|
|
Jumping into a discussion between people to call them condescending or to characterize them in any way is defamation, either by site moderators or members.
Serious technicians might assume that they
would be able to concentrate on answering requests to troubleshoot heating and air conditioning on a DIY site with a title
like 'HVAC something.' Don't be absolutely sure. A
technical web site is a perfect place to be 'flamed - criticized personally.' To
appear at least slightly sophisticated, a flamer will
'troll - ask questions designed to create a
correcting response.'
There are people that
use a site to continually try to drive others off the site because they believe
in transmitting prejudice and misinformation to harm readers.
They will
use the ploys of making emotionally-charged posts to gather sympathy to show
they are nice, or repeat baby, birthday, kitty, doggie to 'make relationships',
then use that 'friend-making' to stab other members making technical
contributions they can't begin to understand in the back at every opportunity.
It is an extension of the junior-high political pattern of getting
elected to the school council while bad-mouthing the teachers. It is not good
company in a technical forum when their 'release' is blocked, especially when
some moderate it. They won't give it up because they haven't learned much since
junior high, can't see it in themselves, and they need the power.
In their perception, they declare their target as a threat to their supremacy under the guise of protecting someone else. It is much like an Ayatollah deciding who is evil and then starting a Jihad on someone who writes. Their tool for promoting 'protection' is through defamation of character.
Meet PSYCHOBASHER, the modern equivalent of the devil. Few people say they actually saw the devil, they usually say they heard them in their head, the equivalent of today's internet. He is a politician, someone who has no concept of science; he concentrates on your personality to control your emotions. You can find women and children in support homes when they have such family members.
A saying is 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions' so he scans the web for people with good intentions, then pounces. You usually have never heard of him before on the site, as he gives no helpful facts to others; but he may have been the sneak who got attention by telling of his love for family and pets, so he makes friends to draw to his side. His style is the ritual of the courtroom lawyer whose rewards come from maligning the accused. His ritual is usually:
"Your reputation is at stake. I am the arbiter of your reputation. Half the population is below 100 IQ; I depend on them to believe whatever I say about you. I can catch many above 100 IQ as well; there are many ill people both above and below 100 IQ.
All of your experts are wrong. In fact, they are charlatans. They just want money. They sell the items. That means you are a charlatan also. You can't prove they are doing what they do for the good of others. I don't need to provide references to scientific studies showing the value of their ideas. You need to prove they are useful; but I won't refer to your references nor read them because they aren't mine. If I come across a court case where some lawyer wants to make money by doing what I do, I'll refer to that to show how bad your expert is.
Whenever you provide facts and data, I will change the subject to your reputation, the fact the items are sold, somebody is making money off them. I need to feel that I am in control of this conversation, so I will evade and go in circles by changing subjects and themes to repeat whatever has been discussed before. Very few will bother going back up the thread to see that subject has been covered. I do the same on many sites to prove to myself and others that I am in control.
I used to do reputation bashing in school and got a lot of laughs from pals who liked my style. I even got some girls to commit suicide by attacking their weaker minds. Since then, I've grown too old to do this in school, so I graduated to finding people who believe in their work and their research, so I do my best to take them off their high horse and wreck their plans for "a better life" or "an intelligent discussion." 'Raining on parades' is fun, as it keeps my world flat and nasty as I perform my rituals."
The Yeah-But: Always feed just enough information to allow someone to come to what you know will be incorrect, because only you have all the facts needed. That way you can appear more knowledgeable than a professional trying to gather enough information to make an informed response.
28 Make the pro ridiculous. When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.A flamer might know there are more complicated knowledge requirements than he lets on - or he might not really know, just be guessing about the topic
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.
Take on the jargon of a psychologist, asking if your relationship with your mother or women is the reason you are [confused, mean, hateful, etc.], to gather 'expert from afar' admiration points with others in the conversation. They NEVER have the education nor background training to come near to what a counselor does professionally. (Does anyone remember the KGB technique of assigning dissidents to asylums?)
If they are warned off from being exposed as a defamer by reading this page, they might thank another person who just told them to get help elsewhere than recognize your technical answer (also showing a disinterest in attending to the original problem.)
A disagreeable person is on the site to promote these points or to convince others that you are lowlife.
It is natural in the animal world to compete, and some take the practices of corporations (the high school jock gang leader) as their belief system. As a site moderator might be seen as an authority, it is a double thrill to 'take down' a new moderator. Thus the attacker gains status as a 'real power' in the eyes of potential admirer's (who for the most part don't care.) If a carpenter or painter can show that his knowledge is greater than an expert in a licensed field, there are added flame points. If not, the flamer might advise others to get help elsewhere than recognize your technical answer (also showing a disinterest in answering the original question.) All is a process of hijacking a thread to play the 'blame game.'
