Monday, August 20, 2007
Bonnie made me do it.
I've gotta give a woman named Bonnie (a regular on the Alzheimer's message board) credit for not coming to my blog. By ignoring it up to this point. That's a wise decision. That's how one becomes a recovering Broedeaholic. One leaves the booze -- er, I mean Broede alone. You don't come back to him. You ignore him. If a handful of guttersnipes in the comments section of this blog could do that, they'd have happier lives. They'd then qualify as recovering Broedeaholics. Anyway, that's why Bonnie isn't upset with me any more. She hasn't seen the blog. She's ignored it. And that's good for Bonnie. She's setting a good example for the Broede addicted guttersnipes. Now, they should learn from Bonnie. Bonnie is in a better state of mind because of it. Meanwhile, Bonnie probably will have to take some abuse from some for initially encouraging me to create the blog. I can always say that the devil -- no, I mean nice Bonnie -- made me do it. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
As I see it, if not for the negative comments, you would have hardly any at all, except your own. Now, you are turning to name-calling. Tsk, tsk.
You do say so much more than you think, in your writing.
Broedeaholics???? I am laughing so hard, I may pee my pants, like rosie and cheri do!!
Perhaps some SHOULD ignore this for a few days. How lonesome you would be!! It seems no one else is paying much attention, at all. Even though your PR groupie is going at it in the AD forum!
Admit it, anonymous, you are a Broedeaholic. That's the first step toward recovery. Then you go in for treatment. It's a disease, you know, that can be brought under control. It takes a bit of will-power. But I think you can do it. But you gotta take it a day at a time. Maybe an hour at a time, for starters. Start on the road to recovery today. Don't put it off. --Jim Broede
I am a facilitator for a Alzheimer’s support group. This blog was brought to my attention by someone in our group. I promised I would look at it. Sadly I can now see why it caused concern. Mr. Broede's posting do cause concern. I have advised those in my group to ignore this hurtful site. I am under the understanding that the Alzheimer's Assocation allows the promotion of blogs on the forum, due to the fact that there are many many helpful ones there. It would be very sad that those be removed due to this one.
Not only has the Alzheimer's Association message board allowed him to promote this blog, they have also kicked off a few members who commented about the content of this blog when it first erupted.
As you can see he uses members names, posts their e-mail addresses and tries to ellicit a response from them by trying to hurt them emotionally and publicly.
He pasted e-mails from almost two years ago trying to bait one member as he tried to blame her for her brother's suicide.
Mental illness is a sad thing. Unfortunately finding sympathy for his display of a tortured mind has proved impossible.
Really, folks, I'm trying to address issues here. And for you who don't like the way they are addressed -- well, you don't have to plug into this blog. Coming here is optional. And if you don't like what you read, I still give you free rein to express your opinions. And even to call me names and to level insults. That's fair, isn't it?
I've even been criticized for my posts on the Alzheimer's message boards. But I have over 6,000 undeleted posts on the message boards. All of which meet the Alzheimer's Association guidelines. Virtually all of 'em laudatory and supportive of my fellow care-givers. That's why they remain undeleted. They meet the guidelines. Some of you who are criticizing me here have been deleted on the message boards. For good reason. You didn't meet the guidelines. Sometimes you used profanity. Other times you called me disparaging names.
Meanwhile, as you can see in my blog, I'm a pretty tolerant fella. I allow you more freedom of expression here than you would have on the Alzheimer's message boards. I let you have your say. Now let me have my say. Please. --Jim Broede
What is an Internet Troll?
by Timothy Campbell
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.
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.
Why does it Matter?
Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."
It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.
Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.
The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.
The Webmaster's Challenge
When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later.
The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.
Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.
Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?
Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.
What about Free Speech?
When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.
While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.
Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.
The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.
When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.
The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)
Conclusion
Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.
Ann Alias
I couldn't agree more. If you think I'm a troll, don't reply. Don't respond. Go away. Find another blog. On the other hand, we've had an invasion of nitwits on the comments board. They act a little like trolls. Always trying to add fuel to the fire. But I give 'em credit. For a little bit of sense. They know enough to remain anonymous. Rather than bring shame to their family names. --Jim Broede
Got an idea, Meg. Give me your input. Is it good or bad?
Maybe just leave the comments. Just let everybody have their say. No matter what. Good or bad. And I would just refrain from reply. To anything. That is, in the comments section. Maybe occasionally I respond in an actual brooding post. By addressing an issue. Rather than a personality. But always in a polite and courteous way. Conceding that the people who post comments are entitled to their opinions. Right or wrong. People could say absolutely what they want to. Get nasty. Call me names. Call me evil. Call me the devil. Use foul language. For the most part, I'll just take it on the chin. Turn the other cheek. Just leave the comments section a totally free speech zone. Hmmmm. Maybe that would be a good idea, wouldn't it? Or am I nuts? What do you think, Meg? I'm serious.--Jim.
I don't know if we are speaking the same language, Meg. Yes, you are a nuisance. Sort of a thorn in my side. Rather than a pain in my ass. In other words, you insist on reposting posts that I delete. That's a nuisance, an inconvenience for me, and a clever move on your part. Forces me to take an alternative route. Which allows me to screen all posts before they are formally posted. But it ain't the end of the world. It's still a manageable situation. As you've gathered, I want control over my blog. Isn't that a fair goal? If I don't take control, it could get out of hand. I initially thought I could let everyone have free rein. Complete freedom of speech. I was being naive. I learned that would be impractical. We'd have a circus. An out-of-control situation. One dictated by outsiders. I'll still allow dissent and criticism of me and my 'broodings' -- that is if it's done in a polite and courteous manner. More or less like the way I'd do it, when addressing you. I think I'm reasonably polite and courteous. I like respectful exchanges. Not nasty and mean and snide ones. Which was happening in the comments section of the blog
This is how your blog should be
Broede's Broodings said...
"Really, folks, I'm trying to address issues here. And for you who don't like the way they are addressed -- well, you don't have to plug into this blog. Coming here is optional. And if you don't like what you read, I still give you free rein to express your opinions. And even to call me names and to level insults. That's fair, isn't it?"
So, which way do you want it?? For people to not plug in, if they don't like what they read...or to have free reign, voicing their dislike of what they read???
"..But I have over 6,000 undeleted posts on the message boards."
Not any more!
"All of which meet the Alzheimer's Association guidelines."
This also not true, they just slipped by the administrator's delete button. maybe they weren't complained about enough. There is one I saw, with your profanity still in it. That can be remedied.
"Virtually all of 'em laudatory and supportive of my fellow care-givers."
Uh, uh, uh, not true, again! More like laudatory and supportive of yourself., how you were feeling, how you were doing, yada, yada, yada.
"That's why they remain undeleted. They meet the guidelines."
(See above)
"Some of you who are criticizing me here have been deleted on the message boards. For good reason. You didn't meet the guidelines. Sometimes you used profanity. Other times you called me disparaging names."
You were also suspended for 2 weeks, Jim. And, for no one else's fault.
Suspended? I took time off for 2 weeks to establish this wonderful blog. Check with the Alzheimer's Association. For the facts. I'm sure they won't comfirm your allegation that I was suspended. Could it be, Beyond, that you're wrong? Once again. Where do you get your information? --Jim Broede
Jim,
(Got an idea, Meg. Give me your input. Is it good or bad?
Maybe just leave the comments. Just let everybody have their say. No matter what. Good or bad. And I would just refrain from reply. To anything. That is, in the comments section. Maybe occasionally I respond in an actual brooding post. By addressing an issue. Rather than a personality. But always in a polite and courteous way. Conceding that the people who post comments are entitled to their opinions. Right or wrong. People could say absolutely what they want to. Get nasty. Call me names. Call me evil. Call me the devil. Use foul language. For the most part, I'll just take it on the chin. Turn the other cheek. Just leave the comments section a totally free speech zone. Hmmmm. Maybe that would be a good idea, wouldn't it? Or am I nuts? What do you think, Meg? I'm serious.--Jim.
I don't know if we are speaking the same language, Meg. Yes, you are a nuisance. Sort of a thorn in my side. Rather than a pain in my ass. In other words, you insist on reposting posts that I delete. That's a nuisance, an inconvenience for me, and a clever move on your part. Forces me to take an alternative route. Which allows me to screen all posts before they are formally posted. But it ain't the end of the world. It's still a manageable situation. As you've gathered, I want control over my blog. Isn't that a fair goal? If I don't take control, it could get out of hand. I initially thought I could let everyone have free rein. Complete freedom of speech. I was being naive. I learned that would be impractical. We'd have a circus. An out-of-control situation. One dictated by outsiders. I'll still allow dissent and criticism of me and my 'broodings' -- that is if it's done in a polite and courteous manner. More or less like the way I'd do it, when addressing you. I think I'm reasonably polite and courteous. I like respectful exchanges. Not nasty and mean and snide ones. Which was happening in the comments section of the blog)
your email to me? Yes
Suspended? I took time off for 2 weeks to establish this wonderful blog. Check with the Alzheimer's Association. For the facts. I'm sure they won't comfirm your allegation that I was suspended. Could it be, Beyond, that you're wrong? Once again. Where do you get your information? --Jim Broede
wtf got it from you!
Man, you ARE delusional! EVERYONE knows you were suspended for 2 weeks, right along side of some others. You should also know that the Alzheimer's Association would not discuss your status with another member, anyway. At least the ones who were suspended with you would not be afraid to mention it, except they were FORBIDDEN to by the Assoc.!!
"You were also suspended for 2 weeks, Jim. And, for no one else's fault."
Check again, Beyond didn't write that.
With all the lies and twists he can't keep things straight! Besides having to go back and delete and change his posts when he is called on things. Pretty amazing sad and funny all at the same time.
Keep plugging away, folks. Try to find something that makes you happy. If coming here makes you happy, then by all means keep coming back. If it makes you angry and unhappy and out of sorts, I'd suggest you stay away and find another pursuit. Nobody requires you to come here. --Jim Broede
One anonymous poster said that I blamed a woman for her brother's suicide. That's hogwash. I've never blamed anyone for someone's suicide. What I've said, instead, is that virtually all suicides could have been prevented. But that's with the benefit of hindsight. If there had been proper intervention, proper treatment, proper care. I'm saying that our health care system is inadequate, especially in dealing with mental health problems. If there's any blame, it has to be a collective blame. Society as a whole. Unfortunately, many of the survivors go on guilt trips. And they blame themselves. My dad's suicide could have been prevented. But hey, I don't blame myself for his suicide. I have no reason to go on a guilt trip. It was dad's choice. God bless him. --Jim Broede
Post a Comment