Man! These kinds of tactics say a LOT about the quality of support SFT has! Can't these folks get on the board and debate matters intelligently? A few SFT supporters have done so, but mainly we've heard from people like "Eatme" and other intellectual heavyweights.
quote: Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer "Man! These kinds of tactics say a LOT about the quality of support SFT has! Can't these folks get on the board and debate matters intelligently? A few SFT supporters have done so, but mainly we've heard from people like "Eatme" and other intellectual heavyweights."
Pretty broad generalization in your comments. How do you know the person that did this is a SFT supporter?
quote: Originally posted by: GIGO "Pretty broad generalization in your comments. How do you know the person that did this is a SFT supporter?"
You're right: I DON'T know for sure. However, it seems a reasonable inference for the following reasons: (1) other SFT supporters (i.e., people who have made their support for him VERY clear in their posts) have used similar tactics in the past on this board. These tactics have included profanity, vulgarity, and even intimidation (see the recent thread in which such a person implies that truth4usm's job is at risk because of her support for the two professors). (2) The person who subscribed FS to these pornographic websites obviously is familiar with FS's site-releated e-mail address, which is connected to this board; therefore it is reasonable to assume that the person who did the subscribing is a reader of this board. (3) People who read this board tend to fall into three broad camps: (a) people who admire SFT; (b) people who do not admire SFT; (c) people who don't have a strong opinion. Now, from among these three groups, which group is likely to contain someone who feels passionately enough to send pornographic messages to the moderator of the board?
Thus, I agree with you that I do not have proof, but I also feel comfortable in my original inference. If you can give me any good reasons for not feeling comfortable about my logic, I honestly would appreciate hearing them. Thanks!
I know for a fact, but I can't state how I know on the board because I don't want to give away the mechanism I use to find out who is sending stuff like this.
Thing is, we tend to give these 'hackers' and disruptive supports exactly what they want, attention. Everytime one of them seems to come up with something new and 100% ludicrious, we annouce it.
Just it. Ignore it, move on, let them find a new way to get their jollies.
Gather your evidence against them behind the scenes and let them know that this nonsense will get them no where.
These people are like 3 year olds trying to throw tantrums just to get a rise out of us, just to see the board get defensive and irrate. Don't fall for it.
quote: Originally posted by: yawn "Thing is, we tend to give these 'hackers' and disruptive supports exactly what they want, attention. Everytime one of them seems to come up with something new and 100% ludicrious, we annouce it. Just it. Ignore it, move on, let them find a new way to get their jollies. Gather your evidence against them behind the scenes and let them know that this nonsense will get them no where. These people are like 3 year olds trying to throw tantrums just to get a rise out of us, just to see the board get defensive and irrate. Don't fall for it. "so called hackers/trolls/braindead " --> "
I agree, but made exception in this case because I wanted others to see the quality of Shelby's support.
Plus, the names of the newsletters were hilariously attrocious.