Past the tl;dr aspect, I don't find it difficult to follow what FT2 is saying.

Some more quotes from the excellent Skopp from the 2006 Zoo page. FT2 has argued that Skopp (as well as numerous other people whose only common characteristic is that they have attempted to challenge FT2's ownership of the article) is a 'POV warrior'. Well, it is always difficult to tell which of two people who claim to be an expert is the real expert (perhaps neither are). Here are some arguments against it being FT2.

1. Skopp claims to be a medical expert on his talk page
2. Skopp claims to be a member of the Smithsonian
3. Of course he may be lying, but having read all of his edits he comes across as a literate, logical person who is capable of arguing clearly and succintly (unlike FT2)
4. My other test for expertise is to look at an area which I understand well, and see if the person is talking complete bollocks about it. If he (or she) is, it is highly probably they are talking bollocks about any subject they claim to be expert in. That is a rule that has served me well in life. As I have said, I have some expertise, a great deal more than FT2 I suspect, in the area of linguistics. Everything that FT2 has said about linguistics in his NLP articles is complete bollocks. Ergo &c.
5. Now I may be lying about my own area of expertise (linguistics). I leave you to be the judges of that.
6. (As also mentioned above) I also did ask one expert in the field of Zoophilia about the Zoo article. He said that as you would expect, the article was little more than a collection of stuff culled from the internet. Furthermore, while some of the research cited was valid, it was selectively cited, i.e. papers generally favouring the FT2 line were given prominence, and the unfavourable ones given little space and (in the case of one important paper) entirely omitted. He also said that very little evidence-based research had been done in this area and that it was very dangerous to draw conclusions, particularly in an encyclopedia used by the general public.

And I agree. They should learn healthy wise knowledge in its right time from their parents, not random strangers. They should probably at some point be taught formally by society, which is why most schools have sex education regardless.

But answer me this. You are the father of two young children. How sure are you that neither of them will have some weird sexual fantasy or repeating or extreme sexual thought in their teens? That can start quite young: 10, 12, 14 (11 - 13 is fairly usual, as young as 8 not unheard of). How sure are you that they won't be disturbed by it, or else, try to look up information on it? How much confidence do you have in your ability to stop them looking it up at home, or at friends when they go there, at school or on their cellphones, or someplace else? Are you sure they'd look to you for all wisdom, to explain all the bits they aren't sure of, and lay all their most secret concerns at your feet? Or find it elsewhere?

You're a confident parent if so, because that's probably not the most common answer. Is it appropriately confident though? And if you are, what about your neighbors' teenagers?

So you see, there are reasons why it may not be that you teach them everything. There's good reason why others less fortunate may be glad for accessible encyclopedic information on all kinds of difficult and unusual topics.

Unless, of course, one is fortunate enough to believe in natural law.

The main thing, as I have repeatedly pointed out above, is that the information is in fact correct. I have reasonable confidence in the science and maths articles, because, apart from the fact I know many of the editors, there is also the fact that they have no vested interest in changing their account of Cantor's Theorem e.g. to suit their own purpose. By contrast, there are other very strange articles which most people would approach with trepidation both because they are embarrassed about the subject matter, and because they find some very determined people there who are determined to rationalise their own inclinations in a way that normalises the subject. E.g. the pederasty-related articles.

In other words, you do not understand what is meant by The Reasonable Person.

Indeed. FT2 has attributed to me the remarks of Milton Roe.

Milton Roe and I may occasionally sound alike, I suppose, but we don't always echo each other's views or underscore each other's remarks.

It would be helpful if FT2 would refactor his quoted remarks, above, to distinguish between Milton and Moulton, each of whom maintain distinct sets of elusive goal posts.

No kidding. If there ever was a thread for this classic lolcat, this one has got to be it:



I also noted the D-word (defamation) flying between Peter D and FT2. As I understand that both of them are English, this might be expected to devolve into some major legal drama, as English law on the subject is more plaintiff-friendly. Given how implacable they both appear to be, one can see it taking the House o' Lords to sort this one out.

"May it please your lordships . . . . "

However, this seems far less likely when one considers that defamation suits are horribly expensive (even more than in the US, or so I understand), and are not covered by the Legal Aid. I cannot say whether or not FT2 views WR as providing some sort of alternate "court of appeal" now that it appears that WP has finally revoked his cabal pass. While he can have a reasonable expectation of a "fair hearing" due to our fairly liberal posting rules, I cannot see his case prospering here. Frankly, bestiality apologia are rather beyond the tastes of even our more libertarian membership.

Right. No emoticon. No irony. I had begun this discussion believing that you were a scholar and a gentlemen and that Wikipedia was the last best hope of mankind. But I have been so shaken by the power of your skillful use of language that now I must resort to the ruse that you are dog fucker ensnaring children in order to take their puppies. You have me.

This is an oft-repeated myth.

Whilst it is perhaps easier for a plaintiff to win in English law, there are other problems.

1) It is incredibly expensive to bring an action in the UK. 2) There is no legal aid available on defamation. 3) Payouts tend to be a very small percentage of US payouts. 3) "No win no fee" is very rare.

The result is that English law is only more plaintiff friendlily if you have lots of money, and if wining a moral victory is more important than financial inducement. You may win the case, but find yourself worse off financially.

It is only friendly if you are a celebrity whose bank balance is only outstripped by his ego.

It ain't a myth if it just happens to be true.


Uh, I said that already (see above).


Yep. Said that already, too.


I wasn't aware of that. If true, it doesn't surprise me.


I didn't mention that, but was aware of it. You could have also mentioned the significant differences between fee-shifting rules in England and the US.


English law on the surface (i.e., substantively) is indeed more friendly to defamation plaintiffs. But as to the practical aspects of pursuing such a case in the English courts, I have no argument with what you say here.

[quote name='Peter Damian' date='Wed 21st January 2009, 11:40am' post='152179'

Perhaps the most concise and sensible thing you've ever said, FT2.

The main thing from here is you lie incessantly and without compunction (please no more crap about being Poor Misunderstood And Needing Mommy). Two posts; you evaded the one, and avoided the other. If you need a "join the dots" or it wasn't quite clear enough before... well, you've got a Ph.D. in a linguistics field, haven't you. For most of 2008 that meant little more than "Peter habitually Deceives".

When your "I know" covers Headley and Flavius... your "knowing" is that Seus was a "poor" decent person instead of an SPA offsite canvasser, when Skopp becomes a pillar of the Smithsonian rather than someone who exaggerates, believes in hyperbole and inserts completely unchecked OR which coincidentally 1/ agrees with his personal pov and 2/ is 180 degrees incorrect, ...

You do actually have a degree don't you? I mean, you're not just some 15 year old behind a monitor are you? The degree exists doesn't it?


Glass Bead, as said, you and I are unlikely to agree.

It amuses me when we have one anonymous idiot accusing another anonymous idiot of concealing the truth about his identity. FT2, why hasn't your head exploded from an excess of irony?

Sorry I've been out of the loop, but this sounds a little weaselised to me. Were these views voted on by the committee or did they pass nem con? Could just be par for the course.

FT2, what was the point of quoting something to ignore it and continue your insults?

It is pretty clear what Peter has said, and there is a gap between his presentation and the exact detail of what was done - but it is a small one, and a gap that to The Reasonable Person is not one that would be covered by "lying incessantly and without compunction." In the same way that you have failed to respond to a simple and basic observation as you have incessantly and without compunction for a year, but you perceive this as somehow acting honestly.

I'd suggest that an independent Reasonable Person reading the screeds of outpourings from you both would be more inclined to believe Peter than yourself simply because you are an unconvincing witness. If you went to court over this hypothetical defamation action, you would lose, because the judge and jury simply would not ever understand your case, and would not be inclined to give someone who never ever answers a question at all any benefit of the doubt.

Talking of honest answers, given that you claimed sole responsibility for sorting out the PoetGuy controversy in your resignation waffle, are you saying you were responsible for the illegal hacking of his email?

Exactly. I know it's not as easy, but it is relatively easy to discern which are reliable sources, e.g. I tend to skip the general fan websites you find on a normal google search, and look at google books for those published by reputable presses, or google scholar for papers which are not for journals by fans of the subject and not peer reviewed much by outsiders. Then as someone quite new to the subject of the article, you can get the gist of which are the major works and what the main consensus view is.

As for the other point- yes, it's complete cherry-picking if the few papers which support zoophilia being harmless to the animal or a discriminated-against sexual minority are used as refs for pro-zoo statements, and a violation of the guidelines on coverage of fringe views, if these are given undue weight compared to the prevailing view of those discussing the subject in reliable sources.

Heh. That's fighting talk, that is.

I can't edit it myself, but can some moderator edit the above post and the original post it's linked to, as follows:

...Milton's original comment was...
...an area Milton concludes many users and myself...
...recasting his point to be instead about...
...my response was as Milton asked, about writing style?

Thanks


Neither Damian nor I are anonymous. Damian self-outed a couple of months ago, and for me there's a whole real world of colleagues and friends out there who know, plus quite a few editors. The fact you don't have a clue is not unexpected nor atypical; self-proclaimed trolls aren't a concern. Have some more popcorn, and enjoy the shiny lights, right?


To be honest I think this thread might be mostly done.

Not until you tell us why the world should take your maunderings seriously.

It might help if you identified yourself IRL, as some kind of degreed "expert" or other.
Because that neuro-linguistic programming business doesn't speak well for your "expertise".

Oh dear. Suppressing all this anger and resentment under threat of WP:CIVIL for so long was really very unhealthy. Thank goodness WR is here to facilitate catharsis.

What makes you think it was "suppressed"?? It was simply redirected, into edit wars and other WP drama crap. I welcome an outright bitch session, because there aren't any good ones on WP. It's all backstabbing and deceit over there.


Good, effective catharsis might involve a hot branding iron
to the fleshy bits of certain WP admins. This thread is just
amusement.

Huh - I remember restrictions on editing were put in place after the PoetGuy stuff, but I thought there was a two-day grace period? Is that limited to people with 300 posts?

You say that but if your name is what we've been lead to believe it is, there are thousands of people with the same name so unless you tell an individual which particular one you are, you're not fully outed.

Hysteria

Histrionic Personality Disorder is also called Conversion Disorder.

Note that the word hysteria refers both to a psychological disturbance and variety of comedic drama.

We see a lot of "acting out" in the WikiCulture, for reasons that I could write a long dry scholarly essay exploring.

But I know better than to inflict academic material on this popcorn-loving audience.

Hear! Hear!

I wonder what goal FT2 is trying to achieve here.

By the meta-MMORPG rules he is not allowed to win in this venue. Maybe his goal is to sow some FUD about some of the local participants.

The case was transparent and needed no "hacking". Poetlister claimed belatedly it was, but this appears to be in relation to images circulated by one or more users here, and frankly I have no evidence where those images may have come from - I was working with his textual material which was transparent as to identity anyhow, not the pictures of girls (or himself).

That said, claims of hacking were made, but so were claims of many things; nothing I worked on utilized such material or anything more than bona fide third party information within the public domain, or verifiably and voluntarily provided during discussions with others who knew the man or his victims.



If I had qualifications or such in a matter I would disclose it. I've disclosed awareness or such on other matters on the rare occasions I edit topics I may have COI with and have done so since early days. Good practice for researchers, hence automatic. Generally though I don't tend to edit in the areas I'm formally qualified, because they don't much interest me as encyclopedic topics. One exception here.

If you still believe Docknell or Damian then you may also want to consider a really great operation they can do, where they can remove your gullibility gland. I'm told it works wonders.



The reverse -- civility policy showed its worth here. The whole point is, people will fall out, sometimes badly. It should remain off-site as much as possible, because all that is a distraction for the project. The requirement of the project is that people find ways to work collaboratively for a common aim, not that they share common views or friendships.

The reality is, that had Damian not found willing sleaze to listen and embellish his sordid words, and to hear him uncritically instead of probe for reality, no drama would have happened in the first place. Far from catharsis, those broad failings created it in the first place by lapping them up. Then again, we've almost come full circle - 3 sentence summaries are easy when one doesn't have to check both sides and all evidence.

Back to your normal self. Your alter ego was more entertaining.

I take it that the dissembling answer means that you admit you used the contents of the email account directly ("his textual material") rather than bothering with the screen shots. You suggest it needed no hacking (odd that it was not solved so many months sooner in that case), but that does not deny that hacking took place. As ever, there is nothing in the words that can be read as a denial of your involvement in the hacking.

If there is one thing you should have learnt in the past month is that your silly pseudo-intellectual phrasing is meaningless. What is so difficult in saying "No Mr Biscuit, you may not believe me, but I did not hack the email account. I do/do not know who did hack it. I have/have not seen the contents of that email account."

Thank you dogbiscuit for following up by indicating the unacceptable nature of FT2 response to your important question. I was about to reply in similar fashion but you did a better job of it than I would have.

"...those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent — know that you are on the wrong side of history." -- President Obama

I might make that my new sig quote.

Except I'm not so sure the man is right. Not as I read history.

But I suppose it's in the job-description to say some thing optimistic at such times.

A great quote, despite the instant "considered" opinion that this speech would have no great quotes that would live on. My initial thought when I heard this was of Robert Mugabe, but it soon occurred to me it really has much broader application. Much broader.

Indeed. Somewhere, there must yet be chains still un-yanked.

can't really say more - it's called trying to strike a delicate balance in communication betwixt privacy and transparency...



Huh?? No it isn't, and the old hysteria got split - part became borderline personality and part more like non-epileptic seizures and conversion...

Indeed. Once again, our friend FT2 demonstrates his fine grip on the distinction between "lying" and "not telling the truth". I'd WR:AGF and assume he's just an incompetent writer, but, hey, it's FT2 we're talking about here.

In case you haven't got it yet, FT2, this seeming inability to answer a straight question in an unambiguous way (if at all) is why people don't trust you any further than they could throw you, while they simultaneously take Peter Damian seriously. That's why the farmsex edits don't matter, the oversighting doesn't matter much, but the dissembling after the oversighting matters enormously.

That said, as a parent, I would suggest that the majority of the *philia set of articles on WP are at best irresponsible and at worst (including the stuff you tried to put into zoophilia) a glamourisation and attempt at normalisation of the various 'philias being discussed; as such, they are the very last place I would want my children looking were they to have issues they could not discuss with me. I find your continued defence of those edits as somehow "responsible" despicable. I wouldn't trust you to bring up a goldfish, let alone a child.

f.

To be clear, I do not have knowledge where the truth lies, and actually my response probably overstates the case as, with a fair wind, FT2's second paragraph comes close to being a denial that I could accept - if it were not for the fact that FT2 himself claims to spend a long time crafting his words - which opens up the question, why did he use that construction and does he really mean what I think it says?

To put this in perspective, I'm sure Proab could indicate how much he knows FT2 knows. Those who have seen the screen shots will recognise that there are some oddities in how FT2 described the information. If Pro confirmed that FT2 was involved in the Wikipedian circle that had been given sight of the screen shots, then I'd be able to say pretty certainly whether FT2's response is simply an appallingly worded denial or a very deliberate attempt to rewrite history (how tactful!).

I'm sure he thinks he was instrumental in bringing PoetGuy down, but in fact he was pushing at a very open door where very many people had already concluded there was something wrong. His possible suggestion that he never saw the hacked emails is simply at odds with the information we were given here.

Not even a small gap.

(1) I claimed over a year ago that I had contacted various websites. Meaning, messages were sent. At the time I was claiming this, I had no idea whether the messages had been received.

(2) On this thread above I said that 'contact had been made' with one site. Meaning, message receipt acknowledged. To this day I have no idea whether the other messages had even been seen by another person or not.

I don't see there is any gap or inconsistency between claims (1) and (2). Certainly not to justify the appalling claim that I was "lying incessantly and without compunction." since that date.

Furthermore there is another claim that FT2 makes incessantly and without compunction throughout this thread, that since Dec 21 2007 I have been using WR to defame him by making 'fantastical allegations'. But he ought to look through the threads in this section. The earliest threads I began here were not about Zoo , but Neurolinguistic programming. Later I added a thread about the oversighted edits, and I disclosed the content of the edits. But disclosing the contents of edits legitimately made to Wikipedia do not constitute defamation. I have always been pretty careful about getting into the same trouble here as I did on Wikipedia Dec 2007. Indeed, look through the whole thread here, where a number of people have made all kinds of crude insinuations. Compare them with the remarks I have made - which mostly consist of diffs to Wikipedia talk pages, by other people.

If anyone can find any serious allegations I have made on this website here, let me know.

I'll clarify that I am talking about my perception of what went on. I don't take issue with your statement there.

I think the gap in my mind is that in discussing this you have settled on a formulation that you successfully contacted a single site, but initially it was clear that your original intent was to contact wide and far before the red mist faded. I don't think my perception is at odds with your comments - and as I say, it is not a major issue - I understand that you are not proud of that little episode. With that perception, there is clearly a grain of truth in FT2 suggesting you sought to minimise what went on which can be considered to be deceptive - but to extrapolate it into a year long campaign of deception is in itself a deceptive exaggeration. I may not be 100% accurate, but that seems a reasonable view to have formed.

It strikes me that this is a very Wikipedian condition - there is an alternative logic that abounds, seemingly based in AGF, where "bold" statements can be made unchallenged because to challenge them is to break the rule of assuming honesty, but as soon as you can pierce the veil of AGF through some evidence of lack of candour or whatever, then AGF is entirely withdrawn and is replaced with ABF, where all statements can be taken as false, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Worse, statements made under AGF are assumed to be permanently unchallengeable truths and statements made under ABF can be assumed to be unchallengeable falsehoods until a Wikipedian deems that AGF can no longer be applied (bloodbath ensues).

WAB - Wikipedia Addles the Brain.

Could be some variant of the game-theory strategy "Tit for Tat", where players trust everybody until they betray them, after which they're distrusted. Unlike in the artificial games where such strategies are generally described and tested, there aren't clear, objective standards for determining whether somebody has "cooperated" or "defected", so this is judged in a highly subjective, biased way, but once somebody judges that somebody else is a "defector", the distrustfulness is right out of that strategy. However, in strict "tit for tat" I believe the players are forgiving in that they'll start trusting again if the other player starts cooperating again, so maybe the Wikipedia strategy is more like an alternative game theory strategy (I'm not sure the name) where defectors are shunned permanently.

----------------
Now playing: Kelly Clarkson - Because Of You
via FoxyTunes

Then how does "THE ONE" resolves these inconvenient turths...
The Obama Truth squad

More about Obama's Turth squad

You think Obama may use the power of the goverment now to stop this kind of reporting?
an inconvenient truth

OR THIS?

May be there will be Hope and Change camps filling up with those daring to question "THE ONE".



The main problem with those with Aspergers is mind blindness as well as a "faulty executive function " in person with Aspergers.


(my 13 year old boy has this and I have lived for the last 13 years).

This is how Jimbo himself manages his interpersonal relationships, so it's small wonder
Wikipedia behaves the same way. It's been amusing to see FT2 repeating Jimbo's strategy for "managing trolls" in this thread, as well. Really speaks to FT2's tendency to cultishness.

I believe that the process described above only applies to power users, that is, to Those Of The Body. If you are not a power user and do or say something that pisses off an admin or other power user, and despite the lack of any actual policy violation, the offended party can proceed immediately under ABF and make false accusations against the non-power user. The more ridiculous and contrary to the evidence the accusation is, the better. I should know; it was done to me.

In a classical game (especially in a 2-person game), the contestants have diametrically opposed objectives.

But when you morph from a 2-person zero-sum game to an N-person drama, the hidden agendas of the participating characters have arbitrary aims. Whether the maneuvers of another player are a help or a hindrance to oneself depends on a lot of factors, most of which are hard to reckon without a librettro and Cliff's Notes.

The intractability of reckoning the politics of a dramafest like Wikipedia is what makes the site such a wonderful laboratory for those of us who are studying the theory and operation of 21st Century drama engines.

This thread has now gone on for so long, it has become a little lost, and certainly a lot has happened during it's progression. So I'm going to post and answer my own rhetoric.

Do we have any real proof that FT2 has personally engaged in perverted activities? - No
Has Wikipedia Review wrongly accused FT2 of being a leather clad male escort? - Yes
Has FT2 written about perverted activities? - Yes
Does writing about a subject prove one embraces it? - No
As a result of the above has FT2 received unacceptable threats from Peter Damian? - yes
Is Peter Damian a person whose word can be trusted 100%? - No
Did David Gerard wrongfully oversight the famous edits? - yes
Did Jimbo know about the situation before the shit hit the fan? - Yes
Did FT2 know about these edits and deliberately prevaricate? - Yes
In light of the above was their any justification for FT2's prevarication? - No he was an Arb, they have to be above suspicion.
Is it right that FT2 takes the blame entirely alone? - No

Conclusion: FT2 has been maligned and wronged on WR. However, he is largely, through naivety, the architect of his own misfortune. Peter Damain is an obsessive liar whose word cannot be trusted. FT2 is a naive person with odd, but legal interests in illegal subjects. Hopefully we have all learned something from this d=strange situation. Now perhaps this thread should close. I shall not be posting to it any more.

Giano

The argument for my being an 'obsessive liar' essentially because I claimed in Dec 2007 to have 'contacted various websites' (true, 3) and later in this very thread to have made contact with only one of them (true also).

As I have said above, the loss, in a way that I fail to comprehend or fathom, of Giano's support, a support that meant much to me and was like a kind of friendship, is the worst thing to have come out of all this. Bitter regrets indeed.

I still admire the way he has stood up to the corruption of Wikipedia and the kindness and support he has shown to those who are trying to write the encyclopedia, and I hope the reasons for his behaviour here amount to no more than a tragic misunderstanding. I will continue to support him in whatever he does on the project.

"I am posting at various activist sites,
and spreading the word. Expect to hear MUCH more of this."

ACTIVIST

Ergo obsessive liar? Actually I posted to 'Veggie boards'. This seems mostly to be full of middle aged women who own cats and demonstrate against live cattle transporting and discuss recipes for lentils. They were somewhat bemused by my rant about the zoophilia article and it was a relief all round when the thread was deleted.

Based on the summary provided, Giano shows himself to be concerned only with the internal workings of the encyclopedia and not at all with social responsibility. He is as oblivious to the Mueller Parallels that runs through FT2 edits on sex with animals edits and Mueller's "pedophia can be harmless or benficial" writings. Giano is completely unconcerned with the lack of child protection measures that makes all of this a crucial concern. Peter is terribly over-involved in Wikipedia but still retains some notions of social responsibility.

No, but he says doing so is sometimes not abusive.



PD has a right to inform the authorities (but maybe not professional troublemakers) if he feels abuse is occuring IMHO.



Sort of, but you can sort of see their point if they think FT was being threatened with real world problems from them.



These I agree with.



Hmmm, not sure about that. According to your own claim above that he lied, it is FT who's not to be trusted (just playing devil's advocate here.) I've not known PD actually lie- maybe be slightly economical with the actualite in the sense of altering definitions of 'contacting' but that's about it.



Maybe in some ways, but if he was not a smooth political operator at some points, he would not have become an arb.



Now FT has resigned as an arb, I think he is not deserving of being a target here any further, unless people feel they've discovered or seen him abuse his power in some new way.