Ditching Online Discussion Groups - A Rational Choice!

Back in May I wrote a post explaining why I ceased to frequent any online discussion Google Groups. As I noted:

"Google groups is as beset by noise from trolls, morons and screwballs as Usenet was in the mid 90s. In fact, I'd say even more.  The JFK assassination is a case in point and shows pretty well that most of the numskulls who post aren't interested in serious discussion - but drive -by snark that would embarrass an intelligent 8-year old. But this was one reason that in 2001 I stopped forthwith with Deja news and never signed onto Google groups. Too much noise, not enough signal."

This was particularly to do with groups on the JFK assassination, which I found increasingly beset by noise and inhabited by that bottom feeder species of internet denizen known as the troll. After citing a number of examples of my own experience, and Richard Charnin's (about whose JFK book I'd written a review) I observed:

"This is why it's a total waste of time, mental capital and energy to attempt to dispense any pearls of wisdom regarding the JFK assassination (and I'd guess global warming as well) on Google Groups. It is simply not a venue conducive to intellectual exercise or exchange."

Well, it appears I am by no means the only person to have left these groups to the lower dregs. An article in the recent Mensa Bulletin ('Why I Quit Online Discussion Groups',  October, p. 32) by Bryan Lundgren, sheds even more light on why intelligent people are no longer inclined to waste time or intellectual capital in these over-hyped venues.

In Lundgren's case he'd signed up for eight Yahoo Groups, hoping to extract some residue of intellectual exchange via collegial and interesting discussions on a variety of topics.  What he discovered instead was more akin to an intellectual vacuum and worse, one inhabited by the usual breed of deranged and deluded assholes one encounters in such places. They know little or nothing, as in the JFK assassination Google groups, yet feel they are entitled to spout off on anything and even that their bilge trumps the contributions of experts.

As Lundgren noted, based on his experience, (p. 33):

"The first time I came across one of these nasty people online I called my Internet-savvy daughter and explained the situation:

'This guy throws out a post that takes five minutes, calls people names . Next the group goes into a five hour frenzy. What's up with that?"

His daughter then asks if he has never hears of trolls, with which she has to deal in her online work - mainly trying to screen their random eruptions as best she can.

Lundgren then cites the Urban Dictionary definition of "Internet Troll":

"A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with over the internet over extremely trivial issues."


Lundgren then claims to have begun to research online communications, including diagnosing disruptive personalities that seem to pop up in these Yahoo and Google groups like random roaches searching for new feeding stores.  Lundgren also sought to try to learn why "these few bad apples behaved so negatively".  Ultimately, he was able to get to the point of recognizing the M.O. of most of these losers and being able to predict the obnoxious behavior of a certain subset.  Most of these dregs fell into one of three groups: trolls for their own sake, narcissists and depressives unwilling to medicate properly.

The trolls for their own sake are perhaps the bunch most on the loose in Google groups. The JFK assassination especially seems to draw them out, because they believe after they read a few short articles they are experts on it. Thus, they feel compelled to challenge more experienced contributors and authors simply because they can. (One reason I advised Richard Charnin not to waste his time on any of these groups any more, including mentioning his book, Reclaiming Science).

Narcissists, well they just like seeing themselves have fun at others' expense. They can also be especially nasty about it and often engage in character assassination - like John McAdams, a classic case. Meanwhile, depressives engage in this slimy behavior as a way to partially self-medicate, whereas if they'd just leave the keyboard alone and get a Zoloft or Paxil prescription they'd be going out for a jog, or reading a damned book.

Lundgren noted he finally gave up and left the online groups because the effort needed to create and sustain a useful online exchange was "excessive" relative to the rewards. In other words, like my experience with the JFK assassination Google groups, it more and more became a case of tossing pearls before swine and as I noted,

"this is what you get when you offer substantive fare for consideration to mentally deficient imps who are more at ease wallowing in their own verbal feces and hurling it at anyone who dares try to enter their 'den' for education purposes."

Lundgren's solution - analogous to my own - was to be much more selective in internet use. Now, instead of wasting hours and hours uselessly arguing with those not invested in the content or enhancing discussion, he spends more constructive time reading one or two blogs and making the occasional comment.  The time and energy has added more quality to his own life, but I am sure the trolls and narcissists are PO'd they don't have another person whose time (and talents) they can waste.

Lundgren like me, has joined tens of thousands of netizens who have tired of partaking in useless, rancorous online discussions that now are the hallmark of an intellectual wasteland.

Why I Don't Waste Time Posting On JFK Issues in Google Groups

Google groups is a later iteration of Usenet newsgroups and newsgroup culture after Google took them over ca. 2001. According to a Wikipedia entry:.

By 2001, the Deja search service was shut down. In February 2001, Google acquired Deja News (and its archive), and transitioned its assets to groups.google.com.Users were then able to access these Usenet newsgroups through the new Google Groups interface.

But cursory inspection shows that contrary to the claim of being a better information repository, Google groups is as beset by noise from trolls, morons and screwballs as Usenet was in the mid 90s. In fact, I'd say even more.  The JFK assassination is a case in point and shows pretty well that most of the numskulls who post aren't interested in serious discussion - but drive -by snark that would embarrass an intelligent 8-year old. But this was one reason that in 2001 I stopped forthwith with Deja news and never signed onto Google groups. Too much noise, not enough signal.

In the current discussions in the JFK assassination forum author Richard Charnin has tried valiantly to introduce the resident peanut gallery to my recent JFK assassination book, but with zero success. He's received one to two line responses (again,  most that a 2nd grader wouldn't write), ranging from: "Jeez why should I waste money on some book full of CT shibboleths and nonsense!" (Amazing he could use the word "shibboleths")  to "I bet he don't have a job and sits in his mom's basement writing this stuff!" (Actually no, I'm nearly 69 and long since retired - able to travel and work on my own projects. You should be so lucky, Sparky!)

But this is the sort of drivel one must put up with if he dares to cast pearls before swine. Because given their nature, swine won't appreciate what's on offer and will generally use the occasion only to evacuate their bowels - or in this case resort to verbal diarrhea via their keyboards.  This is the low quality dreck that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the cybersphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Heck, most of these turkeys couldn't distinguish Oswald's CI/SIG 201 file from his 74-500 file, far less Kennedy's  NSAM-263 from Johnson's NSAM-273.  I warrant they've never even read them ....or the cables from the Mexico City station (dispatched compliments of station chief David Atlee Phillips)  that clearly sets up Oswald as the patsy. They talk and write about this being "more CT nonsense" but the very writing of such idiocy shows they're not invested in the truth (as James Douglass shows in his 'JFK and the Unspeakable') but denial and propaganda.

Another dolt actually asked Mr. Charnin if I ever "came up with an original theory on the assassination".  But why would I when the existing JFK records, released files clearly show  - to any person with an IQ at least one standard deviation beyond normal - that there is no need to "reinvent the wheel" as it were. All the evidence is there and points to a CIA-instigated hit - which this bozo would learn about if he possessed the reading level (2nd year college) to appreciate my book. Also, to appreciate my original mathematical approach to the analysis of the backyard photos (using fractional calculus) and the rifle shots.

But see, when people lack aptitude - either in reading or mathematics- the only response they're left with is the default  put down, irresponsible (uninformed) criticism, and simpleton snark. They aren't going to applaud the work - because hell, they aren't prepared to exercise their minds to a degree that exceeds accepting  more than the simplest answers. It's more comfortable to remain brainwashed zombies gobbling up lone nut propaganda.

This brings up my other main point on why I won't waste time with these clueless nimrods: they already have made their minds up on what's true and what's false - just like the climate change deniers. It is what I have earlier called "false knowledge syndrome".  As I noted in a post elaborating on the condition:

"Sure, all humans want to believe they’re rational, but Kahan's work shows that in reality most people employ their reason  ex post facto to  rationalize what they already want to believe. Thus, if they already believe global warming is a "hoax" their brains won't work in order to process new information that invalidates that, but rather they will search for bogus information (say from a Terry Lovell, or Richard Lindzen, or Jason Lisle) that reinforces their misperceptions. "

Let's also bring in another related observation for those who so vehemently (and mindlessly) defend the lone nut bunkum (which one Mensa Bulletin letter writer in 1995  compared to "accepting the virgin birth").  Then there is this percipient take compliments of Matt Ridley in his Wall Street Journal column of Sept. 10, 2011:

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?"

A point surely missed by the uneducated yahoos who inhabit Google Groups, namely the JFK discussion forum.  Because if a rational man like Richard Charnin (and even long time researcher Anthony Marsh- who noted whenever he gave an original theory it was shot down in the forum) can be so summarily dismissed there is no hope for rational exchange.  Further, the evidence is manifestly clear that the bulk of respondents are fools and trolls just as wedded to their own wacko conspiracy theories (in this case irrationally anti-CT) as those who currently believe U.S. Army special forces are in Texas for an Obama "takeover"

The worst tragedy is that, leaving out all subjective back and forth,  these morons are totally unable to see how the basic physics - mechanics points to conspiracy.( I.e. grasping that Jackie's limo  trunk motion is impossible for a rear shot such as from the Book Depository, because the direction of linear momentum is always in the direction the bullet travels)  It is almost like trying to impart or teach Chinese to chimps.  As for the mathematical proofs - such as via Charnin's Poisson  analysis or use of my fractional calculus - when you  have to deal with those possessing subnormal IQs (who wouldn't be able to do even basic algebra) you're not going to get kudos because again...showing your work is analogous to showing Chinese to a chimp. A chimp isn't likely to read that page of Chinese characters but more probably defecate on it.

Bear in mind these misfits who find it so easy to slam a reflective book of analysis they haven't read,  likely couldn't even write a convincing comic book. But this is what you get when you offer substantive fare for consideration to mentally deficient imps who are more at ease wallowing in their own verbal feces and hurling it at anyone who dares try to enter their 'den' for education purposes.

This is why it's a total waste of time, mental capital and energy to attempt to dispense any pearls of wisdom regarding the JFK assassination (and I'd guess global warming as well) on Google Groups. It is simply not a venue conducive to intellectual exercise or exchange.

If I were Richard Charnin I wouldn't waste another minute of time or mental energy on the Google Groups JFK forum. He's better served writing a follow-up to his excellent original conspiracy book - this time focusing on LBJ's role. Perhaps doing a Poisson analysis showing that what too many regard as disconnected, "coincidental" events: i.e.  destruction of the bloody suit coat, cleaning and disassembly of the limo and even the Bethesda autopsy- could only have been orchestrated by Johnson. He had the means, motive and opportunity (as well as the power)  to do it and everything to lose (owing to the exploding Bobby Baker scandal) if JFK wasn't in a box by the time the entourage left Big D.

Something to consider.