In this classic exchange, View From Above's Hawkeye, Mr. Freedom™ himself, decided to lay down the law a little and arbitarily censor at will. Of course, seeing as this new regime was amimed squarely at him, Elroy was having none of it, although by the time Hawkeye® allowed him to post a message he was somewhat heated.
We present Hawkeye®'s orginal premise and then enter the discussion; please note that the 'message deleted' posts are Elroy trying to be heard and in no way involved any personal attacks or foul language of any kind. Not that Elroy is a prude of any kind – he just doesn't believe that he should give Hawkeye® any free ammunition.
At some point Hawkeye® decides that Elroy is also posing as 'Purplehaze', one of Elroy's compadres in the eternal fight for truth and justice, and so Elroy decides that Hawkeye is really 'Beerme', a regular voice from the dark side who is all too coincidentally consistent. Apart from Elroy and Purplehaze, all other voices (bar the first) are for the motion, so to speak. So who wins? Tell us what you think once you've seen what Elroy said...
Hawkeye said...
"Warning To Communists & Other Trolls"
The blog administrator (Mr. Eye®) hereby announces the following policy change at "View From Above". Effective immediately... excessively long-winded, self-serving, patronizing and impudent comments from Communists and other trolls will be deleted. Such comments: 1) use valuable bandwidth, 2) offend the sensibilities (and occasionally the digestion) of other "Viewers", 3) lead to excessive wear on scroll wheels, 4) may cause drowsiness while operating machinery, and 5) generally trash the appearance of the Comment section. The blog administrator continues to reserve the right to delete comments of a rude or vulgar nature, and none of his other rights and remedies are waived with the implementation of this new policy.
Pithy comments are always welcome, even those of a contrarian nature (for example, the "View From Below"). Comments of reasonable length will be tolerated if they add enlightenment to a discussion, subject to the blog administrator's definition of the term "enlightenment". Comments which attempt to argue against every single sentence or word of a posting (or previous comment) will be considered a grievous violation of this new policy and will be punishable by vaporization into the cyber ether.
That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled surfing.
posted by Hawkeye® at 10:09 AM on Mar 4, 2007
Anonymous said...
Now, isn't this just grand. It is interesting to note the same folks who claim to to value all the qualities of so called "freedom", "democracy" happen to be the ones so quick to suppress it.
3/04/2007 8:18 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Anonymous,
Thank you for your "pithy" remark. It will go down in the anals of great comments. Please feel free to come back and share again!
Regards...
3/04/2007 11:01 PM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
3/04/2007 11:04 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Sorry Elroy,
You just can't get a grasp of the "rules" can you? Too bad. Please try again.
3/04/2007 11:10 PM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
3/04/2007 11:22 PM
MargeinMI said...
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Elroy has left the building.
3/05/2007 8:35 AM
Hawkeye® said...
Sorry Elroy,
When I said "try again", I didn't mean try to repeat yourself verbatim... I meant, "try to be a little more pithy next time". I guess I didn't explain myself too well. I try 'weller' next time.
(:D) Cheers
3/05/2007 11:56 AM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
3/05/2007 5:26 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Elroy,
Apparently you were never spanked as a child... your loss (and ours). If you continue your childishness, I will be forced to switch on comment moderation. This will make you even more annoying to me than you are already... Grow up!
Cheers
3/05/2007 5:54 PM
Elroy [eventually] said...
So this is justice conservative style, huh? I can be accused (and don’t pretend these ‘rules’ aren’t aimed at me) of being excessively long-winded, self-serving, patronizing and impudent, a Communist, a troll, of using valuable bandwidth, of offending the sensibilities (and occasionally the digestion) of other "Viewers", for leading to excessive wear on scroll wheels, possibly causing cause drowsiness while operating machinery, of generally trashing the appearance of the Comment section and attempting to argue against every single sentence or word of a posting (or previous comment) and threatened with having my contribution considered a grievous violation of this new policy and punishable by vaporization into the cyber ether with no recourse? That figures.
Gee, that free speech and democratic exchange of ideas so cherished by your beloved founding fathers is pretty annoying, isn’t it? What was it George II said? ‘There should be limits on freedom!’ Hey, he got them too! PATRIOT Act anyone?
I keep posting my reply because rules, my friend, are meant to be broken, especially arbitrary ones inflicted by petty dictators like you are fast becoming. Rights come with responsibilities, Hawkeye, and you either you accept your responsibility to allow me to defend myself or risk becoming another sad little conservative blog wedged up a stagnant cyber-backwater and preaching to the choir, or you could show you have the courage of your convictions and prove that you really do believe in freedom.
On Righting America you said you would take me on anytime. Well, how about it? Ready to fight fair? Or can a conservative only win an argument against the Left with a roll of duct tape? Shutting down dissent does your noble cause a grave disservice and makes you appear like those you supposedly despise. Don’t fall into the trap.
Cheers
Elroy
PS And your last comment was pretty patronizing, breaking #3 of your own code of ethics. Shame, Hawkeye, shame.
3/06/2007 4:17 AM
Purplehaze said...
Elroy, I think you may need to dumb your pep talks down champ. How do you think Fox news reaches so many millions of people?
3/06/2007 8:09 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Elroy,
Sir, this is my blog and I make the rules. You can be assured that simply because you have free speech rights does not mean that you will get published in say the New York Times, the Washington Post, TIME Magazine, or the L.A. Times. Just because you have the freedom to say whatever you want to, doesn't mean that everyone will entertain your desire to be quoted in their publication.
In a way, my little blog is no different than any of those other publications. I certainly don't have their circulation or their staff, but I DO have the right to control content (even the letters to the editor, per se).
Which reminds me. If you're such a towering intellect, why haven't I seen any of your scholarly articles in the fine publications I listed above?
If you don't like my rules, then feel free to start your own blog. You have the right to free speech man! And you can set up a blog for FREE... Truly a case for "freedom" of speech!
And don't feel that you have to defend yourself from me. You were the one that came barging in here disagreeing with everything I and my friends have had to say. That makes you (by definition) a "troll". If you don't come here, you won't have to defend yourself when you say something dumb.
QED.
Cheers
3/06/2007 8:53 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Purplehaze/Elroy,
Stop pretending to be two different people.
3/06/2007 8:55 PM
Elroy said...
Hawkeye/Beerme
Yes, it is your blog. A little power is a dangerous thing, no? And there is an important distinction to make between View From Above and the NYT is they have a large audience and limited space; you, however, have arguably unlimited space and an audience, if the comment section is anything to go by, of approximately six, so my chances of appearing in print are greater.
And anyway, one of joys of the internets is being able to communicate directly, and I prefer to argue with people I disagree with. You, however, prefer to discuss politics with your fellow travelers, which is all very well but ultimately useless. If the term for debating one’s ideological opposite is political intercourse, then the term for blathering on with a bunch of like-minded sycophants is, well, let’s say the Catholics warn it will send you blind.
Am I such a towering intellect? Well, if you say so. And why do you run a website with a comment section if you don’t want comment, or only want comment that pats you on the back? No wonder the Right are so under represented in Universities and colleges; their arguments do not bear any close scrutiny.
I am defending myself not because I said something dumb, but because you did; you accused me of things I am not guilty of. And by the way, I didn’t barge in anywhere; it’s the internets! You have a comment section! The door was, and is, wide open! There was no sign saying ‘Dissenters not allowed! Partisan conservatives only!’, and furthermore I am not, ‘by definition’, a ‘troll’; I mean, what is the definitive troll anyway? ‘
According to Wikipedia (sorry, Conservapedia does not offer a definition) a troll is ‘a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic’ and will ‘often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, more often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.’
I, however, legitimately wish to discuss the issues you raise. I am not a ‘troll’ merely because I disagree with you.
Cheers
Elroy
PS I’ll stop being two people when you do.
3/07/2007 5:13 AM
Purplehaze said...
Hawkeye, contrary to your paranoia, Elroy and myself are two different people. Imagine that.
3/07/2007 2:29 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Purplehaze,
Well, I suppose it's possible... you and Elroy may indeed be 2 different people. Nevertheless, I find it intriguing that the 2 of you seemed to show up out of nowhere at the same time. Furthermore, I find it interesting that Purplehaze always seems to show up and laud Elroy's bloviations. Have you no mind of your own man? Are you Elroy's waterboy or sidekick?
Inquiring minds need to know. The jury is still out...
Cheers
3/07/2007 7:12 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Elroy,
Please don't confuse me with Beerme. I would love to have Beerme's skills as a brewer and a connoisseur of fine quality ales and lagers. However, in my family, that honor would go to my youngest brother... a true craftsman in his own right.
Beerme on the other hand maintains his own blog HERE. He is from Michigan and I am from Downtown, NJ. If you look closely, you will find many dis-similarities between us.
I, on the other hand, seem to have no way of comparing Elroy vs. Purplehaze. Are you open to inspection? Please provide me with data. Who is who... and why?
By the way, it's "internet"... not "internets". There are "intranets" and "LANs" and even "WANs", but there is still only ONE Internet (at least so far as I have been able to determine).
Your chances of appearing in print here are teetering on the edge my friend.
As for the number of visitors who stop by here, you are free to click on the "Site Meter" icon at the bottom of my right column. No one ever said that every visitor is a commenter. Just for fun, click on "By World Map" under "Recent Visitors"... then click on the number "100" directly under the world map. This will give you a clue as to who is "Viewing".
Indeed, upon closer examination, I would suggest that perhaps you might be "Elroy" from the city of Elwood (or thereabouts), in Victoria, Australia. Just guessing mind you.
By the way, you fit the Widipedia definition of "troll" perfectly.
Cheers
3/07/2007 7:51 PM
Elroy said...
Hawkeye
Purplehaze is merely a man of good taste, and I trust Beerme’s judgment is not clouded by an overly exuberant sampling of his product.
And yes, I am Elroy of Elwood, Victoria, Australia. That’s all you need to know. And it is not me that first called the internets the internets – that honour goes to George Bush (10/8/04). And if George said it, it must be true!
However many may stop by is inconsequential; how many take an active part in discussion? About six. Beerme, Barb, Margienme, Mr. Haze,
you and me. You’ll miss me when I’m gone.
And as for being a troll, I challenge you to back up your assertion. You’re making the charge – you’ve got to make it stick. The burden of proof is on the prosecution; the defendant cannot be made to prove a negative. These are the foundations of the West’s justice system, the ‘rule of law’ that conservatives hold so dear. Of course, I can’t expect your crew to respect those basic tenets of jurisprudence; after all, it was Republicans who threw Habeas Corpus overboard when it suited them.
The other thing is that any attempt at a defence would be deemed by you to be, ahem, ‘self-serving etc etc’ so its down to you. How about it, fella? And which standard of proof are going with? The reasonable doubt of the criminal justice system? Or the possibility Vs probability of the civil courts? I’m-a waiting…
Cheers
Elroy
PS And you are quite correct, I was never spanked, and I do not spank my own. It’s a funny thing, but I don’t believe in commiting common assault on minors – I prefer negotiation and debate. These are the values I wish to pass on, that violence solves nothing. If only GHWB had taught junior the same things…
3/08/2007 2:54 AM
Elroy said...
PPS Purplehaze and myself are easily distingusihed with one simple observation. He can write 'pithy' comments of three sentences or less; I, on the other hand,...(contd. p. 94)
Cheers
Elroy
3/08/2007 6:36 PM
Hawkeye® said...
Elroy,
You are a "troll" because... well, let's use the definition you provided and see how much of it applies to you...
A troll is ‘a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum [check] and intentionally tries to cause disruption [check], often in the form of posting messages [check] that are inflammatory [check], insulting [check], incorrect [check], inaccurate [check], absurd [check], or off-topic’ and will ‘often contribute no useful information to the thread [check], but instead make argumentative posts [check] in an attempt to discredit another person [check], more often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation [check], with the intent of provoking a reaction from others [check].’
I convict you out of your own mouth...
you, however, have arguably unlimited space and an audience, if the comment section is anything to go by, of approximately six, so my chances of appearing in print are greater.
You have entered an established community with the intent of "being seen".
Well, how about it? Ready to fight fair?
Your intent is to cause disruption.
I trust Beerme’s judgment is not clouded by an overly exuberant sampling of his product.
You make inflammatory statements designed to provoke a reaction.
If the term for debating one’s ideological opposite is political intercourse, then the term for blathering on with a bunch of like-minded sycophants is, well, let’s say the Catholics warn it will send you blind.
You make insulting statements.
between half and three-quarters of a million Iraqis have died since the current debacle started, which means that Saddam’s average annual death toll, 115,000 per, is currently being exceeded in post-Saddam Iraq with a figure of 163,000.
You make incorrect statements.
as far as Saddam was concerned, the Kurds were not ‘his own people’.
You make inaccurate and misleading statements.
however, I know it’s hard for you when I land such knockout blows.
You make absurd statements.
I herby self-censor my comments for being excessively long-winded, self-serving, patronizing, impudent, Communistic, trollist, for using valuable bandwidth, offending the sensibilities (and occasionally the digestion) of other "Viewers", for leading to excessive wear on scroll wheels, possibly causing cause drowsiness while operating machinery, generally trashing the appearance of the Comment section and attempting to argue against every single sentence or word of a posting (or previous comment) for fear my contribution will be considered a grievous violation of this new policy and punishable by vaporization into the cyber ether.
You make statements that contribute no useful information to the thread.
I prefer to argue with people I disagree with.
You are argumentative.
I suggest you broaden your reading list.
You attempt to discredit others.
I keep posting my reply because rules, my friend, are meant to be broken, especially arbitrary ones inflicted by petty dictators like you are fast becoming.
You prefer to disobey rules and are therefore subversive and/or anarchist. You also have no qualms about employing ad hominem attacks.
Yes, it is your blog. A little power is a dangerous thing, no?
You are needlessly sarcastic and sardonic.
And so it goes. Karl Rove has turned out to be quite a fan of post-modern philosophy, helping the GOP take the concept that ‘reality is relative’ to new levels. Remember this classic from the ‘unnamed’ White House aide when he told NYT journalist Ron Suskind that people like him were
‘in what we call the reality-based community... [people who] believe that solutions emerge from [the] judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’
You make statements that are irrelevant to the point of the conversation.
QED. You are a TROLL.
Cheers
3/10/2007 6:35 PM
Elroy said...
Au contraire!
'You have entered an established community with the intent of "being seen".’
What would be the point otherwise? Who enters an established community with the intent of hiding out? You’re just being silly now.
'Your intent is to cause disruption.’
My intent is to encourage debate. On the occasion you mention, I was reminding you of your offer of an invitation to discuss the issues in a full and frank manner and, more specifically, I was asking you not to accuse me of a myriad of crimes and subsequently deny me the right of reply. How is that ‘disruptive’?
You make inflammatory statements designed to provoke a reaction.’
Hmmm. So it’s the left that has no sense of humor, huh? You’re the one that raised Beerme’s relationship with fermented yeast beverages, not me. However, if I reference it in an obviously light-hearted manner I am chastised. You’re grasping at straws.
'You make insulting statements.’
What bothers you here? The word 'sycophants? Let’s check the book. Princeton defines it as ‘a person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage.’ Maybe ‘sycophant’ was misplaced, and if it caused any offence I unreservedly apologize, however I don’t find ‘despicable’, ‘manipulated dummy’ and ‘warped lamestream media tool’ too complementary either; I trust you will crack down on those that have insulted me equally.
Similarly, if you found my comment a little, um, off colour, for that I also apolgise, although you must admit it was out of character.
'You make incorrect statements.'
I try very hard not to, and I stand by my figure on Iraq. If you want to dispute them fine, but just saying they are ‘incorrect’ is not exactly substantive. If you can prove they are incorrect then I will admit it. Until then…
You make inaccurate and misleading statements.’
Again, I try not to, and my statement regard is neither inaccurate nor misleading. In what way do you think it is?
The Kurds are not Iraqi, or for that matter Turkish, Iranian or Syrian, three countries where they also have disputed territory – they are Kurds, and identify as such. The Turks have had a crack at gassing them too, as Kurd separatists are active in Turkey too. The Kurds want their own nation state. They are not Arabs – they are only ‘Iraqi’ by dint of the Balfour declaration and the oil in Kirkuk.
'You make absurd statements.'
Please forgive me the odd rhetorical flourish, but I base this claim on your many failures to reply to my posts. You’ve got to be in it to win it!
'You make statements that contribute no useful information to the thread.'
I was being ironic in order to make a point. I’m sorry if that was not entirely clear.
You are argumentative.
I prefer to debate with people I disagree with, which makes me debatative.
'You attempt to discredit others.'
How does suggesting you broaden your reading list discredit you? Seriously, I suggest you try Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, or Rogue State by William Blum for instance. It’s only a suggestion. And if you have read the above tomes, good for you! I’d be interested in hearing your opinion them. And I’ll read, what, Culture Warrior? Godless? If I have to I will. See? For you I will broaden MY reading list.
'You prefer to disobey rules and are therefore subversive and/or anarchist.'
I don't 'prefer' to do anything other than satisfy myself that rules made that effect my life have some sort of validity. I try to think for myself. I do not submit to rules merely becasue they are rules per se. 'Just becasue' might work on three-year-olds, but not me.
Does that make me a subversive Anarchist? Obviously. Do I want to subvert the dominant paradigm? Yup. I was taught to question everything and so I do. If the answers stack up, all well and good. If they don’t, well, I question more. What’s wrong with that?
'You also have no qualms about employing ad hominem attacks'.
I was merely saying that dictators inflict arbitrary rules, and as I consider your rule to be arbitrary – it can be, and is, applied by you discriminately; you hold me to a different standard than that of those you agree with – I therefore contend that you could run the risk of being accused of being, in that sense, a petty dictator.
This is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be
‘You're nothing but a warped lame stream media tool. You're the kind of person who can read the ingredients off a bubblegum wrapper and then think he's found the answer to the mysteries of the universe. Not a single original thought in all your wretched bloviations at this site. You're like a dog returning to his own vomit. While good men and women are dying on foreign battlefields in the cause of liberty, how do you keep from slitting your wrists when you look at yourself in a mirror in the morning you pathetic and worthless troll?’ [An attack made on Elroy by 'Hankmiester' in a prevvious thread]
However, I did not notice Hankmiester being chastised over these comments to me. I wonder why that is?
'You are needlessly sarcastic and sardonic.'
I’m sorry, I thought that was acceptable. Recognize these words? ‘Which reminds me. If you're such a towering intellect, why haven't I seen any of your scholarly articles in the fine publications I listed above?’ I’ll say it again: your rules are arbitrary.
'You make statements that are irrelevant to the point of the conversation.’
This example you quote is not irrelevant – it goes to nature of the WH’s attitude to truth. And in a when a country is war (remember, Australia is a member of the Coalition of the Willing too – one of last, as it happens) truth is important. It is often said that truth is the first casualty of war, but I for one do not think we should let it go down without a fight.
Maybe you chose some bad examples for why you think I am a troll. If so, feel free to try again. In my understanding, a troll is fundamentally a troublemaker and not interested in legitimate debate. That is not me.
Cheers
Elroy
3/12/2007 11:18 PM
That's it so far, kids. The ball is now firmly in Hawkeye®'s court...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment