A Suggestion to Help Minimize Harassment

axocanth: A few weeks ago, another member and ex-moderator (user name: C*****) posted in a public forum here some outrageous accusations, on whose truth he swore, about myself being a child molester living in Thailand. You can see it below, or go to my homepage for more details.

axocanth's Picture

The accusations are entirely untrue. I do not even live in Thailand. Why C***** would not only lie, but lie to such a degree of malevolence, is a matter for speculation, although I would suggest that the reasons are not at all hard to discern. Here I will stick only to the facts, though I will add that this is not the first time he has done this -- last time, if C***** is to be believed, I was involved in rape and not pedophilia.

On reporting the matter to staff, I was advised to block the member in question (which I had already done), and to "grow up". Whether any punitive action was taken against C***** himself, I have no idea. I did not request any -- I assumed he was drunk when he posted and would wake up the next day both sober and horrified. All I do know is that he is still here. There has been no retraction, no apology, no nothing, at least as far as I've seen.

For all anyone else on the site knows, then, I remain a danger to children, a destroyer of innocent, precious young lives. And they have the sworn testimony of a well known, ex-staff member to support it.

Lying on the internet is hardly news, of course. But I'd respectfully ask other readers to take a moment to reflect on how they would feel if accusations of this degree of magnitude and malevolence were directed at themselves. This was no boyish prank; this was a deliberate, calculated attempt to literally destroy another member's character and future on this site, where I have numerous very dear friends.

I have my own thread in the science forums here, a safe haven where -- trying to avoid the apparently interminable bickering that typifies so many other threads -- I enjoy discussing matters related to science with other interested, civilized members. The subject matter can be a little obscure so, as you might expect, there are few participants. I do, however, have one or two delightfully clever and insightful contributors.

Topic: Science

As of today, C***** has taken it upon himself -- with a couple of cronies in tow (some things never change, eh?) -- to start posting in my thread, presumably with the intention of causing as much disruption and harm to myself as he can possibly muster. Presumably, his best case scenario is to have the thread removed, myself discredited, and perhaps ejected from the site entirely.

The very knowledge that there are people out there harboring this degree of hatred and malevolence toward myself is very disturbing, indeed makes me almost physically sick.

Why Wireclub chooses to allow dangerous, hate-ridden individuals of this type to thrive on the site is a question only they can answer. It's out of my hands. I would very much like, however, not to have the face of my tormentor staring back at me in my own thread. I would very much like my haven to remain safe.

No doubt many other members, like myself, have been the victim of stalkers, harassers, perverts, and other pests to varying degrees of malevolence. Blocking prevents any personal contact. It does not, however, prevent the blocked person from posting in your own forum.

My suggestion, then, is this: Is it possible to alter the system so that members can be blessedly free of their tormentors ALTOGETHER? Is it possible to change things such that if a member starts a thread in the forums, all those on his/her block list are prevented from posting in that thread?

Yes, I know that the creator of a thread has the power to delete posts in that thread as she sees fit. As other members are no doubt painfully aware, though, this tends to be counterproductive: the harassment simply INCREASES. The stalkers, the perverts, the trolls, the liars, and the character assassins, given their twisted nature, will be back the next day, quite possibly with a few fellow miscreants . . . in spades!

Thank you for your attention. I'm posting here because my latest private message to staff remains unanswered.

VicNep: I happen to believe Axocanth.

GeraldtheGnome: Another thing that would reduce harassment on this site is if you deleted any private message you have publicly shown in your own little bit of this site and ease up on your overly critical harassment of everyone who does not agree with what you think. You really have to deal with criticism properly, you have to deal with it properly all of the time. Everyone should be fair to you and you should also finally be fair to everyone. Your testing out of every single word in the dictionary is also extremely annoying to everyone except that of your 'yes people' who will crawl to you every day of the week in your safe space. Let's not forget your own jump to conclusions about what my sun rising statement was about, you really stuffed up there Mister Perfect. Colin, you are Mister Perfect according to you and to your own small fan club only.



Oh and for the record I changed the last sentence and I added this sentence in, so please don't make more of it than it is as you do with most things.

Troublinn: "GeraldtheGnome: Your testing out of every single word in the dictionary is also extremely annoying to everyone except that of your 'yes people' who will crawl to you every day of the week in your safe space."

I am a poster in Axo's thread and I am far from being a sycophant, Axo and I do not always agree. As a fact of the matter, I have been referred to as a "pain in the ass". As to "testing or questioning every single word in the dictionary" this is a very important matter for the clarity of any statement or proposition made using words. The "sense" of a any particular word is important for the discernment of what is the intent of any given statement or proposition. Words spoken or written, in any milieu, can have more than one meaning and the implied or even apparently obvious meaning of some words is not always so obvious and indeed may require clarification(testing, questioning). This does not even address the meaning of words when you consider language differences. Example: the word "love" in English there is but one word "love" In Greek there are at least 6 possibly 7 words for the one English word "love" :

Eros, or sexual passion.
Philia, or deep friendship.
Ludus, or playful love.
Agape, or love for everyone.
Pragma, or longstanding love.
Philautia, or love of the self
storge, or familial or companionate bonds

That one word can have several different and distinct meanings, in many certain cases testing, questioning, or defining the intent or meaning of the word is necessary to understand what another person is really trying to say!

Take for instance "sun rising", might be referring to the actual appearance of that big ball in the sky on the eastern horizon, or it may be a euphemism for being alive, or that things are looking positive, etc.. The context and intention and meaning is important. One could also question or test the statement on another level, as in, does the sun actually rise or does it just appear to rise because the earth is rotating? In the first instance if the sun rising is what is "actually" meant, this could imply that the sun is orbiting about the Earth and not the other way round.

This testing, questioning, defining is in no way is a personal attack, and may in fact be annoying, however, it is important, and I would have to say, to understand what another is saying exactly is better than assuming you know or understand what someone is, is not, or might be saying.

Viannaa: 👀

GeraldtheGnome: To Troublinn. Use English the way it was intended to be used, try it for once. I’m fully aware of what My own words were, I don’t need you or anyone else rudely repeating them. You are a lot of things, most of which I will not bring up. You though are a crawler, it can be seen by what you have done in the past. If you don’t always agree then that is fine, you do have a tendency though of keeping back what you disagree about, well enough to worship the Wireclub god Colin. The all knowing Colin. Many words have several meanings ? Well that is just stating what already was obvious to me. Ah yes, Colin ignorantly decoded on delete crazy Bob the fake creationist’s forum that I meant that ‘The Sun’ goes around Earth. If the evidence led to proving that then I was wrong and he was right. The opposite is true. Anyway he arrogantly thought that he is right for days and Bob helped that out by deleting any clarification I made about it. I was forced to give up trying, that gave the false impression of what was so.

Some people on this site should learn to paraphrase the words of others on here, repeating the words of others is just rude. You, vile JX and Colin should really treat those against the three of you properly. Yes, I can relate to Colin being treated badly, he also is not a saint and neither are you. I wish you, Colin and JX to have a good life without the bitterness towards those that you all that you dislike. There’s one thing that JX put on that should have been deleted as soon as someone saw it on a certain forum. The three of you really don’t realize that you have gone too far, you notice when some have though. We’ve all made mistakes, admit to your own or come out with something as stupid as Zeffur asking me to prove that my myths are true. He still hasn’t worked out why I can’t prove any myths at all. Then of course there is Bonozono who stupidly thinks that every general practitioner and every surgeon is for evolution. I don’t care if my doctor thinks that a giant animal crapped out a ball shaped crap and that became Earth. So long as my doctor is good enough then I don’t give a stuff if the guy or girl is a creationist or not, after all some very good doctors are creationists.

One famous writer had it right about the selection of words. Away from that many words mean the same thing, the thing is though that only certain words are best suited for what is meant to be understood by as many people as possible. Just have a good day. Don’t try to impress anyone, just you and your two ‘partners in crime’ have to become better people.

Troublinn: I was not being Rude I was merely pointing out the fact that what you mean by what you say may not be how I take what you mean to say using words in English does not guarantee an understanding!

The best is example of this is your current post I never once attacked you or called you names or accused you of anything! However, you have taken what I said in that way so apparently my English words did not have the intended meaning or you misconstrued them either way I think that makes my point quite clear!!

BelgianStrider: "As to "testing or questioning every single word in the dictionary" this is a very important matter for the clarity of any statement or proposition made using words. The "sense" of a any particular word is important for the discernment of what is the intent of any given statement or proposition. Words spoken or written, in any milieu, can have more than one meaning and the implied or even apparently obvious meaning of some words is not always so obvious and indeed may require clarification(testing, questioning)."

There is no question about it for clarification in general discussions !!! Often that is called "harmonising the semantics" !!!!

Though: it starts to be not applicable anymore when some words are well defined in some disciplines and whatever sense the phrase might have it is still the same applicable definition.
Questioning the meaning of that word with every possible dictionary you might have in your possession is useless as the word in question is extensively well defined in that discipline (and "generally" well accepted by those working in that discipline). The semantic of that word is defined and not prone for discussions (even in a philosophical viewpoint) !!!
We can just say: "𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘢" !!!

Troublinn: Language absolutely is a cooperative endeavor, so long as all parties to a conversation are in agreement of meaning. For an example: Let's say Joe Iam Is applying for a graduate degree in Philosophy and Joe asks his Professor to write a recommendation letter to the dean of the Graduate school. The letter the Dean receives from Joe's current professor, has one sentence which states, "Joe Iam is a good writer." The Dean understands this to mean that Joe may be a very good writer, however, he is not well suited to be in the graduate level philosophy program.

Taken out of context or taken on its own, the statement, "Joe Iam is a good writer." might and quite possibly would have many other meanings. Defining the context and the words within that context surely needs to be agreed upon cooperatively between all parties or different connotations may be drawn than that which was intended.

Take for instance, the word "justification" in religion and philosophy, has two distinct and very different meanings, If one person is a conversation is speaking with the idea of justification, in a philosophical understanding to mean, the reasons why someone holds a belief that one should hold based on one's current evidence, and the other person in the conversation takes justification in a religious sense to mean the act by which God moves a willing person from the state of sin to the state of grace, they are probably at some point going to have to stop the the conversation and determine exactly what each means by the same word "justification".

GeraldtheGnome: Why has this questioning or testing each word even an issue that two have now brought up ? It’s not even an issue that I consider or even act upon. Some do not know that they are rude or over the top or just have a habit of wanting of using words that they think impress people. An author from The United States in the past was ridiculed by a critic of his in the past because he was against using certain words and had a tendency to go for simplified words. The way that he got treated was in a similar way to the way I get treated on some forums here. In my case, by a minority of those who use the longest and/or rarest words I get this bit about that I don’t use those words because I don’t understand them. Well with most people all of the time that is not true, when it is true though is when I find out what that word means and I find out that there are are words that are better than what they decided to use.

If you are trying to get your message across then it’s best to use what word best suits what you mean and of course if you do then you will not only be guaranteed to have the readers or listeners know what you mean, you will also have a very effective message. The readers or listeners will think that this person knows what he or she told us, the readers or listeners, about. Sometimes the most impressive thing you will do in your life with your words or anything else will be brought about by not trying to be impressive. When you try to be impressive then it ends up being unimpressive to everyone except those that also do the same thing as you. Why do that to yourself ?

What’s worse than that is trying to effectively get your message across to those who use English by using French or Latin. Unless you also use the English translation of it, even if all of those that heard or saw the message understand it, then you are doing the wrong thing. If I went to a French site or was face to face with French speaking people then I would have used the most basic and best suited French words to them, not English or Latin. That though never happened except for my time in Nice in France where the waitress gave me her email address because of my efforts. If I was in front of those who used Latin and/or Italian only then I would use the most basic and best suited words in Italian and/or Latin. I wouldn’t have used English if I could avoid it at the time and I would not have used Gaelic. What I love about most of the Italians in Italy is that they go out of their way to understand you, most of the French I came across when I was in France want you to go out of their way to understand them, they think that there is no need for it to happen by them. You see, when people either use words that are either foreign or less commonly used when that can be avoided then the person guilty of that knowingly or unknowingly shows a false sense of superiority over at least one other person.

Anyone can repeat the words of others on a forum, it should though be avoided even if the person does not know that it is rude, paraphrasing is most effective and it is true that each of us do not know certain things. My words or any other person’s words can be referred to effectively without the need to repeat the words of the one who first used them. Anyway back to my last paragraph, BelgianStrider showed a very good example of what not to use when it comes to words is the last word that he used. Seriously, do any of you think that he should have done that and how many of you know what that means ? Even Harp asked what it means. As for Colin giving the impression that he is an innocent victim of harassment goes, well that is a joke, him and some others have been overly critical to the point of harassment that should be deleted from this site. Yes I felt sorry for him to some extent when I saw the message that was used against him, I though didn’t feel so sorry for him when he showed that he doesn’t mind showing publicly any private message to him that he disliked. My two direct complaints about it were deleted immediately. He should grow up and deal with criticism properly. He is behaving like a spoilt brat five year old having a tantrum. Even when he has dealt with things that are deemed inappropriate he has dealt with them inappropriately. That’s why this bloody forum is here.

To Axocanth. If you value your own privacy then quit being a hypocrite and respect the privacy of everyone no matter what is from someone you like or dislike. Delete every example of you invading the privacy of another. Show and tell is for kids and even then none of them have the right to publicly show anything private that is from anyone else. You love to be critical, you also hate being told that you are wrong about things, in fact you don’t think that you are ever wrong. You love to criticize but hate being criticized. Deal with criticism properly for once, two of your mates should always deal with it properly too. Delete the vile little joke from JX, it went too far, have some respect for me and to others, that goes to your two mates also and the three of you should have some respect for yourselves. Each of you do not like harassment and everyone that has been harassed by the three of you will no longer put up with harassment by the three of you. Each of you should do what is right in forums or stay away from forums. Any lack of the three of you doing the right thing will make me push for at least trying to get all three of you permanently banned from this site.

Troublinn: I repeat someone's words when I make a response in order for the person and everyone else in the thread to know who I am responding. Especially since conversations in a Public Forum are never linear and there may be several responses between what I am responding to and what was said in an original post. So, be offended all you like it's really not my problem! Whatever!

GeraldtheGnome: Look, it’s a bad habit, it doesn’t matter who is on the receiving end of it, it’s a bad habit and I used to do it myself. There is no excuse for it by anyone, I did the wrong thing about it in the past. You can paraphrase what myself and what others tell you so do it. It’s not like your quoting a Winston Churchill speech or a Martin Luther speech. I have no reason to think that what anyone tells anyone on here makes a difference to anyone away from this and nor should any of it be interested in what each of us has told anyone on here. I could bring up what I don’t agree with there, if I did though then it will end up being criticized by Colin and he will only finish about it after several damn responses of his.

What I told you and Colin last time really is true.

axocanth: Quite so, Alette.

There are certain people around here who would take it as a personal attack if you said "Good morning" to them.

A great many other sites make use of a "quote" function, allowing you to directly quote what another member has said, before responding to it.

The advantages are obvious: it prevents, or at least reduces the possibility, of attacking a "straw man". Indeed, this is something Wireclub might want to look into. Oh, and to be able to type in italics would be enormously helpful too.

I have never twice in my life (no prizes for guessing the first) encountered anyone who considered the direct quoting of others to be rude. I'd go so far as to say that most people probably even like it.

Fame at last!

axocanth: But in the meantime . . .


"Indeed, a quote function would be very much appreciated as well."

-- Alette the Great

swanlaker: So C****in had a bad day and is mad at the world. Delete and ignore the sad keyboard warrior's stuff. Everyone who knows you and matters to you, doesn't believe his rubbish. Moving on.............

axocanth: @ swanlaker (above)


There is wisdom in what you say, though I would point out a couple of factors that make this particular case particularly disturbing.

First of all, as noted in the OP, this was not the first time C***** has had a "bad day". Last time he had a "bad day" when I was around, I was involved in rape, at least if you're naive enough to believe him.

I'm left wondering whether any other members out there have also taken the brunt of this man's "bad days".

We all have our bad days. Most of us, I daresay, do not take out our frustrations on innocent people by accusing them of extremely serious crimes, moreover swearing to the truth of the allegations. Out there in the real world, prison sentences have been handed out for less.



Secondly, what I find especially disturbing in C*****'s most recent "bad day" is the CALCULATED nature of the web he has spun. Read it again (see OP). It represents the difference between losing one's temper, perhaps in a bar dispute, and shouting out something abusive or even lashing out physically, and, by contrast, sitting at home for weeks carefully and calmly crafting an elaborate plan to cause serious harm to a person.

It represents the difference between spontaneous violence (whether verbal or physical) and premeditated, cold-blooded malevolence.



Furthermore, what normally happens in the former case of a heat-of-the-moment eruption is that the perpetrator subsequently calms down, regrets his actions, expresses remorse, and perhaps apologizes. And in a great many such cases, the matter ends right there. We all screw up; life goes on. We might even share a beer together and laugh at our own silliness.

Notice, nothing at all like this happened here. There was no expression of remorse, no apology, indeed as far as anyone can see, C***** stands by his sinister web of lies. C***** continues his pursuits here on the site in a shockingly nonchalant manner . . . as if nothing at all had happened!



They do say the bigger the lie, the more readily it will be believed. But if it is to succeed at all, it has to be carefully framed against a background of plausibility. Notice this is precisely what C***** has done. Certain details have been added to enhance the plausibility. Yes, we HAVE discussed many things in PM. Yes, I DO live in Asia. Yes, I DO teach English, and so forth.

It's very fortunate for me indeed that he apparently can't tell the difference between Taiwan, where I do live and which has no notoriety for crimes against children, and Thailand, where I do not live and which does, sadly, have such a reputation. If it were not for this glaring error, no doubt many more people would be persuaded, or at least harbor doubts, of my guilt.



This was not an impulsive, heat-of-the-moment outburst later to be regretted. It was, rather, the carefully calculated act of a very disturbed mind to cause serious harm.

Other members should be aware. This is a dangerous man.

BelgianStrider: Still: dangerous or not; factually, are his argumentations about "reliability" been addressed or not ????

Many indoctrinated people are dangerous !!! Is that a reason for not showing the errors in their arguments ????

axocanth: .

The punishment fits the crime
---------------------------------------


In a perfect world, the two participants in a debate, though possibly defending diametrically opposed positions, remain civil and respectful to one another. And at the end of it all, they shake hands and go their separate ways.

Some of our more perspicacious readers may have noticed that this isn't a perfect world. They may also have noticed that typically in the forums here, the participant in a debate whose position has been shown to be untenable, rather than conceding defeat or arguing even more cogently for his own position, simply resorts to abuse instead.

The degree of abuse thus dispensed, you may further have noticed, tends to be proportional to the degree to which the dispenser's position has been shown to be untenable or even patently absurd.

For example, your prevailing in a debate by a slight margin, by showing that your opponent's position is somewhat dubious, might result in you being called a jerk, a nitwit, or something equally innocuous. Exposing your opponent's position to be patently ludicrous, on the other hand, carries a far greater risk. Indeed, you may need to consider hiring Kevin Costner for protection.



While readers ponder the implications of this for recent events, I'll turn to the objection raised by the poster directly above -- a friend of C***** and fellow muckraker. His argument seems to go something like this:


"Ok, it's true that that man is dangerous. It's true that he fabricates intricate webs of sordid fantasy in order to destroy his fellow human beings. But hey, you have a lot to answer for yourself -- you didn't address his question about the semantics of the word 'reliability'!!"


And that's why the poster above is unlikely to be collecting any Nobel Prizes any time soon.




Lest we all get too serious, did you hear the one about the foul-mouthed parrot?


An old woman has a pet parrot with a filthy vocabulary. She warns him again and again to clean up his language. He just replies, "S*!#w you, you old b*^$h.

So she grabs him and sticks him in the fridge to teach him a lesson.

As the poor parrot is there in the fridge, getting colder and colder, he spots a chicken, plucked and ready for the oven. He exclaims, "Holy sh*t! What did you say to her"!

Troublinn: Axo, you really need to be a less dangerous, and better person, and start addressing these important semantical issues! Friggen Scotsmen!

z e d: slanderous insults.. how extremely f*cking tacky... "C_____" should be ashamed of himself, for one... and/or stop advertising that he operates at a 12yr old level. ...
*smh*

z e d: also re: "Your testing out of every single word in the dictionary " ... isn't this kind of necessary in a multilingual site? Just because the rules state "english only in main" .. doesn't mean the words in other countries automatically transcend into English meanings...

BelgianStrider: "Ok, it's true that that man is dangerous. It's true that he fabricates intricate webs of sordid fantasy in order to destroy his fellow human beings. But hey, you have a lot to answer for yourself -- you didn't address his question about the semantics of the word 'reliability'!!"

That is a clear strawman: I even never make any supposition towards such a "meaning" !!!

You better take care what you are telling colin !!!!!!

What I said as base the argumentation of him has 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 !!!
𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨 (𝐤 𝐡𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐝 - 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝 - , 𝐤 𝐡𝐚𝐦, 𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐫, 𝐣 𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐫, ....) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 "𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞" 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 !!!

As for the accusations:

I am not a judge, never got any formation on it, it is not up to me to take any decision, not about you: neither about corwin. Pssssst I am not fan about using "thenamethatshouldnotbespoken" !!!!!
What I only can say: "false accusations are not done". That's the only thing I can say about that !!!!!!! And till now it is not validated by evidence and there is no "juridistic decision" on either side !!!!!
𝐋𝐄𝐓' 𝐔𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐋𝐘 𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐌𝐘 𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 !!!!

Factually what you have done, colin, is accusing me for things I NEVER DID
FACTUALLY has MY ARGUMENTS BEEN ADDRESSED I don't think so !!!!

Just a MAIN STRAWMAN !!!!!!