Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00484)

May 18th 2005

Dear Jerry:

Thanks, understood and agree with you. 

Cowardice certainly.

But its disruptive effect on newbees (or those who have not really studied)
is pronounced. 

Dallas
 
=================================

-----Original Message-----
From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:14 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Pseudomyms s (reply to Krishtar)


Dear Krishtar and friends,

You wrote:

>I just chose not to use my true name because as I run a graphic design firm
in Brasil under my surname, I would not want my name publically exposed in
search-engines, even less associated with own beliefs which I enjoy sharing
only with people of similar interests.
>
I think your situation is more common than we might suspect, especially 
when there is an atmosphere of intolerance to certain beliefs. During 
the 40s and 50s my aunt practiced astrology professionally and 
personally knew the people who were writing for the astrology magazines 
at the time. She said that she knew several of them who wrote under 
pseudonyms because professionally they were school teachers. In those 
days, one could be ridiculed and driven out of the teaching profession 
if it came to be known that one believed in astrology. There is another 
women who lives in our city who is of the Wicca religion, and is also a 
school teacher. She is also very careful that her religious beliefs not 
become known in her professional circles--also for fear of ridicule and 
being drivin out of the profession. In this very conservative 
Evangelical Christian town, this would be a real possibility. 

On the other hand, I wonder about people bearing pseudonyms who come on 
these discussion boards in order to blast this or that Theosophical 
organization or beliefs, or leaders. I think this is a very different 
situation. In this case, the pseudonym is not used to protect one from 
professional ridicule. It is not a "professional name" as would be used 
by some actors and authors for reasons of marketing. Rather, it is in 
effect is like an invisible snipper who may come and go as he/she 
pleases and never has to deal with the consequences. I would call this 
an act of cowardliness. 

I submit that motivation is a major issue here. 

Best wishes,
Jerry




krishtar wrote:

>Thanks for the repply.
>I confess you, pal, that I exceeded in my past trade of hostility between
me and brother Anand and can also add that I fell in the trap of the "
trolling-feed" for many times, but it is a limitation and tendecy of
personality I am trying to work on...
>No matter the most we trade and exchange posts and emails here weīll never
be able to know anyone deeply enough to understand many of the reasons that
move them, so sometimes we angage in discussions which unfortunately and up
in aggression and hostility.
>Lately you are performing here temporary "ombudsman" on my recent posts and
I always listen to the other personīs opinion.
>I also gess that it would make no difference if our trade of posts were
under real names instead of nicknames, hostility makes harm, creates
tensions to any person independent of their real names.
>I am sure if Anand were nicknamed Mickey or other it wouldīt dimminish his
feelings towards so many people who sent him posts of all kinds. 
>Trolls are trolls independent of using nicks or not, IMO.
>I just chose not to use my true name because as I run a graphic design firm
in Brasil under my surname, I would not want my name publically exposed in
search-engines, even less associated with own beliefs which I enjoy sharing
only with people of similar interests.
>I reveal my name to whomever wants it if I feel there is enough friendship
between the parts.
>Regards
>
>Krishtar
> 
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: kpauljohnson 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:39 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Feeding trolls (reply to Krishtar)
>
>
> Hey Krishtar,
>
> You wrote:
> > Paul, 
> > Just a funny digression, not serious or hostlility.
>
> If it weren't for the past exchanges between you two, I'd have taken 
> it that way. But there does seem to be ongoing hostility, and to 
> engage the kind of statements Anand habitually makes is 
> called "feeding a troll." Here's a passage about trolls:
>
> "Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or 
> otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to 
> feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot 
> be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they 
> are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility."
>
> You are within your rights to respond however you see fit. I just 
> want people to be aware of the troll-feeding problem here.
>
> > I must also comment the tille of your message " if you deplore 
> someoneīs behaviour donīt imitate it ".
> > What can we say of so many cartoonists, joke tellers, that make 
> fantasic and hilarious satires from Bush, Condoleesa, Sadam, Bin 
> Laden, Prince Charles, Ronaldinho and other public characters, 
> satires on certain deplorable habits creating a piece of humour?
> > Sometimes the inversion of roles in certain statements, such as 
> the one we are referring to, helps us to understand the ridiculous 
> and baseless part of many comments.
>
> As I have written before, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show is probably 
> the best influence on contemporary American culture, so I appreciate 
> your perspective above.
>
> At the same time, it is evident that some posters aim primary to 
> create conflict, and others fall into their trap. At least Anand 
> does this under his own name. Trolls often foment conflict under 
> pseudonyms, as theos-talk has witnessed repeatedly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>   
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>



 
Yahoo! Groups Links