Changing direction

It appears that Till Noever's former blog exists no more. In light of the disappearance of his silly blog entry, I'll probably delete the prior entries here and then use this blog as a spot for occasional thoughts on whatever.

Cheers,

Zarkoon Cannibal

Till Noever: Shameless Hypocrite and Coward

As noted below, Till Noever--in a display of cowardice and hypocrisy--deleted my comments from his blog. The conduct was hypocritical because, in his blog, he criticizes me for not granting Paul Rhoads the right of reply on the Jack Vance Message Board. The conduct was cowardly because he has not engaged directly with my accusations. If Till wants to delete my comments, that's fine. But I want everyone to know that he's a hypocrite.

I have taken this issue up with Till directly. Here's the exchange that we have had so far. First, I wrote the following:

So let's get this straight:

1. In your blog, you criticized me for banning Paul Rhoads. You offered two reasons: (a) censorship is wrong; (b) an accused person should be given the right of reply in the forum in which he or she is accused.

2. I responded with comments to your blog entry.

3. You responded by deleting my comments.

Don't you see that your deleting my comments was precisely the same sort of conduct that you said was wrong on my part? Are there two sets of rules: one for you, one for me? You get to censor me; you get to accuse me and deprive me of the right of reply. By contrast, I do not get to censor Paul Rhoads; Paul has a right of reply, no matter how he acts?

Till, you should be ashamed of yourself. Go back to your blog and admit your error.

Till responded:

No. I also deleted Paul's comments. And I really don't want to hear from you
anymore, because you bore me.

Well, I wasn't talking about Paul's comments. I was talking about Till's comments.

And I bore Till? Really? I don't think so. I think that Till just can't admit his own hypocrisy.

I responded:

You didn't delete your comments, though.

And you're a liar. You don't want to hear from me because I have exposed your hypocrisy.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Till responded as follows to my note that he hadn't deleted his comments:

And you're welcome to reply to them in your own blog as you please, how you please, if you please and when you please. The world's your oyster.

So I have responded to Till as follows:

And Paul Rhoads was free to reply to my accusations on his own BBS, how he pleased, if he pleased, and when he pleased. The world was his oyster.

Yet you criticized me for banning Rhoads from posting on my BBS. And now you have taken precisely the same approach to me that I took to Rhoads.

If you criticize me, you need to criticize yourself.

I don't imagine that Till is going to admit that he's a hypocrite. It's fruitless to think that he will admit his error. But I'm not going to let his hypocrisy go unchallenged.

What hypocrisy!

Till Noever--that champion against censorship--responded to my comments on his blog by censoring those comments. Yes, that's right: he accused me of mistreating Paul Rhoads by banning him from the Jack Vance Message Board; then when I responded, he censored my comments.

Till, you're a hypocrite. A lousy, stinkin' hypocrite.

All silent on whatever front

I had assumed that Till Noever or Paul Rhoads would respond to my posts here or my comments on Noever's blog. Neither has done so. I'm a bit surprised: Rhoads is infamously combative, and I can't imagine that he missed my comments. But so be it. Perhaps neither wants to become further embroiled.

I'll leave up my posts here on Rhoads and Noever's comments for a time. In the meantime, I may start blogging on other subjects. Heck, why not? I rather like the title of the blog.

Cheers,

The Malefic One

More on Till Noever and Paul Rhoads

I assumed that my posts below about Till Noever and Paul Rhoads would draw a screaming response from one or both of those two persons. They didn't, even though I posted a link to this blog in a comment on Noever's blog. I also followed up with another comment, pointing out Noever's perhaps unintentional hypocrisy in complaining about the censorship of Paul Rhoads, that friend of censorship.

I haven't heard from Rhoads or Noever, so this morning I posted another comment on Noever's blog, setting out (with some deletions and additions) the comments in the second post below.

I'll admit that I just feel like raising some dust. Till's massive complacency and ignorance irk me. And I'm simply stunned by the conspiracy of silence about Rhoads's conduct. I've spoken with several people who count themselves as Rhoads's friends as supporters, and all of them have said, in effect, "Yes, Paul goes over the top."

But no one says, "Paul has gone too far."

No one says, "I cannot condone Paul lying."

No one says, "I cannot condone Paul's homophobic statements."

Rhoads will never learn. But his friends and supporters can learn that, by aiding and abetting Paul Rhoads, they are helping him inflict harm on others.

Some of those others may be people like Alex Feht. It's impossible to defend Feht. But even Feht did not deserve to be slandered.

Similarly, it's hard to defend Bruce Y. But even Bruce Y did not deserve to be the butt of Paul Rhoads's homophobic insults.

In remaining silent about Rhoads's conduct, those who could speak out are effectively condoning that conduct.

That's wrong.

It's unethical.

They need to be called on their unethical conduct.

I'm calling them out.

Richard S. Prather, Shell Scott

I noted on another blog (can't remember which one) that Prather's Shell Scott novels feature right-wing politics. Possibly so--but I think that he may be less right-wing than one might think.

I'll admit that Scott is, by contemporary standards, a sexist pig. And in the novel that I'm currently reading (the first, Case of the Vanishing Beauty) he threatens from time to time to punch women. Another novel (The Scrambled Yeggs) opens with Scott spanking a woman--and not in any mutually erotic manner.

Still, there's a bit of the progressive somewhere in Scott. He was a contrarian: driver of a convertible Cadillac, wearer of loud clothes (especially loud ties). His women were willing, but they also tended to be more substantial than one might expect. And, despite the occasional spanking or threat, Scott actually treated them fairly well--although his ability to remain monogamous was deeply impaired.

I'm working my way back through the Scott mysteries and will offer further thoughts. But, for now, I think that the conservative element is not all that great.

And, of course, the novels are just rippingly funny. I'm reminded of Waugh: he was really quite the conservative, but his best works were so funny that it's hard even for a liberal such as me to hold his conservatism against him.

Hypocrisy

In his blog, Till Noever comes to the defense of his friend Paul Rhoads--an admitted slanderer--because, in what passes for Till's mind, Rhoads was not given a "right of reply" on the Jack Vance Message Board. This deprivation, Till asserts--with high dudgeon--violates "the 'right of reply' for an accused to his accusers":

Every 'right'—which is an ethical term—accorded to anyone, is granted to them, or not, by other people. What rights are given to people by others are based on contingency, chronological and otherwise, as well as the choices made by individuals or societies. The choice of 'freedom of expression' and the 'right to reply' for an accused to his accusers is part of what makes up the matrix that holds 'Western' societies together. It's often violated, of course—routinely in fact, explicitly and implicitly, on all sides of the philosophical spectrum, but mostly by those living on the extremes while being blissfully unaware that they are extremists. Hypocrisy is possibly, next to stupidity, the most common element in the human psychological universe.

Till's comment is simply stupid.

Initially, Till is simply mixing things up. "The right of reply" is a right applicable in judicial systems. Nothing holds "the right of reply" sacrosanct elsewhere. Till's comment is akin to saying that Rhoads wasn't given a standing eight count. This isn't a boxing match, Till; nor is it a court case.

Even if this were court (and, again, it is not), Till's point would be without merit. The "right of reply" is not inalienable. An accused can lose his or her right of reply. Courts routinely sanction individuals for their abuse of the system.

That's what happened to Paul Rhoads--liar and homophobe--on the Jack Vance Message Board. He abused the system and lost his right of reply.

Because Till is ignorant of the history of the JVMB, let me set out some of it.

In May 2003, Rhoads requested that Alex Feht be banned from the JVMB. Feht was banned--not at Rhoads's behest, but simply because it was the right thing to do: Feht was a troll. Bruce Y responded by creating another message board, the Gaean Reach, and Feht began posting there more nasty comments about Paul Rhoads.

Against advice from many persons who generally supported him (including--at the time--me), Rhoads posted hosts of responses to Feht's (and others') posts on the Gaean Reach. He began a series of petty attacks on those persons, stating embarrassing things. (Rhoads cannot deny this: he has deleted his own posts from that board.) Among other things, Rhoads resorted to making scatological posts on the Gaean Reach.

In posting those comments, Rhoads was acting in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief of the Vance Integral Edition. Any reasonable person looking at Rhoads's posts would have concluded that they were an embarrassment to the VIE. If the VIE were a for-profit institution, it would have fired Rhoads for those comments.

Those comments were so petty, so embarrassing, that they led to Rhoads's banning from the Jack Vance Message Board. After all, it would have been hypocritical to permit Rhoads to post on that board, without giving a right of reply to those whom he accused of many, many things.

More to the point: Rhoads's posts on the Gaean Reach were profoundly offensive. As owner of the Jack Vance Message Board, I did not want to be seen as a person who condoned such conduct. After all, I had banned Feht and others for lesser conduct. Thus, I banned Paul Rhoads.

Rhoads continued his postings on the Reach. In that forum, he slandered Alex Feht, claiming that Feht was a wife-beater. I cannot understand why Feht never sued him. Rhoads also posted posts--including doggerel poems--intimating that Bruce Y was homosexual.

I cannot understand how anyone can defend such posts. Nor can I understand how any person can defend Paul Rhoads when he has conducted himself in that manner. To defend Rhoads's conduct on the Gaean Reach is to defend slander and homophobia.

A couple of years later--in winter 2005--Rhoads tried posting on the JVMB under an assumed name. It shortly became obvious that Rhoads was indeed Rhoads, and he was banned again.

Some of my friends persuaded me that Rhoads could be allowed back on the JVMB if he (a) apologized to persons whom he had injured and (b) agreed to follow the rules of the board--rules that included an admonition not to flame.

I suggested that Rhoads apologize to John Vance, Mike Berro, and Matt Hughes. I knew that he had injured John Vance through telephone conversations and email exchanges with Mr. Vance, who was desperately seeking ways to keep Rhoads moving toward completion of the Vance Integral Edition, when Rhoads seemed more interested in responding to ridiculous comments by Feht and others on the Gaean Reach.

I knew that Rhoads had injured Mike Berro from emails and posts by Berro, showing that Berro was pained by the fact that he had had to relinquish control of the Jack Vance Message Board because of Rhoads's earlier demands to him.

I knew that Rhoads had injured Matt Hughes because Matt had--after nasty emails from Rhoads--withdrawn for a time from the JVMB.

So I banned Rhoads's new user name on the JVMB and set conditions for his return. He acceded to those conditions--or at least he gave lip service to them. He clearly was not contrite. (Who can tell? He is a self-proclaimed liar.) I unbanned him, and he returned to posting--but immediately proved that he could not abide by the rules of the board.

And so he was banned again. I wish that I had banned him, but I didn't. axolotl did--even though axo had once been Rhoads's friend.

Eventually, Rhoads began sending stalking horses to the JVMB. First, he sent Thomas Rydbeck, who asked why Rhoads was banned.

I explained why Rhoads was banned, and I included the fact that Rhoads had slandered Alex Feht and made homophobic comments about Bruce Y.

Rydbeck didn't bother to defend Rhoads's conduct. I don't know how one defends such conduct. Rhoads lied. Rhoads published childish, homophobic doggerel. That conduct should have embarrassed him. More important, it should have embarrassed the board of directors of the Vance Integral Edition.

Rhoads responded in Extant, a publication through which he conducted the business of the VIE. That publication was thus a publication of the VIE. Rhoads admitted that he had made up his accusations about Alex Feht. And he lied about his doggerel about Bruce Y: he suggested that he wasn't suggesting that Bruce Y was homosexual. And if he was making that suggestion (Rhoads continued), what was the harm? Many people in history, he said, had "faggy"--his word--characteristics. And Paul asserted that he himself isn't really homophobic. He just uses homophobic comments to get his way.

Is that all right with you, Till? Do you condone such language? Have you ever said to Rhoads, "Paul, my friend, that was really too much"?

Well, of course you haven't, Till. You haven't done so because you're a spineless hypocrite.

But back to our story.

Rhoads admitted all of this. Still the VIE board of directors didn't cut him loose. They obviously had as the editor-in-chief of the VIE a man who thought that it was perfectly fine to go around publishing defamatory and homophobic comments.

To my mind, the failure to act in response to Rhoads's admitted lies and homophobia was simply incredible. Rhoads's conduct had been unethical. In failing to act, the VIE became complicit with that unethical conduct.

Rhoads then sent another stalking horse to the JVMB: viz., Bob Lacovara. Lacovara complained that I was "cowardly" and "petty."

Good god. I was apparently the only reasonable person willing to stand up and say that the emperor had no clothes--or, more specifically, that the emperor was going around publishing stuff that was simply beyond the pale.

Of course, none of Rhoads's friends would defend Rhoads's specific comments. They took the position that Rhoads is a special case: one had to accept his nastiness as part of Rhoads.

What?

Did I hear that right?

If it's unacceptable, it's unacceptable.

If it's unethical, it's unethical.

Rhoads is unethical. He is willing to lie and resort to homophobia to achieve his goals.

And that's unethical.

I had a chat with Lacovara and announced a new rule on the JVMB: Rhoads was simply off-topic. No one would post about Rhoads.

Then I received an email from John Vance suggesting that I reach a "rapprochement" with Rhoads.

I'd as soon kiss a snake.

Then I learned from Ed Winskill that Rhoads had published in Extant a piece suggesting that my wife and I are swingers.

Do you think that's acceptable, Till?

Are you married?

Are you and your wife swingers?

Isn't that nasty?

Do you want to defend that?

Come on: do it.

I had had it. If John Vance was going to suggest that I deal with Rhoads--an admitted liar, and a person who thought that it was acceptable to make homophobic comments--then I was going to pull the plug on the JVMB.

And, Till, the JVMB--despite your suggestion to the contrary--does not have a "connection" to the VIE. Your suggestion there is misleading. In other words: it's a lie. The JVMB is completely separate from the VIE.

I passed the JVMB back to Mike Berro, on the condition that he maintain the bans in place. He agreed: he had seen that people like Feht and Rhoads could not be allowed on the board without ruining the place for everyone else.

And that's the fact, Till--you idiot. You aren't familiar with the JVMB, so you don't know what it was like when Feht and Rhoads were battling it out there. But, despite your ignorance, you can opine about it.

You're stupid, Till. And in defending Rhoads, you're defending someone who asked for censorship of the JVMB. And that makes you a hypocrite.

So you're also right, Till. Hypocrisy and stupidity are common. You have managed to demonstrate both qualities. Congratulations!

Let me note further that Rhoads threatened to quit the VIE because the Board of Directors would not take steps against me as owner of the JVMB (at the time). I was not a member of the VIE, nor was I connected with the VIE. Rhoads's complaints about me were not connected at all with his work with the VIE--yet he was complaining to the board about me.

After I turned the JVMB back to Mike Berro, Paul Rhoads quit the VIE, even though (1) all comments about him had been removed from the JVMB and (2) work remained to be done on the VIE.

That conduct was simply childish. It confirms that Rhoads lacks any sense of proportion--and any sense of ethics. If he were an ethical person, he would have completed his work for the VIE.

But Rhoads is not an ethical person. And people--like you, Till--who come to his aid are simply supporting unethical conduct.

Till, if you have a decent bone in your body--if you're actually the samurai that you aspire to be--then you should have the nerve to tell your friend, Paul Rhoads, that his conduct is unethical.

If you can't do that, Till--well, shame on you.

In praise of censorship

Let us all praise lovely censorship.

Till Noever has a BlogSpot blog in which he complains about censorship. Here is one of his claims:

The imposition of censorship, for whatever contrived reasons, no matter how apparently benign, on the expression of opinion, no matter how potentially offensive—is there any opinion that will not offend somebody?—is more demeaning and potentially damaging than anything that could possibly be expressed in words by anybody expressing themselves in the media in question.

So, Till, I can say anything about you or anyone else? Could I call a person--and I'm not talking about you--a convicted child molester without any regard to the truth? If I published some such falsehood, would the person about whom I wrote have only the right to complain that he or she was in fact not a convicted child molester? Would the slanderous statement be allowed to float around freely, with the slandered person left simply to hope that truth will out?

I don't think that's your position, Till. But if it is, let me know. We can put this assertion to a test.

In addition to complaining about the fact that a friend of his has been censored, Till is also complaining that his novel was "censored" by its publisher. Apparently, the publisher objected to some section or motif of the novel. Till feels that something bad was done to him.

Till, you had a choice: You could have chosen to tell the publisher, "I will not agree to have you publish my novel without this material in it." Had you done so, then the publisher could have decided whether or not--in light of your ultimatum--it would publish your novel.

Instead, you chose to agree with the publisher's request. But, having agreed to that request, you now want to whine about it. Moreover, you want to cast yourself as the injured party. That's really petty. You reach an agreement with someone, and then you complain about the ethics of the other party.

I think that approach is itself unethical, Till. You made an agreement with your publisher, and now you complain.

And let's describe the world that you want to inhabit: You think that you should have been able to insist to the publisher that it publish something that it did not want to publish. You wanted to deprive the publisher of its right to choose what to publish.

Do you want to do that with everyone, Till? Do you want to allow other persons to take that approach to your blog? Do you want people coming onto your blog and publishing, say, hard-core pornographic photographs?

And do you think, Till, that a publisher has any right to choose not to publish something? Am I entitled to go to a publisher and say, "Publish this!" and have that publisher jump to my command?

Is that your world, Till?

Well, of course not.