re:fixation

• Mission Statement by John Suler, 6/21/97
  • (...)
    
    • re:fixation by John Suler, 3/15/98
      
      

>Sorry to hear about your favorite newsgroup being disrupted, Wanda. Not knowing the details of what is happening, it's impossible for me to say why this person persists in his attempts to disrupt the group.

I have emailed you privately with more details of the ng. Per one particular netizen of our ng, the targeter has specifically targeted him, and he lists some dejanews citations to bolster his argument. It appears that the excessive posting may be a manifestation of his targeting the individual.

>But one thing is for sure. Although it may not be obvious to you or others in the ng, this person does feel connected.

He may feel connected, but, imho, it seems rather misplaced. I'll be a little more specific. My ng is one for a particular automobile make. The disruptor neither owns nor drives the make. He has expended over 40% of his nearly 1100 Usenet posts there, many sounding as if he were an authoritative source. Asked to provide citation, he had listed links, many of which prove to be Usenet postings of opinions, sound bites, editorials, and other non-objective sites. After the fourth time of these kinds of posts, he stopped pointing posts to me, and curtailed his citations overall. I supposed you could say I shaped him in that regard, for I would not allow his fallacious citations to go unchallenged. As further observation, he declares owning or driving three other makes, yet his postings to those ngs are far outnumbered by the ones to our ng.

>He is getting something out of his posts and the replies to them - though it's probably not the kind of thing you or the others would want from the group. To use behavioral language, his posting is being reinforced.

>If everyone in the group feels the same as you, and they wish to quiet this person or encourage his posts in a more appropriate direction, they could either (a) not reply to him at all (extinguish),

Several of us feel very strongly that allowing his misleading posts to stand is a tacit condoning of his misinformation. Some of us feel strongly that, as boosters, serious inquirers and problem presenters/solvers deserve an environment in which they can get information from real-experience people.

>or, (b) reply only to his posts that sound appropriate (shaping).

Discussed somewhat above.

> If the group continues as it is, they are probably fueling his flames. As one of my old clinical supervisors used to say, "It takes two to tango."

It may take "two to tango," but he was not invited to the dance, and he has been invited to leave. We (I?) don't want to dance with him; we want to eject him and/or have him examine his motivation, whether through himself or through third-party intervention.

I have noticed some decrease in the quantity and types of postings from this person, but I'm not naive enough to believe his habits have extinguished. Over the course of several weeks, a few of us have attempted to contain him on several fronts. (His postings and backlash extend about a year.) Furthermore, we don't know if his reduced postings are because he's busier at the office or that we are leaving him fewer avenues to post credible-sounding missives.

Regards,

Wanda Hill

• re:fixation by John Suler, 3/16/98
  • re:fixation by Wanda Hill, 3/16/98