Questions for Callaway

[odeon]

PI:

I don't think there was an actual reason for not announcing the list. I suspect the issue simply slipped away somewhere amidst the banter and more recent drama.

And I agree that the list can be seen as kid gloves. Of course it can. There will always be some of that here. We have an actual problems forum, too, which is kid gloves to some. It's just the way things are. Don't know what to do about it all, or if anything should be done.

[Calandale]

It just seems that how certain people see things carries a lot more weight that how others do.

Well, duh! Life isn't fair. Why should an internet site be?

[odeon]

 Lit's story differs a lot from what is usually hinted here and is, in some ways, far more tragic.

He was also TERRIBLY hounded here, at that time. I'm not
sure how much effect it had, but it couldn't have helped.

Though, to be fair, he was only being attacked personally -
not over personal issues, in the context of the site ones.
Which I feel is fair game, actually.

Lit, IMO, was treated pretty much the way he treated others. Some also reacted against his more extreme views.

During his last month or two here, however, things happened with (and to) him outside the board that changed him and his behaviour here.

Oh, and not everything Cal says is written off as bullshit, but he makes it very hard for even a devoted reader to wade through the mind games to a seriously meant point. I don't think I'm the first to observe this. He himself has acknowledged this in the past. Unfortunately, by his own admission, he enjoys the games.

You add the 'mind' to the game. Making it seem far worse than
what I've honestly tried to explain. LIFE itself is a game to me.
So, it's not really reasonable to use this the way that you do.
You're simply using a negative term for "that which I find important".

Actually I add "mind" to the "game" because that better describes what you do. Nothing of what you discuss here takes place in the physical domain, hence the "mind".

[Calandale]

Lit, IMO, was treated pretty much the way he treated others. Some also reacted against his more extreme views.

Yeah. But, there was this pack atmosphere among
his detractors. Many just congratulating one another
over kicking him around.

During his last month or two here, however, things happened with (and to) him outside the board that changed him and his behaviour here.

I don't know enough to speculate, but I presumed so.
Indeed, his posts became more tied to what he seemed
most proud of, which were the very things which set others
off. And those very things were then attacked, along with
people telling him o leave - that he wasn't wanted here.
I can imagine that couldn't have helped.

Actually I add "mind" to the "game" because that better describes what you do. Nothing of what you discuss here takes place in the physical domain, hence the "mind".

Ah, so everything any of us does here, is merely
a mind game then.

[odeon]

Lit, IMO, was treated pretty much the way he treated others. Some also reacted against his more extreme views.

Yeah. But, there was this pack atmosphere among
his detractors. Many just congratulating one another
over kicking him around.

Didn't see much of that, to be honest. I did see people reacting against his more extreme views during the last month or so.

During his last month or two here, however, things happened with (and to) him outside the board that changed him and his behaviour here.

I don't know enough to speculate, but I presumed so.
Indeed, his posts became more tied to what he seemed
most proud of, which were the very things which set others
off. And those very things were then attacked, along with
people telling him o leave - that he wasn't wanted here.
I can imagine that couldn't have helped.

Probably not, but what actually drove him over the edge happened strictly off the board, as far as I know. It's a shame because while some of his opinions were sheer lunacy, I liked the guy, most of the time. I had lots of conversations with him through PM.

Actually I add "mind" to the "game" because that better describes what you do. Nothing of what you discuss here takes place in the physical domain, hence the "mind".

Ah, so everything any of us does here, is merely
a mind game then.

More or less. Your type of game is different from most when it coincides with any of your obsessions. An argument can be made that most "mind games" by others here are simply discussions rather than the games you engage in. Sometimes they have a set goal. Sometimes there is a principle or a standpoint you wish to explore. And sometimes... well, just for the game.

[Calandale]

Didn't see much of that, to be honest. I did see people reacting against his more extreme views during the last month or so.

Were you blind to it with Scrap, and myself too?

More or less. Your type of game is different from most when it coincides with any of your obsessions. An argument can be made that most "mind games" by others here are simply discussions rather than the games you engage in. Sometimes they have a set goal. Sometimes there is a principle or a standpoint you wish to explore. And sometimes... well, just for the game.

So, 'simple' discussions are those which are pointless? Anything which matters
is actually a 'game'? This is remarkably like my own definition.

How can one be sure that anything is pointless though?  And, what does it mean
to be 'just for the game' if not pointless?

BTW - I don't see that this really is true in regards to my obsessions.
My largest obsessions never seem to go into such discussions.

[Callaway]

Ok- what I'm struggling to understand about the situation is how we can be going back to pre-WC days with elections and members having the right to set up polls, but, at the same time, have it set in stone that there were going to be elections.  If people had voted they didn't want them surely we would have had no choice but to scrap them? (It seemed that you were saying that we wouldn't- am I wrong?  )

Again, I wasn't decreeing anything, I was repeating what we had already decided--to have an election, pre-WC style, and reacting to yet another mind game by Calandale, one where he went from an outspoken advocate of the World Council type direct democracy to an Intensity ruled by despots. I find it difficult to take him seriously because of this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the pre-WC days, elections started to happen because the staff then decided it would be a good thing to have them, not because there was a vote by the general membership. In a similar manner, a poll could not actually stop the elections from happening.

Hmm. Maybe McJ or Callaway (or Dunc) knows...

I believe that the first election for administrators was mostly Dunc's idea at first, but McJagger was the one who ran with it.  We kept Omega and we were going to keep Eamonn, and have two elected admins, but then Eamonn decided not to do it after all, so we had three elected admins instead of the two we were going to elect.  

[Callaway]

Didn't see much of that, to be honest. I did see people reacting against his more extreme views during the last month or so.

Were you blind to it with Scrap, and myself too?

More or less. Your type of game is different from most when it coincides with any of your obsessions. An argument can be made that most "mind games" by others here are simply discussions rather than the games you engage in. Sometimes they have a set goal. Sometimes there is a principle or a standpoint you wish to explore. And sometimes... well, just for the game.

So, 'simple' discussions are those which are pointless? Anything which matters
is actually a 'game'? This is remarkably like my own definition.

How can one be sure that anything is pointless though?  And, what does it mean
to be 'just for the game' if not pointless?

BTW - I don't see that this really is true in regards to my obsessions.
My largest obsessions never seem to go into such discussions.

You are only getting back what you dish out, Calandale.  If you personally attack people, it is only reasonable that they will fight back.

I don't remember people telling Litigious to GTFO.  Some people got tired of the multitude of Dec posts, I think.  He had some pretty controversial attitudes and people disagreed with him about some of those.

I don't think that I said that much to him about Linda until after he had already broken it off with her and he said that she was trying to get him back, but her parents wouldn't let her leave the house to see him.  I believe that I said that her parents' protectiveness was understandable, since I would feel the same way her parents did if I had a 15 year old daughter who wanted to get out of the house to meet with a 36 year old man.  I remember that I was very happy for him at first that he had found a girlfriend, but I don't think that I was aware of her age until later.

[Calandale]

You are only getting back what you dish out, Calandale.  If you personally attack people, it is only reasonable that they will fight back.

And we both play the same record, once more.
(it DOES take two - or more). Our definitions differ.
I've never attacked you on your personal life. And
certainly not in matters unrelated. If I ever did,
and 'twas pointed out, I'd be quite shamed - as
I feel in the case of QM. Even if provoked (as I was
very much so then), my standards should be higher.
I thought yours were.

BUT - my impression is that your own going personal
was triggered not by my attacks, but rather, by the
issue of my campaign promise, which is petty beyond
belief.

I don't remember people telling Litigious to GTFO.  Some people got tired of the multitude of Dec posts, I think.  He had some pretty controversial attitudes and people disagreed with him about some of those.

Didn't say you did. I don't think you've told anyone that, tbh.
Not that I've noticed.

I don't think that I said that much to him about Linda until after he had already broken it off with her and he said that she was trying to get him back, but her parents wouldn't let her leave the house to see him.  I believe that I said that her parents' protectiveness was understandable, since I would feel the same way her parents did if I had a 15 year old daughter who wanted to get out of the house to meet with a 36 year old man.  I remember that I was very happy for him at first that he had found a girlfriend, but I don't think that I was aware of her age until later.

And, you do have a serious disagreement with the age
difference. I'm really not certain how much you were attacking
him. Others were certainly far meaner. Meaner than anyone's
been to me or scrap or hadron. At least in my opinion. Again though,
that was all on topic - which is a definite difference.

The point was not to paint you with his leaving, but to show that
many of the same ones who have hounded the trio mentioned did
so with him - indeed telling him to GTFO.

[purposefulinsanity]

It just seems that how certain people see things carries a lot more weight that how others do.

Well, duh! Life isn't fair. Why should an internet site be?

Honestly? I can't think of any reason why it would be- other than I just had higher expectations of this place.

[odeon]

Didn't see much of that, to be honest. I did see people reacting against his more extreme views during the last month or so.

Were you blind to it with Scrap, and myself too?

Maybe I just interpret things differently, because I haven't seen the "hounding" you speak of. I have seen people grow tired of what Lit, Scrap and you do, in various ways. I think Scrap was treated pretty much the the way he treated others. Not that well, in other words. In no way was he an innocent bystander, which is what you try to make it sound like.

More or less. Your type of game is different from most when it coincides with any of your obsessions. An argument can be made that most "mind games" by others here are simply discussions rather than the games you engage in. Sometimes they have a set goal. Sometimes there is a principle or a standpoint you wish to explore. And sometimes... well, just for the game.

So, 'simple' discussions are those which are pointless? Anything which matters
is actually a 'game'? This is remarkably like my own definition.

No, that's your interpretation.

How can one be sure that anything is pointless though?  And, what does it mean
to be 'just for the game' if not pointless?

BTW - I don't see that this really is true in regards to my obsessions.
My largest obsessions never seem to go into such discussions.

Well, you know best what actually are your largest obsessions. Perhaps I should rephrase, but it is clear that your obsessions get a special treatment here.

[Calandale]

More or less. Your type of game is different from most when it coincides with any of your obsessions. An argument can be made that most "mind games" by others here are simply discussions rather than the games you engage in. Sometimes they have a set goal. Sometimes there is a principle or a standpoint you wish to explore. And sometimes... well, just for the game.

So, 'simple' discussions are those which are pointless? Anything which matters
is actually a 'game'? This is remarkably like my own definition.

No, that's your interpretation.

So, what IS a simple discussion? And how does it not conform to what
you call my 'games'?

Well, you know best what actually are your largest obsessions. Perhaps I should rephrase, but it is clear that your obsessions get a special treatment here.

The only things which get special treatment, in terms of
energy, are those which are directly related to the site
itself - as it should be, I think.

[Tesla]

I have a question for Callaway.

How much longer do you think this crap is going to go on?

[richard]

I have a question for Callaway.

How much longer do you think this crap is going to go on?

[Callaway]

I have a question for Callaway.

How much longer do you think this crap is going to go on?

This is an excellent question, Tesla.  I wish I knew the answer.

As long as Calandale is here, he will continue to attack Odeon and me and probably Dunc as well (or whoever the semi-permanent administrator and webmonkeys are) because Calandale thinks that being an administrator or webmonkey is about power, when it isn't.  It's about serving the members, which is quite the opposite of what he thinks, actually.  He has compared both Odeon and me to Hitler, he has repeatedly attacked our character, and he has attacked Dunc as well.  Apparently, he believes that slinging mud at other people makes him better than they are.  I think that it has something to do with his NPD, where he tears other people down to make himself look better.  It seems to be a pattern of behavior for him.  For example, look at his posts where he talks about raping that woman he calls his PE and tearing her face open.  He shifted the blame for his criminal actions from himself onto her.

This puts us in the unfortunate position of either choosing not to respond to his numerous personal attacks, or responding to them.  Responding to his personal attacks feeds his narcissism, but not responding means that his lies stand unchallenged, and there are some people who will believe them.  Actually, since he spams each of his personal attacks in several places, his lies would probably stand unchallenged in most of them anyway, or else we would have to be as obsessed as he seems to be to respond everywhere he posts the same attacks.  This is his fighting style to make unsubstantiated allegations in numerous places, almost never backing up any of them, burying his opponents in a barrage of words, and deliberately misreading their words to the point that they give up trying to communicate with him.

I don't see a solution.  I think that it would be a very bad idea to allow him to run Intensity the way he wants it to be run to shut him up, because his vision of Intensity seems to be quite different from everyone else's.

Do you see a solution?