First of all, most of us who’ve dealt with the notorious cl for any length of time know what the guy’s all about, so I won’t waste anybody’s time revisiting the details. We’ve all said our pieces many times over, most recently here, which was precipitated by a thread conversation here. Many of us have in times past suggested that we just ignore the guy. Easy to say. Hard to do...or, so it seems. The reasons for this run the gamut from best intentions to perverse satisfaction. But I think it’s plain to most that dialoguing with cl is fruitless. cl does, indeed, ‘suck the life out of the threads’, his presence virtually guaranteeing a derailment of whatever’s being discussed. Agreed?
What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded- the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us- to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him. The funny thing is, though, this guy lives and dies on his special brand of contention, the kind we’re all sickeningly familiar with. We all know that what cl fears the most is inattention. So why not all of us give him some of that kind of medicine, in spades! Oh, I know at first it’ll be very, very tempting to default, as he uses every horseshitish trick in his book to try and gain control of the threads. But if everybody concerned would just hold fast to this one maxim- IGNORE CL- and as he found himself cut off from the negative energy he needs to feed himself, eventually the guy’s gonna slither off to better hunting grounds, no? At least, that’s my take on it.
Look, we’ve all been over the same ground again and again with cl. The writing’s on the wall, man! But all of us who complain about him have the power to end this shit. We can simply pretend he’s not there. When we see his comments in the thread, we can simply scroll right past then, and continue the conversation minus the headache. He needs this stuff, but...do we? And, hey! I’m not pointing any fingers here; I’m at least as guilty as everybody else for feeding this troll, probably more than many. But isn’t everybody sick to death of his crap- of his lies, and utter bad faith argumentation?
I’m sure this suggestion won’t play well with cl/kirkc/sfatheist/etc/etc/etc, but if we can manage to hang tough with this persona non grata approach, I truly believe all of our blogs will be the better for it. For those of you who like cl, or support him for this or that reason, or whatever, well...I’m really not talking to you. You can feel free to ignore all this, and continue on continuing on, including lambasting me for making such a godawful, antifreedomofspeech suggestion. But I know that many of you feel this is the right thing to do, only the dynamic of blogging often makes the temptation of responding to trolls too great to pass up. Well, I’m just suggesting that you pass it up, anyway, and I’ll do my best to do the same. For myself, I intend to simply breeze on by anything with ‘cl’ attached to it, and continue as if he isn’t even there. I’m not saying it’ll be easy, but I know it’s for the best. I am so sick and tired of seeing interesting post after interesting post turned into the ‘Look at ME, I’m cl’ show, and I know that at least some of you feel the same way. Let’s do something about it, before another six months rolls around and I read YET ANOTHER THREAD about how justified and unjustified evidences boil down to the same thing, about how science is really just faith, about how all the mean ol’ atheists are just following Philly’s lead in attacking cl because his arguments are just so gosh darned better, and especially before I read YET ANOTHER GODDAMNED RENDITION ABOUT THOSE FUCKING VIDEOGAMES FALLING OFF THE GODDAMNED TV!. Enough, already! LOLOLOL!
Comments are open, though I will continue to ban those who post simply to disrupt. My call.
P.S. This message applies to cl clones as well. ‘Nuff said.
It would be why I stopped participating in the discussions over at SI's blog. This is the best approach to take.
ReplyDeleteIf it weren't for his comments, I feel that we could have a more intensive discussion of the /actual/ post. I know, a novel idea, but it's one I've been hoping for. A thorough discussion of a subject rather than beating on the same nail that's already been driven completely through the wood.
~Writing Shadows
It's something most of us have always known should be done, but the temptation for the back and forths is great, and I've certainly 'contributed' my share. Mea culpa. However! Onward and upward.
ReplyDeleteI'll take the pledge.
ReplyDeleteLOL! I posted something on The Chaplain's blog this evening, and just noticed cl's posting right after me. I almost clicked it purely on force of habit, but caught myself. It felt good!
ReplyDeleteDo I get a cookie?
Hey, it's not like EVERYBODY hasn't suggested this at one time or another! Let's put our money where our mouths are.
ReplyDeleteI just commented on the chaplain's blog on the similarities between troll-feeding and rubbernecking.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind so much when people address some actual point cl makes, it's when people let themselves get caught up in cl's game of word definitions, or opinions vs. facts, or what people did or did not say or answer or mean by what they said... and how mean everybody is to him, and what people should or should not say on their own blogs or in the comment threads of someone else's blogs... next thing you know, half the thread is all about cl YET AGAIN!11!!1!!1eleventy!!11!1
ildi: the problem, of course, comes into the fact that once there is even engagement on a point... there will undoubtedly come to be games of definitions, opinions vs facts, and all the rest.
ReplyDeleteIf this weren't so constant, so irritatingly pervasive of every single discussion, and there were to be actual give-and-take (as discussions should go), then it wouldn't be much of a problem. But the conversations, once partaken, never progress beyond definitions and 'all the rest'.
shadb-
ReplyDeleteThat's the way I see it. It doesn't take a very sophisticated meta-analysis to recognize that the noise-to-substance ratio of the threads spikes in the direction of nonsense as soon as the guy shows up, and it never recovers. It's not because he has absolutely nothing to say. Rather, it's the taint of the personality defect behind the words that's the problem; and that's simply not going away. I assume many others besides myself have entered into discussion with cl in good faith, only to discover somewhere along the road what he's really made of. One thing's clear: nothing short of completely ignoring him will ever serve to remedy the situation. He loves any kind of attention, and actually seems to prefer the contentious sort, notwithstanding his obviously disingenuous denials.
Anyway, that's all I'm gonna write about this. Feed the troll, and he'll keep hanging around. Don't feed him, and eventually (after some bellyaching, I'd imagine) he'll look elsewhere to nourish his narcissism. I think I've seen almost everybody I have in mind say 'stop feeding the troll' at least once in this last year. We just need to follow our own advice.
Jim - Some time within the next week or two (don't quote me on the time-frame), you'll find an email from me proposing some sort of discourse, if you don't mind such a thing being done.
ReplyDeleteI must think of a topic before doing so though. The only thought I've had is that I should participate in some discussion, valuable discussion that is, in order to clarify thoughts and in order to, perhaps, gain some new insight into the various subjects.
Until then (or the next post I wish to comment on), have a good holidays.
Looking forward to seeing what you have to say, shad. Some forward-moving dialogue will be much appreciated. Also, a conversational approach, practiced in good faith without the contest of wills would be REALLY refreshing!
ReplyDeleteHope the new year bodes well for you and yours.
Just catching up over here, Jim and saw this.
ReplyDeleteI'm not adverse to this at all. In fact, while I still do occasionally engage with cl when he shows up, (he seemed to have taken a Xmas... err... winter solstice hiatus), I mentally vowed, and told him on a few other blogs, that I would not get into a long discussion with him about anything, because I did not find his style or manner of debate to be anywhere near honest.
So I may answer his initial salvo on a new thread, which really sets the parameters for discussion, but I refuse to get into it in any depth with him. It's a truly wasteful time suck. Once I've answered him, I let it hang with my initial answers. He wants constant clarification and "emendations" and definitions, and yes, it can go on and on, and as soon as I see that happening, I step back and disengage. That seems to be working right now for me.
That may eventually evolve to total disengagement. Who knows?
Hope you had a good holiday.
Won't work. He can make himself, to the untrained eye, appear intelligent and sincere. If he's allowed to do so unchallenged, it can look like he may have a point and we're refusing to engage him because he's got a strong argument.
ReplyDeleteSo if he raises a point, I think it's worth dropping a ton of bricks on him, and THEN perhaps ignore him. Then at least a lurker will know why he's being snubbed. On my blog I give him a few chances and then cut him off, declaring that his questions have been sufficiently answered so there's no point in continuing. When he cries, I just remind him that he's either an idiot who can't understand my writing or a douchebag being deliberately obtuse. Either way, there's no point casting pearls before swine. :)