Please ban ZZZzzzzzzz. He debases every thread in which he participates.

Please ban ZZZzzzzzzz. He debases every thread in which he participates.

  • Yes, I agree.

    Votes: 53 44.9%

  • No, I do not agree.

    Votes: 65 55.1%
  • Total voters
    118
Quote from Thunderdog:

With due respect, Anna, I believe you are missing the point here. Further, I'm guessing you are not familiar with the perp's conduct. Read RM's posts in this thread. He knows what he is talking about. ZZZzzzzzzz is not a person filled with different opinions. He is a tumor.
More...


I read RM's post and I don't think Z's behavior is appropriate and understand the issue. However, I still don't see it being a reason to ban him.

If you can't handle him don't engage him. Banning is of little significance – it’s too fine of a line.
 
It's simple, really: T-Dog is a good-hearted person who becomes deeply distressed by viewing acts of sadism. Ignoring the sadism does nothing to help, as he knows it's all still there.

I'm sure most of you would become highly disturbed if you saw some filthy sadist taunting & teasing a helpless little puppy (and turning your back to the poor animal's suffering wouldn't make you feel the least bit better). Sadistic taunting is less disturbing to witness when the victims are grown men instead of animals, but still- just understand that each person has a different level of sensitivity to that sort of thing. Even if you lack T-Dog's elevated level of empathy (as I do), you can still easily understand why this bothers him so much... and why telling him to ignore the sadism isn't going to help.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

It's simple, really: T-Dog is a good-hearted person who becomes deeply distressed by viewing acts of sadism. Ignoring the sadism does nothing to help, as he knows it's all still there.

I'm sure most of you would become highly disturbed if you saw some filthy sadist taunting & teasing a helpless little puppy (and turning your back to the poor animal's suffering wouldn't make you feel the least bit better). Sadistic taunting is less disturbing to witness when the victims are grown men instead of animals, but still- just understand that each person has a different level of sensitivity to that sort of thing. Even if you lack T-Dog's elevated level of empathy (as I do), you can still easily understand why this bothers him so much... and why telling him to ignore the sadism isn't going to help.
More...
You are quite correct in your observation regarding empathy. However, I'm not sure whether this is the principal motivating factor here. More than anything I dislike assholes, whether they are intentionally being assholes or whether it just comes naturally to them. I think ZZZzzzzzzz is a naturally born asshole who has honed his skills to a fine point. Also, it is interesting that you should mention sadism, because I genuinely believe that ZZZzzzzzzz is a sadist at heart.
 
Quote from annaland:

I read RM's post and I don't think Z's behavior is appropriate and understand the issue. However, I still don't see it being a reason to ban him.

If you can't handle him don't engage him. Banning is of little significance – it’s too fine of a line.
More...
I didn't only mean his most recent post. I also refer to the following posts earlier in this thread:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1755992#post1755992

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1756013#post1756013

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1756025#post1756025

I guess we disagree on matters of intentional abuse and the manner in which it should be dealt with.
 
I admit that it takes a certain discipline to handily dismiss a sadist such as ZZZzzzzzzz, and I admit that I am not yet entirely immune to his form of malignancy. However, I take offense at your "pair" reference. Further, I think most people's ability to either ignore or put up with ZZZzzzzzzz has more to do with oblivion than discipline.
 
You’re in luck because I have some extra time today to tell you how it is. I fully understand your positions and RM’s arguments are good. However, it’s incredibly difficult to take your complaints seriously. RM describes you as highly empathetic but I’m having a hard time wrapping my fingers around that. Would a highly empathetic person start threads/polls asking ET if so and so is a moron? Equivalently, would someone who “hates assholes” start threads of “intentional abuse”? You shouldn’t exhibit this kind of behavior but then complain about someone else’s.

This is why I previously wrote there’s too fine a line here.
My apologies for the bluntness, tdog - you know I like you.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

Sorry Triple A, but you missed the entire point on this one.
<b>No one is suggesting banning LoZZZer for expressing its political views!</b> The troll's politics aren't even all that extreme, when compared to the various neo-nazis and terrorists who habitually defecate upon these boards.

Insisting for pages on end that a study from 2005 is really from 2003 (first three pages of this thread), has absolutely nothing to do with 'expressing views'! It's one of the hundreds (thousands?) of instances where the troll utilizes its 'winning by losing' tactic- Steadfastly insisting that up is down and black is white, just to piss people off.

This type of 'speech' has far more in common with nails screeching on a blackboard, than any expression of views or ideas.
More...

I believe I understand your point. I wasn't suggesting that you wanted him banned because of his political views. I was attempting to make a larger point, namely that it is dangerous to start down the slippery slope of censoring people because they annoy us. It starts out as an honest attempt to improve civility, stop harrassment or bullying, etc. Next the groups with perpetual grievances start demanding that any and all criticism of them be banned. After all, it's hurtful to them. Why should they have to endure it? That leads to speech codes, hate speech laws and hate crime legislation. Suddenly, "wrong" thinking is a potential crime.

ZZZ is not important, one way or the other. Freedom of expression is. It means little if it only protects expression that we find agreeable.
 
Quote from annaland:

You’re in luck because I have some extra time today to tell you how it is. I fully understand your positions and RM’s arguments are good. However, it’s incredibly difficult to take your complaints seriously. RM describes you as highly empathetic but I’m having a hard time wrapping my fingers around that. Would a highly empathetic person start threads/polls asking ET if so and so is a moron? Equivalently, would someone who “hates assholes” start threads of “intentional abuse”? You shouldn’t exhibit this kind of behavior but then complain about someone else’s.

This is why I previously wrote there’s too fine a line here.
My apologies for the bluntness, tdog - you know I like you.
More...
Interesting observation on your part. Allow me to explain. ZZZzzzzzzz is gratuitously abrasive. He looks for a fight, and where there isn't one he makes one. He presents an argument, gets cornered, and then, like a reptile in a bad dream, counters with a complete absence of logic. He does this knowingly. He then proceeds to become abusive. RM has captured ZZZzzzzzzz's essence in his well-written posts.

You referred to my poll wherein I asked if marketsurfer was a moron. Kindly reread the opening post of that thread to understand my motivation. However much you may like marketsurfer, you know full well that he obfuscates and tries to come across as knowing far more than he actually does, at least on ET. At times, he comes across as downright vacuous. I guess I am also not immune to BS. Just visit his trend thread to get a feel for his slippery nature, or my exchanges with him about Larry Williams, and judge for yourself. Regarding LW, he challenged me to do my own research because I believed LW oozed snake oil. Well, I did so, by speaking with an enforcement attorney at the NFA. That enforcement attorney verified what Gallacher wrote in his book about LW. He also advised how such records could be readily obtained. Marketsurfer accused me of lying. I did not. I told him to either call for himself (it takes a bit of doing to actually get an enforcement attorney on the phone, but it can be done because I did it), or at least go to the library where the damning evidence can be found in full display. Your marketsurfer simply just chose to ignore me and the effort I undertook to meet his challenge. Yeah, I was upset by the blatant obfuscation. Subsequently, he wanted me to talk directly to LW to get the “facts.” Anna, let’s get real, eh?

And his silliness continued well after the poll. At the time of the last two index futures front month rollovers, surf made it painfully clear that he did not know what was going on and that he most likely did not engage in the YM trades reported in his journal thread. Most people seemed to agree. Marketsurfer likes to engage in BS, and I like to call people on it. It’s my nature. Does that really make me a bad guy? I’d like to think not.

As for my occasionally being hostile towards certain others, if you take the time to consider the context, I think you will find that I was only responding in kind.

I despise ZZZzzzzzzz because he is an evil bastard. However, I am also not immune to arrogance, obfuscation and bullshit. That’s why marketsurfer occasionally finds himself on my radar. Again, it’s just my nature. To be candid, I suspect that marketsurfer is probably a nice guy in real life. Aside from the offending posts, his other posts just strike me that way. But when I sense bullshit, I have to call it.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I believe I understand your point. I wasn't suggesting that you wanted him banned because of his political views. I was attempting to make a larger point, namely that it is dangerous to start down the slippery slope of censoring people because they annoy us. It starts out as an honest attempt to improve civility, stop harrassment or bullying, etc. Next the groups with perpetual grievances start demanding that any and all criticism of them be banned. After all, it's hurtful to them. Why should they have to endure it? That leads to speech codes, hate speech laws and hate crime legislation. Suddenly, "wrong" thinking is a potential crime.

ZZZ is not important, one way or the other. Freedom of expression is. It means little if it only protects expression that we find agreeable.
More...
The slippery slope argument is a valid one in many instances. In some fairly obvious cases, however, it is an excuse to not have to think or employ judgment. Dispensing platitudes is far more effortless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top