Think that this is a copyright violation? As a matter of law, it is not. Click here for the reasons why this is the case.
Groupthink in Action
March 8, 2002
(Modified July 15, 2004) The natural question to ask, at this point, is "can the situation get any more absurd than it already has". Let us take stock of the situation. We have a group, founded by an alleged graduate student in Egyptology (at the University of Chicago, no less), which promotes itself as being a place for serious scholarship. Yet, we have somebody (JamStone) coming onto their home bulletin board to argue that the harnessing of electricity should be listed as one of ancient Egypt's possible accomplishments! This falls under the category of "you have got to be kidding".
The guests and some of the members of this allegedly scholarly group then rally around said crackpot when his arguments are refuted, and seriously argue that having lost an argument makes him a victim. So much for critical thought. Can the situation become more absurd at such a point? The answer must be "yes", because, historically, it did just that.
This next exchange with the House started with a post which no reasonable person could have found offensive. In June of 2001, John had started a thread entitled "Netjeru and Geometry". On it, Antistoicus mentioned an article which he had once found ("Japanese Temple Geometry", Scientific American, May 1998 issue) about the practice in some Japanese Shrines of bringing geometric proofs as offerings to the Kami. (Their gods, one might say). At the time, he couldn't remember the date of the issue of Scientific American in question. A few months later, he found the issue on his bookshelves and also a copy of the article on the Scientific American homepage, which we had linked to from this page until Scientific American took the article down from their site. As he had promised that he would, he posted this information.
One small problem. John had deleted the lead article in the thread, which meant that when one looked at it from the main page of the forum, one couldn't see the title of the thread. All one could see was yet another thread entitled "Post deleted by" (and then his Kemetic name). There were a lot of those. This meant that even after Antistoicus posted the information in the original thread, and brought it back up to the top, nobody could tell which thread it was, just by looking at it. The solution to this problem was a matter of simple common sense.
Antistoicus went into his own profile at the House of Netjer, and pulled up a list of his old posts on their board. He found the thread about Geometry and bookmarked his first article on it. He then edited a copy of his bookmark file to produce a link to the old thread, which he placed on a file on the Almond Jar. This page was at an url which he had linked to, in an announcement post which he placed in the Netjer forum, where the Netjeru and Geometry thread had appeared. Let us note that the material linked to, was in the House of Netjer archives and still was,(*), at the time of this writing. This post, which we've just mentioned, made the process of finding the old thread far easier.
Pretty straightforward and a lot less trouble than entering a lengthy webboard url into his announcement post, especially since editing had been temporarily disable on the boards, leaving one with no way of correcting a bad url. As inoffensive and straightforward an action as this was, some of the trolls onboard still took it as an excuse to come out and play. This, they were to do with the apparent blessing of at least two of the upper level members of the House.
Let us note that this time, all but one of the trolls were members of the House of Netjer.
"Nonk" (as usual, not her real login) started off the 'festivities' by playing the "Dormitory Telephone Game". Others would soon follow suit.
Nonk 'reassured' Antistoicus that John couldn't possibly have deleted his posts, apparently untroubled by the fact that Antistoicus never said that John had done such a thing. (He said that John had deleted his own post, making the old thread difficult to find). She then went on to imply that Antistoicus' post, which was still up (if hard to find) was taken down (which it hadn't been) because Antistoicus had been uncivil in it (which he hadn't), and that his next post would stay up if only he'd learn to behave himself. Fascinating ethics, to say the least, from somebody who was apparently still unhappy that Antistoicus had argued against one of her political positions the previous June. (1)
It was a very smooth, and very sleazy game that Nonk was playing, one which Antistoicus would learn that the membership of the House was very fond of, and very adept at. Rather than lodging an accusation head on, in a confrontational tone ("you did this!"), she would adopt a soft tone, as she would 'caringly' 'reassure' her victim (in front of an audience), or 'ask him a question' ("why did you feel the need to do this?"). She would then count on the dishonesty of her collaborators and the softheadedness of her audience to insure the success of her efforts. Online, she will seldom be disappointed.
Or, to put this game in an offline context ...
Try this one on for size. Let's say that Craig Schaefer has just gotten done giving a talk on burial rites. Suppose that "Ron Loomis", one of their old enemies, has been sitting in the audience. He turns around, and sees a group of reporters just entering the conference room. Picture him standing up, and going "Craig, I'm very sure that the members of that Kindergarten class aren't trying to put poison in your coffee. I'm sorry that you've been so frightened about that. But, why did you feel that one of their classmates was leading you on, sexually? I'm just trying to understand". Picture him doing so with a concerned look on his face, in the softest of tones, while his friends say "yes, Craig, please explain that, we're worried about you". "Gosh", think the reporters, "that crazy man has such good friends", while Craig looks on, blinking in astonishment. (2).
The act wouldn't change the reality. In that scenario, Mr. Schaefer would be the victim of slander. What, then, would we think of the audience were they to object, when Craig pointed out that he had said none of those things? How about, that they would make excellent candidates for membership in the House of Netjer?
Following closely in Nonk's footsteps, Djed expressed great concern about Antistoicus' alleged decision to archive John's posts on our site. One small problem. Johns's posts on the "Netjer and Geometry" thread weren't on our site, at the time. (As of the time of the original writing of this article, they hadn't ever been). The file linked to from Antistoicus' post linked (and links) right back into the House of Netjer board archive, as one can see just by following the link. Nonk immediately dived in with a "me too" post in support of this latest misrepresentation, while John chortled in glee, seizing on the offbase commentary as being proof of whatever it is that this odd individual felt needed to be proved.
Expressing mild (and well justified) irritation over the games being played on these threads, Antistoicus wrote a post entitled "People, learn to read". As he pointed out, the commentary was multiply removed from reality. First of all, because he had, at that point, neither archived any of Kheru's posts, nor had he suggested that John had deleted any of his. He invited the reader to look at the board, and see for herself that this was true. Secondly, because the basis for the complaint was absurd. A post placed on the board would be visible to the thousands of visitors who pass through. How could there be a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances?
On the other hand, at times (like now), there would be every reason in the world to archive copies of old posts. The copies would serve as evidence in support of one's account of events, useful when others would show the willingness to lie about what had occured in the past. As, come to think of it, they had in that very thread. This, they would continue to do, piling misrepresentation upon misrepresentation.
"Kai" (apparently of West Jordan, Utah (4), just like Djed) then set the tone for the next round, by misrepresenting what Antistoicus said in a post where he (Antistoicus) complained about earlier misrepresentations of what he (Antistoicus) had said. Notice the way in which he shifted the context, without telling the reader he had done so. Before, the "issue" had been Antistoicus' alleged archiving of John's posts. Now, Kai acted as if the issue were Antistoicus' pointing out that John had deleted that post, a subject that nobody on this thread had even brought up.
Note the use of the timeworn Usenet practice of exasperating one's opponent through the willful 'feigning of deafness', as some would put it. In Antistoicus' very first post on that thread, the question of why he mentioned Kheru's deletion was answered: the deletion was the reason for making what would otherwise have been a superfluous gateway post. Without that original post in this thread, those who might be interested in the article citation, would have no realistic chance of finding it, short of going into Antistoicus' profile for no particular reason. Yet, here he was, saying that he wondered why Antistoicus had mentioned Kheru's deletion, as if Antistoicus hadn't already addressed this and acting as if his doing so had been a personal attack upon John, in response to an invective-free post (namely, the first one, which you saw before).
His attempt to pass himself off as a disinterested, fair-minded party, glossing over his relationship with Djed, which would have been made obscure by the use of their House names, just made this corrupt effort all the more memorable.
Kai made use of a standard, online PC-style (5) tactic: trump up a charge, and then overreact to it - spin doctoring, to use a common expression. Not only was this blatant dishonesty carried out with an unusual lack of skill, it was the form of dishonesty which had become the most notorious over the last few years (6). We (and Antistoicus) especially 'enjoyed' his equating of the act of posting a rational defense with that of being defensive, because it so beautifully illustrated one of the more disturbing features of the House - this denial, rarely openly stated, but frequently clearly implied, that there is such a thing as rationality. As nakedly absurd as Kai's commentary was, "Reverend" Stephanie Cass, the person responsible for maintaining order of the House of Netjer webboards, would later take the spin he tried to put on the events at face value, echoing it, herself.
John then jumped in, taking a page out of Kai's book, as he lied about the context that a remark took place in. As you saw earlier, in his second and last post on this thread, Antistoicus had rightly complained about the misrepresentation of his remarks made on this very thread. John, with a logic all his own, and we do mean, all his own, tried to spin this into a claim that he was lying (and trolling) when he said that he found somebody else's website disturbing (the "All Things Sekhmet" site). As you can see, there was absolutely no justification for this interpretation to be found in the context of Antistoicus' posts. If one does wish to 'read between the lines', though, watch as John parrots another remark of Bob's, in an all too telling way:
" Suffice to say that it would appear as though the one who is trolling is someone who has nothing better to do than degrade other people to make himself look superior. "
As an attorney would say, this speaks to malice.
Translating the quote into plain English: "Antistoicus made me look foolish by beating me in an argument, so now I'm going to get even with him by making him look foolish". One small difference: John actually was being foolish. Antistoicus' arguments were sounder than John's, and Antistoicus accurately documented what occured. John's response was to lie outrageously in a manner which we've also been able to document. What does it say about a "religious" organization when its members can't see any moral difference between lying and telling the truth, or between making more sense than one's opposition in an argument and libeling it? How about, that it would make a perfect home for TentGrrl.
TentGrrl then closed out the thread. In a followup to the very post in which Antistoicus pointed out that he hadn't archived Kheru's posts in the Netjeru and Geometry thread, an objective and non-debatable fact (which, as Antistoicus pointed out, could easily be confirmed by point-and-click), TentGrrl begged me to "respect people's feelings", and "let John's post die", because that's what he wanted, she said. She just couldn't, or should we say, wouldn't, get it through her thick skull that the discussion linked to was one between Antistoicus and Jeremiah, that merely happened to be on a thread started by John. TentGrrl refused to notice the difference. What is reality, after all, when manufactured "feelings" are at stake?
After the less-than-neutral Stephanie Cass (the board monitor) failed to take action, Antistoicus sent a letter to the Nisut of the House of Netjer, to see how she would respond to the situation. Here was a chance to see her leadership style in action. In all fairness, the boards were a relatively big place, and even if Ms. Cass seemed to live on them, Antistoicus assumed Rev. Siuda did not. This only being one thread, to just assume that she would be aware of it would have been unreasonable.
The note was sent, and the test begun, under fair conditions.
The management of the House had, at this point, been presented with what very well may have been the most clear-cut right-and-wrong situation in the annals of Historical Reconstructionism. On the boards, which Antistoicus was invited to take part in, a post about an article about a subject as inoffensive as Geometry had been seized on as a pretext for a mass-trolling of an invited guest of the House, by members of the House. The documentation of the objective and undebatable fact that these members were lying through their teeth, lay right in front of the management, accessible by simple point and click. The motives for their decisions to do so were clear, and visibly corrupt - their members had engaged in revenge posting, and had lied on behalf of those they had connections to. So, how did the management respond to the fact that its members had shown such poor hospitality? Click here, and find out.
(*) As noted in the "Netjeru and Geometry" thread, Stephanie Cass, the board's monitor, has sunk to censoring even that innocuous thread, apparently, believe it or not, in order to keep people from being able to see that it was innocuous! Why she would do such a strange thing, you will see shortly.
Obviously, given that action, and the disinformation campaign which the House has indulged in to protect its own image, archiving those posts has since become necessary. We would argue that the House has deliberately acted in order to cause this necessity, in order to trump up a charge of hypocrisy, counting on the reader's inattentiveness. Certainly, this would be much in keeping with their earlier behavior.
To pre-empt this expected complaint : This article was originally posted in early March; the posts weren't archived until May 24. To lie, and complain that somebody has done something, and then corner him into doing so after the fact, after his truthful denial, so that one can create the illusion he was lying, hoping to fool those who weren't paying attention? That would be incredibly sleazy. And these people claim to be clergy? Right now, they're functioning as a walking advertisement for Atheism.