Titan Clashes on the Forum

raiha

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
3,162
To the Mods and to everyone else too:

Being a lover of words I’ve decided upon a swan song about handling clashes. This means i get to pontificate! Kinda like the Last Supper - i can eat what i like or say what i like!! And I can climb up on my soap box.

Don't suppose i'll be particularly missed given i used to rub most of you up the wrong way and wasn't cubby hole-able. I'm also sorry that i am so close to my 2000th post. Was going to have a party at my place to celebrate ..never mind.

I'm not very useful either. Sigh! There is actually a virtue in being ornamental as well as useful ... someone once said!

My decision to leave was not a kneejerk one. I did go over alot of the stuff in question and found it hard to sleep last night. My problem was not so much Truth Warrior, rather, the principle of the thing.
It is a particular on-going bug-bear of mine (whether it is an American trait or a RPF trait, I am uncertain) where people just want to eliminate difficulty rather than experience it, learn from it, work with it, transcend it. The ultimate way to solve human problems is through non-violence. I'm sure RP would agree with me. What happens in the heart of individual humans plays out on the national and international stage. If someone is experienced as 'problematic' do you tend to see your disagreeable interaction together as your own limitation or a 'fault' of the person with the alleged problem?

If ever a people needs to learn restraint and self-scrutiny to avoid the problem of the proliferation of violence it is your people. A friend of mine says “Better honest collision than dishonest collusion.” It is so easy to blame the ‘other’ person. Often it merely comes down to a refusal to entertain ‘otherness.’ And i have certainly experienced alot of that in my two years of membership here.

In reaching a decision to ban TW, you say you sent private messages warning TW about his behaviour but I wonder did you ever seek to find out where he was coming from? Was it more that he did not adhere to your own ideas of what he‘should’ be and how he ‘should’ conduct himself. As I said in an earlier post, TW was iconoclastic often, which no doubt upsets people. However the iconoclast provides the ordinary person a golden opportunity to understand their own strong, negative emotional reactions and move forward in their thinking and emotional development. Banning someone for challenging the status quo (even if it was quite an uncompromising kind of challenging) indicates an inability to cope with your own unpleasant feelings.

Hopefully some of you may appreciate what the Dalai Lama has to say about conflict. Probably won't... but tough, it's my swan song....:D

We can see that there are many ways in which we actively contribute to our own experience of mental unrest and suffering. Although, in general, mental and emotional afflictions themselves can come naturally, often it is our own reinforcement of those negative emotions that makes them so much worse. For instance when we have anger or hatred towards a person, there is less likelihood of its developing to a very intense degree if we leave it unattended. However, if we think about the projected injustices done to us, the ways in which we have been unfairly treated, and we keep on thinking about them over and over, then that feeds the hatred. It makes the hatred very powerful and intense. Of course, the same can apply to when we have an attachment towards a particular person; we can feed that by thinking about how beautiful he or she is, and as we keep thinking about the projected qualities that we see in the person, the attachment becomes more and more intense. But this shows how through constant familiarity and thinking, we ourselves can make our emotions more intense and powerful.
We also often add to our pain and suffering by being overly sensitive, overreacting to minor things, and sometimes taking things too personally. We tend to take small things too seriously and blow them up out of proportion, while at the same time we often remain indifferent to the really important things, those things which have profound effects on our lives and long-term consequences and implications.
So I think that to a large extent, whether you suffer depends on how you respond to a given situation.

Destructive ways of dealing with conflict include:
Communication cutoff. (this is what happened)
Overlong statements.
Put downs.
You should/shouldn't statements.
Unfair comparisons.
Reacting defensively.
Sarcasm.
Commanding.
Threatening.
Unnecessary apologizing or self-effacing.
Unclear, overly general and nonspecific statements.
Double messages.
Ignoring important messages or feelings of the other person.
Unnecessary interruptions.
Giving in.

None of this is about whether you are right or TW is right. To me both parties could have handled it way better.
The issue is, in my book there is nothing revolutionary in this movement because the problems are all externalised. All 'out there!' True revolution involves awareness and power with responsibility. Without a preparedness to do some self-examination and with too much insistence on blaming the ‘other person” means you relinquish responsibility and become a victim yourself. You can never change another person and neither should you try. You can change your own responses to that other person. That to me is true individuality. Anything less is same old, same old. You end up turning into that which you dislike the most…like Darth Vadar. You should not give up on anyone (apart from the occasional psychopath and a narcissist or two)

It’ll be really hard to not be here any more as I am addicted to the site and even though a lot of people think I am a problem, I feel much friendship and warmth towards most of you here. If anyone is over in NZ, please call me and I could maybe meet you at airport etc.

May the Force Be With You
Anniexxxx

P.S. I'll be a-lurking! ;)
 
Last edited:
When someone insists on being the information highway's speed bump, well, either you let your ride take a beating, you detour, or you get out the virtual jackhammer. What else is there?
 
Very well thought-out and written, and I appreciate it...but in the end, people need to realize this is just simply an internet messageboard.
 
They banned TW?? Why?

Not "they", I.

TW was banned for bringing relentless disruption to this forum.

Ron Paul started this movement to get people involved in the fight for liberty, by participating in the political process.

Josh started this forum to provide a place for like minded people to advance that cause.

TW relentlessly advocated non-participation and continuously mocked those who chose to follow RP's lead.

Here are some posts describing what I am saying...

rph - TW is banned for a long train of abuses, (basically he didn't know when to back off). He was given a warning ban a few weeks ago, and continued his asshattery upon his return. His shenanigans made for long flag ques, and generally derailed decent conversations. He seemed to delight in antagonizing people and really added little of value to the cause of liberty. There are times when enough is enough.

In the end, this board's primary purpose is political activism. Members who don't get that, and continually dilute users time spent here, (no matter how many warnings they get) are here for their own purposes contrary to the boards purpose. While I like to be as tolerant as possible, his asshattery was continueous, and relentless...

Enough is enough.

Josh - RonPaulHawaii made the correct call.

Banning was not and is rarely ever the first option. Many moderators, Bryan, and myself all repeatedly asked him to change the abrasive do nothing attitude. We private messaged him, gave out infractions, and even temp banned him. He didn't care to help us out so he is gone.

Torchbearer - That was with everything. Voting, Activism, Supporting Ron Paul, anything to do with anything... he would just mock.
Basically the opposite of everything we try to do here.
He had nothing to add, only things to detract. Only things to detract.
It wasn't that he didn't agree with this thing or that thing... it was that everyone here, in his "humble opinion", was wasting their time... and in his post, he was wasting our time.

More here

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2058810

:(
 
They banned TW?? Why?

Someone musta puta bug in someone else's ear.

Or so past experience hath shown.

There's a contingent that actively lobbies (subversively) to ban those whose ideas do not jive with their own, in addition to those who rather than participate in *their* non-stopped fundraising schemes simply sit back and laugh.

Stalinesque but that's how they roll. Typical of former bushies.



disclaimer:

Of course, this is merely speculation, but as noted above "past experience hath shown."

;)





....


Also, when you get right down to it, I'd like to echo Cowlesy's statement above.

Who cares really (other than those who care too much)?
 
Last edited:
;):cool:

Someone musta puta bug in someone else's ear.

Or so past experience hath shown.

There's a contingent that actively lobbies (subversively) to ban those whose ideas do not jive with their own, in addition to those who rather than participate in *their* non-stopped fundraising schemes simply sit back and laugh.

Stalinesque but that's how they roll. Typical of former bushies.

disclaimer:

Of course, this is merely speculation, but as noted above "past experience hath shown."

;)





....


Also, when you get right down to it, I'd like to echo Cowlesy's statement above.

Who cares really (other than those who care too much)?
 
I don't know. If this forum were just Facebook fluff, who would care about disruptions and derailed threads? I take it pretty seriously, under the circumstances--and while I do try to lighten the mood from time to time, I also take what I type here pretty seriously. Hope that shows.

This may just be a message board, but the mission is quite serious.
 
A very nice exit post. I hope you stick around, we need minds that can express things so eloquently. That is anything is what I found so frustrating about TW - the guy was obviously smart, well-read, and a man with many talents and a lot of experience. The frustration was two fold:

1) He was bent on using those talents to ridicule and/or encourage people to not participate in the fight that we find ourselves in. From everything that I have read, this is what got him banned. It was a valid position, and I believe many enjoyed his insights (which often ran complementary to ours, since we all want less government and he wanted the "ultimate less" in other words no government. That being said, his constant and merciless cajoling for people to "opt out" of activism on a board that was founded for the purpose of activism - and after ceaseless warnings from the moderators to cease and desist with no effect - in my opinion, THOUGH I WILL MISS HIM, the action by the mods was justified.

2) TW neither wanted to be lead or to lead. The frustration this caused was that I really wanted to understand his PoV, but any direct questioning would just bring about evasive answers or occasionally a link. I think for fear of becoming some type of symbolic leader in anyone's mind, this kept TW from ever just having an honest discussion. TW would not be pinned down on anything, the more I tried to draw him into an open discussion of ideas the more evasive his responses. He seemed to essentially be saying, "Here is the material I studied, but I refuse to do your thinking for you." and he was often dismissive or condescending to anyone who did not "get it". (Luckily, Spooner, Rockwell and others that he constantly linked did not feel the same way), anyway that was more of a personal frustration I had with him.

Anyway, I hope in your lurking you see things that you want to comment on and get sucked back into the crack-board. Good luck to you if not.

OI
 
I don't know. If this forum were just Facebook fluff, who would care about disruptions and derailed threads? I take it pretty seriously, under the circumstances--and while I do try to lighten the mood from time to time, I also take what I type here pretty seriously. Hope that shows.

This may just be a message board, but the mission is quite serious.

Think of it as a conference call. Its a form of communication.
If someone keeps beeping over other people's conversations. It gets annoying.
That person should be kicked from the call so that communication can once again happen uninterrupted by someone who has no interest in the outcome of the conversation to begin with...

Funny thing is.. certain attention whore/drama queens have said they were leaving because of the ban.. yet they are still here. :confused:
 
A very nice exit post. I hope you stick around, we need minds that can express things so eloquently. That is anything is what I found so frustrating about TW - the guy was obviously smart, well-read, and a man with many talents and a lot of experience. The frustration was two fold:

1) He was bent on using those talents to ridicule and/or encourage people to not participate in the fight that we find ourselves in. From everything that I have read, this is what got him banned. It was a valid position, and I believe many enjoyed his insights (which often ran complementary to ours, since we all want less government and he wanted the "ultimate less" in other words no government. That being said, his constant and merciless cajoling for people to "opt out" of activism on a board that was founded for the purpose of activism - and after ceaseless warnings from the moderators to cease and desist with no effect - in my opinion, THOUGH I WILL MISS HIM, the action by the mods was justified.

2) TW neither wanted to be lead or to lead. The frustration this caused was that I really wanted to understand his PoV, but any direct questioning would just bring about evasive answers or occasionally a link. I think for fear of becoming some type of symbolic leader in anyone's mind, this kept TW from ever just having an honest discussion. TW would not be pinned down on anything, the more I tried to draw him into an open discussion of ideas the more evasive his responses. He seemed to essentially be saying, "Here is the material I studied, but I refuse to do your thinking for you." and he was often dismissive or condescending to anyone who did not "get it". (Luckily, Spooner, Rockwell and others that he constantly linked did not feel the same way), anyway that was more of a personal frustration I had with him.

Anyway, I hope in your lurking you see things that you want to comment on and get sucked back into the crack-board. Good luck to you if not.

OI

Well put. While I don't think it was necessary to ban him, as he often showed us the blind spots in our logic, I agree that he could be very annoying. Admittedly, when talking politics on other forums, I tend to link to Lew Rockwell articles a lot, so I got some good ones from him, but I also didn't like that he would respond to everyone's questions with just another article, no elaboration.

On that note, I'm going to miss TW, and I hope that he can come back one day. I really did push the mod's patience, but I don't think it was in his nature to be overtly antagonistic. Did he like pushing buttons? Yes, but it wasn't because he didn't like our movement or anything.
 
Yes, but it wasn't because he didn't like our movement or anything.

TruthWarrior-Imnothereforthemovemen.jpg
 
2) TW neither wanted to be lead or to lead. The frustration this caused was that I really wanted to understand his PoV, but any direct questioning would just bring about evasive answers or occasionally a link. I think for fear of becoming some type of symbolic leader in anyone's mind, this kept TW from ever just having an honest discussion. TW would not be pinned down on anything, the more I tried to draw him into an open discussion of ideas the more evasive his responses. He seemed to essentially be saying, "Here is the material I studied, but I refuse to do your thinking for you." and he was often dismissive or condescending to anyone who did not "get it". (Luckily, Spooner, Rockwell and others that he constantly linked did not feel the same way), anyway that was more of a personal frustration I had with him.

I agree.

1) He was bent on using those talents to ridicule and/or encourage people to not participate in the fight that we find ourselves in. From everything that I have read, this is what got him banned. It was a valid position, and I believe many enjoyed his insights (which often ran complementary to ours, since we all want less government and he wanted the "ultimate less" in other words no government. That being said, his constant and merciless cajoling for people to "opt out" of activism on a board that was founded for the purpose of activism - and after ceaseless warnings from the moderators to cease and desist with no effect - in my opinion, THOUGH I WILL MISS HIM, the action by the mods was justified.

You misunderstood. He viewed political activism as naive and ultimately futile. He wasn`t about having people abandon the fight. He wanted them to concentrate on other more fruitful aspects of it.
 
You misunderstood. He viewed political activism as naive and ultimately futile. He wasn`t about having people abandon the fight. He wanted them to concentrate on other more fruitful aspects of it.

WOuld you like to show me TW's post that support your statement?
I never once saw him say... "your voting/activism is useless... instead, you should be focusing on x,y, or z".
What I saw was "your voting/activism is violence against humanity, you worship satan and government, <insert lew rockwell link and graphic> <imho> :rolleyes: /mock
 
Back
Top