Q: "Oh, Bob! I am so sorry about the dirt you have to put up with on the
FML. Please don't quit or think the rest of us think of you like or or
two on the list...."
The definition of "obsess" is "to haunt or excessively preoccupy the mind."
"Obsessive" is "excessive often to an unreasonable degree." "Paranoia" is
"a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or
grandeur, usually without hallucinations, or, a tendency on the part of an
individual toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and
distrustfulness of others."
Whether I made a typo or am just a dirty rotten liar does not obscure the
fact that the anonymous accuser had to receive the FML, read my post,
search the FML archives to find a five year old rebuttal, write their post,
and convince Bill Gruber to post it anonymously fast enough to get it in
the next day. That is not the actions of the typical person. Think about
it; what motivates a person to scan old FMLs to try and prove a typo is
a misstatement? Even a dedicated ombudsman would have investigated to
discover if the statement was an actual misrepresentation OR just a typo
before making accusations of intent, implicating character. It is an
extreme and excessive act; by definition, it is obsessive.
Go back through the five years of FMLs and count the number of flames I
have received and compare them to the number of responses I have made. No
one on this list can claim I have ever flamed them off list for something
they have said to me here. If it is said here and I respond, the response
is here as well. In fact, when I do say something on the FML that offends
someone and they directly respond off list, my usual response is to
apologize, regardless of who was right or wrong. When someone points out a
mistake, I acknowledge it or explain why I think I am correct, then either
voluntarily set the record straight or allow them to do so. My friends can
testify that I don't ask them to respond or flame or defend. Whatever they
say is entirely of their own accord. In fact, many times I have pleaded
that they employ the same tactic I use: I simply shun the flamer, which I
have advised on the FML numerous times. I rarely speak of anyone by name,
especially when responding to remarks. Thus, there is little or no
evidence that the desire to post anonymously was, in fact, a real attempt
avoid nasty responses. The desire to post anonymous to hide from excessive
response when there is NO evidence of threat does show an "excessive or
irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others." In other words,
paranoia.
But what's the use to point out irrationality? The person can simply deny
it, justify it, or even blame it on me; they won't believe criticism and
will claim criticisms were issued at my request. Still, we have ALL seen
what was posted and the implications that were suggested. The post wasn't
trying to correct a factual error; it accused me of lying and implied other
posts were suspect as well. Over something as simple as a typo? What do
you call that if it is not obsessive? The desire for anonymity showed SOME
degree of paranoia. But here's the test: this is not finished. I predict
someone will proclaim innocence, blame me for "twisting" the facts and
later, when they think the coast is clear, will post once again over
trivial minutia, implying I cannot be trusted and my posts are inaccurate.
They will point to other people's remarks--even this post--claiming they
were justified asking for anonymity. They may ask friends to post, or
even post under their real name, claiming they "agreed" with the anonymous
poster, everyone was overreacting, and the accusations were justified.
Even reading my predictions, they will continue to obsess; they just can't
let go and get on with their lives. They see every comment as about them
and are convinced everyone else "knows" who I am talking about. How long
will this go on before it is considered cyberstalking? One year? Four
years? Maybe I should scan past FMLs to see if it has happened before.
You WILL see this again, guaranteed.
Bill, I am surprised at you. I'm not upset about being slandered; hell, I
wear glasses, so I am immune to Lilliputian arrows. But since when does
the cloak of anonymity protect people making personal attacks? You allowed
a person to make harmful remarks without risking the social consequences
associated with irresponsible accusations. Without the risk of
consequences, ANYONE can twist typos, misspoken words, or even silly goofs
into sinister and ominous McCarthyist threats. The RISK of public outcry
acts as a control over irresponsible statements. By shielding accusations
in anonymity, you grant unspoken credence to the report; like protecting
some sort of endangered whistleblower. If someone wants to flame another
person, fine; but on the FML it should be done with full disclosure OR
privately off the list. Arguments that you have to review requests on a
case by case basis are obtuse; I doubt if you would have allowed me to
anonymously flame someone and you can be as sure as hell they they would
have complained if I did. You didn't protect a ferret; you shielded a
mudslinger. If you don't have a policy preventing this sort of thing,
you should enact one. I think you owe the FML an apology.
Bob C and 16 Mo' Lying Like A Poledogs
[Moderator's note: The deciding factor for me was that the post didn't
drag in new info but rather quoted a line from a former FML. But, yes,
I did feel the whole thing was rather odd and that most people would not
agree. And, in my experience, when a rumor is circulating, bringing it
out into the open and allowing others to comment usually sets things
straight pretty quickly. Seen it time and time again.
No, I didn't consider it a flame, but clearly some people did -- as did
you, I guess. Apologies for my questionable judgement in letting the
post through. BIG]
[Posted in FML issue 3052]
|
