User Tisane, this could end badly Options

[Abd]

Anyway, having useless arguments about obvious stuff, that anyone can actually check for themselves if they care, is a formula for massive waste of time. Hence I really do need to bail on this discussion, entirely. It only riles up the easily offended.

[Ottava]

Blah blah blah, I haven't actually read Lolita, blah blah blah Pedophiles are great, blah blah blah Cold Fusion rules

Stop the crap, Abd. You were proven wrong and you are crying above. No one cares about you because you are unable to ever get anything right. A normal person would actually try to understand what reality is. You are incapable of doing such. It is sad that you continue to promote works advocating child pornography, but it does make sense when someone knows the type of weirdo you are.

Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Hey idiot, I was always referring to the book, as was the quote I used. You never read the book, which is clear from your inability to know what it actually contains. It doesn't have graphic details and isn't an advocacy text like your text is (it has to be yours, because you are always backing that guy up, defending him, etc., and it is a 99.9% chance that you two are the same individual).

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 6th September 2012, 2:31am

[Fusion]

Fusion

I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.

No lawyer is an expert on the subject. Lawyers fight on a side. They are not the judges. Even judges aren't the ultimate deciders as there are always appeals that can overrule.

Maybe this again a language issue. I had thought that anyone who is a qualified expert on the law is a lawyer. This would of course include university lecturers. How can no such person be an expert? It is a paradox.

Judges too are surely lawyers. So at least some lawyers are the judges! And there is a supreme court, so once they have ruled, they cannot be overruled.

[Ottava]

Fusion

I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.

No lawyer is an expert on the subject. Lawyers fight on a side. They are not the judges. Even judges aren't the ultimate deciders as there are always appeals that can overrule.

Maybe this again a language issue. I had thought that anyone who is a qualified expert on the law is a lawyer. This would of course include university lecturers. How can no such person be an expert? It is a paradox.

Judges too are surely lawyers. So at least some lawyers are the judges! And there is a supreme court, so once they have ruled, they cannot be overruled.

Experts on law can be professors, researchers, academics, etc. The field of "Constitutional Theory" (which makes you an actual expert on the Constitution) is political science whereas a "Constitutional Lawyer" is merely someone who would know how to make an argument connected to the Constitution. The President studied Constitutional Law and tried to say it made him an expert about the Constitution, which pissed off a lot of academics who knew better.

[Fusion]

Experts on law can be professors, researchers, academics, etc. The field of "Constitutional Theory" (which makes you an actual expert on the Constitution) is political science whereas a "Constitutional Lawyer" is merely someone who would know how to make an argument connected to the Constitution. The President studied Constitutional Law and tried to say it made him an expert about the Constitution, which pissed off a lot of academics who knew better.

Thank you. That is indeed interesting, even if irrelevant.

[Abd]

Well, I managed to not look at Wikipedia Review for four whole days. Progress, not perfection.

Blah blah blah, I haven't actually read Lolita, blah blah blah Pedophiles are great, blah blah blah Cold Fusion rules

Ottava lies, nothing new.I haven't read (all) of Lolita. I did not write "Pedophiles are great," for sure, those with the DSM diagnosis are seriously ill (and a danger to children), and I did not write "Cold fusion rules." I'm not even sure what that would mean. Cold fusion is a popular name for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, and they are real (if we can trust peer-reviewed reviews in mainstream journals, supposedly the gold standard for WP RS). They don't "rule" anything. They are weak and might never be commercially practical. Ottava wrote that because he imagines it will upset me, troll that he is.

Stop the crap, Abd. You were proven wrong and you are crying above.

What crap? (and what crying?) I wrote that I hadn't read Lolita (which means I haven't read the whole book). What I'd actually written about The Lolita Method, Ottava does not contest, yet he still claims I was 'wrong." That is because "wrong" is an idea he makes up, it exists entirely in his head, and so he can assert it with no regard for pesky facts.

No one cares about you because you are unable to ever get anything right.

Gee, Ottava thinks that caring is based on getting things right? My kids care about me, for starters, and I have seven of them. The grown children are happy and successful, and I have six grandchildren. I live in a totally different world from Ottava, a world of real people and real caring and love. He lives in a world of shadows and fantasies. I've written many times how sad this is. I mean it. He lives in a world populated by "evil people." You know. People who take photos of their children with no clothing on. People who think differently from Ottava.

A normal person would actually try to understand what reality is.

Indeed, and Ottava doesn't get the irony.

You are incapable of doing such.

Perhaps. Understanding reality is understanding God. It can be, ah, tricky. Those who claim it may indeed be deluded.

It is sad that you continue to promote works advocating child pornography, but it does make sense when someone knows the type of weirdo you are.

This is the kind of "knowledge" Ottava has. Made up. I have never "promoted" a work "advocating child pornography." Ottava makes these claims based on knee-jerk judgments, and he never backs them with evidence, because he knows what happens when he does. He looks like a perverted idiot, his real opinions come out, and he knows that when this happens, he's toast. So he just lies, and lies, and lies, and he knows that he can always garner some sympathy from a few deluded users who don't actually read evidence, they just follow what appeals to them, and Ottava is a poor, sick puppy.

Ottava is not clear what works he is referring to. But I have promoted neither Tisane's writing on the subject of evidence for the harm of child-adult sex, nor The Lolita Method. Both exist, and I've described them, and I've criticized certain other descriptions of Tisane's work as inaccurate. Apparently, to Ottava, description, or correcting errors, is promotion.

Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Hey idiot, I was always referring to the book, as was the quote I used. You never read the book, which is clear from your inability to know what it actually contains. It doesn't have graphic details ...

The "book" in this context is in quotes because it is referring to an internet "book," probably not actually in print. We were talking about "The Lolita Method." Lolita was mentioned in passing. In other words, Ottava may have misread the comments, thinking that I was claiming that Lolita was more graphic, and he repeats this here. Now, when I think someone has misread me, one of the first things I do is look back at the original. So: the original comment was

The Boylove commentary has no photos. It has an excerpt from The Lolita Method. If you fear that a piece of erotic text will flip you into illegal or harmful behavior, indeed, I don't recommend reading this. I.e., if you are a pedophile trying to stay legal.

And then I wrote, in a later post, about The Lolita Method

The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

This is what I remembered, later. "More graphic" was an understatement. However, I also wrote:

Note that if a description of sex with a child were, ipso facto, child pornography, under this definition, Lolita would surely be child porn. However, a description of a murder, in fiction, does not "advocate or counsel" murder.

This comment could easily be misunderstood, and "description of sex" in Lolita could be misleading, and my conclusion incorrect. But that conclusion was dicta, not at all important to the points being made. Ottava, as usual, is looking for something wrong with what another has said, so he can attack. Any error or misimpression -- I don't know how graphic Lolita gets, and what I wrote about the mind filling in the details could apply to the bare mention of the protagonist of Lolita having sex with his stepdaughter, coupled with his obsession about her that preceded it -- is then used for pure ad hominem argument, implying that if one could make an error like that, why, everything is wrong.

... and isn't an advocacy text like your text is (it has to be yours, because you are always backing that guy up, defending him, etc., and it is a 99.9% chance that you two are the same individual).

Ottava is not clear, here, about what text he is talking about. There are two texts. We were talking about one, Tisane wrote a page which had quoted an excerpt from The Lolita Method, apparently as an example of what would be considered legal. If you actually look up the book, in context, it's not exactly advocacy, unless inviting someone very stupid to jump off a cliff is advocacy of jumping off cliffs even if you point out how stupid it is. But the author of TLM does call it "advocacy." Advocacy for idiots, is more or less how he puts it. But Ottava is not talking about TLM, he's talking about Tisane's page which is not an advocacy page. Now, I'm not looking at it now, it may not be available any more, but a lot of what Tisane wrote was misread as advocacy. My point in general is that those claiming he was advocating "pedophilia" refused to supply actual evidence of advocacy, as distinct from description of fact and of arguments. There is a difference between reporting an argument made and actually advocating what the argument might seem to support. If FactCheck.org reports an erroneous or weak argument, it is not "advocating" the reverse view.

It is engaging in rational discourse, where evidence is presented and arguments are made and weighed, and that an argument is false or weak does not automatically argue for the opposite. People like Ottava, however, believe so, and will strenuously resist inconvenient facts, because to accept them would be, to them, a compromise with evil. Can't let those pedophiles and child rapists win, eh?

Now, about my relationship with Tisane. Anyone who followed my Wikipedia career would know that Tisane, under an old account, and later under a new (legitimate, not violating policy) account, twice nominated me for adminship. Tisane was one of the few people who understood what I was attempting on Wikipedia, to establish sane consensus process. He also demonstrated to me how Wikipedia worked, at a time when I'd pretty much drunk the Kool-Aid. He demonstrated how dangerous a place it was, by raising his head and taking the sniper fire.

As part of the process of proposing WP:PRX, and because Tisane had named me as his proxy, we were checkusered. What do you think was the result? Look, it was preposterous from the beginning, it would have had to have been the most elaborate sock scam ever. The last thing a puppet master would do is have his sock name him as proxy, or the reverse. That's why claims that PRX would be a field day for sock masters were preposterous.

Then, again, this thread tells the story of Tisane's "adventures" with the federal prison system. In case you don't know, inmates don't get internet access. I was a WMF sysop while Tisane was in prison.

No, Tisane is a canary. He demonstrates the existence of a toxic atmosphere. One might call him a troll, but a useful one. Not everyone who attacks him is toxic, because he is easily misunderstood, not to mention erring from time to time, but he readily attracts the toxic personalities that gravitate toward positions of power in wikis. Not just WMF wikis. Tisane is highly intelligent, but radically impulsive, and he can go on a jag for days, long enough to do major damage to his life. He's willing to die for what he believes, literally.

He is not a pedophile, a complete reading of his pages would readily reveal that. He's not sexually attracted to children, more than is normal for males. He simply talks about it, where others wouldn't touch the subject. He is not a danger to children, but can readily appear so, if people just read the surface and what they imagine must be the motives of someone who would write as he wrote.

He was incarcerated for violation of federal law, and the application of law was generally correct. He made a threat, and, legally, that must be taken seriously. But he was not actually a danger to his "target." He has no record of vindictive hatred, he has readily forgiven people, and I've seen that over and over. He doesn't hold grudges. I've never seen him seek the ban of anyone, for example.

Hence.... yes, I'd much rather spend time with Tisane than with Ottava. I would not leave my children alone with either of them, Tisane not because of any direct fear, but my ex-wife would have a cow, and she matters. About Ottava, she'd agree with me. Creepy as hell. Nudity is ipso-facto pornographic? Hello?

Again, I don't see the point of continuing. This was just one more collection of examples of Ottava lying. He may believe what he writes, but he is in such reckless disregard of the truth that he's culpable. My opinion, I'm not his judge, and, if I were, I'd recuse.

[Ottava]

Lets break it down - Abd defends a pedophile and tries to claim the guy isn't a creep. He fails miserably. He then makes comparisons to the book Lolita while having no clue what the actual book says and getting it all wrong. Once he starts choking on his foot, he continues to rant and ramble to hide from it. Same old Abd.

[KD Tries Again]

My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay

What a creep.

Ottava is dim, but Abd is profoundly nasty and shouldn't be around here. Ick.

[Fusion]

My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay

What a creep.

Ottava is dim, but Abd is profoundly nasty and shouldn't be around here. Ick.

So he says his ex-wife is pretty. Fair enough. She is straight-laced, OK. She has right-wing political views, that is her business. She is gay, ditto. (But then why did she marry Abd?) How does any of this reflect badly on Abd? Is he a creep for marrying a pretty woman, or a right-wing one or a gay?

[Ottava]

My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay

What a creep.

Ottava is dim, but Abd is profoundly nasty and shouldn't be around here. Ick.

So he says his ex-wife is pretty. Fair enough. She is straight-laced, OK. She has right-wing political views, that is her business. She is gay, ditto. (But then why did she marry Abd?) How does any of this reflect badly on Abd? Is he a creep for marrying a pretty woman, or a right-wing one or a gay?

In American English, "pretty" is a modifier that means "very." So "pretty straight-laced" should be read accordingly.