participation in another
forum should be a primary reason for banning. I think I did say, though,
that anti-Semitism *here* should never be tolerated. If there is a
borderline case, where the poster's motives are questionable, then
outside sources should be consulted.
I don't have a problem with someone coming here with honest questions,
and who is willing to take honest answers. But that doesn't include
what we've seen here recently. I don't know what makes ordinarily sane
people inhabit those sewers, but unless you can show the same sort of
questionable behaviour here and anti-Semitic behaviour over there,
there's no real reason to ban Susan or Dave (no matter how much they
happen to annoy you).
cindys
It was my fault because I posted that "Eli" was copying and pasting SCJM
threads to the unmoderated groups? Do you think that information should have
been withheld from the other SCJMers? Don't you think the other SCJMers are
entitled to know if an established antisemite is posting to SCJM? I would be
interested in input from other posters if they would have preferred to be
told or kept in the dark. If they agree with you (that I shouldn't have
mentioned on SCJM what "Eli" was simultaneously up to on unmoderated
groups), I will say mea culpa and not repeat this, should the situation
arise again. And BTW, I became aware of the situation only because he
started posting the SCJM threads to alt.messy where he knew for sure I would
see them. He knows I don't read or post to SCJ or SCI, so if he hadn't
posted them to alt.messy, I wouldn't have been the wiser.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
> In <47cf1add$0$4965$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>And this is because? Are you suggesting that Susan and DoD are secret
>>antisemites?
>
> Yes.
>
> I don't know about DoD, but I think "Susan Flavia" is "one of them." One
> of the various sock puppets, etc., that infest those sewers.
People forge Susan all the time, and we know how to immediately tell the
difference.
We know who the real Susan Cohen is. We know what she looks like, we know
where she lives, we know she has kids. We know what she does. We know how
she feels about terrorism and to her the most tragic part of that is how it
affects children. For that matter, we know that she likes Harry Potter and I
can go on and on.
If anyone has paid attention, they know all about me as well.
Exactly 4 of you have seen me, including Eliyahu, but I am not sure that he
would have remembered that being it was around 5 years ago.
I don't know *anything* about you other than your name and that you are not
religious and you have good debating skills. And NO, I am not saying that
you are someone other than Steve Goldfarb.... I am just pointing that out.
> It takes two to tango, and when the dance is close enough the players
> become impossible to distinguish. If we're throwing out the trash, then
> let's throw out the trash.
I hope that you are not insinuating that I am trash.... Besides, I could be
back here as a Jewish female in two weeks and you nor anyone here would know
it.
But those are *games* and I am not gonna play that. I think I will stick
around here as me and I will continue to point out from time to time when I
see mischief as I did with this character as I was the first one to catch
it. I hope that nobody here gets offended by it but I would think that it is
a public service.
David
Steve Goldfarb
>One of the reasons why Dr Josh chose to stop his participation here was
>because reportedly-anti-Semitic posters from SCJ were coming here to
>post and then going back to the sewer to gloat about it. He wanted to
>ban them based upon their participation in that group.
>I objected to that. I don't think that one's participation in another
>forum should be a primary reason for banning. I think I did say, though,
>that anti-Semitism *here* should never be tolerated. If there is a
>borderline case, where the poster's motives are questionable, then
>outside sources should be consulted.
>I don't have a problem with someone coming here with honest questions,
>and who is willing to take honest answers. But that doesn't include
>what we've seen here recently. I don't know what makes ordinarily sane
>people inhabit those sewers, but unless you can show the same sort of
>questionable behaviour here and anti-Semitic behaviour over there,
>there's no real reason to ban Susan or Dave (no matter how much they
>happen to annoy you).
For the record, Dave doesn't actually annoy me at all, I'm just trying to
be fair and employ the rule evenly. He posts on those groups, therefore if
we're banning people who post in those groups we need to ban him too.
I agree with you that anti-semitism here shouldn't be tolerated. I don't
think anyone disagrees. However no one's provided evidence that Eli or
anyone else has been posting anti-semitic remarks here. Cindy is objecting
to what he's posting elsewhere.
I have a problem with Josh's "star chamber" in which he would have
personally vetted all posters and decided if they were anti-semites or
not.
I guess I'm objecting to some kind of "test" where somebody gets to
evaluate people's postings on other sites -- perhaps even under different
email accounts -- and then decide if the poster should be deemed an
anti-semite or not.
OTOH, a more fairly applied rule, e.g., people can post to an unmoderated
group OR to SCJM but not both, well, maybe that would be OK.
--s
--
DoD
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
> I don't know what makes ordinarily sane
> people inhabit those sewers,
Because there are still posters out there, Jew and non-Jew that post out
there. Some of the posters feel like it is *too moderated* here, and I am
not talking regarding anti-semitic posting, but just stuff in general. And
then the non-Jews that are friends with Jews, where would they go?
Out on the unmoderated forum, I could hold a conversation with Ed Rosen
about his niece (who is so darn cute).... and our conversation can drift
where ever we would want to take it. People that get along with us, could
listen in/ chime in as they please....
That is how I know Susan likes Harry Potter, by reading a thread between her
and Deborah Sharavi on it. The thread started out about who knows what, but
since I like both of them I chose to read along at my own choosing.
I know it is a sewer out there, but there are still good people... I know
there is a reason for SCJM, but there are some advantages of having an
unmoderated group... If people (on the unmoderated group) would just grow
up, then we wouldn't have problems.
David
Steve Goldfarb
>It was my fault because I posted that "Eli" was copying and pasting SCJM
>threads to the unmoderated groups? Do you think that information should have
>been withheld from the other SCJMers? Don't you think the other SCJMers are
>entitled to know if an established antisemite is posting to SCJM? I would be
>interested in input from other posters if they would have preferred to be
>told or kept in the dark. If they agree with you (that I shouldn't have
>mentioned on SCJM what "Eli" was simultaneously up to on unmoderated
>groups), I will say mea culpa and not repeat this, should the situation
>arise again. And BTW, I became aware of the situation only because he
>started posting the SCJM threads to alt.messy where he knew for sure I would
>see them. He knows I don't read or post to SCJ or SCI, so if he hadn't
>posted them to alt.messy, I wouldn't have been the wiser.
Your making your own case. Based on what you yourself are saying, he did
all this just to get your goat. He posted it where he knew you'd take the
bait. If you hadn't taken the bait, what would have happened? He'd have
been posting non-anti-semitic things here (because if they were
anti-semitic they'd have been rejected) and yeah, he'd have been talking
"behind our backs" elsewhere, but we wouldn't know about it! So who cares?
None of this hubbub would have occurred, he'd have gotten bored and
crawled back into his lair.
This is what trolls do. This is what "don't feed the trolls" means.
--s
--
fla...@verizon.net
I would actually have to put that beyond Steve.
He's just pretending that somehow us posting over there put us
in the same camp as the phony rev.
He's pretending that the only reason anyone would want to ban
the phony rev is *just* because he posts over there.
Either he doesn't want to admit he's been tricked, or he really is
trying to say that he's childish enough to want to get rid of people
who disagree with him.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Mar-2008, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>
> > In <47cf1add$0$4965$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys"
> > <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >>And this is because? Are you suggesting that Susan and DoD are secret
> >>antisemites?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I don't know about DoD, but I think "Susan Flavia" is "one of them."
Wow.
And here I actually thought he wouldn;t sink that low.
My apologies, Cindy.
> > One
> > of the various sock puppets, etc., that infest those sewers.
> >
> > It takes two to tango, and when the dance is close enough the players
> > become impossible to distinguish. If we're throwing out the trash, then
> > let's throw out the trash.
Then Steve has to go, too.
> >
> > I'm totally serious btw.
> >
Okay, everyone: if you ban Steve, you can ban me, too.
> One of the reasons why Dr Josh chose to stop his participation here was
> because reportedly-anti-Semitic posters from SCJ were coming here to
> post and then going back to the sewer to gloat about it. He wanted to
> ban them based upon their participation in that group.
>
> I objected to that. I don't think that one's participation in another
> forum should be a primary reason for banning.
I also didn't think that was grounds for banning.
It's not just the participation, it's what's said.
It's who the person *is* that counts.
However, I also said at the time that I could go w/the majority.
> I think I did say, though,
> that anti-Semitism *here* should never be tolerated. If there is a
> borderline case, where the poster's motives are questionable, then
> outside sources should be consulted.
>
> I don't have a problem with someone coming here with honest questions,
> and who is willing to take honest answers. But that doesn't include
> what we've seen here recently. I don't know what makes ordinarily sane
> people inhabit those sewers, but unless you can show the same sort of
> questionable behaviour here and anti-Semitic behaviour over there,
> there's no real reason to ban Susan or Dave (no matter how much they
> happen to annoy you).
>
Like I said: I'll go if Steve does.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Mar-2008, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oh don't blame me for this Cindy - the point of my thread was to STOP
> > this. As you say, YOU walked right into the trap. The point of my thread
> > was to STOP people from walking into the trap.
> >
> > The "trap" as you yourself say was posting info about SCJ back here. If
> > you and Susan hadn't done that, then this wouldn't have been a whole lot
> > of fun for Eli. This is YOUR fault. Yours and Susan's. Own it, and don't
> > blame us.
Yes, if it weren't for the 2 of uspointing out what he was doing ,
he'd've gotten away with it FAR longer.
I own that & dcertainly don;t blame Steve for that!
> --------
> It was my fault because I posted that "Eli" was copying and pasting SCJM
> threads to the unmoderated groups? Do you think that information should
> have
> been withheld from the other SCJMers? Don't you think the other SCJMers
> are
> entitled to know if an established antisemite is posting to SCJM? I would
> be
> interested in input from other posters if they would have preferred to be
> told or kept in the dark.
There have alreasy been posts to the effectthat much as no one
likes the crap over there, no one wants to be kept ignorant of an
infiltration..
> If they agree with you (that I shouldn't have
> mentioned on SCJM what "Eli" was simultaneously up to on unmoderated
> groups), I will say mea culpa and not repeat this, should the situation
> arise again. And BTW, I became aware of the situation only because he
> started posting the SCJM threads to alt.messy where he knew for sure I
> would
> see them. He knows I don't read or post to SCJ or SCI, so if he hadn't
> posted them to alt.messy, I wouldn't have been the wiser.
The only ones who would have known who also post here are DoD & me.
Susan
Eliyahu
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fqn65i$4a5$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> > <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> >>And this is because? Are you suggesting that Susan and DoD are secret
> >>antisemites?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > I don't know about DoD, but I think "Susan Flavia" is "one of them." One
> > of the various sock puppets, etc., that infest those sewers.
>
> People forge Susan all the time, and we know how to immediately tell the
> difference.
>
> We know who the real Susan Cohen is. We know what she looks like, we know
> where she lives, we know she has kids. We know what she does. We know how
> she feels about terrorism and to her the most tragic part of that is how it
> affects children. For that matter, we know that she likes Harry Potter and I
> can go on and on.
>
> If anyone has paid attention, they know all about me as well.
>
> Exactly 4 of you have seen me, including Eliyahu, but I am not sure that he
> would have remembered that being it was around 5 years ago.
>
anyone from the newsgroup in real life (other than some phone
conversations with two members).
Eliyahu
DoD
I am sorry. I meant WRT you, seen me, as in seen a picture of me.
David
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
<snip>
>
> Like I said: I'll go if Steve does.
>
> Susan
>
That`s like you telling people "if you kill an arab murderer, then I
will kill myself"
or you telling an somebody "if you put down your gun, then I will
kill you".
If they do something good, then why would you even consider doing
something bad?
I understand, you are willing to give yourself, to get rid of bad
rubbish, but that`s just crazy. You own guns in america, don`t you?
No need to be a suicide bomber.
Eli Grubman
This is, of course, a very nasty slur, and totally without foundation.
Is this sort of thing typical in the frum community? Perhaps I
should be glad I'm not religious.
Eli
Steve Goldfarb
>But those are *games* and I am not gonna play that. I think I will stick
>around here as me and I will continue to point out from time to time when I
>see mischief as I did with this character as I was the first one to catch
>it. I hope that nobody here gets offended by it but I would think that it is
>a public service.
Dave - my inclusion of your name was nothing personal, I've got nothing
against you or your posts. I was just trying to apply the "no posting on
SCJ" rule fairly.
there's no such thing as "good" trollbaiting. Trollbaiting is
trollbaiting.
--s
--
Henry Goodman
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fqn5b4$sao$1...@reader2.panix.com...
That will be none of them
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Henry Goodman
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fqnkuh$ol2$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
That's not true. I don't want to be told about infiltrations and I
doubt if I am the only one who thinks like that.
cindys
"Eli Grubman" <eli.g...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:01aus3lugoiffipc9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:54:26 +0000 (UTC), "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:dbfa5883-354d-46c7...@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>On Mar 5, 3:07 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>>> > Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on
>>> > SCJM.
>>> > Would you guys be okay with that?
>>>
>>> Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
>>> a regular poster here?
>>> --
>>Who or what is the *phoney reverend*?
>>
>>--------
>>The Reverend Terrance Fformby-Smythe. One of the most well-known and well
>>established SCJ antisemites, currently posting undercover as our very own
>>"Eli Grubman."
>>Cheerio, mon chere! ;-)
>
> This is, of course, a very nasty slur, and totally without foundation.
Of course. Absolutely no foundation at all ;-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
> Is this sort of thing typical in the frum community? Perhaps I
cindys
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:fqom4f$d07$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
So, you don't want to know if a new SCJM poster is one of the regular SCJ
unmoderated antisemites? Or you just don't want to know if someone is
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Mar-2008, "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> > There have alreasy been posts to the effectthat much as no one
> > likes the crap over there, no one wants to be kept ignorant of an
> > infiltration..
> >
>
> That's not true. I don't want to be told about infiltrations and I
> doubt if I am the only one who thinks like that.
Then I misread the posts.
At any rate, I read numerous posts saying that the
individuals who were writing said posts wanted to know.
Susan
Steve Goldfarb
>I would actually have to put that beyond Steve.
>He's just pretending that somehow us posting over there put us
>in the same camp as the phony rev.
>He's pretending that the only reason anyone would want to ban
>the phony rev is *just* because he posts over there.
I'm not pretending. If Eli Grubman should be banned, then it should be for
precisely the reason that he posts over there.
>Either he doesn't want to admit he's been tricked, or he really is
>trying to say that he's childish enough to want to get rid of people
>who disagree with him.
I haven't been tricked.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>> > I'm totally serious btw.
>> >
>Okay, everyone: if you ban Steve, you can ban me, too.
Why would they ban me, Susan? I don't post on the unmoderated groups. That
was the criterion, remember?
>I also didn't think that was grounds for banning.
>It's not just the participation, it's what's said.
>It's who the person *is* that counts.
>However, I also said at the time that I could go w/the majority.
And I'm saying that the content shouldn't be regulated but the action can
be. A rule that you can post here or there but not both would be fair.
>> I don't have a problem with someone coming here with honest questions,
>> and who is willing to take honest answers. But that doesn't include
>> what we've seen here recently. I don't know what makes ordinarily sane
>> people inhabit those sewers, but unless you can show the same sort of
>> questionable behaviour here and anti-Semitic behaviour over there,
>> there's no real reason to ban Susan or Dave (no matter how much they
>> happen to annoy you).
>>
>Like I said: I'll go if Steve does.
Why should I go? You don't need to go either - just stop posting on the
unmoderated groups. Post there, or post here, but don't do both.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>So, you don't want to know if a new SCJM poster is one of the regular SCJ
>unmoderated antisemites? Or you just don't want to know if someone is
>copying and pasting SCJM threads to the unmoderated groups?
Cindy - ANY reference back from the unmoderated groups to SCJM is by
definition feeding the trolls. ANY REFERENCE. There's no such thing as
good trollbait. It's all trollbait.
WHY do we need to know? How does it hurt us, if we are unaware of it? It's
just bits into the ether.
I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw recently. I guy's at his computer madly
pounding the keyboard. His wife pokes her head in, "Frank, it's 3 am, what
the heck are you doing?" His reply: "Someone on the internet is WRONG!"
--s
--
Don Levey
>
> I agree with you that anti-semitism here shouldn't be tolerated. I don't
> think anyone disagrees. However no one's provided evidence that Eli or
> anyone else has been posting anti-semitic remarks here. Cindy is objecting
> to what he's posting elsewhere.
>
I think that part of the problem is that what "Eli" is posting is
borderline. There are words, phrases, and such that are ambigious.
Trying to (essentially) promote a racial/genetic component to Judaism,
for example, is a tactic that has been used for many years by anti-Semites.
What concerns me here is that even if he goes no further in SCJM, if
he is able to get (or thinks he is able to get) some sort of agreement
for that initial premise he will then take those words and build upon them
elsewhere. Apparently (though I've not done the research) that has
been happening already.
We certainly can't prevent someone from posting to another forum,
nor can we prevent them from taking words posted here and copying
them to the other forum (Internet archives are like that). But
I don't think we need to contribute to the activity.
> I have a problem with Josh's "star chamber" in which he would have
> personally vetted all posters and decided if they were anti-semites or
> not.
>
I agree (with you, not him).
> I guess I'm objecting to some kind of "test" where somebody gets to
> evaluate people's postings on other sites -- perhaps even under different
> email accounts -- and then decide if the poster should be deemed an
> anti-semite or not.
>
Were I in charge (ha!), I would evaluate what they are saying HERE. In
cases where things are ambiguous, I would consider external sources to
support one viewpoint or another.
> OTOH, a more fairly applied rule, e.g., people can post to an unmoderated
> group OR to SCJM but not both, well, maybe that would be OK.
>
Not to me. We are concerned with content here; the charter makes that
clear. It's not just the act of posting (anywhere).
Don Levey
> "Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> news:m3bq5s6...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>
>> I don't know what makes ordinarily sane
>> people inhabit those sewers,
>
> Because there are still posters out there, Jew and non-Jew that post
> out there. Some of the posters feel like it is *too moderated* here,
> and I am not talking regarding anti-semitic posting, but just stuff in
> general. And then the non-Jews that are friends with Jews, where
> would they go?
>
Well, you're *here* too, right? No-one checked your credentials at
the door. Non-Jews are also welcome here.
> Out on the unmoderated forum, I could hold a conversation with Ed
> Rosen about his niece (who is so darn cute).... and our conversation
> can drift where ever we would want to take it. People that get along
> with us, could listen in/ chime in as they please....
>
Some of that happens here, but not as much, certainly. The nature
of this forum is that we should be trying to relate things to
Judaism or Jewish Culture when possible, but there are some small
digressions allowed. And as Judaism is something which can touch
and inform every facet of life, it's not normally hard to make that
connection.
> That is how I know Susan likes Harry Potter, by reading a thread
> between her and Deborah Sharavi on it. The thread started out about
> who knows what, but since I like both of them I chose to read along at
> my own choosing.
>
To me, I guess, the difference is between a discussion seminar and
a gathering at a bar. With the seminar, conversation ebbs and flows
but is usually directed at a particular subject. At a bar, there's no
particular direction but you also get all sorts of riff-raff.
> I know it is a sewer out there, but there are still good people... I
> know there is a reason for SCJM, but there are some advantages of
> having an unmoderated group... If people (on the unmoderated group)
> would just grow up, then we wouldn't have problems.
>
I've got an honest suggestion: a mailing list. Really - it could be
an open-topic list, but one which would allow you to filter out all the
bile. Yahoo Groups can help, or I might be able to use my server if
you'd like.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
As usual, Don says it very well. Clear and lucid.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
DoD
> "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> writes:
> I've got an honest suggestion: a mailing list. Really - it could be
> an open-topic list, but one which would allow you to filter out all the
> bile. Yahoo Groups can help, or I might be able to use my server if
> you'd like.
We already tried that with Yahoo groups and it fizzled, much like JCF did,
although we had around 1000 posts before it died, due to lack of
participation.
I guess when you are used to a medium, like usenet, it is hard to get away
from it. Also, it is not very interesting to interact with people who are
just like you. That is the good thing about this group... I have big
differences of opinions with many people here, but other than one person, I
still enjoy reading other peoples opinions. People can be diverse, and as
long as people remain civil to each other.
Getting back to suggestions, I was hopeful in the creation of
s.c.israel.moderated..... That would have been optimal to me.... Keep out
the spam and the sporge, trolls and debate M.E. politics... But somehow that
fizzled as well.
David
Steve Goldfarb
>I think that part of the problem is that what "Eli" is posting is
>borderline. There are words, phrases, and such that are ambigious.
>Trying to (essentially) promote a racial/genetic component to Judaism,
>for example, is a tactic that has been used for many years by anti-Semites.
>What concerns me here is that even if he goes no further in SCJM, if
>he is able to get (or thinks he is able to get) some sort of agreement
>for that initial premise he will then take those words and build upon them
>elsewhere. Apparently (though I've not done the research) that has
>been happening already.
If Eli is in fact an anti-semite troll in other newsgroups, then nothing
we say here is really going to make any difference. We aren't that
important, Don. It's not like the international anti-semite cabal (IAC) is
going to say "Stop the presses! Don Levey agreed that there's a genetic
component to Judaism -- this is just what we needed to prove our case!"
The only reason why the closet trolls care what we say here is so that
they can use it against the people who post in both places. Frankly, I'm
not convinced that anti-semitism actually has much if anything to do with
this -- I think there's a good chance these people are engaging in this
behavior not because they're anti-semites per se but because they're
trolls - they're enjoying the game of baiting people like Cindy and Susan
and getting them to jump in those ever-so-predictable ways. It so happens
that anti-semitic comments are a good way to get under Cindy's skin - so
that's what they use. But the game isn't "insult the Jews" the game is
"make Cindy jump."
If Cindy, Susan, etc. refuse to jump, then there's no game.
>We certainly can't prevent someone from posting to another forum,
>nor can we prevent them from taking words posted here and copying
>them to the other forum (Internet archives are like that). But
>I don't think we need to contribute to the activity.
And I think we should just the cards that are visible on the table. I'm
always suspicious of new posters. If I start getting uncomfortable with
the tone of a person's posts, then I'll stop interacting with him or her.
It's as simple as that -- what may or may not happen in other groups is
irrelevant, it's all about what's happening here.
>Were I in charge (ha!), I would evaluate what they are saying HERE. In
>cases where things are ambiguous, I would consider external sources to
>support one viewpoint or another.
Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be none
the wiser, would we? It's only a problem when people bring those external
sources here -- that's feeding the trolls.
>> OTOH, a more fairly applied rule, e.g., people can post to an unmoderated
>> group OR to SCJM but not both, well, maybe that would be OK.
>>
>Not to me. We are concerned with content here; the charter makes that
>clear. It's not just the act of posting (anywhere).
I agree that we should only be considering what people post here. However,
if people insist that what's posted elsewhere is relevant, then my
suggestion kicks in -- if we're concerned about what people post
elsewhere, then the only fair way to address that concern is to make a
blanket ban on posting in both groups.
Having ongoing threads where we evalate posters to determine if they're
naughty is feeding the trolls, and counter-productive.
Note that right now Cindy and Susan are at it in full swing - debating Eli
on whether or not he's a troll, right here on SCJM. That means Eli's won.
If Eli posts something on SCJ and Cindy notices and remarks on it here,
then Eli's won. Because that's what he wanted to happen. If nobody
notices, then he's lost - nobody cares. He (presumably) wants us to care,
to react - if we don't react, then there's no point.
--s
--
D.M. Procida
> I think that part of the problem is that what "Eli" is posting is
> borderline. There are words, phrases, and such that are ambigious.
> Trying to (essentially) promote a racial/genetic component to Judaism,
> for example, is a tactic that has been used for many years by anti-Semites.
> What concerns me here is that even if he goes no further in SCJM, if
> he is able to get (or thinks he is able to get) some sort of agreement
> for that initial premise he will then take those words and build upon them
> elsewhere.
Really? And what do you expect him to be able to build, that he would
otherwise have been unable to build? A following? A thesis? A conclusive
and effective denunciation of the Jews?
Do you really imagine that anyone who reads or participates in the kind
of "debate" that stupid anti-semites, stupid Jewish people, and stupid
third parties like to conduct is going to think differently because of
something someone else has said?
If someone is an anti-semite on SCJM, what, apart from wasting people's
time and irritating them, could possibly count as success?
Daniele
Eli Grubman
Even when this remains unproven?
>Or you just don't want to know if someone is
>copying and pasting SCJM threads to the unmoderated groups?
I don't see anything wrong with that, myself.
Eli
Eli Grubman
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I agree with you that anti-semitism here shouldn't be tolerated. I don't
>> think anyone disagrees. However no one's provided evidence that Eli or
>> anyone else has been posting anti-semitic remarks here. Cindy is objecting
>> to what he's posting elsewhere.
>>
>I think that part of the problem is that what "Eli" is posting is
>borderline. There are words, phrases, and such that are ambigious.
>Trying to (essentially) promote a racial/genetic component to Judaism,
No, not to Judaism (a religion, nothing more)...to the Jewish
identity. How can anyone deny that there is such a thing as Jewish
ethnicity? A whole culture (apart from the religion) has built up
around it.
>for example, is a tactic that has been used for many years by anti-Semites.
>What concerns me here is that even if he goes no further in SCJM, if
>he is able to get (or thinks he is able to get) some sort of agreement
>for that initial premise he will then take those words and build upon them
>elsewhere. Apparently (though I've not done the research) that has
>been happening already.
Certainly not by me.
Eli
DoD
> In <m33ar36...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> Don Levey
> <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
>>I think that part of the problem is that what "Eli" is posting is
>>borderline. There are words, phrases, and such that are ambigious.
>>Trying to (essentially) promote a racial/genetic component to Judaism,
>>for example, is a tactic that has been used for many years by
>>anti-Semites.
>>What concerns me here is that even if he goes no further in SCJM, if
>>he is able to get (or thinks he is able to get) some sort of agreement
>>for that initial premise he will then take those words and build upon them
>>elsewhere. Apparently (though I've not done the research) that has
>>been happening already.
>
> If Eli is in fact an anti-semite troll in other newsgroups, then nothing
> we say here is really going to make any difference. We aren't that
> important, Don. It's not like the international anti-semite cabal (IAC) is
> going to say "Stop the presses! Don Levey agreed that there's a genetic
> component to Judaism -- this is just what we needed to prove our case!"
LOL.... True. They will just lie about what you say anyways. They just did
it WRT you supposedly "kicking me", when in fact, you did nothing of the
sort.
> The only reason why the closet trolls care what we say here is so that
> they can use it against the people who post in both places. Frankly, I'm
> not convinced that anti-semitism actually has much if anything to do with
> this --
It really depends on who you are talking about. From what I have seen, my
best guess is that they are all trolls.... Some of them are genuine
anti-semites and some of them are just trolling and most are somewhere in
between. Trolls with hints of anti-semitism.
For the most part I quit engaging them, I continue to post stuff there, and
do my best to only reply to the decent people.
Make no mistake though...They do read this newsgroup no matter what.
David
Eli Grubman
The fact that I have a problem with, at most, three people who post
here regularly (and also happen to post in SCI/SCJ and/or
alt.messianic) doesn't make me the world's greatest anti-semite. I
think a sense of proportion is called for.
Eli
Eli Grubman
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Eli Grubman" <eli.g...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:01aus3lugoiffipc9...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:54:26 +0000 (UTC), "cindys"
>> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dbfa5883-354d-46c7...@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Mar 5, 3:07 pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>>> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>>>> > Suppose I told you that the phoney reverend is a regular poster on
>>>> > SCJM.
>>>> > Would you guys be okay with that?
>>>>
>>>> Eh? Are you suggesting that the "phoney reverand" is the alter-ego of
>>>> a regular poster here?
>>>> --
>>>Who or what is the *phoney reverend*?
>>>
>>>--------
>>>The Reverend Terrance Fformby-Smythe. One of the most well-known and well
>>>established SCJ antisemites, currently posting undercover as our very own
>>>"Eli Grubman."
>>>Cheerio, mon chere! ;-)
>>
>> This is, of course, a very nasty slur, and totally without foundation.
>--------
>Of course. Absolutely no foundation at all ;-)
Of course. Just the usual slur against anyone who disagrees with you
or your UO way of life.
Eli
Eli Grubman
The voice of reason prevails over the collective voices of mass
hysteria.
Eli
cindys
>
> Note that right now Cindy and Susan are at it in full swing - debating Eli
> on whether or not he's a troll, right here on SCJM. That means Eli's won.
I'm in "full swing debating whether or not he's a troll"? Lol. I'm not
"debating" him. I'm playing with him. And he's playing back. As long as I
know who I'm dealing with, the rev doesn't bother me at all. He's actually
quite cultured, and can sometimes be rather amusing. And as I said, he also
speaks French.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
I just posted a more detailed response to Steve; to avoid repeating
myself (and boring everyone else) I'd refer you to that one. If I
haven't addressed all of your concerns (not that I can "fix" them,
but if I haven't explained myself) please let me know.
Don Levey
> In <m33ar36...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
>>I think that part of the problem is that what "Eli" is posting is
>>borderline. There are words, phrases, and such that are ambigious.
>>Trying to (essentially) promote a racial/genetic component to Judaism,
>>for example, is a tactic that has been used for many years by anti-Semites.
>>What concerns me here is that even if he goes no further in SCJM, if
>>he is able to get (or thinks he is able to get) some sort of agreement
>>for that initial premise he will then take those words and build upon them
>>elsewhere. Apparently (though I've not done the research) that has
>>been happening already.
>
> If Eli is in fact an anti-semite troll in other newsgroups, then nothing
> we say here is really going to make any difference. We aren't that
> important, Don. It's not like the international anti-semite cabal (IAC) is
> going to say "Stop the presses! Don Levey agreed that there's a genetic
> component to Judaism -- this is just what we needed to prove our case!"
>
You mean I'm *not* that important? My mother has been lying to me...
:-)
> The only reason why the closet trolls care what we say here is so that
> they can use it against the people who post in both places. Frankly, I'm
> not convinced that anti-semitism actually has much if anything to do with
> this -- I think there's a good chance these people are engaging in this
> behavior not because they're anti-semites per se but because they're
> trolls - they're enjoying the game of baiting people like Cindy and Susan
> and getting them to jump in those ever-so-predictable ways. It so happens
> that anti-semitic comments are a good way to get under Cindy's skin - so
> that's what they use. But the game isn't "insult the Jews" the game is
> "make Cindy jump."
>
> If Cindy, Susan, etc. refuse to jump, then there's no game.
>
I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
While they certainly enjoy arguing with their targets, they
most desire using our words against us. "If even the Jews
agree," they start, "that they are a separate racial group,
then clearly they can't argue that their racial differences
make them unsuitable for <thing>." "But," someone might
argue, "they *don't* agree with that. The Holocaust was
about that sort of thing, wasn't it?" Anti-Semite continues:
"But of course they agree! Here's where they said it, on
their exclusive Jew-only newsgroup no less!"
>>We certainly can't prevent someone from posting to another forum,
>>nor can we prevent them from taking words posted here and copying
>>them to the other forum (Internet archives are like that). But
>>I don't think we need to contribute to the activity.
>
> And I think we should just the cards that are visible on the table. I'm
> always suspicious of new posters. If I start getting uncomfortable with
> the tone of a person's posts, then I'll stop interacting with him or her.
> It's as simple as that -- what may or may not happen in other groups is
> irrelevant, it's all about what's happening here.
>
When I'm teaching children, what matters is what goes on in the
classroom. But sometimes what happens outside the classroom is
relevant in evaluating and handling in-class problems. Little
Yussel (sorry, Joel) is acting up: is it because he doesn't under-
stand the material, or perhaps his parents' impending divorce is
impacting the behaviour. The misbehaviour is the same in either
case, but what I do about it is different
True, that's looking for causes rather than general background.
But if someone is bent on taking my words and bending them to
their purposes, I think I should know about it. "Doesn't change
anything" doesn't wash here. One could make that same argument
supporting people who secretly videotape people in the changing
rooms of clothing stores. If they don't know about it, then
how are they being harmed?
>>Were I in charge (ha!), I would evaluate what they are saying HERE. In
>>cases where things are ambiguous, I would consider external sources to
>>support one viewpoint or another.
>
> Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
> wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be none
> the wiser, would we?
True, but don't you think that this should be a little more transparent?
There have been complaints about moderation for quite a while, and though
it's quite possible that they're doing it "right" (for varying definitions
of "right") behind the scened I know that some people would be more
comfortable knowing that this is happening and that it's more of a policy.
> It's only a problem when people bring those external
> sources here -- that's feeding the trolls.
>
Bringing it here keeps the rest of us in the loop. As some are
prone to saying, you can always skip the threads. Were there
a regular policy about this, then someone who notices something
like it and brings it to the attention of the group would be doing
a service. The mods can't be everywhere and do everything, but
such help could assist them in the decision-making process.
>>> OTOH, a more fairly applied rule, e.g., people can post to an unmoderated
>>> group OR to SCJM but not both, well, maybe that would be OK.
>>>
>>Not to me. We are concerned with content here; the charter makes that
>>clear. It's not just the act of posting (anywhere).
>
> I agree that we should only be considering what people post here.
THat's not quite what I'm saying. I should have stressed:
We are concerned with *content* here. When the content is
questionable, I don't believe it unreasonable to consider
other content the poster has made elsewhere to better judge
the nature of the content posted here.
> However,
> if people insist that what's posted elsewhere is relevant, then my
> suggestion kicks in -- if we're concerned about what people post
> elsewhere, then the only fair way to address that concern is to make a
> blanket ban on posting in both groups.
>
Again, I disagree. Here's an extreme example:
Someone comes here as a new poster, and asks for suggestions on how
to set up a Jewish childcare center. Based upon what you're suggesting,
the mods wouldn't be seeing the posts that same user made to the NAMBLA
support group, and people would be offering all sorts of helpful
suggestions ('cause that's what we do) for how to set up the child-prey
center.
Or, if you simply look at the group that they posted to, but not
the *content*, you'd be banning them because they posted their
_anti_-NAMBLA rant to that group. Neither works.
> Having ongoing threads where we evalate posters to determine if they're
> naughty is feeding the trolls, and counter-productive.
>
I disagree. I think he thinks he wins when he can "pull one over"
on us. I think he thinks he wins when he can gather info from
"enemy territory" to bring home to his little friends to laugh over
in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk.
> Note that right now Cindy and Susan are at it in full swing - debating Eli
> on whether or not he's a troll, right here on SCJM. That means Eli's won.
>
If so, you're contributing significantly to it by speculating on
his motives. And by opposing Susan and Cindy, which he also seems
to want.
> If Eli posts something on SCJ and Cindy notices and remarks on it here,
> then Eli's won. Because that's what he wanted to happen. If nobody
> notices, then he's lost - nobody cares. He (presumably) wants us to care,
> to react - if we don't react, then there's no point.
>
We now know how to respond. Those of us who choose not to visit that
sewer are none the wiser when one of its denizens comes here. And we,
who are prone to giving the benefit of the doubt, fall right into the
snare when presented with a question or post which is ambiguous and
could go either way.
Don Levey
> And as I said, he also
> speaks French.
>
>
So do the French. And, well... never mind.
Henry Goodman
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
> >> OTOH, a more fairly applied rule, e.g., people can post to an
unmoderated
> >> group OR to SCJM but not both, well, maybe that would be OK.
> >>
> >Not to me. We are concerned with content here; the charter makes
that
> >clear. It's not just the act of posting (anywhere).
>
> I agree that we should only be considering what people post here.
However,
> if people insist that what's posted elsewhere is relevant, then my
> suggestion kicks in -- if we're concerned about what people post
> elsewhere, then the only fair way to address that concern is to make
a
> blanket ban on posting in both groups.
>
No way to enforce that.
Henry Goodman
news:47cfeb20$0$6142$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
poster.
Henry Goodman
news:fqoo1l$iv6$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
I am sure some do, some don't. 2 Jews 3 opinions
D.M. Procida
> I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
> said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
Yes, but not on bloody Usenet!
Daniele
DoD
> In <fqn6f6$te7$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
>>But those are *games* and I am not gonna play that. I think I will stick
>>around here as me and I will continue to point out from time to time when
>>I
>>see mischief as I did with this character as I was the first one to catch
>>it. I hope that nobody here gets offended by it but I would think that it
>>is
>>a public service.
>
> Dave - my inclusion of your name was nothing personal, I've got nothing
> against you or your posts. I was just trying to apply the "no posting on
> SCJ" rule fairly.
>
> there's no such thing as "good" trollbaiting. Trollbaiting is
> trollbaiting.
I hear what you are saying... Thanks
David
Steve Goldfarb
>I'm in "full swing debating whether or not he's a troll"? Lol. I'm not
>"debating" him. I'm playing with him. And he's playing back. As long as I
>know who I'm dealing with, the rev doesn't bother me at all. He's actually
>quite cultured, and can sometimes be rather amusing. And as I said, he also
>speaks French.
So you admit it - you're EXACTLY as bad as he is then. You play with him,
he plays with you, and the rest of us have to wade through your trash.
Thanks, Cindy.
--s
--
cindys
> In <47d02282$0$6149$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>I'm in "full swing debating whether or not he's a troll"? Lol. I'm not
>>"debating" him. I'm playing with him. And he's playing back. As long as I
>>know who I'm dealing with, the rev doesn't bother me at all. He's actually
>>quite cultured, and can sometimes be rather amusing. And as I said, he
>>also
>>speaks French.
>
>
> So you admit it - you're EXACTLY as bad as he is then.
But I thought *we* were all agreed that he wasn't doing anything wrong. I
thought *we* were all agreed that his posts on SCJM were fine.
>You play with him,
> he plays with you, and the rest of us have to wade through your trash.
Not really. This is the first time I've played with him in six years. And
even at that, I think if you were to count the number of posts I've directed
to him on either SCJM or any unmoderated group in the past couple of weeks,
the total would probably be fewer than six. I don't think the same could be
said of many other SCJM posters who have responded to Eli's posts dozens of
times in the past couple of weeks. And besides, it's news to me that having
fun with one's fellow posters is now against the charter, too. As long as
his posts are appearing on SCJM, I can respond to them, the same as anyone
else. I think you need to lighten up.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
dsha...@gmail.com
> "Don Levey" <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
>
> news:m3y78v5...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
We were attempting to get an s.c.i.moderated group going, with
assistance from some SCJM posters, then the impetus atrophied. Should
we try getting it started again? I still have all the posts, but I'd
have to have it explained to me -- very carefully -- what Don Levey
means by using his server for the moderated s.c.i. group.
Deborah
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Mar-2008, real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida)
wrote:
Yeah, it's only words.
We all know Evil springs up spontaneously, out of the ether.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Mar-2008, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fqp1rc$5j0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> >
> > Note that right now Cindy and Susan are at it in full swing
If we are, we're doing it less than Steve is.
> >- debating
> > Eli
> > on whether or not he's a troll, right here on SCJM. That means Eli's
> > won.
> -----------
> I'm in "full swing debating whether or not he's a troll"?
No one's debating it but Steve.
Some are are saying it outright.
I stopped debating it the minute hew admitted it.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Mar-2008, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
> > The only reason why the closet trolls care what we say here is so that
> > they can use it against the people who post in both places. Frankly, I'm
> >
> > not convinced that anti-semitism actually has much if anything to do
> > with
> > this -- I think there's a good chance these people are engaging in this
> > behavior not because they're anti-semites per se but because they're
> > trolls - they're enjoying the game of baiting people like Cindy and
> > Susan
> > and getting them to jump in those ever-so-predictable ways. It so
> > happens
> > that anti-semitic comments are a good way to get under Cindy's skin - so
> >
> > that's what they use. But the game isn't "insult the Jews" the game is
> > "make Cindy jump."
> >
> > If Cindy, Susan, etc. refuse to jump, then there's no game.
> >
> I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
> said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
"It's just jokes, don't worry about it!"
"It's all just words - they can't really hurt us"
"This is all just a phase, it'll blow over soon!"
"Don't make trouble, don't make it worse!"
I have never agreed with this philosophy.
> While they certainly enjoy arguing with their targets, they
> most desire using our words against us. "If even the Jews
> agree," they start, "that they are a separate racial group,
> then clearly they can't argue that their racial differences
> make them unsuitable for <thing>." "But," someone might
> argue, "they *don't* agree with that. The Holocaust was
> about that sort of thing, wasn't it?" Anti-Semite continues:
> "But of course they agree! Here's where they said it, on
> their exclusive Jew-only newsgroup no less!"
>
Granted, they will make up whatever they don't get.
My only aim was to make sure everyone knew what was actually going on.
> >>We certainly can't prevent someone from posting to another forum,
> >>nor can we prevent them from taking words posted here and copying
> >>them to the other forum (Internet archives are like that). But
> >>I don't think we need to contribute to the activity.
> >
> > And I think we should just the cards that are visible on the table. I'm
> > always suspicious of new posters. If I start getting uncomfortable with
> > the tone of a person's posts, then I'll stop interacting with him or
> > her.
> > It's as simple as that -- what may or may not happen in other groups is
> > irrelevant, it's all about what's happening here.
> >
> When I'm teaching children, what matters is what goes on in the
> classroom. But sometimes what happens outside the classroom is
> relevant in evaluating and handling in-class problems. Little
> Yussel (sorry, Joel) is acting up: is it because he doesn't under-
> stand the material, or perhaps his parents' impending divorce is
> impacting the behaviour. The misbehaviour is the same in either
> case, but what I do about it is different
>
> True, that's looking for causes rather than general background.
> But if someone is bent on taking my words and bending them to
> their purposes, I think I should know about it. "Doesn't change
> anything" doesn't wash here. One could make that same argument
> supporting people who secretly videotape people in the changing
> rooms of clothing stores. If they don't know about it, then
> how are they being harmed?
While all of this is true, the real point here is truthfulness.
>
> >>Were I in charge (ha!), I would evaluate what they are saying HERE. In
> >>cases where things are ambiguous, I would consider external sources to
> >>support one viewpoint or another.
> >
> > Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
> > wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be
> > none the wiser, would we?
>
> True, but don't you think that this should be a little more transparent?
> There have been complaints about moderation for quite a while, and though
> it's quite possible that they're doing it "right" (for varying definitions
> of "right") behind the scened I know that some people would be more
> comfortable knowing that this is happening and that it's more of a policy.
>
> > It's only a problem when people bring those external
> > sources here -- that's feeding the trolls.
> >
> Bringing it here keeps the rest of us in the loop. As some are
> prone to saying, you can always skip the threads. Were there
> a regular policy about this, then someone who notices something
> like it and brings it to the attention of the group would be doing
> a service. The mods can't be everywhere and do everything, but
> such help could assist them in the decision-making process.
>
I knew almost no one on here would have any real way of knowing.
But I do.
> >>> OTOH, a more fairly applied rule, e.g., people can post to an
> >>> unmoderated
> >>> group OR to SCJM but not both, well, maybe that would be OK.
> >>>
> >>Not to me. We are concerned with content here; the charter makes that
> >>clear. It's not just the act of posting (anywhere).
> >
> > I agree that we should only be considering what people post here.
>
> THat's not quite what I'm saying. I should have stressed:
> We are concerned with *content* here. When the content is
> questionable, I don't believe it unreasonable to consider
> other content the poster has made elsewhere to better judge
> the nature of the content posted here.
>
Like I said, I actually agree with both sides of this: I can very well see
the advisability of simply cutting off people who are deliberately
misrepresenting themsewlves, people who are only here to make trouble.
But I can also see the fairness in "if you behave, you can stay."
That's what he wants more than anything, but to my mind, it's
not nearly as important as the rest of the group being unaware.
> > If Eli posts something on SCJ and Cindy notices and remarks on it here,
> > then Eli's won. Because that's what he wanted to happen. If nobody
> > notices, then he's lost - nobody cares. He (presumably) wants us to
> > care,
> > to react - if we don't react, then there's no point.
> >
> We now know how to respond. Those of us who choose not to visit that
> sewer are none the wiser when one of its denizens comes here. And we,
> who are prone to giving the benefit of the doubt, fall right into the
> snare when presented with a question or post which is ambiguous and
> could go either way.
> --
Forewarned is forearmed.
Susan
Steve Goldfarb
>I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
>said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
>While they certainly enjoy arguing with their targets, they
>most desire using our words against us. "If even the Jews
>agree," they start, "that they are a separate racial group,
>then clearly they can't argue that their racial differences
>make them unsuitable for <thing>." "But," someone might
>argue, "they *don't* agree with that. The Holocaust was
>about that sort of thing, wasn't it?" Anti-Semite continues:
>"But of course they agree! Here's where they said it, on
>their exclusive Jew-only newsgroup no less!"
They aren't "using our words against us." They don't have the power. All
they're doing is talking amongst themselves and having a good old time
insulting each other.
>When I'm teaching children, what matters is what goes on in the
>classroom. But sometimes what happens outside the classroom is
>relevant in evaluating and handling in-class problems. Little
>Yussel (sorry, Joel) is acting up: is it because he doesn't under-
>stand the material, or perhaps his parents' impending divorce is
>impacting the behaviour. The misbehaviour is the same in either
>case, but what I do about it is different
When you're teaching children, those children are your responsibility.
We're not your children, Don. We're not your responsibility. I appreciate
your motives but they're misplaced.
>True, that's looking for causes rather than general background.
>But if someone is bent on taking my words and bending them to
>their purposes, I think I should know about it. "Doesn't change
>anything" doesn't wash here. One could make that same argument
>supporting people who secretly videotape people in the changing
>rooms of clothing stores. If they don't know about it, then
>how are they being harmed?
If you want to know about it, then you're free to search via Google Groups
and check. I do that from time to time. It's easy enough if you care.
Then, you'll know. Fine. And if you wish, you can deal with it there, or
via email, or whatever you want. All I'm saying is don't bring it back
here.
>> Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
>> wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be none
>> the wiser, would we?
>True, but don't you think that this should be a little more transparent?
>There have been complaints about moderation for quite a while, and though
>it's quite possible that they're doing it "right" (for varying definitions
>of "right") behind the scened I know that some people would be more
>comfortable knowing that this is happening and that it's more of a policy.
Actually, no - generally I'm pro-transparency but in this particular case
I think it's better to keep for them to keep silent.
>Bringing it here keeps the rest of us in the loop. As some are
>prone to saying, you can always skip the threads. Were there
>a regular policy about this, then someone who notices something
>like it and brings it to the attention of the group would be doing
>a service. The mods can't be everywhere and do everything, but
>such help could assist them in the decision-making process.
"The loop" is the problem. Most of us don't want to be in the loop. If
people stop bringing it back here, then there IS NO LOOP.
>THat's not quite what I'm saying. I should have stressed:
>We are concerned with *content* here. When the content is
>questionable, I don't believe it unreasonable to consider
>other content the poster has made elsewhere to better judge
>the nature of the content posted here.
No, I disagree. If you can't tell then it doesn't matter. They're
moderators not our mothers - when in doubt let it through, and if it
doesn't smell right then we ought not respond.
>Again, I disagree. Here's an extreme example:
>Someone comes here as a new poster, and asks for suggestions on how
>to set up a Jewish childcare center. Based upon what you're suggesting,
>the mods wouldn't be seeing the posts that same user made to the NAMBLA
>support group, and people would be offering all sorts of helpful
>suggestions ('cause that's what we do) for how to set up the child-prey
>center.
Those are the risks we take in a free society.
>Or, if you simply look at the group that they posted to, but not
>the *content*, you'd be banning them because they posted their
>_anti_-NAMBLA rant to that group. Neither works.
If we feel the need to protect ourselves against such people, then the
criterion of "posted to group x" is as good as any and better than most.
>I disagree. I think he thinks he wins when he can "pull one over"
>on us. I think he thinks he wins when he can gather info from
>"enemy territory" to bring home to his little friends to laugh over
>in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk.
Who cares?
>If so, you're contributing significantly to it by speculating on
>his motives. And by opposing Susan and Cindy, which he also seems
>to want.
Who cares?
>We now know how to respond. Those of us who choose not to visit that
>sewer are none the wiser when one of its denizens comes here. And we,
>who are prone to giving the benefit of the doubt, fall right into the
>snare when presented with a question or post which is ambiguous and
>could go either way.
If we choose not to visit the sewer, then we don't want to know. If we
want to know, we should scan the sewer. I don't need any self-imposed list
moms or troll baiters - whatever their motiviation - bringing the circle
jerk here.
--s
--
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fqq4ff$ekm$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
> On 6-Mar-2008, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:fqp1rc$5j0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> >
>> > Note that right now Cindy and Susan are at it in full swing
>
> If we are, we're doing it less than Steve is.
>
>> >- debating
>> > Eli
>> > on whether or not he's a troll, right here on SCJM. That means Eli's
>> > won.
>> -----------
>> I'm in "full swing debating whether or not he's a troll"?
>
>
> No one's debating it but Steve.
> Some are are saying it outright.
> I stopped debating it the minute hew admitted it.
Let me tell you why I'm amused:
Eli has been posting to SCJM for weeks now. Dan and Joel and several other
people have been engaged in heavy duty dialoguing with the guy all this
time, dozens of posts about Obama and McCain and other topics (I haven't
really been following the threads). In the meantime, I haven't been engaging
the guy in conversation at all (on any forum). I've been totally ignoring
his posts.
Then, I see that he has transferred a bunch of threads over to alt.messy and
that he's made an antisemitic post on SCJM. I see that he has also posted
some antisemitic stuff on alt.messy. He's obviously not what he seems to be
on SCJM. I share this information with the other SCJMers (I thought as a
service) and suddenly! [drum roll please]:
All hell breaks loose with the hair-pulling and the teeth-gnashing. I am a
*troll-baiter*, no better than *he* is. I'm tainting *all* the threads. I'm
in full swing *debating* about him and *baiting* him. This is all about *my*
ego and my *game-playing* and *psychodrama* and now it's all *my* fault that
he's *trolling* SCJM, and now everyone is going to have to *wade through all
this trash.* And the whole problem is that various individuals participate
in other fora. And maybe that shouldn't be allowed because it attracts
trolls and antisemites over to SCJM.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, on other SCJM threads, life goes on as usual, and Eli
continues to carry on a regular dialogue in various threads and with various
people, just as if this entire conversation isn't happening. Dan and Joel
are allowed to talk to him, but I'm not allowed because that would be
*baiting* him. I'm also not allowed to talk *about him* because that's also
*baiting* him. What alternate universe is this? Who wouldn't see the humor
in this scenario? How can I not laugh ?
(And FTR, as far as I'm concerned, Eli can stay here forever. As I said, he
really doesn't bother me at all.)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
I am up for it....I might be able to contribute hardware if someone
could host it.
Q
> On 6-Mar-2008, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
> > > The only reason why the closet trolls care what we say here is so that
> > > they can use it against the people who post in both places. Frankly, I'm
>
> > > not convinced that anti-semitism actually has much if anything to do
> > > with
> > > this -- I think there's a good chance these people are engaging in this
> > > behavior not because they're anti-semites per se but because they're
> > > trolls - they're enjoying the game of baiting people like Cindy and
> > > Susan
> > > and getting them to jump in those ever-so-predictable ways. It so
> > > happens
> > > that anti-semitic comments are a good way to get under Cindy's skin - so
>
> > > that's what they use. But the game isn't "insult the Jews" the game is
> > > "make Cindy jump."
>
> > > If Cindy, Susan, etc. refuse to jump, then there's no game.
>
> > I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
> > said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
>
> "It's just jokes, don't worry about it!"
> "It's all just words - they can't really hurt us"
> "This is all just a phase, it'll blow over soon!"
> "Don't make trouble, don't make it worse!"
>
> I have never agreed with this philosophy.
I guess you think it's better to wreck newsgroups by fighting with
morons and attention-seekers then to behave like a grownup, and ignore
them.
>
> > While they certainly enjoy arguing with their targets, they
> > most desire using our words against us. "If even the Jews
> > agree," they start, "that they are a separate racial group,
> > then clearly they can't argue that their racial differences
> > make them unsuitable for <thing>." "But," someone might
> > argue, "they *don't* agree with that. The Holocaust was
> > about that sort of thing, wasn't it?" Anti-Semite continues:
> > "But of course they agree! Here's where they said it, on
> > their exclusive Jew-only newsgroup no less!"
>
> Granted, they will make up whatever they don't get.
> My only aim was to make sure everyone knew what was actually going on.
You seriously think that you're the only one who was able to detect
this?
No. The real point is to move ahead with the discussion that these
boards have been set up to facilitate and not allow exhibitionists to
hijack it.
>
>
>
> > >>Were I in charge (ha!), I would evaluate what they are saying HERE. In
> > >>cases where things are ambiguous, I would consider external sources to
> > >>support one viewpoint or another.
>
> > > Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
> > > wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be
> > > none the wiser, would we?
>
> > True, but don't you think that this should be a little more transparent?
> > There have been complaints about moderation for quite a while, and though
> > it's quite possible that they're doing it "right" (for varying definitions
> > of "right") behind the scened I know that some people would be more
> > comfortable knowing that this is happening and that it's more of a policy.
>
> > > It's only a problem when people bring those external
> > > sources here -- that's feeding the trolls.
>
> > Bringing it here keeps the rest of us in the loop. As some are
> > prone to saying, you can always skip the threads. Were there
> > a regular policy about this, then someone who notices something
> > like it and brings it to the attention of the group would be doing
> > a service. The mods can't be everywhere and do everything, but
> > such help could assist them in the decision-making process.
>
> I knew almost no one on here would have any real way of knowing.
> But I do.
Actually, nobody on here would have any real *interest* in knowing, at
least until some spaghetti has hit the fan.
The way it works is: Offense first; witch-hunt after that. -- Q
(snip)
Don Levey
>
> We were attempting to get an s.c.i.moderated group going, with
> assistance from some SCJM posters, then the impetus atrophied. Should
> we try getting it started again? I still have all the posts, but I'd
> have to have it explained to me -- very carefully -- what Don Levey
> means by using his server for the moderated s.c.i. group.
>
To be honest, I don't know much about running a news server, so I
don't think I'd be able to start SCIM without a bit of reading
(which is not problematic, as long as my ISP doesn't complain). I was
referring more to a mailing list, along the same lines as the Yahoo Groups
thing but without their hassle (I provide my own brand of hassle, thank
you).
--
Steve Goldfarb
>(And FTR, as far as I'm concerned, Eli can stay here forever. As I said, he
>really doesn't bother me at all.)
(then why did you start a whole thread to "out" him as the fake Rev?)
(Cindy, your ability to deflect issues and avoid taking any kind of
responsibility for your own actions never ceases to amaze me)
(Enjoy your wallow)
--s
--
Tim Meushaw
> In <47d0b137$0$16665$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>(And FTR, as far as I'm concerned, Eli can stay here forever. As I said, he
>>really doesn't bother me at all.)
>
> (then why did you start a whole thread to "out" him as the fake Rev?)
Because, as she said:
"He's obviously not what he seems to be on SCJM. I share this information
with the other SCJMers (I thought as a service)...."
You may not care who he really is. Several others of us do. Thanks
for letting us know, Cindy.
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Don Levey
> In <m3r6en3...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
>>I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
>>said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
>>While they certainly enjoy arguing with their targets, they
>>most desire using our words against us. "If even the Jews
>>agree," they start, "that they are a separate racial group,
>>then clearly they can't argue that their racial differences
>>make them unsuitable for <thing>." "But," someone might
>>argue, "they *don't* agree with that. The Holocaust was
>>about that sort of thing, wasn't it?" Anti-Semite continues:
>>"But of course they agree! Here's where they said it, on
>>their exclusive Jew-only newsgroup no less!"
>
> They aren't "using our words against us." They don't have the power. All
> they're doing is talking amongst themselves and having a good old time
> insulting each other.
>
I forgot, they're just words, and words are impotent.
>>When I'm teaching children, what matters is what goes on in the
>>classroom. But sometimes what happens outside the classroom is
>>relevant in evaluating and handling in-class problems. Little
>>Yussel (sorry, Joel) is acting up: is it because he doesn't under-
>>stand the material, or perhaps his parents' impending divorce is
>>impacting the behaviour. The misbehaviour is the same in either
>>case, but what I do about it is different
>
> When you're teaching children, those children are your responsibility.
> We're not your children, Don. We're not your responsibility. I appreciate
> your motives but they're misplaced.
>
We are all responsible for each other. I remember hearing that
somewhere.
>>True, that's looking for causes rather than general background.
>>But if someone is bent on taking my words and bending them to
>>their purposes, I think I should know about it. "Doesn't change
>>anything" doesn't wash here. One could make that same argument
>>supporting people who secretly videotape people in the changing
>>rooms of clothing stores. If they don't know about it, then
>>how are they being harmed?
>
> If you want to know about it, then you're free to search via Google Groups
> and check. I do that from time to time. It's easy enough if you care.
> Then, you'll know. Fine. And if you wish, you can deal with it there, or
> via email, or whatever you want. All I'm saying is don't bring it back
> here.
>
What do you mean by "bringing it back"? I might perhaps agree that
bringing those actual posts into this forum would possibly be wrong,
but I don't agree that telling people here that it's happening is
wrong.
Look, I choose not to go to Basra. However, I do read news accounts
of what goes on there. Just because I choose not to put myself through
that risk, and I choose not to bring that fighting into my own home,
is no reason why I should demand that the news programs, newspapers,
and internet news sites stop reporting what is going on there.
>>> Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
>>> wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be none
>>> the wiser, would we?
>
>>True, but don't you think that this should be a little more transparent?
>>There have been complaints about moderation for quite a while, and though
>>it's quite possible that they're doing it "right" (for varying definitions
>>of "right") behind the scened I know that some people would be more
>>comfortable knowing that this is happening and that it's more of a policy.
>
> Actually, no - generally I'm pro-transparency but in this particular case
> I think it's better to keep for them to keep silent.
>
I think it should be transparent for two reasons:
1) It becomes more of a deterrent if it's known that this is done, and
2) It becomes less likely that moderators will be accused of abusing
their privilege.
>>Bringing it here keeps the rest of us in the loop. As some are
>>prone to saying, you can always skip the threads. Were there
>>a regular policy about this, then someone who notices something
>>like it and brings it to the attention of the group would be doing
>>a service. The mods can't be everywhere and do everything, but
>>such help could assist them in the decision-making process.
>
> "The loop" is the problem. Most of us don't want to be in the loop. If
> people stop bringing it back here, then there IS NO LOOP.
>
Remember that you're not obligated to read those threads, just
as I'm not obligated to watch the TV news, read the papers, or
go to certain internet sites.
>>THat's not quite what I'm saying. I should have stressed:
>>We are concerned with *content* here. When the content is
>>questionable, I don't believe it unreasonable to consider
>>other content the poster has made elsewhere to better judge
>>the nature of the content posted here.
>
> No, I disagree. If you can't tell then it doesn't matter. They're
> moderators not our mothers - when in doubt let it through, and if it
> doesn't smell right then we ought not respond.
>
>>Again, I disagree. Here's an extreme example:
>>Someone comes here as a new poster, and asks for suggestions on how
>>to set up a Jewish childcare center. Based upon what you're suggesting,
>>the mods wouldn't be seeing the posts that same user made to the NAMBLA
>>support group, and people would be offering all sorts of helpful
>>suggestions ('cause that's what we do) for how to set up the child-prey
>>center.
>
> Those are the risks we take in a free society.
>
So you're opposed to background and CORI checks on childcare
workers? After all, it's a risk that we take, and when in doubt
let them through...
>>Or, if you simply look at the group that they posted to, but not
>>the *content*, you'd be banning them because they posted their
>>_anti_-NAMBLA rant to that group. Neither works.
>
> If we feel the need to protect ourselves against such people, then the
> criterion of "posted to group x" is as good as any and better than most.
>
Again, I disagree. It is exactly like saying "visited country X,
nt allowed in here." But, for example, we have many people who
have visited Iraq and Afganistan - and even engaged in military
activity - should we not let them into the US?
>>I disagree. I think he thinks he wins when he can "pull one over"
>>on us. I think he thinks he wins when he can gather info from
>>"enemy territory" to bring home to his little friends to laugh over
>>in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk.
>
> Who cares?
>
>>If so, you're contributing significantly to it by speculating on
>>his motives. And by opposing Susan and Cindy, which he also seems
>>to want.
>
> Who cares?
>
Clearly, you do. You're spending a lot of time and energy telling
everyone else why they shouldn't be spending a lot of time and energy
discussing the matter. I'm sorry, Steve, but you're reminding me
of my 5-year-old right now, carrying around a book or toy and making
a point of telling everyone he sees that he doesn't like it. OK, so
put it down. If we want to read that book in this house, let us read it;
it doesn't mean you have to. There's no requirement to read every thread
or every post.
>>We now know how to respond. Those of us who choose not to visit that
>>sewer are none the wiser when one of its denizens comes here. And we,
>>who are prone to giving the benefit of the doubt, fall right into the
>>snare when presented with a question or post which is ambiguous and
>>could go either way.
>
> If we choose not to visit the sewer, then we don't want to know. If we
> want to know, we should scan the sewer. I don't need any self-imposed list
> moms or troll baiters - whatever their motiviation - bringing the circle
> jerk here.
>
You're taking two extremes in a situation which clearly isn't black and
white; see my discussion of Basra above. And remember that you're being
as much of a list mom as anyone, trying to tell others how to behave.
If you don't like it, drop it, but don't complain when others here happen
to disagree and feel that it's a legitimate topic of discussion.
cindys
"Tim Meushaw" <meu...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrnft2l96....@athens.meushaw.com...
You're very welcome, Tim.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Q
> <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:fqq4ff$ekm$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
>
>
> > On 6-Mar-2008, "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>news:fqp1rc$5j0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> >> > Note that right now Cindy and Susan are at it in full swing
>
> > If we are, we're doing it less than Steve is.
>
> >> >- debating
> >> > Eli
> >> > on whether or not he's a troll, right here on SCJM. That means Eli's
> >> > won.
> >> -----------
> >> I'm in "full swing debating whether or not he's a troll"?
>
> > No one's debating it but Steve.
> > Some are are saying it outright.
> > I stopped debating it the minute hew admitted it.
>
> -----------
> Let me tell you why I'm amused:
>
> Eli has been posting to SCJM for weeks now. Dan and Joel and several other
> people have been engaged in heavy duty dialoguing with the guy all this
> time, dozens of posts about Obama and McCain and other topics (I haven't
> really been following the threads). In the meantime, I haven't been engaging
> the guy in conversation at all (on any forum). I've been totally ignoring
> his posts.
The difference is that the people who have responded to Eli's posts
have not been fighting with him.
>
> Then, I see that he has transferred a bunch of threads over to alt.messy and
> that he's made an antisemitic post on SCJM. I see that he has also posted
> some antisemitic stuff on alt.messy. He's obviously not what he seems to be
> on SCJM. I share this information with the other SCJMers (I thought as a
> service) and suddenly! [drum roll please]:
>
> All hell breaks loose with the hair-pulling and the teeth-gnashing. I am a
> *troll-baiter*, no better than *he* is. I'm tainting *all* the threads. I'm
> in full swing *debating* about him and *baiting* him. This is all about *my*
> ego and my *game-playing* and *psychodrama* and now it's all *my* fault that
> he's *trolling* SCJM, and now everyone is going to have to *wade through all
> this trash.* And the whole problem is that various individuals participate
> in other fora. And maybe that shouldn't be allowed because it attracts
> trolls and antisemites over to SCJM.
Yup. Some of us think it's a very bad thing when SCJMers go to the
unmoderated groups to engage with trolls. And it probably doesn't
matter who is attracted to SCJM, because once they begin misbehaving,
they will be excluded by the moderators. It's not *who* they are that
counts; it's what they post.
If we were to begin a policy of serious researching every person who
posts to SCJM, nobody would want to post here.
>
> SIMULTANEOUSLY, on other SCJM threads, life goes on as usual, and Eli
> continues to carry on a regular dialogue in various threads and with various
> people, just as if this entire conversation isn't happening. Dan and Joel
> are allowed to talk to him, but I'm not allowed because that would be
> *baiting* him. I'm also not allowed to talk *about him* because that's also
> *baiting* him. What alternate universe is this? Who wouldn't see the humor
> in this scenario? How can I not laugh ?
Nice to know you're finally having a bit of fun. Most of the time,
you are far too serious.
>
> (And FTR, as far as I'm concerned, Eli can stay here forever. As I said, he
> really doesn't bother me at all.)
Good. -- Q
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>> They aren't "using our words against us." They don't have the power. All
>> they're doing is talking amongst themselves and having a good old time
>> insulting each other.
>>
>I forgot, they're just words, and words are impotent.
All words are not equally potent. Some have more power than others.
>> When you're teaching children, those children are your responsibility.
>> We're not your children, Don. We're not your responsibility. I appreciate
>> your motives but they're misplaced.
>>
>We are all responsible for each other. I remember hearing that
>somewhere.
But we're not each others Moms either, Don.
>> If you want to know about it, then you're free to search via Google Groups
>> and check. I do that from time to time. It's easy enough if you care.
>> Then, you'll know. Fine. And if you wish, you can deal with it there, or
>> via email, or whatever you want. All I'm saying is don't bring it back
>> here.
>>
>What do you mean by "bringing it back"? I might perhaps agree that
>bringing those actual posts into this forum would possibly be wrong,
>but I don't agree that telling people here that it's happening is
>wrong.
Then we disagree.
>Look, I choose not to go to Basra. However, I do read news accounts
>of what goes on there. Just because I choose not to put myself through
>that risk, and I choose not to bring that fighting into my own home,
>is no reason why I should demand that the news programs, newspapers,
>and internet news sites stop reporting what is going on there.
So we should be posting about Basra here on SCJM, Don? Is that your point?
Newsgroups have topicality. that's why there isn't just one big newsgroup
called "alt.everything." Your example doesn't make any sense.
>> Actually, no - generally I'm pro-transparency but in this particular case
>> I think it's better to keep for them to keep silent.
>>
>I think it should be transparent for two reasons:
>1) It becomes more of a deterrent if it's known that this is done, and
>2) It becomes less likely that moderators will be accused of abusing
> their privilege.
Maybe, but it's more frustrating for the trolls, I think, if they're
unable to view their scores. If Henry tells us why he blocked a post from
the Rev, then that a) gives the Rev the publicity he apparently craves and
b) teaches him what to do differently next time.
>> "The loop" is the problem. Most of us don't want to be in the loop. If
>> people stop bringing it back here, then there IS NO LOOP.
>>
>Remember that you're not obligated to read those threads, just
>as I'm not obligated to watch the TV news, read the papers, or
>go to certain internet sites.
Then why have any limits on topicality at all?
>> Those are the risks we take in a free society.
>>
>So you're opposed to background and CORI checks on childcare
>workers? After all, it's a risk that we take, and when in doubt
>let them through...
HUH??? You were talking about posts on a newsgroup, Don, not about
background checks. Free flow of information despite the fact that some
people might use that information for their own purposes. Nothing
whatsoever to do with background checks.
>> If we feel the need to protect ourselves against such people, then the
>> criterion of "posted to group x" is as good as any and better than most.
>>
>Again, I disagree. It is exactly like saying "visited country X,
>nt allowed in here." But, for example, we have many people who
>have visited Iraq and Afganistan - and even engaged in military
>activity - should we not let them into the US?
Your analogy fails compeletely. It's nothing at all like saying someone
visited a certain country. It's more like saying that if we're the
Economist and we're looking to hire a columnist, and we find out he not
only writes a weekly UFO column for the Weekly World News but he intends
to continue writing it, that we move on and hire someone else. it's not
exactly like that, but the analogy is closer.
>> Who cares?
>>
>Clearly, you do. You're spending a lot of time and energy telling
>everyone else why they shouldn't be spending a lot of time and energy
>discussing the matter. I'm sorry, Steve, but you're reminding me
>of my 5-year-old right now, carrying around a book or toy and making
>a point of telling everyone he sees that he doesn't like it. OK, so
>put it down. If we want to read that book in this house, let us read it;
>it doesn't mean you have to. There's no requirement to read every thread
>or every post.
I care about this newsgroup. That's why I'm posting. I don't care about
what Eli posts. Do you see the difference, Don? Let me spell it out for
you, since we're apparently 5-year-old children -- when I wrote "who
cares" I didn't mean "who cares about anything at all in the whole wide
world," I meant "who cares if people are posting nice things here and
naughty things elsewhere, the important thing is that they're posting nice
things here." You see? I do indeed care about this newsgroup, I enjoy(ed)
posting here.
>> If we choose not to visit the sewer, then we don't want to know. If we
>> want to know, we should scan the sewer. I don't need any self-imposed list
>> moms or troll baiters - whatever their motiviation - bringing the circle
>> jerk here.
>>
>You're taking two extremes in a situation which clearly isn't black and
>white; see my discussion of Basra above. And remember that you're being
>as much of a list mom as anyone, trying to tell others how to behave.
>If you don't like it, drop it, but don't complain when others here happen
>to disagree and feel that it's a legitimate topic of discussion.
Ah, but it IS black and white. It's purely black and white. Either we
reference what people do on other groups, or we don't. Either we do what
Susan did, or we don't. It's pretty cut-and-dried, Don.
And yeah, I guess I am being a list mom. Pardon me for caring. I thought
we were all in this together -- guess not, if anyone on this group wishes
to do something that disturbs others or the integrity of the group well
we'd all better just be quiet and take it, huh?
BTW, who are "these others?" So far you, Cindy, Susan, and Tim seem to be
the only people eager to discuss what's going on in SCJ. Several others
have posted that they don't care for it, and most of the regular posters
have been silent on the issue.
--s
--
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3od9q1...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>
>> In <m3r6en3...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> Don Levey
>> <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
snip
>>
>> You're spending a lot of time and energy telling
> everyone else why they shouldn't be spending a lot of time and energy
> discussing the matter. I'm sorry, Steve, but you're reminding me
> of my 5-year-old right now, carrying around a book or toy and making
> a point of telling everyone he sees that he doesn't like it. OK, so
> put it down. If we want to read that book in this house, let us read it;
> it doesn't mean you have to. There's no requirement to read every thread
> or every post.
>
>>>We now know how to respond. Those of us who choose not to visit that
>>>sewer are none the wiser when one of its denizens comes here. And we,
>>>who are prone to giving the benefit of the doubt, fall right into the
>>>snare when presented with a question or post which is ambiguous and
>>>could go either way.
>>
>> If we choose not to visit the sewer, then we don't want to know. If we
>> want to know, we should scan the sewer. I don't need any self-imposed
>> list
>> moms or troll baiters - whatever their motiviation - bringing the circle
>> jerk here.
>>
> You're taking two extremes in a situation which clearly isn't black and
> white; see my discussion of Basra above. And remember that you're being
> as much of a list mom as anyone, trying to tell others how to behave.
> If you don't like it, drop it, but don't complain when others here happen
> to disagree and feel that it's a legitimate topic of discussion.
---
I think the issue here really is one of control. If the moderators feel a
specific post is inappropriate, they will reject it. But nobody on SCJM has
the authority to try to dictate to other people what other newsgroups they
may visit, who they may or may not dialogue with, what the content of the
posts may or may not be, how the subject lines must be written, etc.
I also find it annoying when a poster tells other people to simply ignore
threads they dislike but insists the threads he dislikes shouldn't appear at
all. I am also tired of this ongoing refrain that SCJMers shouldn't be
permitted to participate in other groups. Since it is certainly understood
that no one can dictate to someone else "You can't post to group X," it is
now being intimated that perhaps participation in other groups should
preclude participation on SCJM. I understand this won't happen, but it
certainly reflects a good dose of wishful thinking.
I have been rebuked in the past for participating on alt.messy. I can tell
you that the alt.messy posters rarely overlap with the SCJ posters.
Alt.messy posters tend to crosspost to other groups that are discussing
religion (as opposed to culture) like the atheist group or the Buddhist
group or other Christian groups. I can't recall any occasion where I have
ever seen one of the alt.messy regulars try to post to SCJM. So, there
shouldn't be any problem. Nevertheless, this does seem to be a problem for
one poster, and I have been rebuked on SCJM for my participation on
alt.messy. I think this is unbelievable.
Just so everyone knows, I also participate on a cat newsgroup...in case
anyone has a problem with that.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
[every other line snipped - it doesn't change the meaning]
>may visit, who they may or may not dialogue with, what the content of the
>I also find it annoying when a poster tells other people to simply ignore
>all. I am also tired of this ongoing refrain that SCJMers shouldn't be
>that no one can dictate to someone else "You can't post to group X," it is
>preclude participation on SCJM. I understand this won't happen, but it
>I have been rebuked in the past for participating on alt.messy. I can tell
>Alt.messy posters tend to crosspost to other groups that are discussing
>group or other Christian groups. I can't recall any occasion where I have
>shouldn't be any problem. Nevertheless, this does seem to be a problem for
>alt.messy. I think this is unbelievable.
>Just so everyone knows, I also participate on a cat newsgroup...in case
>Best regards,
Cindy, please step off your high horse. You know full well that I'm not
insisting that anybody do anything, I'm just expressing my opinion about
posting behavior.
You know what you're doing, you know the effect it has on this newsgroup,
and you don't care. Fine, we get it.
If I have the time, I'll start monitoring your activity on other groups
and posting a status report here -- "What Cindy's Up to." Maybe I'll do
one for Susan, Don, and Tim as well. And don't you dare complain about it
-- after all, it's my right to do so, isn't it?
--s
--
Tim Meushaw
> and posting a status report here -- "What Cindy's Up to." Maybe I'll do
> one for Susan, Don, and Tim as well. And don't you dare complain about it
> -- after all, it's my right to do so, isn't it?
Why am I being lumped in, when the only thing I was commenting on was
that a known antisemite posting here had been pointed out?
Steve Goldfarb
>Why am I being lumped in, when the only thing I was commenting on was
>that a known antisemite posting here had been pointed out?
You told Cindy that you think it's valuable for people to monitor the
posting behavior of those who post here, and to report the results. Right?
So presumably your posting behavior is of interest to the group as well.
--s
--
Don Levey
Sure, feel free. And if I post something questionable *here*, anything
I post elsewhere may be useful in determining the answer to the question.
But as I've repeatedly said, I don't think outside content should come
into play UNTIL _inside_ content is ambiguous. I'm willing to live by
that standard too, so have at it.
cindys
Which is pretty much what I did. How dare you?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
>
> If I have the time, I'll start monitoring your activity on other groups
> and posting a status report here -- "What Cindy's Up to." Maybe I'll do
> one for Susan, Don, and Tim as well. And don't you dare complain about it
> -- after all, it's my right to do so, isn't it?
Please do, Steve. I post to alt.messianic and rec.pets.cats.health+behavior.
Have fun. Just to keep you in the loop, this week on alt.messianic, I
speculated with Rob on whether or not Randy would ever admit that his
pastor's wife's son-in-law had never been an Orthodox Jew. On
rec.pets.cats.health+behavior, I shared with the group that I had to have
one of my cats euthanized last week. Please tune in next week to find out
whether Randy will finally confront his pastor's wife with the evidence or
will he continue to keep his head in the sand? On the cat group, see me ask
Phil P. if it's harmful to feed a high phosphorus cat food to a cat with low
potassium but no other indications for CRF.
So now that you know about all my clandestine activities on the unmoderated
groups, are you happy?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
I wasn't "monitoring" Eli's behavior. I said he suddenly showed up on
alt.messy to catch my attention because he knew I posted there. Big
difference, Steve.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Herman Rubin
Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <47cf14b7$0$4968$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>>I'm not "speculating" anything. It's the reverend. If you want him as a
>>regular poster to SCJM rather than violate his privacy, please enjoy him,
>>he's all yours!
>Fine.
>So I officially suggest that the Moderators hereby ban the following email
>addresses from posting to SCJM:
>eli.g...@googlemail.com aka "Eli Grubman"
>fla...@verizon.net aka "Susan Cohen"
>dans...@gmail.com aka "DoD"
>with the caveat that it's all of them or none of them.
On what basis would you suggest that? DoD and flaviaR
are regular posters to the unmoderated group under the
same names they post here, and I am an occasional poster
there. Neither of them act differently on the unmoderated
group than on the moderated group, except for posting on
topics not included (maybe they should be) in the moderated
group. I am an occasional poster on the unmoderated group
myself.
As for eli.grubman, I know nothing about "him"; I am
supposing that the poster is a male from the name.
The posts are not like those of the "reverend" on SCJ,
who has not posted under that name for some time.
I suggest that we not take any rash action at this time.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Don Levey
> In article <fqn5b4$sao$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <47cf14b7$0$4968$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>>I'm not "speculating" anything. It's the reverend. If you want him as a
>>>regular poster to SCJM rather than violate his privacy, please enjoy him,
>>>he's all yours!
>
>>Fine.
>
>>So I officially suggest that the Moderators hereby ban the following email
>>addresses from posting to SCJM:
>
>>eli.g...@googlemail.com aka "Eli Grubman"
>>fla...@verizon.net aka "Susan Cohen"
>>dans...@gmail.com aka "DoD"
>
>>with the caveat that it's all of them or none of them.
>
>
> On what basis would you suggest that? DoD and flaviaR
> are regular posters to the unmoderated group under the
> same names they post here, and I am an occasional poster
> there. Neither of them act differently on the unmoderated
> group than on the moderated group, except for posting on
> topics not included (maybe they should be) in the moderated
> group. I am an occasional poster on the unmoderated group
> myself.
>
The basis isn't the content, it's the act of posting at all, that
Steve seems to object to.
cindys
"Q" <quon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe2b5e23-3f1a-4987...@47g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
So now the problem is *fighting* on SCJM? Who would have guessed? We never
see any fighting around here. Nope. Never.
WRT to "Eli," as I said, I think he's amusing. He doesn't bother me at all.
But apparently, this is also not an acceptable attitude because when I said
I was actually playing with him, and he was playing back (i.e. mutual
amusement), I was told that was the same as "baiting" him, and "now everyone
will have to wade through the trash." Apparently, the votes are in, and I'm
not allowed to interact with Eli at all. I can't argue with him. I can't
debate him. I can't joke with him. Apparently, there are special rules that
apply to me and my interactions with Eli which apply to nobody else. I'm
sure Eli is laughing his head off over this one and rightly so.
snip
>
> Some of us think it's a very bad thing when SCJMers go to the
> unmoderated groups to engage with trolls.
You're entitled to your opinion. Just as other people are entitled to
theirs. But speaking for myself, I don't go to other fora to "engage with
trolls." My other-group activities are pretty much limited to arguing with
Randy about his pastor's wife and discussing cat food. It seems to me that I
engage with a lot more trolls on SCJM.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>The basis isn't the content, it's the act of posting at all, that
>Steve seems to object to.
<sigh> no, one last time for Herman's benefit.
My preferred position is the current one - the moderators should judge the
post not the poster. If the posts are acceptable they're acceptable, if
they're not they're not, and if they pass moderation but don't pass the
smell test with us then ought to use our best judgement and ignore them.
Problem solved.
Others are saying no, the problem isn't solved, because it means that
people who they consider anti-semites might be posting here, and people
might be having conversations with them, and that cannot be tolerated.
To me, if they're behaving themselves here, then there's no problem, but
others disagree with that.
So then the question is how can we block these people from posting here?
One way is for people to try to evaluate who these posters are and make a
"black list" of those considered by --- by whom? --- to be anti-semitic.
Or something like that.
I don't think that's practical or fair. Instead, if it's absolutely
essential that these people be blocked from this newsgroup, then I think a
much fairer, easier to implement solution would be simply to establish a
rule saying post here, or post there, but you can't post in both places.
As my posts keep getting blocked by the mods, let's throw in some Jewish
content.
Question - if Eli were in fact Jewish, would it then be Lashon Hara for
someone to post "Eli is an anti-semite" on this newsgroup? Further, would
it be considered participating in lashon hara for a halacha-following Jew
to read such a post?
While we know that the laws of lashon hara don't apply to non-Jews or to
heretics, IIRC the concept of heresy is rather precisely defined, no? Many
of the ideas put forth by anti-semites, while vile and untrue, aren't
necessarily heretical. Therefore, we can't necessarily conclude that even
if someone actually were a Jewish anti-semite, that the laws of lashon
hara wouldn't apply to him -- all the more so if we aren't in fact certain
that he is indeed an anti-semite.
Discuss.
--s
--
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Mar-2008, Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-07, Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > If I have the time, I'll start monitoring your activity on other groups
> > and posting a status report here -- "What Cindy's Up to." Maybe I'll do
> > one for Susan, Don, and Tim as well. And don't you dare complain about
> > it -- after all, it's my right to do so, isn't it?
It's nice to know that Steve equates people he doesn't like with
anti-semites.
>
> Why am I being lumped in, when the only thing I was commenting on was
> that a known antisemite posting here had been pointed out?
You are being lumped in because he doesn't like the fact that he's not
winning.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Mar-2008, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> The basis isn't the content, it's the act of posting at all, that
> Steve seems to object to.
And for reasons other than antisemitism.
Susan
cindys
> In <m3lk4uz...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> Don Levey
> <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
>>The basis isn't the content, it's the act of posting at all, that
>>Steve seems to object to.
>
> <sigh> no, one last time for Herman's benefit.
>
> My preferred position is the current one - the moderators should judge the
> post not the poster. If the posts are acceptable they're acceptable, if
> they're not they're not, and if they pass moderation but don't pass the
> smell test with us then ought to use our best judgement and ignore them.
>
> Problem solved.
>
> Others are saying no, the problem isn't solved, because it means that
> people who they consider anti-semites might be posting here, and people
> might be having conversations with them, and that cannot be tolerated.
I don't think that's the issue.
>
> To me, if they're behaving themselves here, then there's no problem, but
> others disagree with that.
>
> So then the question is how can we block these people from posting here?
And that's not the question. The question is if the SCJMers (who so desire)
are entitled to know if they are dialoguing with someone who has made
blatantly antisemitic remarks on other groups. Some people want to know and
others don't. But who said anything about blocking anyone? Why do you think
anyone needs to be blocked?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>And that's not the question. The question is if the SCJMers (who so desire)
>are entitled to know if they are dialoguing with someone who has made
>blatantly antisemitic remarks on other groups. Some people want to know and
>others don't. But who said anything about blocking anyone? Why do you think
>anyone needs to be blocked?
In your 4th post to this very thread, on March 5, you wrote:
<quote>
I'm not "speculating" anything. It's the reverend. If you want him as a
regular poster to SCJM rather than violate his privacy, please enjoy him,
he's all yours!
</quote>
So whether or not Eli Grubman ought to be allowed to post here was
something you brought up from the get-go -- "if you want him as a regular
poster."
--s
--
Don Levey
cindys
> In <47d1a209$0$24094$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>And that's not the question. The question is if the SCJMers (who so
>>desire)
>>are entitled to know if they are dialoguing with someone who has made
>>blatantly antisemitic remarks on other groups. Some people want to know
>>and
>>others don't. But who said anything about blocking anyone? Why do you
>>think
>>anyone needs to be blocked?
>
> In your 4th post to this very thread, on March 5, you wrote:
>
> <quote>
>
> I'm not "speculating" anything. It's the reverend. If you want him as a
> regular poster to SCJM rather than violate his privacy, please enjoy him,
> he's all yours!
>
> </quote>
Yes, rather than "violate his privacy," i.e. (rather than tell people who he
is).
>
> So whether or not Eli Grubman ought to be allowed to post here was
> something you brought up from the get-go
No, I did not. I never mentioned anything about whether he should be
*allowed to post* here.
-- "if you want him as a regular
> poster."
Yes. If people continue to dialogue with him, he will be encouraged and
become a regular poster. If they ignore him (because they know he's posting
antisemitic stuff on other groups), he will get discouraged and leave. I
didn't say anything at all about "blocking" him. Not one word. Only in your
mind.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>
>> On 7-Mar-2008, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>>
>>> The basis isn't the content, it's the act of posting at all, that
>>> Steve seems to object to.
>>
>> And for reasons other than antisemitism.
>>
> From what Steve has said, the reasons are irrelevant.
Yes. Since he can't outright prevent anyone else from posting elsewhere (as
he would like to), he surreptiously suggests that perhaps people who do post
elsewhere should be blocked from posting to SCJM.
Since he seems to be so interested in what I'm posting over on alt.messy,
perhaps he should see what I wrote to Randy who thinks the USA should be
turned into a Christian theocracy where all minority groups need to
acquiesce to the Christian majority according to the will of God (as
interpreted by Randy).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>Yes. If people continue to dialogue with him, he will be encouraged and
>become a regular poster. If they ignore him (because they know he's posting
>antisemitic stuff on other groups), he will get discouraged and leave. I
>didn't say anything at all about "blocking" him. Not one word. Only in your
>mind.
Allright, whatever, Cindy, I'm really tired of this. Re-read the thread if
you like it's very illuminating I think.
While you're suggesting, aparently, that we should ignore him so that
he'll leave (per your above comment) you're simultaneously "just playing
with him" because it's fun. So it's OK for you to play along with his
reindeer games, that won't encourage him, only us poor unenlightened
masses need to be warned to stay away.
It's really interesting to me to read this thread -- to see how skilled
you are at twisting an argument so that it a) becomes about you and then
b) you're able to play the martyr.
This whole thing was never about you in the first place -- you MADE it
about yourself. Read the thread and see. You turned it personal, as you
always do, and made it about defending Cindy's high-and-mighty behavior,
as you always do. "oh, poor me, I'm being attacked, oh please fellow
SCJMers come to my rescue!" and they do, inevitably. But as usual the only
attack is the one you created.
You asked earlier if I thought this was just an ego thing -- MOST
DEFINITELY.
BTW, how about responding to the lashon hara point? Did you CYLOR before
accusing a person who claims to be Jewish (whether he actually is or not
is a different question) of being an anti-semite?
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>Yes. Since he can't outright prevent anyone else from posting elsewhere (as
>he would like to), he surreptiously suggests that perhaps people who do post
>elsewhere should be blocked from posting to SCJM.
Cindy, just do us all a favor and shut your mouth, would you?
>Since he seems to be so interested in what I'm posting over on alt.messy,
>perhaps he should see what I wrote to Randy who thinks the USA should be
>turned into a Christian theocracy where all minority groups need to
>acquiesce to the Christian majority according to the will of God (as
>interpreted by Randy).
Congratulations, I'm sure you really told him. He'll never do that again!
Let the heavens resound with the news - Cindy got off a zinger against a
christian!!
Cindy, nobody cares. Be quiet now, please.
--s
--
cindys
> In <47d1a9a9$0$24093$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>Yes. Since he can't outright prevent anyone else from posting elsewhere
>>(as
>>he would like to), he surreptiously suggests that perhaps people who do
>>post
>>elsewhere should be blocked from posting to SCJM.
>
> Cindy, just do us all a favor and shut your mouth, would you?
PKB.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> In <47d1a785$0$24106$4c36...@roadrunner.com> "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> You asked earlier if I thought this was just an ego thing -- MOST
> DEFINITELY.
Herman Rubin
Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <fqnkbk$kv9$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>>I would actually have to put that beyond Steve.
>>He's just pretending that somehow us posting over there put us
>>in the same camp as the phony rev.
>>He's pretending that the only reason anyone would want to ban
>>the phony rev is *just* because he posts over there.
>I'm not pretending. If Eli Grubman should be banned, then it should be for
>precisely the reason that he posts over there.
I cannot see that as a reason for banning a poster.
There are people on that newsgroup who can be reached
and who can understand the problems. Some of them
have become good posters here, such as DoD, whose
very strong pro-Israel and anti-islamofascism postings
on the other group are very much in order.
>>Either he doesn't want to admit he's been tricked, or he really is
>>trying to say that he's childish enough to want to get rid of people
>>who disagree with him.
>I haven't been tricked.