A place for the NFB community to discuss any subject.
- *** Veteran
- Joined:Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:46 am
- Location:Western NC
NeuroFool wrote: In my skimming of past posts, I got the impression that when hocus was presented with a challenging, legit question, he just assumed the question was an attempt to undermine his research. ... But although hocus seemed to want "healthy debate", I read in several places where every critisism, even friendly devil's advocate type stuff, seemed to cause him to go on for multiple paragraphs about intercst and the "great debate". ... his continued references to TMF and REHP went far beyond what was necessary to explain his ideas, such that his ideas never GOT explained, and questions posed to him never got answers, at least in my opinion.
Well said, Neuro. I think you've captured a lot of the problem here.
It got to the point where I almost wished someone would say "try to answer me with using the words INTERCST or GREAT DEBATE".
Different people said basically that exact thing almost from the very first post hocus put up on this site. Hocus would then launch into a spiel about how the TMF FIRE board was the greatest resource in the world for FIRE wannabes and he intended to become board leader there and return it to it's glory days and the Great Debate was of earthshaking importance, it was all in the post records and he was preparing a post documenting the tactics of the disruptors ... as infinitum
. It was a pain the first time I read that junk, much less the 100th.
If anyone has read this far in MY post, I'm impressed.
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
- *** Veteran
- Joined:Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
NeuroFool wrote: You would think hocus and raddr would be allies.
Indeed we were allies for awhile. What finally did me in though, after months of giving him ammo for use in his jihad against intercst (a person whom I have no respect for), was his accusing me of using "weasel words" because I couldn't give him THE NUMBER for SWR, as if there were such a thing. In turn, I asked him what he thought THE NUMBER was and, more importantly, what assumptions were built in to it and of course he couldn't come up with anything. It was then clear to me that he was not really interested in SWR research. He was just playing games with us and enjoyed disrupting discussions. I think the disruptions and the attention they created gave him a sense of self-importance. Needless to say, something is wrong with the dude and I hope he gets help but I don't think that the rest of us should have to suffer along while he tries to get a grip on reality.
- **** Heavy Hitter
- Joined:Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am
I got the impression that when hocus was presented with a challenging, legit question, he just assumed the question was an attempt to undermine his research.
- * Rookie
- Joined:Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:35 am
I still think it's entirely strange what happened, because it seems hocus and other posters here at NFB are in much more agreement than disagreement.
........ but that wasn't the issue ..... the long posts, the repetitive posts, the rants against intercst .... can all be patiently ignored ... but just somewhere in all that, particularly when he hijacked other members threads, he would find just the right phrase and just the right buttons to press to give considerable personal offence to a particular person which then resulted in disruption and upset. To be charitable I'll assume such behaviour is unintentional, however it is very cleverly done and reminds me of some aspects of psychological warfare which I've come across in another context and which I've no intention of being involved in on an internet board.
For a good description of what happened I suggest you google 'internet troll' and read some of the definitions.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -- I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference.
- *** Veteran
- Joined:Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
- Location:Henderson, Nevada, USA
Neurofool, please be doubly
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]