[Air-l] Doctorow on Dealing With Trolls

[Ted M Coopman]

All,

James Whyte wrote:

"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."

This is the relevant section of my post:

"The old axiom of "not wrestling with pigs because you get dirty and it annoys
the pig" fits the troll issue. In the past many communities have simply refused
to respond to any posts or added the troll to their bozo filter (as I did with
the Reid spam after my second unsub attempt)."

This was simply an example of what I did rather than getting animated about it. I tried to unsub twice and then simply added the address to my spam filter. Simple, done. I did not imply intent on the senders part, evil or otherwise. Forgive him for what? Being a jerk? Who cares? I have no relationship with him. Reid's intent was of no interest to me. I just did not want to be bothered. SPAM is unwanted and unsolicited mass email (he described it as a mass mailing). The legitimacy (or lack of) of his other endeavors is immaterial to me. I just have no interest in what he is into.

However, IMO harvesting emails addresses from a list, esp. a list you have been removed from, for your own purposes is unseemly and verges on SPAMMER behavior. If one wishes to promote something to list members then one should seek permission to use the list or use it as a list member. He could have easily sent his conference announcement to the list admin or through one his friends on this list.

-TED

Ted M. Coopman
Department of Communication
University of Washington

On Thu, 17 May 2007, James Whyte wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>