Andalyn wrote:I do believe she insinuated it at first - then outright made a claim of evidence.
I accept that. I agree that it is a reasonable interpretation of the posts you have quoted, though it also requires a poor opinion of tamiO, in that one must believe that her motives are malicious.
Andalyn wrote:I had an idea where she was going. Like many of us do - we call it out. I wanted a hard and firm answer from her as to who she believed Skeeve was. I've tired of the typical TamiO insinuation. TamiO never once countered my questions with "No" or "I don't think it's GP". Later, she claims to have seen "evidence". I drew her out.
This is admirable, and I appreciate what you were trying to do. I want to point out, though, that you did this under the assumption that she was being suggestive. For whatever reasons, perhaps good ones, you perceived her post as sneaky and insinuating, and thus determined that she was being malicious. If she wasn't, she didn't really have a chance to defend herself, did she?
andalyn wrote:Skeeve could be and probably is a sock. Perhaps the general consensus is correct and that he is jj. It is a bit silly. I didn't intend to pile on poor TamiO, but again - I wished to show that she did in fact insinuate that Skeeve was GP. You see, whether Skeeve is a sock or not, I do believe he/she is correct to cry foul with being associated with GP. Moreover, when others then claim that Skeeve is offering up a "red herring" when he states that TamiO called him GP.
I understand why you would perceive an insinuation, but I don't think it's obvious. I can also understand why a poster would be upset to be accused of being GP. Still, while I haven't been in the same situation myself, I thought his way of demanding evidence and calling her a liar was an excessive reaction.
andalyn wrote:Anyway, I do appreciate the comments Rosencrantz. It's true though, I don't like TamiO.
And I'm not trying to discount your post because of that. I should make that clear. I'm just trying to understand a phenomenon I notice happening a lot, where people dislike another poster so much that they encourage others to insult and ignore them. I don't think you've gone as far as the ones I've noticed on JREF, but I find myself questioning why my opinion (for example) of tamiO is important to you. If I agree with what she says, does that cast doubt on my skepticism?
I remember getting furious at Interesting Ian on JREF once when he was drunk and vowing that I would never respond to him again. I also found myself avoiding his posts. Yet over time, I came to appreciate what he wrote, even if I didn't agree with it, because it gave a venue for other people to communicate and develop their opinions. He is a necessary resource for developing skepticism.
Likewise, if you despise tamiO, I wonder if there is something about what she posts that you can learn from, and that the rest of us here can also learn from, even if it's simply how to counter arguments like hers from non-skeptics. But you don't have to engage her in debate if you don't like her, and you don't have to point out her evilness, either, because if it's there, other people will see it. If we don't see it, or you do engage her in debate with prejudice, it just makes you look bad.