Re: Too much to swallow

[Guest guest]

>

> renaissanzelady wrote: " ... <snip> ... in a functional family, one

> person may need to be 'carried' by others for a while, then things

> change and that person might help 'carry' someone else, whereas in

> certain dysfunctional families, the same person needs to be 'carried'

> all the time ... <snip> ... "

>

> That is correct. That being said, oftentimes it is an extremely small

> core of individuals who carry the larger number of members in the FAM

> forums and this is what causes to consider closing down said

> forums.

A a lurker, usually, I'll speak up.

There's two things that I see by observation:

1) The people who lurk then speak up only once in a while are doing

exactly just what I do and that's just " listening " to the

conversation. Some of them are likely too shy to stand up and

" talk " . Some of them think that they're not important enough or

well spoken enough to be involved in the conversation. Some don't

have anything to add so they don't speak. There's a great many good

and bad reasons for " just listening " .

2) Some of the other members come across a little strong. That's not

a bad thing and in this particular group it's to be expected. What

_is_ a bad thing is that sometimes the Moderator comes across a

little strong. (Sorry ! It's just what I've observed!)

When members come across too strong other members have some choices.

They can leave. They can confront the other person. They can choose

not to read the other person's posts. But when the Moderator comes

across too strong they are put into what is effectively a fight or

flight situation. The only choices are confront the person who could

bounce them or leave on their own.

Or choose not to speak.

- this is just information I've observed in the short time

I've been here and I apologize if I've hit any of your buttons.

Shoot me an e-mail off-list and I can put you in touch with a couple

of guys that have been running mailing lists for years longer than

either of us has been on the internet. They've definitely been there

and have the t-shirt to prove it. I _know_ they can help.

--

Mike

In the end the journey only matters if you've helped someone along

the way.

[Guest guest]

Mike Hebel wrote: " ... <snip> ... [] Shoot me an e-mail off-

list ... <snip> ... "

OK, maybe it's sleep deprivation kicking in here but I'm thinking to

myself, " OK, Mike is apologize for 'maybe' hitting a few buttons (which

I know he hasn't but this is Mike's post not mine) and then he leaves

himself open to being shot. Interesting choice of words. LOL! "

Sorry Mike, I just couldn't let the irony go by. :-D

I think it's time to have a midday nap after three days of hospital

excitement.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In FAMSecretSociety , Mike Hebel wrote:

"When members come across too strong other members have some choices. They can leave. They can confront the other person. They can choose not to read the other person's posts. But when the Moderator comes across too strong they are put into what is effectively a fight or flight situation. The only choices are confront the person who could bounce them or leave on their own.

"Or choose not to speak."

" - this is just information I've observed in the short timeI've been here and I apologize if I've hit any of your buttons.Shoot me an e-mail off-list and I can put you in touch with a couple of guys that have been running mailing lists for years longer than either of us has been on the internet. They've definitely been there and have the t-shirt to prove it. I _know_ they can help."

There's no need. The width and breadth of my internet activity goes well beyond this forum, and I have a network of individuals that keep me informed about what's happening in the online world. Sometimes you will see me spar with certain people for no obvious reason, but there is ALWAYS a reason, and it seldom has anything to do with that person not agreeing with me.

1) Sometimes it is a tired arguement that has been going on for years in which my view was assaulted and hounded and hounded and assaulted, and despite my attempts and eventual insistence that we let the topic go, here comes the member with the axe freshly ground.

2) FAM has additional forums that just the three that are publically posted (Secret Society, Secret Shield, and Family Forum) and there are more than the additional two that are sometimes advertised in this forum (Gentlement's Guild, Ladies' Lodge).

Those additional forums are invitation only forums for long standing members with good behavior in these more public forums.

Often times the members of those invitation only forums are hounding me to throw out those people whom they believe to be trolls, or else to shut them up.

That puts me in a difficult position, because I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should be given a chance. But paradoxically, if their presence is annoying the core membership, then they ought to be gotten rid of.

Thus you will see my manner become more abrupt as the consesus builds to either shut up the annoying member or ban them.

3) Sometimes I have been written to by a member who is particularly offended by another member and they request than I moderate or ban the other member, and so again, I get anxious.

4) I keep in contact with people who manage most of the major and minor online forums, and we have a network in which we inform each other of know trolls and who has been banned from where and for what reason.

I do believe people should be given a fresh start and a new chance, but having been provided with information about them "through the grapevine" when I see them show up here and begin to engage members in the same way they have engaged others on other boards, it raises a red flag and causes me to try to suppress them before things get out of hand.

5) I have seen members argue a point here and garner widespread support for their views knowing full well that they maintain the opposite viewpoint on some other board.

That irks me.

6) There are also trolls that are deliberately set to sabotage the success of other boards -which I think is foolish and immature. But when they openly state on their own message board "Hey, let's go over to FAM and stir 'em up" and then they appear here under one of their user names, you can bet I respond accordingly.

Basically, in many respects, some of the members here have, from time to time, been had. The reason being because some people have argued for or against a certain issue for the sole purpose of stirring things up.

Let's provide an example of that. We had a member here very recently who claimed to have ten record albums on the net but, due to an injury, could no longer compose. Yet except for a few songs, these albums are absent from all online music stores, from all free hosting venues, and from all forums and online communities where music composers and band members hang out.

The person supposedly quit because he thought this forum was too political, but guess what? If you read the posts, Strict and Raven basically were calling him out on his supposed bluff.

There is a member among us -a female, who once ran her own message board. A very BIG message board. She has informed me that another female member among us was banned from that board for trolling. A third female member among us has requested that this troll be thrown off OUR board. I have had cause and reason to in the past, but I am waiting for the right time to do it so the board members see I have just cause.

At present, it may seem that I am a big bad administrator because my opinions seem to be "strong" when dealing with her, but I am well justified as the support I have received in the invitation only forums and through private e-mails has been immense.

Another area where I will not admit guilt is in the area of politics. Having worked for a consulting firm for non-for-profits, we had access to all the most recent demographics on all political parties and their constituents in the US. It was necessary for us to have these statistics because it assisted us in appealing to them when constructing fund-rasising programs for the non-profits which hired us.

Demographically speaking, of the three substantive political parties in the US (Democrat, Republican, and Green), Democrats are the least educated, least likely to hold jobs for long periods of time -unless they are members of a union which keep them from being fired- have lower incomes that Republicans and Green party candidates, manage money poorly, have a poor sense of home economics, finance, finance agreements, have more debt, are more likely to have arrest records, are more likely to have engaged in prostitution or employed prostitutes, are more likely to have gambled and have gambling problems, are heavier drinkers and have more drinking problems, are more likely to have used illegal drugs and are more likely to support the legalization of illegal drugs, are likely to have more children out of wedlock, are likely to have had more divorces, are more likely to have debt and a higher debt than Republicans or Green party members, are more likely to read pornography and support keeping it legal, are more likely to buy on installment plans rather than pay cash, are more likely to eat junk food, are more likely to drink soda pop instead of milk, are more likely to get sick, are more likely to get cancer, are more likely to apply for government benefits, are more likely to vote for those who will give them government benefits, are less likely to pay their taxes, are more likely to have children who will become pregnant teens, are less likely to use birth control, are more likely have unwanted pregnancies, are more likely to support abortion on demand, are more likely to vote into office people who support abortion rights, are less likely to give to the needy, are more likely to give to Planned Parenthood, etc., etc., etc.

In short, my firm had access to just about every bit of data you'd ever want to know about individuals and segments of society as a whole. Everyone in the firm from the founder and chair to an administrative assistant had access to all sorts of data collection warehouses. You could give a person a name and they could find their address, telephone number, cell phone number, social security number, police report, credit history, political leanings, criminal background check, employment history, names of relatives and all the information mentioned above on THEM, names of spouses and ex-spouses, and court proceedings regarding those divorces. We could find out if they were on boards of directors, school records. Just about anything you want.

There are database warehouses that are paid to collect this information on everyone from the average Jane or Doe up to the most famous people in the world, and they compile the data on all of them. If you have P.O. Box or a mailing address, you are in this database and your entire life has been recorded thus far and will be recorded until the day you die. Chances are they know your time and place of birth and the location of your headstone at your cemetary will be recorded.

A competing firm helped Planned Parenthood use the information on Democrats mentioned above and below to create an ad campaign to increase donations to their "cause" with the "holiday gift certificates" to Planned Parenthood being the result. The result is a smashing success! Contributions are up to heights never before seen.

In essence, the message they are sending is:

Merry Christmas! Here's a gift certificate so you can abort your kid! And remember the peace and love of Christ as the vacuum sucks your dismembered child out of your womb!

And Democrats, who constitute the majority of their clientelle, love this message.

Considering that the majority of the voters in this country are Democrat, and considering that demographically they are easily the most vile portion of the population as shown by actuarial data, I think I am justified in holding my opinion. It's not my fault if these people do not like how they look when examined under a microscope.

The Democratic party itself is supported by some of the most vile people in our country. Here's a site my firm uses to see people's political leanings...

There are 46 pages of history of Planned Parenthood employees making monetary contributions exclusively to Democratic Candidates. That's over 460 records. Who are they funding? Obama, Clinton, Kerry and all Democratic Senators.

It's because they are Democrats and they have studied other Democrats and know what Democrats want, how they think, and why they think the way they do. So they support other Democrats to keep the knoves cutting.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/advanced.asp?searchtype=contributors & cycle1=08 & lname= & fname= & work=planned+parenthood & occup= & zipcodes= & fdate= & tdate= & state= & cycle2=08 & cmtetype= & cmtename= & cmteorg= & igc= & cmteparty= & cycle3=08 & cndoffice= & cndtype= & cndlname= & cndfname= & cndstate= & cndparty= & orderby=

If you were able to look up all the pornographers, they send their money to Democratic candidates because they know Democrats want to keep the pornography flowing. I have listed two pages of Playboy employees who contribute to Democrats, but there are actually seven pages to view.

Heffner has provided money to many of the people in Obama's cabinet.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?type=io & cycle=08 & criteria=playboy

Bartell, CHICAGO, IL 60640

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Video Edi

$208

OBAMA FOR AMERICA - DEMOCRAT

G

09/01/2008

Djerf, Larry A. Mr.CHICAGO, IL 60611

Playboy Enterprises/Marketing

$2,000

NACS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

P

11/20/2007

Djerf, Larry A. Mr.CHICAGO, IL 60611

Playboy Enterprises/Marketing

$365

NACS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

P

01/08/2007

Hefner, WilliaCHICAGO, IL 60611

Playboy/CEO

$500

MELISSA BEAN FOR CONGRESS - DEMOCRAT

G

04/29/2008

HEFNER, CHRISTIECHICAGO, IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES INC./CHAIRMAN &

$250

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE - DEMOCRAT

P

08/31/2007

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises Inc./Chairman &

$500

PINGREE FOR CONGRESS - DEMOCRAT

P

06/29/2007

HEFNER, CHRISTIECHICAGO, IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC./CHAIRMAN

$1,000

MCCASKILL FOR MISSOURI 2012 - DEMOCRAT

P

06/04/2008

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$500

ACTBLUE

P

05/15/2008

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$500

CITIZENS FOR CALLAHAN - DEMOCRAT

G

05/15/2008

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$250

SHULMAN FOR CONGRESS - DEMOCRAT

P

01/07/2008

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$1,000

ACTBLUE

P

12/13/2007

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$1,000

HALVORSON FOR CONGRESS - DEMOCRAT

P

12/13/2007

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$1,000

DAN SEALS FOR CONGRESS - DEMOCRAT

P

11/30/2007

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises, Inc./Chairman

$2,300

OBAMA FOR AMERICA - DEMOCRAT

P

02/28/2007

HEFNER, CHRISTIECHICAGO, IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC./CHAIRMAN/

$300

FRIENDS OF DICK DURBIN COMMITTEE - DEMOCRAT

G

10/06/2008

HEFNER, CHRISTIECHICAGO, IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC./CHAIRMAN/

$1,000

FRIENDS OF DICK DURBIN COMMITTEE - DEMOCRAT

G

04/25/2008

HEFNER, CHRISTIECHICAGO, IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC./CHAIRMAN/

$1,000

FRIENDS OF DICK DURBIN COMMITTEE - DEMOCRAT

G

03/06/2007

HEFNER, CHRISTIECHICAGO, IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES/CEO

$1,300

AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - DEMOCRAT FARM LABOR

P

05/21/2008

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises/CEO

$500

COMMITTE TO RE-ELECT ED TOWNS - DEMOCRAT

P

10/29/2007

Hefner, ChristieCHICAGO, IL 60657

Playboy Enterprises/CEO

$500

A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR DAVE OBEY - DEMOCRAT

P

04/09/2007

Result Page:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next>

Name/Location

Employer/Occupation

$ Amount Contributed

Contributed To

Primary/General

Date

Rofe, ElanNEW YORK, NY 10120

Hustler Lingerie/President

$500

KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT 2008 - DEMOCRAT

Regardless, I generally do not say anything about my political views until such obviously gross examples pop up of voters's decisions gone bad, such as in the case of the Illinois State Government.

As I mentioned in another forum:

I did not trust our governor, and the Aspies I knew did not trust him, and so we voted against him in both elections. But the people loved him and so he was voted into office twice, with the Democratic Congress supporting him tooth and nail in each election.

But now he has a 7% approval rating among voters and the Democratic Congress is trying to impeach him.

Well, the Congress in my opinion ought to be impeached as well and I wish the voters who voted for him could be impeached too. The governor is merely a figurehead with limited power. It's the voters who put him in that figurehead position and the Congress that gave him all the power he has.

It is impossible for a man to hold a position of governor without his aides and staff and those who work in close proximity with him to know there was corruption going on. Chances are most of those in Congress knew what he was doing, and they turned a blind eye toward him as long as he did not get caught.

But now that he has been caught, all of these people have turned their backs on him, claimed they hated him from the beginning, and are giving all the facts they can to federal investigators.

It's purely a social motivation. As long as Congress people and voters thought the governor was going to do something for him, they didn't give a darn how corrupt he was, but now that they stand to look like fools in the wake of a federal investigation which is trotting out not just the governor but everyone closely associated with his greasy deals, people are forming a new coalition against him.

In a few succinct words: United they stand. Divided they fall, even though a lot of those people who are standing united against the governor are as corrupt as he is.

The whole "United we stand. Divided we fall" credo is a social construct which has no basis in logic. It's error is this: If one person is right and everyone else is wrong, all those who are wrong will oust the right one and then fall into an abyss.

These days, I cannot help but feel I ought to have a voice, and it feels good to say "I told you so" after being made to shut up by so many Democrats who thought they were right in voting Blagoyjovich into office.

I think the main problem I encounter sometimes is that people do not like to be PROVEN wrong, and so they persist with foolish arguments even though in some cases the ONLY facts which exist in the sunject at hand prove them wrong and me right.

It does bother me and I tend sometimes to argue too much.

To address one of your other issues:

-I have banned very few members from this forum. Sometimes the members ASK me to ban someone and I let them stay.

-I HAVE done one mass-purge though, and that had to do with a flap between message board administrators during the first few months of this forum. I think at the time, people thought I was nuts for doing it, but they found out soon afterwards that I was right.

Additionally, I will periodically remove (not ban, but remove) members from the list if the e-mails show up as "bouncing" in my management controls AND my attempts to get them to reactivate their account fails AND if they have never particpated.

Removal means that these members are free to rejoin the forums at any time. Banning means they are incapable of even reapplying for admission. Over the years I have probably removed 100 members. My feeling is they have abandoned the forum, I will release them from it. If they were lurking and not participating, well, it has been expressed to me by some that they would prefer not to have their private lives viewed as if it were some TV show, even if this IS a public forum.

In fact, that was why I set up the invitation only forums. There are discussions that go on there which are much more personal than the ones that go on here, and the reason is because THERE, there are no lurkers, and everyone trusts each other a lot more.

My appeal to get people to come out of lurkdom in THIS forum is to reduce the feelings of anxiety that some members in the invitation only forum have from time to time expressed about feeling like exhibitionists here among so many voyeurs.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" But when the Moderator comes across too strong they are put into

what is effectively a fight or flight situation. "

I think this is quite difficult Mike, a difficult balance. If the

Moderators, or Tom sit back and let things get out of hand then we

are criticized for such, but conversely if Tom or one of the other

moderators acts swiftly to try and avoid too much disruption this is

perhaps seen as being too strong? How to strike the balance exactly I

imagine is not easy - also probably no way to please all of the

people all of the time scenario.

" ... <snip> ... in a functional family,

one

> > person may need to be 'carried' by others for a while, then things

> > change and that person might help 'carry' someone else, whereas in

> > certain dysfunctional families, the same person needs to

be 'carried'

> > all the time ... <snip> ... "

> >

> > That is correct. That being said, oftentimes it is an extremely

small

> > core of individuals who carry the larger number of members in the

FAM

> > forums and this is what causes to consider closing down

said

> > forums.

>

> A a lurker, usually, I'll speak up.

>

> There's two things that I see by observation:

>

> 1) The people who lurk then speak up only once in a while are

doing

> exactly just what I do and that's just " listening " to the

> conversation. Some of them are likely too shy to stand up and

> " talk " . Some of them think that they're not important enough or

> well spoken enough to be involved in the conversation. Some don't

> have anything to add so they don't speak. There's a great many

good

> and bad reasons for " just listening " .

>

> 2) Some of the other members come across a little strong. That's

not

> a bad thing and in this particular group it's to be expected.

What

> _is_ a bad thing is that sometimes the Moderator comes across a

> little strong. (Sorry ! It's just what I've observed!)

>

> When members come across too strong other members have some

choices.

> They can leave. They can confront the other person. They can

choose

> not to read the other person's posts. But when the Moderator

comes

> across too strong they are put into what is effectively a fight or

> flight situation. The only choices are confront the person who

could

> bounce them or leave on their own.

>

> Or choose not to speak.

>

> - this is just information I've observed in the short time

> I've been here and I apologize if I've hit any of your buttons.

> Shoot me an e-mail off-list and I can put you in touch with a

couple

> of guys that have been running mailing lists for years longer than

> either of us has been on the internet. They've definitely been

there

> and have the t-shirt to prove it. I _know_ they can help.

> --

> Mike

>

>

> In the end the journey only matters if you've helped someone along

> the way.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> " Yes. and often it takes the form of saying they don't understand. "

>

> Okay, what if someone genuinely did not undertstand, would it be

> therefore wrong for them to say they don't understand?

To be sure that they are not playing the " don't understand " trick,

and to show they are willing to listen, it would be best for them to

ask for clarification. They could say why they feel unclear, and

pinpoint any points in what the other person has said, where they

don't see a clarity of meaning.

Folks should be accountable to do this towards each other, it

ensures that everything said gets a hearing, and that you are never

gagged from having a thing heard and listened to on grounds that it

is not understood.

When not understanding is psychologically deliberate and linked to

nto wanting to hear, there are either of 2 obvious giveaways.

1. The person saying they don't understand, refuses to listen. They

use their not understanding as a reason for not being willing to

continue the dialogue at all, for turning impatient. They won't try

to understand clarifications. No no, I don't understand this. Shut

up, because I don't understand. Rubbish, because I don't understand.

or,

2. The person tells you to " keep it simple " . But the level of

simplicity they demand wipes out half the content of what you want

to say. No no, that's too deep for me, I don't understand, so I

don't have to respond to it. Why don't you just say ...? they pick

out something that's not what you are actually saying at all.

> Do you mean someone

> pretending that they don't understand when they actually do?

That's right, I have seen that too often.

Sometimes folks will say they don't understand a question, then when

you ask how that can be, they answer it properly after all. Twice in

election meetings, I have seen one candidate say they didn't

understand a question that all the others answered, when they could

all speak English equally well.

In dealing with officials, who want to commit the evil of

noncommittality and not give the answer I am seeking to a problem,

I often write about why the nature of the issue gives them an

automatic duty to give a definite committal answer. What leverage

have I unless I do that? I have found sometimes, especially when

concerning issues of law around housebuying, that they will claim

not to understand whichever parts of my argument concern their duty

to take a definite position. The I find it very effective to

challenge them to go through it word by word and pinpoint where

there is any unclarity and where their problems are. Never once have

I know any player of the " don't understand " trick to be willing to

do this. The challenge always forces them to back off and start

understanding rather better!

[Guest guest]

" 2. The person tells you to " keep it simple " . But the level of

simplicity they demand wipes out half the content of what you want

to say. No no, that's too deep for me, I don't understand, so I

don't have to respond to it. Why don't you just say ...? they pick

out something . "

I have seen very intelligent people " play dumb " when they don't agree

with something I have said. I have argued with people who subscribe to

the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Wall Street

Journal and seen them suddenly become incapable of understanding text

that was written on a sixth grade level when it was laid before them.

I have argued with college professors about their very own area of

teaching and suddenly core principles of their own area that would be

taught to all students as part of their general education " 100 " level

graduation requirements are ones they never heard of. I can name

graduate students who have never heard of Maslow, or B.F.

Skinner...when you are arguing about self-actualization and positive

reinforcement with them. Yet I have heard them talking enthusiastically

about these same people when others agree with their erroneous

viewpoints.

Perhaps Freud's idea of the id, the ego, and the super-ego are not so

farfetched because sometimes people will endanger their reputations to

preserve their own perception of themselves. It is quite puzzling.

Amdministrator

[Guest guest]

On Dec 20, 2008, at 2:08 AM 12/20/08, environmental1st2003 wrote:

> There's no need. The width and breadth of my internet activity goes

> well beyond this forum, and I have a network of individuals that

> keep me informed about what's happening in the online world.

>

Fair enough but that doesn't mean you can't learn more. It was just

an offer after all. There's also a big difference between running a

mailing list for over a decade (one of the people I was going to

refer you to) and being informed about what's going on in other

online venues.

> Sometimes you will see me spar with certain people for no obvious

> reason, but there is ALWAYS a reason, and it seldom has anything to

> do with that person not agreeing with me.

>

Hmm...okay...

> 1) Sometimes it is a tired arguement that has been going on for

> years in which my view was assaulted and hounded and hounded and

> assaulted, and despite my attempts and eventual insistence that we

> let the topic go, here comes the member with the axe freshly ground.

>

" assaulted and hounded " - those words alone mean that you still have

a lot of emotion attached to those arguments. That's a button. And

if you let people trigger it you'll always be at the mercy of it. As

an admin you can't do that. It's part and parcel of holding the

responsibility of administrating any discussion forum.

And when you react that way the message you're sending is " Your

opinion is not wanted here and neither are you. " . It may not seem

like that's how you're coming across but it is what people perceive.

The best response in my opinion would be " That topic has been done to

death here please read the archives before posting again. " If they

keep bringing it up then treat them as a troll.

> 2) FAM has additional forums that just the three that are

> publically posted (Secret Society, Secret Shield, and Family Forum)

> and there are more than the additional two that are sometimes

> advertised in this forum (Gentlement's Guild, Ladies' Lodge).

>

> Those additional forums are invitation only forums for long

> standing members with good behavior in these more public forums.

>

> Often times the members of those invitation only forums are

> hounding me to throw out those people whom they believe to be

> trolls, or else to shut them up.

>

Trolls are always difficult. If a person is truly a troll then

ignoring them is the best medicine. Since trolls feed on attention

what happens is either they " explode " and show their true face to the

other members OR they get bored and go away. If the person does

neither then they are likely not a troll.

> That puts me in a difficult position, because I believe that

> everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should be given

> a chance.

>

By your own words above you do not believe that statement.

Seriously. Please look at the words in point number one you just

gave me.

> 3) Sometimes I have been written to by a member who is particularly

> offended by another member and they request than I moderate or ban

> the other member, and so again, I get anxious.

>

You're right to be anxious because it's a tough call.

I'm of the opinion that unless it's open abuse doing _anything_ in

those cases is favoritism and when you manage a group you can't do

that. To keep the list/group/whatever " healthy " you _have_ to keep

things pretty objective on your end. You might be able to get away

with it in a smaller list but not in one this size.

> 4) I keep in contact with people who manage most of the major and

> minor online forums, and we have a network in which we inform each

> other of know trolls and who has been banned from where and for

> what reason.

>

That's fine as well and I will not dispute that. My offer was an

offer of a source of _experience_ in long-term e-mail list running

NOT a source of " troll data " .

> I do believe people should be given a fresh start and a new chance,

> but having been provided with information about them " through the

> grapevine " when I see them show up here and begin to engage members

> in the same way they have engaged others on other boards, it raises

> a red flag and causes me to try to suppress them before things get

> out of hand.

>

Again - no argument there. But free speech comes with the cost of

having speech that you personally may find unacceptable. You can't

have an " open topic forum " and still have directed speech. It is

just not possible. What you end up with is a stagnant space that

people either leave or only speak about what the admin wants to hear

about.

> 5) I have seen members argue a point here and garner widespread

> support for their views knowing full well that they maintain the

> opposite viewpoint on some other board.

>

> That irks me.

>

And it should and those people are shown to be trolls or idiots right

off the bat. If ti bothers you that much then point out that you

know they are from forum X and hold view Y and have just contradicted

themselves. They will either leave or cause enough fuss to be thrown

out. Either way in the end it's their choice.

Besides - they might be able to explain the contradiction to your

satisfaction. You never know...

> 6) There are also trolls that are deliberately set to sabotage the

> success of other boards -which I think is foolish and immature. But

> when they openly state on their own message board " Hey, let's go

> over to FAM and stir 'em up " and then they appear here under one of

> their user names, you can bet I respond accordingly.

>

That's a known troll attack and you already _know_ they're trolls

going in. If you know it's the same username or the e-mail address

is similar to something they've got now or used in the past then why

would you even let them register? With connections to other forum

admins you can almost certainly delay the registration long enough to

confirm your suspicions with the other admins.

> Basically, in many respects, some of the members here have, from

> time to time, been had. The reason being because some people have

> argued for or against a certain issue for the sole purpose of

> stirring things up.

>

It happens in _all_ forums not just this one.

> Let's provide an example of that. We had a member here very

> recently who claimed to have ten record albums on the net but, due

> to an injury, could no longer compose. Yet except for a few songs,

> these albums are absent from all online music stores, from all free

> hosting venues, and from all forums and online communities where

> music composers and band members hang out.

>

> The person supposedly quit because he thought this forum was too

> political, but guess what? If you read the posts, Strict and Raven

> basically were calling him out on his supposed bluff.

>

Fair enough. See the note about idiots and trolls above.

> There is a member among us -a female, who once ran her own message

> board. A very BIG message board. She has informed me that another

> female member among us was banned from that board for trolling. A

> third female member among us has requested that this troll be

> thrown off OUR board. I have had cause and reason to in the past,

> but I am waiting for the right time to do it so the board members

> see I have just cause.

>

*nod* Best to avoid the guilt by association problem or the guilt by

third-party conviction problem.

> At present, it may seem that I am a big bad administrator because

> my opinions seem to be " strong " when dealing with her, but I am

> well justified as the support I have received in the invitation

> only forums and through private e-mails has been immense.

>

Again - fine.

> Another area where I will not admit guilt is in the area of

> politics. Having worked for a consulting firm for non-for-profits,

> we had access to all the most recent demographics on all political

> parties and their constituents in the US. It was necessary for us

> to have these statistics because it assisted us in appealing to

> them when constructing fund-rasising programs for the non-profits

> which hired us.

>

>

*SNIPPING! large amount of political data*

> It does bother me and I tend sometimes to argue too much.

>

. In all seriousness unless you're going to disallow politics

on this board you _CAN'T_ bash another political view even if you

have a ton of data. Not if you want _active_ discussion. What

you're doing when you do that is _squashing_ any development on that

topic. If you openly state that beforehand then that's okay but not

telling people up front that certain topics are verboten gives the

impression that it's okay to talk about them and that their opinions

will be respected at the very least.

> To address one of your other issues:

>

> -I have banned very few members from this forum. Sometimes the

> members ASK me to ban someone and I let them stay.

>

> -I HAVE done one mass-purge though, and that had to do with a flap

> between message board administrators during the first few months of

> this forum. I think at the time, people thought I was nuts for

> doing it, but they found out soon afterwards that I was right.

>

> Additionally, I will periodically remove (not ban, but remove)

> members from the list if the e-mails show up as " bouncing " in my

> management controls AND my attempts to get them to reactivate their

> account fails AND if they have never particpated.

>

> Removal means that these members are free to rejoin the forums at

> any time. Banning means they are incapable of even reapplying for

> admission. Over the years I have probably removed 100 members. My

> feeling is they have abandoned the forum, I will release them from

> it. If they were lurking and not participating, well, it has been

> expressed to me by some that they would prefer not to have their

> private lives viewed as if it were some TV show, even if this IS a

> public forum.

>

So what's the problem? Let them lurk. Just because they don't talk

doesn't mean they're not listening. You've stated at least once that

you want to make sure that people have the right info about Autism/AS

but if you're killing off lurker accounts then you're closing off the

chance for them to learn. Some of the brightest people in the world

do not speak often.

About the only reason I can see to drop lurkers on a semi-regular

basis is if you find forum post info showing up in other venues.

Then it's yet another online game of " whack a mole " . (As opposed to

" whack a troll " which is a different game.)

> In fact, that was why I set up the invitation only forums. There

> are discussions that go on there which are much more personal than

> the ones that go on here, and the reason is because THERE, there

> are no lurkers, and everyone trusts each other a lot more.

>

Yes - a group that _already_ knows what they need to know to

participate in those groups. They're likely comfortable talking

there and know their limits.

> My appeal to get people to come out of lurkdom in THIS forum is to

> reduce the feelings of anxiety that some members in the invitation

> only forum have from time to time expressed about feeling like

> exhibitionists here among so many voyeurs.

>

You can't mix the feelings of one forum with another. It doesn't

work that way. Period. That way lies the death of all but the most

private of forums.

I'm sorry for being so blunt but I've seen a number of forums fail

over the years and been present for the " post mortem " afterwards and

running one forum on the requests of another creates the " Mount

Olympus " problem where " Im doing this because the gods dictate so! " .

--

Mike

In the end the journey only matters if you've helped someone along

the way.

[Guest guest]

:--Thank you for explaining detailed background of why you as Moderator may need to take certain actions, and for explaining about the invitation only forums.--The material on Democrats was disturbing - thought provoking. (I am not an American citizen/resident, however my country depends heavily on American trade)- trolls are similair to someone who joins a labour union for the purpose of undermining it.(at this time I am not a union member, however i have been in the past, as were some of my family) (trolls might just want a good discussion BUT they could destroy a forum if the members become tired/discouraged by the trolls' posts)- a suggestion to

lurkers: -- introduce yourselves briefly when you join the forum or after being a member for a couple of weeks, --then periodocally say hi, and / or - make a statement or 2 about something either in the news or what is happening in your life. (as an introvert who doesn't 'do' daily chit-chat in "face time", I kind of shudder at the last suggestion) - Hopefully if more lurkers followed these suggestions, members might have more idea who is 'out there' reading the posts. (caution:

a poster can petend to be any one or anything in the online world) My 2nd intro: I first posted Nov 28, have some charactersitics of Aspergers Syndrome, have not been officially diagnosed. Right now, the weather is unusually cold where I live. My work is quite busy, leading up to Christmas, then it will be less busy.renaissanzelady it has been expressed to me by some that they would prefer not to have their private lives viewed as if it were some TV show, even if this IS a public forum.

My appeal to get people to come out of lurkdom in THIS forum is to reduce the feelings of anxiety that some members in the invitation only forum have from time to time expressed about feeling like exhibitionists here among so many voyeurs.

Administrator

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

[Guest guest]

"There's also a big difference between running a mailing list for over a decade (one of the people I was going to refer you to) and being informed about what's going on in other online venues."

I have been running mailing lists and online forums since the late 1990s. FAM is one of about 14 forums I have run. Currently, I am running 11. 9 of those are Aspie groups. The membership of the biggest forum I ran was something around three thousand.

"assaulted and hounded" - those words alone mean that you still have a lot of emotion attached to those arguments. That's a button. And if you let people trigger it you'll always be at the mercy of it. As an admin you can't do that. It's part and parcel of holding theresponsibility of administrating any discussion forum."

The "assaulted and hounded" argument comes more from the fact that i simply let a topic go and then people follow me around to forum to forum trying to take up the argument again, or deliberately cause trouble in the forums I supervise into I agree with them.

As an admin who has been employed by forum owners, and as one that runs my own, I have run forums many different ways. In some instances, my job was to remain neutral. In others, it was to facilitate discussion. In FAM's case, I am a former member of Aspergia who originally started this forum with the approval of the founder of Aspergia as a "life raft" so that people could go to new Aspergia forums. Those who did not like the knew forums stayed behind, and so these forums have stayed alive.

The result has been me doing what I have always done at Aspergia: Comment and post like any other member. But at the same time, there has to be an element of control. That is why we have Raven, , and as mods in addition to myself.

I find that not all people are pleased with this. has sparred with a few people in his time as has Raven. I have let it persist to a degree until the membership called for the removal of those people and they were indeed banned.

The members who most often post here have given a consensus about what they like in terms of a forum. Those who do not post but lurk have no voice in my opinion simply because they have not "given voice" to their points of view.

And when you react that way the message you're sending is "Your opinion is not wanted here and neither are you.". It may not seem like that's how you're coming across but it is what people perceive.

I am aware of that and to a degree, I do not care if that is how people feel. You see, Aspergia as it was set up had a certain atmosphere that everyone liked and everyone wanted. When the owner of that board switched to the Delphi forum format, it became really popular because of all the bells and whistles. The WrongPlanet forum is a good example of that format.

The problem was, it drew people who liked the bells and whistles but who could no longer engage in intelligent conversation. The owner of Aspergia was forced to close his board down because the trolls were creating more trouble than he could deal with, and the shouting and sparring made the place unpleasant. Having witnessed the same experience in subsequent forums which I had a part in managing, quickly learned the essential mistakes that forum managers make and resolved not to make them in my own forum.

I will admit to an interesting social experiment, incidentally. Strict non-conformist thinks lowly of my for this, but on an old board I was forced to take on an identity as a member to infiltrate a number of trolls, one of whom was alleged to have stolen something of value from another member.

During my time as this secondary user ID, I expressed similar opinions to those I expressed as a mod. Imagine my surprise that the very same people who criticized me as a mod, praised my nom-de-plume for having the very same opinions.

From this I determined that it was not my opinions that people had a problem with, regardless of whether or not they came out in a form of a rant, but the fact that I held authority in that forum.

People do not like it when another person with differring views holds authority over them. It makes them scared. Nevertheless, there are people here of many races, religions, personal lifestyle choices which I do not agree with, etc. But we all do manage to get along. Had you been here from the beginning, you would see how diverse we are, and you would be puzzled about the fact that people with oppositional viewpoints on major issues have not gotten at each other's throats.

It has to do with knowing where the line is and not allowing members to cross it.

Others here are prone to ranting about things I do not agree with, and I let them. I disagree 100% with Strict's view that the automakers ought to be bailed out. I think the people they employ are lazy (judging from my relatives who have worked for them, and the friends I have seen paling around with them who also work the lines) I think the workers produce a shoddy product, I think the automakers run an inefficient operation, etc., etc., etc.

Yet I have never told Strict to shut up, nor moderated him, nor banned him despite the fervency with which I believe his viewpoint is wrong. I happen to enjoy his presence here, and unless he does something like blatantly attacks another member in some demunaizing immoral way, he is always welcome here.

It is that way with other members here.

"The best response in my opinion would be "That topic has been done to death here please read the archives before posting again." If they keep bringing it up then treat them as a troll."

Sounds good on the surface of it, but then

1) You deny them their own right to have a voice, and

2) You deny them the hearing of an oppositional viewpoint.

If someone says something that is offensive (including me) then they NEED to hear how they have offended someone else so as to take into consideration the idea that they may be wrong, or they may be coming across as offensive.

3) You also prevent others from seeing these people for who they are. If I see one of the more familiar internet trolls entering my forums and I shut that person up immediately, most of my members, who are not familiar with that troll, are going to think I am a hard case that is hammering this new member, who at the beginning seems quite fun to have around.

"Trolls are always difficult. If a person is truly a troll thenignoring them is the best medicine. Since trolls feed on attention what happens is either they "explode" and show their true face to the other members OR they get bored and go away. If the person does neither then they are likely not a troll."

I have had very good members quit because I have not attacked trolls quickly enough. Sometimes, with our less verbal members, I have actually been asked to present THEIR opinions to the troll because they are too afraid to confront the troll directly. This has result in personal e-mails to me from still other members asking me why I am sparring with the troll instead of ignoring him or throwing him out.

As you can see, in each case, there is method to my seeming madness. You are not the first person with whom I have had this discussion incidently, and I am having it in the open so other members can see how I manage these forums. I am sure there are some who feel as you do and some who have the same questions which they would like to be answered. If they are reading, now they will have chance.

I said:

"That puts me in a difficult position, because I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should be given a chance."

You replied:

By your own words above you do not believe that statement. Seriously. Please look at the words in point number one you just gave me.

No, I do believe that statement. I give everyone a chance. Even those who have trolled on other boards. They get a chance for a fresh start. But then, if they start antagonizing members, they are history.

"To keep the list/group/whatever "healthy" you _have_ to keep things pretty objective on your end. You might be able to get away with it in a smaller list but not in one this size."

I've managed larger lists and with precisely the objectivity you have described. But remember, THIS list is simply one created by a former member of Aspergia who is keeping up the spirit and the integrity of the old board while still being participating as a member. I have never stated otherwise...until...we had a series of trolls come through and it was advised that I tack on "Administrator" beneath my name so people would know from whence came the authority when I tried to break up an argument.

You can see that and do not use their own labels. Raven has used hers from time to time.

"That's fine as well and I will not dispute that. My offer was an offer of a source of _experience_ in long-term e-mail list running NOT a source of "troll data"."

I know, but chances are I have been managing forums for longer than your friend. The way I run this one comes from the cumulative past experiences.

"Again - no argument there. But free speech comes with the cost of having speech that you personally may find unacceptable. You can't have an "open topic forum" and still have directed speech. It is just not possible. What you end up with is a stagnant space that people either leave or only speak about what the admin wants to hear about."

There are a number of prohibited topics in this forum and those topics are posted on the home pages. (They vary from forum to forum incidentally, so a topic that cannot be discussed here might be able to be discussed in a different FAM forum. Thus free speech is never completely suppressed.) However, this forum is not meant to be "fun." It's meant to be a getaway from the forums where so much nonsense and trolling is going on. Always has been set up for this purpose, although one of the invitation only forums is for fun only.

Point is, the forum is in keeping with its intent. As I have said, I have manged bigger forums, and they grew enormously because they had a different purpose than this one does. Fewer people are of the "cigars and brandy" after the nine course meal type of people than they are of the "let's play a game of tackle football and watch a movie after we have these hotdogs and fries" people. The larger forums thrive because there is something for everyone. This forum does less well in terms of numbers because not everyone is interested in having deep conversations.

"And it should and those people are shown to be trolls or idiots right off the bat. If ti bothers you that much then point out that you know they are from forum X and hold view Y and have just contradicted themselves. They will either leave or cause enough fuss to be thrown out. Either way in the end it's their choice."

But it would mean denying them the opportunity to have a fresh start and speak freely their own opionions. This goes against my point of view and what I believe to be the core ethics of this forum. I moderate them, try to quell them and eventually will ban them, but not until they have demonstrated that their intent is to troll, and not until they have been sufficiently warned first. It's possible that they have changed their opinions or ways, and so I give them the benefit of the doubt. When they prove otherwise, they are history. Sometimes this proof becomes evident when I challenge them. Or only if I challenge them.

"That's a known troll attack and you already _know_ they're trolls going in. If you know it's the same username or the e-mail address is similar to something they've got now or used in the past then why would you even let them register?"

Because I believe in free speech and the right to turn over a new leaf.

Do you know that Maurice and Strict are sworn enemies? Possibly that is an exagerration, but on other forums they constantly argue with one another. I daresay Strict hates Maurice. Sometimes their sparring makes them appear trollish on those other forums where they are allowed to go at it unhindered. Yet both get to post here and freely voice their views provided they obey the rules while doing so.

Knowing their history, I could have said when they originally applied "Eh, I don't want either of them here." I suppose this is a bad example though because I happen to like them both. But I have admitted people that I don't like because I believe in giving people second chances. Usually those people take that second chance and throw it in my face, disappointing me immensely.

"With connections to other forum admins you can almost certainly delay the registration long enough to confirm your suspicions with the other admins."

No delay or confirmation is necessary. We have a list that goes around. The moderators of this forum were given the list before they took up their positions. I have not added to that list recently, but since I and Raven are the ones doing the admitting right now, we make it a point to know who is applying.

". In all seriousness unless you're going to disallow politics on this board you _CAN'T_ bash another political view even if you have a ton of data. Not if you want _active_ discussion. What you're doing when you do that is _squashing_ any development on that topic. If you openly state that beforehand then that's okay but not telling people up front that certain topics are verboten gives the impression that it's okay to talk about them and that their opinions will be respected at the very least."

Good point. Yet take note of this:

No member here has ever been banned because they disagreed with my opinion on something. Even my own mods have sometimes taken me or my decisions to task and they are still mods. If someone decided to argue their point even though I disagree with it, they are free to do so. But they need to realize that if they are going to oppose my opinions, I may elect to counter with mine.

"So what's the problem? Let them lurk. Just because they don't talk doesn't mean they're not listening. You've stated at least once that you want to make sure that people have the right info about Autism/AS but if you're killing off lurker accounts then you're closing off the chance for them to learn. Some of the brightest people in the world do not speak often."

True. But other members have expressed dislike about them being looked at as if by voyeurs. Yes, it's part of this risk you entail by signing up to a public forum, yet that can be reduced by throwing out the folks who never post. "About the only reason I can see to drop lurkers on a semi-regularbasis is if you find forum post info showing up in other venues.Then it's yet another online game of "whack a mole". (As opposed to "whack a troll" which is a different game.)"

The ones that are first out the door are indeed ones who have done what you have mentioned above. But it also pays to get rid of those who seem to not care about what goes on here except in some voyeuristic capacity. If they do care, they will come back.

Additionally, you will notice in one of the pending application messages that if a person is a researcher they are not wanted here. It's because a few were discovered studying us and ourt commentary. They never posted, only took notes for their research. They were foolish enough to talk about it elsewhere, and so I banned them.

Would you like to wake up some day and discovered you were on "Ed TV" or just a subhuman as in "The Island"? I refuse to let members be treated as such here.

I said:

"In fact, that was why I set up the invitation only forums. Thereare discussions that go on there which are much more personal than the ones that go on here, and the reason is because THERE, there are no lurkers, and everyone trusts each other a lot more."

You replied:Yes - a group that _already_ knows what they need to know to participate in those groups. They're likely comfortable talking there and know their limits.

It means they have passed two tests:

They have participated often, and they have not trolled or otherwise caused consternation on the board.

There are members in there whom I personally do not like, or who hold opinions which I am directly opposed to with fervency, but I have invited them in on the basis of them posting to the board and the fact that they have not trolled.

"You can't mix the feelings of one forum with another. It doesn't work that way. Period. That way lies the death of all but the most pivate of forums."

I think you can. If the core membership is of a view that one forum ought to be a certain way, but that forum in actuality can never be that way due to the constitution of the rest of its membership, you can then create a safe haven where those members can hide and retreat and talk privately to avoid the failings of the first forum. "I'm sorry for being so blunt but I've seen a number of forums fail over the years and been present for the "post mortem" afterwards and rnning one forum on the requests of another creates the "Mount Oympus" problem where "Im doing this because the gods dictate so!"

I've seen the same, but I believe I have put enough safeguards in place to prevent the same fate from occurring. Additionally, all my mods do or have moderated other forums and so between us all, we have a lot of experience. They will point me in the right direction if the forums threaten to nose-dive.

Incidentally, your talking up about all this does not in any way lessen my opion of you, but rather enhances it. I appreciate it very much and will take all of it into consideration. The forums do tend to change over time, so perhaps your opinions will provide some influence over their destiny.

Incidentally, check your e-mail. I've just invited you to the inner forums.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

On Dec 20, 2008, at 2:34 PM 12/20/08, environmental1st2003 wrote:

*SNIP! a great many words from both of us*

> I've seen the same, but I believe I have put enough safeguards in

> place to prevent the same fate from occurring. Additionally, all my

> mods do or have moderated other forums and so between us all, we

> have a lot of experience. They will point me in the right direction

> if the forums threaten to nose-dive.

>

Fair enough. You have quite thoroughly explained your position and

I've said my piece so I'll let this drop here. [Otherwise I think

we'll be passing 1200 word posts among other consequences as we both

appear to be " wordy " in some respects. ;-) ]

> Incidentally, your talking up about all this does not in any way

> lessen my opion of you, but rather enhances it. I appreciate it

> very much and will take all of it into consideration. The forums do

> tend to change over time, so perhaps your opinions will provide

> some influence over their destiny.

>

It was never my intent to influence the future of this venue only to

point out something I noticed. No skin off either nose apparently.

> Incidentally, check your e-mail. I've just invited you to the inner

> forums.

>

>

>

It wasn't asked for nor expected but I thank you. :-)

--

Mike

In the end the journey only matters if you've helped someone along

the way.

[Guest guest]

That makes more sense, thanks.

> >

> > " Yes. and often it takes the form of saying they don't

understand. "

> >

> > Okay, what if someone genuinely did not undertstand, would it be

> > therefore wrong for them to say they don't understand?

> To be sure that they are not playing the " don't understand " trick,

> and to show they are willing to listen, it would be best for them

to

> ask for clarification. They could say why they feel unclear, and

> pinpoint any points in what the other person has said, where they

> don't see a clarity of meaning.

>

> Folks should be accountable to do this towards each other, it

> ensures that everything said gets a hearing, and that you are never

> gagged from having a thing heard and listened to on grounds that it

> is not understood.

>

> When not understanding is psychologically deliberate and linked to

> nto wanting to hear, there are either of 2 obvious giveaways.

> 1. The person saying they don't understand, refuses to listen. They

> use their not understanding as a reason for not being willing to

> continue the dialogue at all, for turning impatient. They won't try

> to understand clarifications. No no, I don't understand this. Shut

> up, because I don't understand. Rubbish, because I don't understand.

>

> or,

> 2. The person tells you to " keep it simple " . But the level of

> simplicity they demand wipes out half the content of what you want

> to say. No no, that's too deep for me, I don't understand, so I

> don't have to respond to it. Why don't you just say ...? they pick

> out something that's not what you are actually saying at all.

>

> > Do you mean someone

> > pretending that they don't understand when they actually do?

> That's right, I have seen that too often.

> Sometimes folks will say they don't understand a question, then

when

> you ask how that can be, they answer it properly after all. Twice

in

> election meetings, I have seen one candidate say they didn't

> understand a question that all the others answered, when they could

> all speak English equally well.

>

> In dealing with officials, who want to commit the evil of

> noncommittality and not give the answer I am seeking to a problem,

> I often write about why the nature of the issue gives them an

> automatic duty to give a definite committal answer. What leverage

> have I unless I do that? I have found sometimes, especially when

> concerning issues of law around housebuying, that they will claim

> not to understand whichever parts of my argument concern their duty

> to take a definite position. The I find it very effective to

> challenge them to go through it word by word and pinpoint where

> there is any unclarity and where their problems are. Never once

have

> I know any player of the " don't understand " trick to be willing to

> do this. The challenge always forces them to back off and start

> understanding rather better!

>

[Guest guest]

1. The person saying they don't understand, refuses to listen. They

> use their not understanding as a reason for not being willing to

> continue the dialogue at all, for turning impatient. They won't try

> to understand clarifications. No no, I don't understand this. Shut

> up, because I don't understand. Rubbish, because I don't understand.

I think there is an exception to this. I know from my own experience and working with other autistics that sometimes processing cannot happen. It is experienced almost like running into a mental wall. In these situations, the person may not know what is happening. There is no sense of understanding or not understanding so it appears as ifhe/she is just not trying but it is not an option. It can take a significant length of time to be able to pass this block.

Re: Too much to swallow

That makes more sense, thanks.

> >

> > "Yes. and often it takes the form of saying they don't understand."

> > > > Okay, what if someone genuinely did not undertstand, would it be > > therefore wrong for them to say they don't understand? > To be sure that they are not playing the "don't understand" trick, > and to show they are willing to listen, it would be best for them to > ask for clarification. They could say why they feel unclear, and > pinpoint any points in what the other person has said, where they > don't see a clarity of meaning.

> > Folks should be accountable to do this towards each other, it > ensures that everything said gets a hearing, and that you are never > gagged from having a thing heard and listened to on grounds that it > is not understood.

> > When not understanding is psychologically deliberate and linked to > nto wanting to hear, there are either of 2 obvious giveaways. > 1. The person saying they don't understand, refuses to listen. They > use their not understanding as a reason for not being willing to > continue the dialogue at all, for turning impatient. They won't try > to understand clarifications. No no, I don't understand this. Shut > up, because I don't understand. Rubbish, because I don't understand.

> > or,

> 2. The person tells you to "keep it simple". But the level of > simplicity they demand wipes out half the content of what you want > to say. No no, that's too deep for me, I don't understand, so I > don't have to respond to it. Why don't you just say ...? they pick > out something that's not what you are actually saying at all. > > > Do you mean someone > > pretending that they don't understand when they actually do?

> That's right, I have seen that too often. > Sometimes folks will say they don't understand a question, then when > you ask how that can be, they answer it properly after all. Twice in > election meetings, I have seen one candidate say they didn't > understand a question that all the others answered, when they could > all speak English equally well.

> > In dealing with officials, who want to commit the evil of > noncommittality and not give the answer I am seeking to a problem, > I often write about why the nature of the issue gives them an > automatic duty to give a definite committal answer. What leverage > have I unless I do that? I have found sometimes, especially when > concerning issues of law around housebuying, that they will claim > not to understand whichever parts of my argument concern their duty > to take a definite position. The I find it very effective to > challenge them to go through it word by word and pinpoint where > there is any unclarity and where their problems are. Never once have > I know any player of the "don't understand" trick to be willing to > do this. The challenge always forces them to back off and start > understanding rather better!

>

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

If there is no sense of not understanding, they won't say " don't

understand " , surely?

Anyone especially with ADHD, can have a lapse of attention. I do. But

if my hearing has shut down while someone is speaking, then I need to

admit that fault and ask them to fill in the gap, while I listen. It's

not the fault of the person speaking and it does not make them hard to

understand.

There is no sense of understanding or not understanding so it appears

as ifhe/she is just not trying but it is not an option.??It can take a

significant length?of time to be able to pass this block.

>

[Guest guest]

>

My appeal to get people to come out of lurkdom in THIS forum is to

reduce the feelings of anxiety that some members in the invitation

only forum have from time to time expressed about feeling like

exhibitionists here among so many voyeurs.

Administrator

Wow you need some quiet time I did read the whole thing but

didn't tally up the total contibution from Hef.

I hope you can find some small goodness in humanity. (I feel like

that alot) that there are so many bent on actively or mistakenly

destroying the fabic of reality. That Alien annihilation would be a

service to the cosmos. I think I keep hoping the masses can be

educated bu the scientific minority. (dragged kicking and screaming

into enlightenment) Or they blow themselves up, using other fat,

sick, drug using, playboy reading, porno watching, people to aid them

in blowing up. Heh heh