Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

My time being spent on moving into a new house certainly takes precedence over petty bickering w/ ppl who aren’t able to view themselves as a part of the problem …

Actually as the quote you used indicates, I do view myself as part of the problem.

AND, further reading by YOU would show that you don’t understand that taking pride in being a problem isn’t the same thing as doing anything to correct the issue … IMO.

The issue is that you don’t.
AND, even further reading would have shown that I explained this as being the result of/reaction to YOU getting away w/ the shit that you (among others) do.

The laxity of moderation on the forum sets the tone.
While some posters are just (naturally?) nice, I’m not necessarily one of them when it comes to hotly discussed issues.

You got a Kong admin telling you nothing is ever your fault and [surprise!].
That depends on what YOU mean by “got”.
I didn’t “get” anything.
That individual responded to my query about how to handle your attacks on me.

Once again, THIS is your response to my showing YOU just what your part of the problem is. YOU make no effort to show that you know how to go beyond just admitting that you are a “problem” here. Do you even know how to “play nice”?

…you don’t take any responsibility for the ad hominem attacks you frequently make.
Wasn’t it YOU who said we other posters (you, of course, are lily white) cry ad hominem when it actually isn’t … mostly due to our “inaccurate” interpretation of what such a slight might be?

Had YOU been able to be objective when reading my post, you would have noticed that I DID take responsibility for my behavior … ya know, the behavior that I said was a result, mainly of YOU, ppl getting away w/ the very same.

You also ignore the fact that I was willing to resolve this feud peacefully, privately, back in 2012 –
Yes, as long as I would bow down, kiss your ass, and admit that your problem w/ me was hugely MY fault … extremely little of yours. I don’t typically find much profit in dealing w/ that kind of bullying. (do you want to see that PM again?)
… but instead by your own admission you went to a mod to seek absolution….
“absolution”, eh?
Jan, THAT just might be where YOUR problem lies … perception & interpretation.
Had YOU read a little more, you would have understood that my talking to admin about you was attempts to handle the problem in a manner that wouldn’t get me silenced/banned.

YOU can call that absolution; I call it wanting to know just what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t. A favorable response, while hoped for, wasn’t necessarily the goal. The goal was to better understand exactly what is expected of Kong’s guests so that I might better adhere to those expectations.

[you also later reposted my pm’s in an attempt to humiliate me, because that’s just a thing you do].
Your memory is as bad as your perspective and interpretation.
I made that post as a reaction to your incessant attacking of me.
If a person doesn’t shit on me; I won’t use their face to wipe it off.
Of course, you aren’t able to see that.
And, I know well that humiliating YOU just isn’t likely possible … I wouldn’t waste my time on that endeavor.
So no. You aren’t going to weasel out of this. I want an end to this conflict right right now,…
Hmmmm….somehow I doubt that is very sincere.
But, should it be, just how serious AND CAPABLE are you about doing your part?
Give us (and I say us because it isn’t me that suffers your harassment) some idea of how you are going to manage this? Are you going to weasel out by putting the burden on don?
and that requires YOU to show a little more responsibility than you’ve previously shown,…
Hmmm….“see the splinter in thy neighbor’s eye and not the timber in thy own”.

But, as I said above, the flavor of MY demeanor is by-&-large REACTIONARY to that of yours. YOU clean up YOUR act and see how fast mine does. I made that clear in my post that don removed.

and it requires ME to keep the agreement….
About as long as the one TheBSG initiated and you agreed to … only to be the first to shit all over it? How difficult can it be for you to PERCIEVE that I haven’t much faith in your holding to an “agreement”?
… even when right now I’d like nothing better than to troll you until you gtfo and stay out.

Ya mean like that revelation/threat you made some time back about getting me out of SD … even if it meant that you would also be tossed, was something you would work real hard at?

So, Jan, tell us just what you can work real hard at that might reduce your venom here on SD? Be a leader. Set an example … if you are so superior.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

A much shorter version of my above post; and, one that more likely won’t get tossed:

Most of the angst over the current “problems” for SD hugely center around a failing of posters to observe the Guidelines. Hell, they are only guidelines; they aren’t even RULES … though they very likely should be viewed as such.

It appears there’s a weeeebit too much leaning into an old saw: Rules were made to be broken.

My take on that has always been: Because rules simply can’t be made perfectly comprehensive, they are highly likely going to be unintentionally “broken” in some manner, some of the time, by probably most of us.

This doesn’t mean that one can use that saw as justification for their outright disrespect and abuse of the rules. But, often when I question someone I see doing something that isn’t at all w/in the scope of the rules, that is the comeback they give … basically: that it is good and acceptable to not obey a rule … but, maaaaaaaa, everyone else is doing it.

This strongly applies to a forum where there are mostly ppl who are of cognitive capability that “allows” them a great deal of leverage to question & challenge rules. A damn fine read that could well apply here. Intelligent ppl should understand the differences.

This is where clear, strong rules and steadfastly maintained application of them by those who made them is absolutely needed. This is what I think don (bless his heart for caring) is trying to accomplish by asking Kong Admin to actually stand by their reasoning behind making those Guidelines.

A garden not tended by a gardener is soon overrun w/ weeds. Esp. if those weeds, as is their nature, are much stronger than the desired vegetation.

I leave ya w/ this bit of fun, listen to this song and replace the word “signs” w/ “rules”. Yes, some rules are as funny as are those signs.
(now, back to moving all of my shit into the new house …. yeaaaaaaaaaaa, moving is such fun. lol)


Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

On topic text about half-way below.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Oh and Karma. PMs are private for a reason.

Yeah, and that is why I typically mute assholes.
I’m not at all interested in giving them an opportunity to trash me where others can’t see what they are doing.

Just to clear up something for you and others, UNSOLISITED PM’s aren’t considered private by me. If I initiate the PM discussion, then yes, I will consider any responses as being private.

Why do you have this penchance for dredging up old PMs from all parties and quoting them verbatum in public?
Since I don’t do it to ALL, your dipping into the ol’ well-0-hyperbole is viewed by me as working overtime to dress up your point.

But, to answer your question … I already have done so.
It is in the text above.
I used the content of those PM’s to show just how communication on a forum can easily & greatly be distorted.

Perhaps it is just me, but I learned a long time ago that if I want to ensure something is kept private/secret … then keep it to yourself. ANY PM I make I consider to be subject to public scrutiny. I rarely give or get PM’s. When I do, it is because such conversation isn’t well-suited for the forum … just that simple.

The rest of us (and I think I can speak for everyone else here having seen the others do same as I do) refer to the PMs, and talk about them in general terms, …. The hyperbole aside, the result of such disclosure is pretty much the same. For me, I’d much rather a reference to something I’ve said be quoted verbatim rather than filtered through the shit some ppl are highly capable of …. such as doing this hyperbole thing ya got going on in this post. Then, there is that anger-girded method of being far more “critical” in the assessment than is necessary/beneficial to the point.

You often blasted jhco (and others) for doing it.
Perhaps you shouldn’t do it?

….as it’s a breach of trust to repeat them wholesale in public.
As I said, I extend no such “trust” to unsolicited PM’s. But then, it has become apparent to me that there is some rather odd thinking by SOME ppl on this forum about believing they have a right to someone’s personal areas of communication. So, I can understand why some would also have a different opinion than I do about such “respect” being given unsolicited PM’s.
I mean sure I could post your last three rants to me verbatum,…
Go ahead.
I thought about doing it when I saw all that bullshit/batshit tripe you inaccurately spewed about my position on further PMing w/ you. While it would further my point about how communication on SD is often & highly distorted by many factors, esp. when a party wants to distort it, I felt it would be too far beyond reason to include it … so I didn’t do it, just that simple.

I only PMed you to give you the information vannie? was sending me showing how he was making what appeared to be strong inroads to a lot of personal data about Pete. I didn’t expect any return PM. I thought you could use it to further your point w/ him about how dangerous his doing so actually was. I had given up at that point.

I didn’t feel like I should give it to Pete himself because of how he already views most input from me anyway. And, he thinks I sent him some kind of negative PM. He must have fallen for the ploy vannie tried on me:
“Petesahooligan here, this is one of my alts. I wanted to come to you in private to clarify something I said to you on the forum. I really do think you are a huge asshole, but again so am I. You are quite annoying and to me are nothing more than a little gnat. You need to stay out of my way on the forum and you need to show greater respect to a man of my stature. I can squash you like I have done Vanguarde and soon vikaTae. Do not get on my bad side.”

This is another aspect of communication problems on SD … one can’t really tell for sure who is who saying what.

Plus, I figured you would know better how such critical information vannie? was putting out about Pete should be handled. I also sent it to Don; then, after JohannasGarden showed up (being she is Admin), I sent all of it to her.

… but what would that achieve other than making it look like I was trying to drop you right in it for your language choices, exposing what could have been private info publicly, and conversations stripped from their context?
Frankly, so little of that makes any sense to me that I’ll pass on trying to address it. Ya know, for the sake of good communication it is probably best to not venture into the murky “unknown”.
Also, no, I do not ‘confuse you and Jhco’.
Yup, you do.
Your inaccurate assessment below merely shows how this is possible.
You’re the one who is wholly Wichita-centric, as in the sun rises and sets in Wichita, and any issue that happens anywhere else in the worldmust therefore be only looked at in terms of Kansas first, and the USA second.
Are we again so pissed that we aren’t able to make sensible judgments?
Looks like it to me.
Where I think you may be going wrong is you are so used to projecting all the faults of the universe onto Jhco, you forget to stop and consider if some of those faults you are projecting, are actually your own.
Wow, that’s a stretch … even for Bizzaro vika. LOL
BTW, I can easily say the same for/about YOU and your interactions w/ jhco.
I could toss in the recent one w/ Pete.
If I gave a shit, I’d waste time looking for others in the past.
Just saying.

What was it I said to Jan?
Mathew 3, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”
Now, more directly to the OP and to try to show how the above ties into it.
Obviously, human emotions have a great influence on the demeanor displayed in a forum.

I’ve never hid the fact that I use SD for many reasons.
The more obvious, for me, is that I like to engage in conversations that reveal new thinking for me.
However, the area that seems to appall some posters is my acerbic manner of engaging discussion when either the topic is of great importance to me and/or the person(s) are just fucking around and won’t respond well. jhco & Pete do this very well. vika tends to mirror my behavior on this.

I’ve never denied that I can come off as an asshole.
While not necessarily my intent, I’m certainly not overly concerned if the person I’m wrangling w/ sees it as such. Neither am I surprised that it is seen that way.

Pete is all whiny about how I (he for some reason omits Kasic … well, I know the reason) insisted that he give up his pacifism. He was told repeatedly by Kasic and I that this wasn’t the case … that we merely wanted to know how someone arrives at such an extremist position as the one he presents as his personal one. Hindsight reveals that I probably should have thrown in the towel much sooner. He would probably still be just as pissy …and I’m accused of carrying grudges. LOL

Such is just another example of why/how miscommunication—due to distortions, for whatever reasons—happens on SD. I’m often ridiculed because of my walls-0-text. I guess those critic simply fail to understand that, like the discussion w/ Pete, I’m trying very hard to obtain the information I want … which I find to be important/worthy of my time/effort of trying to obtain so that I might gain more understanding of why someone “thinks” differently than do I.

biguglyorc thinks SD could be a lot “nicer”.
A good sentiment that I agree with.
However, it is a forum populated w/ humans … and therefore all of the foibles inherent therein.
If we humans here on SD were all that capable of being nice, we wouldn’t need mods and flagging.

I’m not particularly “nice” to some ppl some of the time for reasons I’ve made known before.
I’m old and have seen a lot of injustice in my life experiences.
I hate such negativity and harm and pain caused to others … most of whom don’t deserve it at all.

If someone touts how them support such negativity for others, they certainly won’t be getting “nice” from me. I make no bones or secretes about that. I do try to do so within the SD Guidelines. I will strongly & fiercely attack any such positions. Would sugar win over more flies than vinegar? Maybe; but I doubt it.

I’ve found it to be more likely that a strong impact will be more in the forefront of a person’s mind when they do begin to question their ideology on an issue. I can’t change a person’s mind; they have to do that them self. But, a strong input from me just might be the start of them doing so because I’ve made a strong challenge for them to defend their current mindset.

Besides, a forum can be a good place to vent against assholes who are very similar to the ones we know in RL … it’s much safer & easier to do it on the forum. I live in a Red state; it’s rather easy to find things/ppl to bitch about when it comes to a particular kind of person’s behavior/ideology. I’ve never made this a secret either.


Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Along w/ calling me an asshole … LOL

the fact that many long-time SDers are required to tiptoe over your posts…

“Required” ….eh?
Well, since it is YOU who sees it that way, what should I expect …… LOL

… in case you freak out over some mild bit of criticism …..
So, when I vigorously defend my position on an issue, I’m “freaking out”; when YOU do it (and you do do it often) and blast ppl even if they aren’t criticizing YOU, then you are spouting manna from heaven?
… suggests that the focus on Petes being a newb and therefore should’ve been more diplomatic is misleading.
In case ya didn’t notice, I DID NOT SAY he should have been more diplomatic; I merely pointed out that he wasn’t. The point was to show that it IS NOT ALWAYS the regs that is at fault for the heat that comes down on a noob.
If anything we should’ve cut him some slack for being unaware of your tendency to nurse grudges for years.
Ya mean like the one YOU have for little ol’ me?
You can call it a grudge when I keep well in mind the various positions on issues ppl hold.
I just don’t see it that way; and I don’t see anyone else who does the same as “holding grudges”.
That my opinion of jhco’s bigotry hasn’t changed because of lack of any new input really isn’t a “grudge”.

Jan, you really ought to give some consideration to: Mathew 3, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” So, I’ll help you see around that log by presenting a good laundry list of what you might should be looking at.

YOU are one of, if not the MOST, vile posters on SD.
You likely are a major cause for posters not wanting to stick around.
After all, isn’t this what is being discussed here?
So, shouldn’t your part in this be grist for the mill?

A lot of (most?) your vile posts get removed; so it is a little difficult to retrieve them.
But, not all are lost.. such as this recent one:
“Are you joking? Vika went into meltdown mode. It was like watching a car crash – which could actually be applied to this entire 2-threads long ‘discussion’ – and it was pretty much entirely her fault. I had issues with Pete’s reasoning too, but I wasn’t expecting the stream of irrational, paranoid babble that came bursting out of her.”

Or, ones from your posting history:
“I’m aware you tried that on vika once. She’s still here as a reg, whereas you’re the recurring gasbag nobody respects, even in troll-dom.”

“When I first came here I dished out the “MA here” tag often and in retrospect that was embarrassing. Even more embarrassing than drunk-posting/pm trolling, which is saying something.” [as if anything has actually improved much]

“I guessed who it was by his second post. Hard to believe it took other regs so long to play catch-up.” [nice off-handed insult]

“You know vika, this reminds me a lot of the time you thought karma was a pedophile because you misread one of his rants. Remember that? You should, he reminds you of it frequently. Or maybe the time you thought I was a bigot for not being sufficiently nice about transhumans, and in both cases you realized you were wrong but only after you’d gone on a holy self-righteous crusade. And I can think of three or four others, though not by name. So as a third party in what’s shaping up to be this latest fiasco, I’m going to request you do two well, three things:”

“1) QUOTE what he said, not what you think he said.
2) LEAVE your victimization tendencies at the door.
3) Get the FUCK off your pedestal. Sharangir and Karma don’t even approach your “how dare you besmirch blah blah blah” antics.”

Yup, I nominate Jan as Saint of SD for how well he conducts himself here. [sarcasm]
I would say that he doesn’t “freak out” when he is criticized or even finds fault w/ most anything that is being said in general—what he does do appears to be that he gets his rocks off bullying posters on a forum until he is finally kicked off of it (as he mentioned has happened in the past).

All of this is germane to the OP in that it is about the behavior of the posters. That behavior issue is at the very heart of any and all “problems” w/ the forum. Bless his heart, TheBSG made a valiant effort to address this area. don (our mod) recently endeavored to run a few ideas up the flagpole and see which way the forum winds fluttered them.

Perhaps, it is time for this thread to segue into a thread (or back to don’s thread) that will seriously discuss options for handling the problems being brought up in this one?


My earliest posts were very aggressive towards guys like jhco and antiworld. Cynically I can’t help but wonder if I was so warmly received because I wrote thoughtful posts or because I was flaming people the majority of SD already loathed.

Typically, I would say both.
But then, that will vary from person to person.
Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
That’s probably enough to put a perspective on the concept of SD regs being the sole ppl (vs. the noob) bringing heat to the discussion, at least for some ppl some of the time in varying degrees.

You know, while pete had his share of inexcusable retorts, you did provoke him.

I disagree.
Kasic & I were trying to get Pete to (basically) stop dicking around and give some rational responses.
Pete was channeling jhco hard & strong.
Pete says we were trying to get him to “recant” his personal belief on pacifism.
All Kasic and I (maybe you, bigugly) were wanting from him was some direct answers to questions that were intended (provoking?…bullshit) to give some insight as to WHY he held such a belief.
As a matter of fact, I did too, although – how ever dismissive of my own behaviour it may be – I blame it on communication barriers, because that wasn’t really my intention there.
No was it my intent to piss him off.
He managed that all on his own.
Hell, even Kasic was showing out-of-character peevishness because of the insanity of Pete’s responses.
Likely, neither was it yours, but with your total war arguing style, I can’t blame pete for losing his shit there.
Seriously, because I vigorously challenge someone about an opinion they hold is now “total war arguing”? I don’t typically get into discussions where there isn’t already some form of “war” going on: the war on abortion rights, the war on Gay rights, the war on the rights of the various feminist groups to have their say … on & on.

Those issues I am very passionate about.
So yes, someone who promotes diminishing other’s rights will find themselves locking horns w/ me over it. If a poster doesn’t want to “go to war” w/ me, they always have the right to decline to “engage”. At least that is how I roll.

How he decided to show his angst is another story, not really related to this subject yet, I think.

I disagree.
It IS a part of the subject.
That is if the subject is about how well SD is doing and the reasons why it is or isn’t.
Anything of note that happens on SD is a part of what the OP brings up.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Today’s culture has grown far quicker and to a far greater scale than the human brain is familiar with.

I don’t understand this.

My grandmother came to Kansas in a covered wagon as a child; she lived to see the U.S. put a man on the moon. Sadly, she didn’t live long enough for me to show her computers & my smart phone and all the wonders they can do.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by 404WindStalker:

karma: …And I know the folly of trying to separate aspects of oneself, let alone someone else.

Yes, absolutely.
While we endeavor to make sense of things in our world; esp. in the area of defining them—or, making a best scenario attempt to do so— is where we so very often forget that “the map IS NOT the territory” that the map it trying to identify. The river doesn’t know nor care if some map has a state, county, country line drawn across it … it just keeps rolling along.

But, we do need such “maps”, languages, etc. so that we can better pin down that which we are trying to communicate. A problem comes in when we fail to understand that those kinds of maps, while often drawn by very professional ppl, STILL fail to be totally accurate … esp. if there are several “interpretations” of them.

Something along the lines of where the 4 states of Ariz, NewMex, Colo, Utah actually do geographically meet.
“Unfortunately, 19th-century surveying technology wasn’t precise enough to follow the meridians and parallels precisely. The real spot, we can now see with GPS, is 1,807 feet to the west.”

There is this “that-was-then;-this-is-now” thing, there is the “depends on who you talk to” thing, there is a host of areas/ways in which viewpoints & perspectives will “naturally” come to bear and be in varying degrees of “separation”.

A person’s life is much too complicated and interwoven to have various aspects of it pigeon-holed so that they can be specifically addressed.


Today’s culture has grown far quicker and to a far greater scale than the human brain is familiar with.
Totally agree. This is one of the several bedrock concepts I present to groups in an effort to help them understand that resolving issues in their personal, family, social, & professional lives simply isn’t going to be easy … simply because it IS NOT any long as simple as it was a mere century or two ago.

For the most part, the same basic concepts still exist. But, the exponential explosion of population, technology, transportation, information dissemination, controls of resources, etc. have all combined to create a perfect storm of a crisis that now is strongly global.

I guess that’s why most people and the groups they identify with come off as cliquish, petty, and polarized to me.

You mean like how America is stymied by our politics; by our concepts of which is the better “religion”; by most anything that is touted as best by Madison Ave for the now huge mega-corps who are the extremely mighty & powerful tail that sadly is today wagging the dog of its huge consumer population.

My hopes is that America can survive this upheaval-0-confussion.
My dread is that either we won’t;
or, we will pay a huge negative price if we do manage to do so.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I think that the initiation and orientation period that you describe is particularly abrasive in this forum (compared to other forums I’ve experienced), …..

This might be a factor of what the noobie brings. Pete has been posting on Kong since 2007. His first appearance on SD was on the thread: " Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?"

Some of what he brought to that discussion involved two major things:
1) a style of discussion (similar to that of jhco) that greatly frustrated Kasic and I (can’t remember how bigugly was affected by it). I don’t remember whose “frustration” came first and caused any heat in the kitchen … the noob or the regs.

2) But, the noob did his fair share of insulting:
“Karmakoolkid, the reason violence is “inevitable,” (as you suggest) is because there are people like you that use moral ambiguity to justify your actions. Plus, I don’t like your aggressive tone. I think you are an intellectual bully that enjoys “putting people in their place.” I’m not down with that.”

““You said that you would choose the life of your son’s would-be-murderer rather than your son’s.” —biguglyorc
Obviously I said no such thing, and the spirit of this room seems to be about flamboyant reinterpretations of statements to suit some motive. Why would biguglyorc distort my views? I think it’s because he’s approaching the topic as a win-or-lose situation and it’s such a sloppy way to explore an idea that I choose not to participate.”

“I’m here to explore an idea, biguglyorc, whereas you’re apparently here to have an argument.”

“You cannot understand that why I’m uncomfortable with you being insistent for an answer to a question that I cannot answer accurately with the information given. When I do answer, per your repeated demands, you use it as an “aha, I told you so!” moment. It’s childish and proves nothing.”

“Originally posted by karmakoolkid: America is the land of the free because it is also the home of the brave.
Posted by Petesahooligan: I think you’re an idiot, and you certainly don’t care.”
Along w/ calling me an asshole … LOL

That’s probably enough to put a perspective on the concept of SD regs being the sole ppl (vs. the noob) bringing heat to the discussion, at least for some ppl some of the time in varying degrees.

Originally posted by 404WindStalker:

Jantonaitis: All that feuding across threads is my biggest turnoff from posting here; it evokes unpleasant memories of real life. It’s doubly irritating seeing the board only stagnate when I’ve made great positive changes as a person. I guess it’s easier to slip into old personae whenever everyone else does it.

What you are describing here is just simply life and human nature.

SD is where ppl discuss very adult ideals … very SERIOUS ones, hence the name.
Serious ideals are going to evoke passionate opinions; which in turn, bring out presentations of them in ways that can easily digress into passionate exchanges/discussions. This can be applied to the second half of pete’s sentence (from above): “…. and that it’s much more abrasive than one might expect from a casual gaming site.”

Since it is impossible to separate a person’s opinion on an issue from the person them self, there is always going to be a certain perception that the person is being attacked right along w/ their opinion. Likely, only a Saint would be able to maintain their cool; although I’ve seen a few SD posters who I’d nominate for Sainthood … you being one of them, WindStalker. Kasic is another; tho I rarely, RARELY see him lose his cool. This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t dish out a “modified” bit-0-spleen at times.

This is from one of Pete"s earliest posts:
“The profile of the process seems similar—from my experience—to others. Newcomers that exhibit an interest in becoming sustained participants are vetted with a trial by flame. This is the process in most of the forum communities I’ve been involved with, but SD seemed to me particularly rough.

“In the end I don’t think that process is a bad thing. It has benefits… increasing emotional stake, testing the capacity of the initiate, reinforcing the gate-keeper roles within the group and identifying authorities and the peace-keepers, junk like that.”

“Highly capable intellects will arrive to join others here. Some mediocre ones will be thrown in, (a group that I proudly claim allegiance), and the enthusiastic villains that liken themselves Devil’s Advocates. They’re important too… the anti-heroes, agitators, and provocateurs. The barriers to communication may be part of a filtering process.”

SD can be a very “heated (flaming?) kitchen” where the “feet” of opinions are held to the fire. This is where good mod/Admin control should come in as some form of thermostat. This is what first attracted me to SD … that flaming wasn’t allowed.

Sorry to seem to be picking on ya, Pete; but, some of your posts do say a lot about what is being discussed in this thread … esp. in the area of mods (your posts on this are great) and how they might be a big influence in the health of SD.

“I think the best moderator is a lazy one who only feels compelled to “moderate” with great reluctance. It’s the eager moderator…or the moderator who feels like it’s necessary to remind you that they’re there to “moderate” that are the biggest problems. I’d basically watch out for anyone who wanted to be a moderator. :)”

“Healthy neighborhoods don’t appoint people the “welcome wagon.” It’s a false-front. Truly healthy communities don’t require such canned positions and roles because the self-regulate and nuture the traits that attract newcomers. Newcomers are healthy for the community, after all, and the kinds of people a community has in it is the kind of people it’s going to attract. If, for example, a community (online or not) is thuggish and mean-spirited, it will attract those same kinds of people. If it’s kind, welcoming, and generous, it will attract those same types of people…and people who are not that will be shunned and not welcome. As humans we’ve been doing this for zillions of years (or a few thousand, depending on your beliefs)…and far before police, mayors, and welcome wagons.”

“If Kongregate wants a community, it must allow that community to incubate and mature. Moderators are a hindrance to that process…albeit a necessary one for a variety of reasons. Somewhere between “coddled” and “wild west” there is a vital and important community waiting to emerge.”

“One last thing: I don’t believe moderators EVER feel consumed by their power. Their “abuses” are always accidental; they never know the damage they cause…and often times neither do the people that they impact.”
I think this whole angst over SD can be somewhat summed up by what Pete says here (putting the responsibility for the “problems” squarely on Kong itself):

“Consider that the Kongregate community – as with any online community – is essentially fueled by its user base. We are the “customers” and there is a competitive internet full of gaming sites trying to attract us. Like you, my time is valuable and Kongregate should (and certainly does) recognize that. If my time is going to be compromised by an undertrained moderator, I will spend my time elsewhere. It’s not a threat; it’s a matter of fact that exists for all of us.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obligation to Help Others

Ooops, pete beat me to it = bell curve and subjectivity and choice of nomenclature.
I knew I should have not waited until morning … LOL

But, I want to point out that the bell curve of WHO (how many) is making the input (or not making it) isn’t the only one to be considered. That particular bell curve is only one of many bell curves within a much greater bell curve that demonstrates how every nuance-point on that curve is subject to a host of conflicting and/or cooperative activity/ideology … the degree of viewpoint of the validity of any of it being a factor of perspective by an individual (at one end of a curve) or an entire group (at the other end) affected.

Of course, perspective is going to affect (and be affect by) any behavior w/in that “numbers-of-ppl” curve; because, that curve is subject to the any-&-all curve of the particular incidents confronted by the spectrum of individual-entire group, the time (specific moment-era-“eternity” curve) which is being considered, …..

Basically, I’m talking about the good ol’: who, where, what, when, how and the majestic of ALL of those things interact. I feel any such term, word, concept of “good” is so fraught w/ subjectivity applied to those 5 that it creates such an enormous complexity that any effort to come to a consensus of what it entails would rival (and likely & greatly) surpass that of “defining” God and/or religion.

Which brings me to say we seem to be leaving out the antithesis of good in this discussion … EVIL. This “Yin-Yangian” thing between good & evil is itself THE bell curve upon which the complex interaction of the 5-W’s bell curves is applied. Is good an absence of evil; or, is there an interdependence of the two where one is created by the existence of the other … a flowing/fluid dance of waning & waxing of the two throughout eternity?

That would seem to be the basis of philosophy… which might be seen as being a function of what pete said above: “Getting the right answer requires asking the right question, I suppose.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by vikaTae:

With an avatar-based interaction, it would not be outside the realm of possibilty to map your body language expression to a bird body, automatically transforming the gestures as required to the joint limitations of the crow body.

In short, you would be interacting with others as a crow, enthusiastically discussing whichever point you wished to make.

LOL, I was going to edit it (upon some reflection) to do some explaining.

The first video is to show how most would perceive the communication of crows … just a lot of cawing.

The second video is to show that if perhaps we were to know how to “speak” crow and realize the crow might be much more intelligent than we initially & easily presume, then we might have a greater understanding of one of our feathered friends. Of course, the metaphor there is about those who think/believe/etc. differently than do we.

This is somewhat along the lines of my analogy of the radio transmission, reception, medium transmitted in. In that is also the more defined concept of (your bringing into this discussion) BANDWIDTH.

A transmission made on a frequency either not available to the receiver or not “tuned in” is generally just worthless. Like how dogs and smell and hear things we aren’t “equipped” to do. Like how we can see in only a very limited band of the entire light bandwidth.

This all is much along the lines of what you brought up about how the police training in your area give great importance on how fragile good/true communication is/can be …. esp. in an area where stress and/or compliance w/ authority is involved … often heightened by elevated urgency.

This training would probably entail something along the lines of The One Minute Manager. Or, quality over quantity. There is nothing inherently wrong w/ quantity, as long as it is mostly quality.

But, initial & brief quality is an important threshold before quantity should be tried.
Or, the “any questions?” given by a speaker upon the completion of a short introduction of their subject. This can often (NOT always) be a good tool to use in order to be responsive to the needs/interests of the group being talked to …. as opposed to someone standing at a podium giving an hour’s recitation from some book.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose


Maybe not

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

but without video conferences, how will you see how beautiful my feathers are, how majestic my beak is, and how mighty my talons are????

Nah, I view too much porn already.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I probably should inject at this point a concept that you (vika) & I share.
This is that the very primordial survival aspect of us tends to be highly suspicious of that which is “foreign” to us. If we know about it, we can adequately cope w/ it … either fight or flight. A third option (not usually brought up) is that this new “thing” can be embraced as possibly being something beneficial … should it be approached in a manner that doesn’t “kill the cat”.

Yeah, I’m talking about the CURIOUS mind.
We all have it …. to varying degrees, at varying times, in varying ways, on varying subjects.
But, as vika & I also concur, it is when that curiosity is limited—by seeking only that which confirms the “comfort zone” at the expense of having that zone bumped a bit the growth of “the mind” is also limited correspondingly.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

so what you are saying is that we need SD video conferences?

CROW, your typically humorous “sarcasm” aside and realizing that NEED can be highly subjective, I respond seriously w/ what vika said:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

As you can see, the standard figure is that 7% of communication is the words themselves. Now, that varies from context to context, and the words are often enough on their own. However that means that 93% of the information encoding bandwidth we could be using, and that our nervous systems are designed to use, is not being utilised.

It’s no wonder animosity and miscommunication builds when 93% of potential transmitted meaning is immediately discarded.

CROW, I’m saying that your “need” should be viewed more as something along the lines of: a desire for that which would be beneficial to an ENHANCED communication/exchange. After all, isn’t that what talking to each other is supposed to accomplish … a communion?

Nah, strike that. There is far too much talking TO each other that is little more than just a talking AT each other … even when vika’s 93% is/can be utilized. This is lack of good communication, seems to me, to be at the heart of most of the woes of the world. Where is a Spock mindmeld when ya need one?

In radio analogy, there is a transmitter, a receiver, and the medium which the signal is transmitted. All three are typically subject to a host of problems … both intentionally by the transmitter and/or the receiver, and by conditions beyond their immediate control.

Some of that lack of control, just to mention an easily recognizable one, is when a person is brought up in an environment where a particular concept/ideology is so strongly reinforced that it becomes a Holy Grail of sorts for that person. Then, add to that a woeful lack of teaching of how to keep an open mind, and you then have a recipe for a transmitter that is much like fingernails being scraped on a blackboard (are they still around? lol).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

You’re aware it’s just an automatic complaint letter generator’s output, right?

Actually no, I typed it all myself. Took about an hour or so.

Fun Fact: Didn’t use a dictionary and the only word I looked up was “sesquipedalian”, and only to copy+paste because I didn’t want to type the whole damn word out.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Is that you, Dennis Miller?
(watch any-all of the other videos … they’re great)
Readable example of his rants
Regardless, a damn fine rant.

“But, that’s just my opinion … I could be wrong.”
Dennis Miller

Never heard of the fellow, but I’ll check him out.

Do check out Miller, he’s a master at the rant. He usually touches on some serious subjects. He likewise is a walking dictionary and scathing analogist.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:

Let’s seriously discuss the fact that you are trying to have “serious discussions” on a free online flash gaming site ……

A philosopher and true lover of wisdom,

Is that you, Dennis Miller?
(watch any-all of the other videos … they’re great)
Readable example of his rants
Regardless, a damn fine rant.

“But, that’s just my opinion … I could be wrong.”
Dennis Miller

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:



Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Are So Many of the Kids My Age so Immature?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What are the risks-benefits involved w/ online exposure of one's own personal-professional life?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Assholes online might be the nicest people face-to-face. (Right, Karma?)

So, you are now back to calling me an asshole?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The panik button.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’d still like to see a format where a forum member could “challenge” another, or others, to a debate with a specific format.

An Axiom thread, for one.
I see no problem and fully support a venue(s) that go beyond that structure.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What are the risks-benefits involved w/ online exposure of one's own personal-professional life?

First, I want to, AGAIN, make it clear that I started this thread to explore the various areas of what revealing particular information about oneself could result in … particularly the negative.

pete, it really isn’t about YOU.
The fact that we are discussing your particular personal situation is because you presented it;
AND, continue to discuss my OP via it.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I won’t understand it until something awful happens, and yet (strangely) I have been practicing this principle for more than 20 years and haven’t had a problem yet.

One: how long someone can go w/o something bad happening really isn’t always a factor of it being anything to do w/ the choices they have made or not made … wise or not.

It can simply be much like a killer asteroid hitting Earth; it is not a matter of IF, merely a matter of when.

I’m not saying that this applies to you, pete.
I’m merely saying that if one takes a serious look at life, they will see that OVERALL it is only a matter of time before some crazy finds a target and exacts whatever “punishment” is deemed appropriate.

That is the very large Russian Roulette I’m talking about. This is something you CAN understand now enough to the point it might be something that can be applied toward some form of prevention of having to learn it “the hard way”.

Huh. Maybe you’re right. I guess I never really will understand. Clearly I’m beyond your help.
No need to be snarky about it.

But wait… you’ve said that you have been the victim of harassment, right? You can’t even protect yourself, but you are eagerly critical of my methods.

Are you not able to see that this line of behavior is something that can easily be considered by a crazy as being highly insulting? If you know & understand crazies like I do, ya’ll know such is often all it takes to set a nutjob off on ya.

When someone carries a gun for self-defense, this is a real biggie. Just because one has “the last word in an overly serious discussion” (the gun) at their disposal certainly doesn’t mean it is a wise choice to even enter such a discussion. One MUST read the situation and know “when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em”.

I don’t think I want your advice. Oh, that’s right. I never asked for it.
Can we drop the attitude?
It really isn’t necessary.
I’ve already covered this point w/ ya.
By entering this discussion WITH YOUR OWN experience as fodder for your position on the merits of openness on the Net, you have tacitly agreed to have said experience challenged when it comes to the merits of my OP.

And, taking the advice of someone who “has been there” is a lot better than taking that of someone who has their head in the clouds about the lack of possibility that a shit storm can rain on their parade … and all those in the park w/ them at the time.

The bottom line is that (as I have said repeatedly): Each person is responsible for managing their online exposure according to their personal preferences, vulnerabilities, and philosophical outlook.

Funny how Vika and Karma have such a problem with that.

vika and I don’t have ANY problem w/ that.
We have been agreeing w/ ya all along on it.

Our point is that by being overly “open”, a person can create/cause a multitude of unforeseen problems for a lot of other ppl who haven’t a clue they are being a part of said “openness”.

I don’t know if you understand that concept or not.
You certainly haven’t done much to address it.
In the other thread, you mentioned how that woman who is associated w/ you (the picture Jan put up) is in no danger because you didn’t put out any “real” information about her.

What part don’t you understand about how the mere mention that she works w/ you and you think highly of her can be enough of a connection for the crazy to go after them in order to send you the message?

It would be interesting to know how she feels about POSSIBLY coming into some crazy’s crosshairs because of your position on Net openness. I’ve found that women have a much keener sense about danger than do men. I’ve also probably seen a lot more of the dark side of humans than you.

That is probably the greater reason you & I differ on what is “safe” conduct and what isn’t.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What are the risks-benefits involved w/ online exposure of one's own personal-professional life?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Well, Karma believes that I don’t understand his point of view and belabors the same aspects of his position. Yes, I get it. I simply don’t agree with you.

Or, maybe you don’t actually “get it”?
After all , it is MY point; I’m probably in the better position to discern if it appears to be understood.

How is this any different in your belief that we aren’t understanding your point?
We do get the redundant & obvious ones: it’s your life; you haven’t YET had problems; you aren’t telling us how to protect ourselves, or not; you believe a person on the Net not only hasn’t any real risk from lack of anonymity, but should strive to be more open; that our advise is “unsolicited” (we’ve covered that … only to be ignored). Those are “belabored” areas you are putting forth.

I haven’t seen any evidence that Vannie is crazy beyond the common hollow threats that I’ve witnessed hundreds of times before.

Since you are now on a thread that is talking about this issue IN GENERAL, I remind you that it really isn’t vannie per se we are talking about. It is crazies LIKE him.

If Vika has had a different experience, maybe she should have done a better job protecting herself.
Perhaps that is merely phrased poorly; but, it does come across as being a bit insulting. Imagine how a crazy would view it.

Again, YOU are using unnecessary deflection here.
What part of vika using her experience as a “pudding-proof” to back up her opinion don’t you understand? Why attack the messenger simply because you don’t like the message?

My life is my responsibility and WITHOUT EXCEPTION I have no regrets.
Good for you.
I sincerely mean that.
I wish you all the best for you on that.

But, the one huge thing you continue to refuse to address is this whole point about how your personal beliefs are probably affecting other ppl who haven’t a clue that you are doing so.

Your unsolicited advice on how I should conduct myself, and your gruesome and unnecessary hypothetical scenarios, are amusing and entirely disregarded.
Yup, cast an off-handed insult to those trying to have a discussion w/ you about something that YOU brought into the discussion. That is what “solicited” our responses.

And, once again, you are having a huge problem w/ “unnecessary hypothetical scenarios” which are greatly germane to the discussion. Your disdain for reality doesn’t mitigate the truth of it. This certainly is a good plan for life … IF life will allow one to live it that way.

But, the truth of the matter is ……..

But thank you for all of your input! It has been thoroughly considered as an abstract exercise and completely disregarded as a personal practice. Please continue to conduct your own lives as you see fit.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What are the risks-benefits involved w/ online exposure of one's own personal-professional life?

Yes, the point is that what one does PERSONALLY to their own life is entirely their own bucket of water to carry.

But, it is that old saying that comes to mind: the freedom to swing your arms wildly about end where the other guy’s nose begins. Other ppl in association w/ that individual have rights to not be involved in issues that they aren’t even aware of … let alone might be supportive of.

Negative reaction to a person’s behavior doesn’t even have to come from a crazy without; it can come from within. I’m guessing some here don’t know what fragging is:

""During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging – that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field," says historian Terry Anderson of Texas A & M University. “The US Army itself does not know exactly how many…officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. Consequently by early 1970, the army [was] at war not with the enemy but with itself.” Rough figures for “fraggings” are indicated in column a. below."

So, do take me seriously when I talk about how someone who is/places them self in a position that can be contentious in some form. I know well just how fucking nuts this can get. And, it can come from the most unlikely sources at times.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Are So Many of the Kids My Age so Immature?

Originally posted by Kasic:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I don’t think so Kasic. His use of wording, as Karma also picked up upon, directly indicate he was trying to threaten my wellbeing.

It’s laughable I agree, especially since he’s the one trying to make sure everyone knows who he is, but it was definitely worded as a threat.

I’m not seeing it. Maybe, if he hadn’t been posting here for a while, I might sort of see a veiled implicit threat. But that isn’t what I’m getting, especially because I’m familiar with the way he types and argues. All I’m seeing is that he’s trying to reverse your point.

To be clear, I didn’t pick up any direct indication that pete was DIRECTLY making a threat.

Perhaps if vika can produce it, I will then be able to make a judgment.
As it is, I wasn’t able to find it upon a quick scan of the above posts.

I agree w/ Kasic in that it more likely was intended as some form of reversal of threat source. pete was likely point out that vika’s assertiveness about pete’s point, and how it applies to his personal life, could be seen as being a source for threat from someone … but, NOT specifically him.

However, as I point out on “that other thread”, what I see pete doing w/ this line of defending his point is something along the lines of defense mechanisms we humans employ in order to keep sane.

pete tosses in a lot of superfluous, meandering, deflecting points that really have little connection to the points being presented by other posters. Such can be quite frustrating for someone who has personal experiences in life that affords them a heightened degree of real concern about such behavior that is viewed by them as to be overly cavalier.

A point can be made that when someone on a forum behaves in such a manner and it ends up greatly affecting a crazy, just how hard is it to understand that it can’t be any too difficult to generate some very destructive animosity in the crazy?

Anonymity online is the key to being able to say things one wouldn’t in RL … for all the reasons inherent in the repercussion nature of real life. But, when one loses such anonymity online, they then become subject (and “subjectively” so) to some forms of repercussions available to those who are “offended” by that person.

I think that is the key to all of this discussion.
That lack of anonymity online is just simply far too dangerous to go giving it up easily and eagerly. I find it even somewhat sillier to make some form of Holly Grail out of a fight for goody-two-shoe openness & transparency on the Net.

Aha, Kasic ninja’d me:

That’s the bigger thing. There’s a difference between being public on the internet (ex; facebook) and giving clearly antagonistic, possibly dangerous and unstable individuals specific information about yourself as a middle finger response.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What are the risks-benefits involved w/ online exposure of one's own personal-professional life?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Karma, I never made any such claim that others should behave in any particular way in regards to their safety, security, or privacy.

And, show me where I said you do.
I actually did just the opposite.
This is merely one of the deflective measures you use to drive the discussion ‘round-&-’round to the point it becomes so far afield of the point that those in disagreement w/ you simply just get frustrated and give up.

How hard is it to conceive that such human behavior isn’t possible for ppl in general?
Are YOU so sure that you aren’t indulging in it a bit here on this issue?
What I said was: “You write over & over about how you aren’t doing to us what you perceive we are doing to you.”

I said that this point of yours is IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
Just as a lot of the other points you raise, while still in the ballpark, just aren’t that relevant to the topic at hand.

And, in an attempt to comply w/ JohannasGarden’s input, I even gave inference that YOU were personally being discussed because you are the one that is defending the “lax position” for online exposure of personal data AND because it is you who has been making your personal life the example by which the discussion can be applied.

You also illustrated with vivid imagery how a person might literally harm me, laying a plan out in step-by-step fashion. Yet you don’t see any problem with introducing these concepts—essentially implanting violent and provocative scenarios—in a forum that you recognize as having members that are volatile and prone to destructive behavior.
pete, I’ve already addressed this.
And, true to your nature for discussing issues where your personal life is involved, you appear to either ignore the obvious (even when it is spelled out), or you utterly distort it beyond recognition of its clear intent.

This is what you are doing w/ my vivid scenarios of what can befall someone who is at the mercy of a crazy. I’ve already stated (only to be ignored) that a crazy person intent on doing you harm, simply over some irrelevant Internet discussion forum, is waaaaay ahead of me on just what vile methods he can cook up.

Or, stated another way: a crazy that learns from my elementary scenarios isn’t the type that is likely going to be able to carry them out. What part are you missing about what I am telling you of just how fucking nuttzo AND CAPABLE some of these ppl can be?

Doesn’t this strike you as somewhat reckless behavior on your part?NO…I don’t.
I’m not so dumb as to say my behavior is “lily white”; but, trying to recklessly sugar-coat the truth isn’t something that is desirable when someone just isn’t able (for whatever reasons) come to terms w/ the POSSIBLE true danger their activities CAN put them in.
I don’t think it is, but if you sincerely believe that risk can be managed by maintaining editorial control, why take the conversation into places that it doesn’t need to go?
You think blaming the messenger is somehow supportive of your position?
For me, this is deflection … one of the several general defense mechanisms ppl employ in order to mitigate an undesirable in their life.

AGAIN, I took the conversation into that place because I truly believe that you were (still are) failing to grasp the negative potential of the gravity such openness can generate. It’s not like such slaps to the face of a hysterical person aren’t common-place “lore” to the point of being comically hyperbolized (as in the clip).

But, which way is it?
Either I’ve “taught” a crazy here on SD how to “get at” you … meaning that one actually is here and just might be of a danger to someone, including you; OR, there is this crazy person and you STILL don’t see them as being a danger to anyone.

Shall I describe to you with vivid imagery how a psychotic murderer might torture your family?

More deflection.
If I’m the one who is painting the picture, wouldn’t I already know the subject?
That it would come from you, who I’ve already made clear I don’t think you understand the subject, really wouldn’t affect me much at all. Why should it?

Would that help you understand anything about security?
Nope … not a bit of help.
But, such things do relate to how humans can be blindly overly optimistic;
and be easy prey for those looking for victims.
No, it wouldn’t. It would be unnecessarily provocative and not add anything to the substance of the conversation.

Good point.
Now, please try to keep this in mind when you opt to do the things your are doing that do “not add anything to the substance of the conversation”.

Per what Johanna proffered, I’m not at all psychoanalyzing you.
I’m merely pointing that humans do have a host of defense mechanism which, at time, can do much more harm than they do good.

It is my opinion that those who would expose them self to such openness to the World are likely playing a very dangerous game. Is the risk high? Probably not … this is so subjective in so many ways.

But, as I and vika have been pointing out, such laissez faire might be fine for one person in regard to their own life. However, when that person projects their beliefs on an issue of personal/professional safety on a person who isn’t aware that such is now in their life and they can be at a risk they didn’t buy into, there is a seriously real problem of lack of judgment going on here.

I don’t care how well known someone’s colleagues are.
That isn’t the point.
The point is that someone “outs” them to the crazy.
The point is that someone states how well they like that person.
The point is that that person might well pay the price for someone’s ignorant arrogance.

The true torture isn’t to kill someone.
It is to let them live w/ the knowledge they are “responsible” for the pain, misery, suffering, death of others … esp. those dear to them.