[Air-l] Doctorow on Dealing With Trolls

[James Whyte]

Jeremy,
   
  It's easy to find out things about Reid Cornwell.He is a public figure. A look at http://focus-on-education.org will tell you that he founded the organization over a decade ago and was awarded a 501(c)(3) designation long before any of the "empire" as you expressed has grown. His publications in the Wall Street Journal predate any of this drama. His associations with people and organizaions outside this list are easily verified and documented.
   
  While his criticisms within the list are caustic they are certainly not toxic. He clearly is not a wilting lily. He is certainly not retiring.I want to know what invites the kind of vitriol that you and other have leveled against him.
   
  Is it possible that because he challenges you and is irreverent to the doxa that is so entrenched that he offends you. (plural you)
   
  I say again read Patricia's paper on flaming with a reflexive attitude.
   
  Since I wrote the statement "true scholarship" I meant it in the context of the ideal of objectivity. If you took offense I sorry, but do not recant. The intention was not to offend but to challenge objectification of the charges against Reid Cornwell
   
  As best as I can figure few people have attempted to know what he is about. Yet the judgement of "Troll" has been placed on the table and his self defence is considered further evidence of his guilt.
   
  It is clear that you don't like him, but why. Your appeal to investigate from my point of view carries with it the admonition to all to investigate the speaker/accusers as well as the actor/accused. IMHO, scholarship requires this responsibility.
   
  I have appealed to all, through citation, for logic and rationality. Reid Cornwell is not inscrutible or unknown. He is a visible as an Abrhams tank.
   
  IMHO it is immoral to condemm a person without a fair examination.
   
  Coopman's comment on having to request revoval from the WRC's list several times exposes the lack forgiveness for an action that could be explained as something other than bad intent.
   
  What could be lost by trying to get to know this person? What could be gained? Why do you think he would be anything but defensive in this community when the list moderator has mounted an ad hominem like nothing I have ever seen and then to have others quoting it in an indexed list.
   
  If you think about it WRC has actually been fairly restrained.
   
  James
  
Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu> wrote:
  I think that you are now trolling.
i did not present him as malevolent, i presented my interpretations 
of his situation. I personally think there is going to be a 
difference between his portrayal of his actions and his perceived 
actions. I am just skeptical of his position given prior actions. I 
am sure that everyone would agree that he is attempting to do 
something, and where we might disagree is how to interpret that.

again, phrases such as 'true scholarship' might be considered 
derogatory.


My sole point was to say to fellow members of the list that you 
should investigate the situation more fully before you commit to 
working with someone. If they do investigate this situation more 
fully, I expect they will come to worrysome conclusions. That is my 
opinion of people who I suspect have a well developed capacity for 
judgment. It is not scholarship, they can do that on their own.
_______________________________________________
The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/


 
---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.