I agree. I think we should speak about credibility because it has absolutely nothing to do with factual reality.
In reality, something is ether true or it isnt true. The person presenting the information is really nothing more than a vessel for that information. If the vessel is bad, the information is not bad and likewise is the vessel is awesome and great, the information does not become awesome and great.
Believing credibility alters information is a logical fallacy.
However in speaking to credibilitity perhaps we should look at this...
Flounder ; screener ; tonton ; giant ; @_@ Artman ; Outsider ; FormerLurker ; hardeeharhar ; groverat ; Northgate ; addabox ; midwinter; BRussell ; franksargent ; Hassan i Sabbah ; MarcUK ;
This was the list of people who engaged in a PM discussion to manipulate the board. I think I see the name of a certain person bumping this thread and several more who have been banned.
Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
Originally Posted by groverat
I don't give a shit. I quit being a moderator about two months ago.
I don't fucking care. Shove it up your ass and die of cancer.
Originally Posted by trumptman
Respect the privacy of fellow forum members. Hopefully this will not be an issue, but do not post personal information or pictures of a member without that member's approval. Disputed information will be deleted.
I don't want to be a "drama queen" but giant is posting my personal information in this post. It contains one of my street addresses.http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...45&postcount=9
I would appreciate you deleting it and I personally feel he is attempting to harass and intimidate with it. I can't think of a legitimate reason for him to even accidentally post an address associated with me except to try to show he is acting in a manner comparable to a stalker.
Hmmmmm.... I'm not feeling the love there are you?
How about this guy we call franksargent, let's see what he has to say about how to post.
Originally Posted by franksargent
Personally, I'm not one for using ignore lists.
In the case of trumptman, it's the silly season, meaning an election cycle, everything he's posted lately has been Obama related and always with a severe negative slant.
If there is something factually incorrect, meaning that there is objective information that refutes his nonsense, it seems to me that this should be used to counter that specific point and deserves to be posted.
I thing the most effective response to our one man Obama wrecking machine is to flood those threads with totally unrelated replies, keep them short, totally irrelevant to the subject de jour, posts totally random images, etceteras.
Trumptman almost always posts op-ed sourced hit pieces, this lends itself to purely subjective POV's, and these types of threads can go on for several pages as everyone bickers back and forth aimlessly.
I'd also suggest that you conduct an experiment on the next (or one of) trumptman thread started. How would this work? First exercise restraint, a thought blockade if you will. The intent here is to create an echo chamber where only those on the right respond creating a wingnut circkejerk.
Also, you have a good core group of PO posters, add to this list if possible, ask the others on your list for additional "trusted" posters, MarkUK and Hassan, come to mind for me, I'm sure there are many more who are also fed up with thumptman's silly season tactics.
We are looking for a coordinated defense that will have some sort of lasting efficacy. Silence is golden. But if this method doesn't appear to be successful, than go totally irrelevant, flood the thread with useless off topic information, very short replies (just a single word will suffice per the AO forums minimum 5 character posting requirement), or totally irrelevant images coordinated on a particulate theme de jour.
The other tactic that seems to have gained traction as of late, parrot trumptman thread topics via starting new threads using his MO. Flood PO with "thought provoking" left leaning op-ed hit pieces. But each of these has to be totally of-the-wall irreverent in content (other than the requisite op-ed link) and end with "Your thoughts?"
Heck, if you were to remove the threads started by trumptman and SDW, PO would be relatively silent. There are many more of us than there are of them. Working as a benign but coordinated defensive group will produce the desired net effects IMHO.
Please feel free to share this amongst the group. Likewise, share whatever useful input you receive from others in The Group, Inc.™
Boil all these thoughts down to the essence of the primary defensive and offensive tactics we will use going forward.
Thanks for including me within the PO cabal.
Or how about this one?
Originally Posted by franksargent
Oh, I just had another great idea, called the "flood and bump" strategy. Start 25 threads with real newsworthy thread topics, provide a link in each to the thread topic title, add in a requisite sentence or three, get all the others to bump these 25 thought provoking thread topics with as brief as possible minimum required content possible to "pass" the AO basic posting guidelines.
That way trumptman's posts all get bumped down to page two, where it is much less likely to be read and posted to.
Or do just the opposite, like I did in a similar situation in the 2006 election cycle, bump any and all trumptman started threads to the top such that all threads on page one have trumptman as the thread strter and/or SDW as the thread starter, and/or dmz as the thread starter. The purpose here is to get the first PO forum page flooded with right leaning thread startters.
Or, just have everyone agree with trumptman's in the same malevolent rhetorical posturing he uses in whatever thread de jour is at the top of the PO topic page at any given time. He'll essentially be forced to talk with himself, since no one will disagree with his pompous propositions.
Grass roots efforts, man what a concept, let's make it work here in PO.
So once again, we see the paradox of paradoxes. Those doing the complaining are those who are engaged in the conspiracy. They manipulate the content (or lack of it in posts) and even manipulate which posts are bumped and then COMPLAIN about it. In other words they hang nooses on their own office doors and scream victimization.
They start a cabal and complain that the group attacking the person won't admit paranoia when their little group goes around engaging in all their bullying tactics. They bump the posts of a poster then complain the poster is FLOODING the forum with posts.
But most amazing of all, they try to have a discussion on credibility when the pm's show that everything they do is a blatant dishonesty, a manipulation, a sham and a lie.
How about this for credibility...
Originally Posted by screener
There was a question of credibility raised and I was invited to respond in the appropriate thread that was referred to in regard to said question and would be dealt with by the poster who's credibility was in question.
Notice how the claim just floats out of the either. It wasn't that this POSTER brought up the credibility question, it was just that a question that wandered in out of the rain.
That lacks some credibility right there.
Why does he bring it up? It is just another ruse and more of the same. Part of flooding the forums with irrelevant responses from him includes flooding it with links to this thread. The spamming was stopped and now with hand in cookie jar, the spamming needs a justification.
It has none. The pm names and shows the tactics for what they are admitted to by the sources. The sources engage in the manipulation and then complain about the manipulation which is itself a manipulation.
Quite the paradox...