A response to negative publicity (GED)

Introduction

Recently I had some personal dramas with an erstwhile online friend. Ordinarily I'd refrain from public comment on personal drama, however the other party (one Robert Larkin) published a page about me on a wiki - The Goodyear English Dictionary - that he and some of his friends maintain. The page is in large part untrue, and I would like to publicly defend myself against the accusations leveled at me on that page.

I will take the content of the page - as it stands at time of writing - one segment at a time, and provide my response.

Step-by-step response to the GED page

Laird Shaw, after pretending friendship with Robert Larkin,

I wasn't pretending friendship: my friendship was genuine. Robert was very supportive of me during an incident when I was banned from a forum, and I very much appreciated that. Aside from that, I enjoyed his pleasant, comfortable, open, humourous presence in Skype and irc chats.

accepted a philosophy forum at Olio

This is one of the very few truthful assertions on the page.

which he operated as a joke to amuse himself and friends of his.

I definitely didn't operate the forum (Thinking Strait) as a joke. To me it was a serious forum that I organised, participated in, and moderated in earnest. I saw its purpose as providing a medium through which to engage in serious philosophical discourse with not just friends but also disinterested strangers, with the odd bit of lightheartedness thrown in every now and then.

Prior to the opening of that forum Larkin expressed the desire to undertake a dialog on Larkin's impending death. Shaw was naturally disinterested

Frankly, I'm baffled as to where this claim comes from, and to me this is the most offensive part of the page. I try to be a caring friend, and if any of my friends, not just Robert, expressed to me the desire to discuss their impending death, then I would devote time, energy and attention to that discussion. I honestly don't recall Robert ever expressing such a desire to me, and if he did, and if I missed it, then I am truly sorry.

and in carrying out his joke ignored Larkin's exhaustion in a several weeks long conflict which ultimately contributed to the closing of Olio.

I didn't view our conflict as a joke - to me it was in part a natural message-board dynamic - disagreement on philosophical matters is unavoidable - and in part an overreaction on Robert's part. The disagreement was nobody's fault in particular; the conversion of that disagreement into conflict was in large part of Robert's making. He iniated it by sending me at various times personal emails expressing his dissatisfaction with the way that I was writing on the forum. I simply responded by explaining my actions and attempting to defend myself.

I was aware of his exhaustion, and I wished him well when he took a break for said complaint, looking forward to his return so that we could resume our discussions, not realising that he would later blame said exhaustion on me and on those discussions.

Anyone wishing to decide for themselves whether I publicly committed any offence(s) against Robert that merited the iniation of a private exchange of emails can check out my posts in the two relevant threads, both of which Robert started: Bodhidharma's Tomb and 'The Dao is that from which nothing can depart ...'. The particular offences of which he accused me were:

insulting him by writing "Huh?" in response to one of his paragraphs, an offence that he suggested I ought to be warned for,
being wrong and ignorant of the mechanisms of effective argumentation in asserting that if he wanted to seriously challenge it then he should provide a counter-argument to my argument that things are essentially separate; ultimately for refusing to accept his accusation, Robert privately referred to me as a "weasel",
not supporting prima facie my "claim" that absolute truth exists (I referred to absolute truth merely in passing and it was Robert who challenged me on it - I was making no explicit claim); again, for this I was privately labelled a "weasel",
diverting threads for my own "mediocre purposes". Admittedly I did express views that probably diverged from the intent of the thread, but if Robert didn't like my contributions then he was free to ignore them, or to attempt to bring the discussion back to terms that he was interested in - I would have been open to that,
posting whilst drunk (I accepted this criticism and told Robert that I would try to restrain myself in future. Unfortunately, I failed in that restraint, but more on that later),
being a poor and short-sighted moderator.

I'm sorry that Robert is in poor health and that his activities on the forum contributed to his exhaustion, but I'm not prepared to accept responsibility for it.

I find it hard to believe that this conflict - largely manufactured by Robert - contributed to the closure of Olio, and I don't see why it should. Robert was free at any time to say "Hey, let's just forget it" - he, after all, initiated it. I had done nothing that warranted his accusatory emails nor his writing some of the unkind things that he included about me in several of those emails. To give you an idea of the tone of his emails, here are a few selected words and phrases: "your bullshit", "your nonsense", "you're too dishonest", "gibberish like your simple-minded", "Don't weasel with me", "Your answer was dishonest", "take the stick out of your ass", "take the ... dick out of your mouth". In return I said nothing unkind about him, maintaining a conciliatory but self-respecting tone.

Even though Shaw was informed at one point that Larkin was exhausted to the point of tears, Shaw remained bravely committed to humour for humour's sake and continued his joke days longer

I knew that Robert was exhausted; I had no idea that he attributed that exhaustion to me. As for humour: this conflict has been anything but funny to me - it's been quite unpleasant. It's never nice to lose a friend, and particularly over nothing much at all. As for continuing the joke, I was simply responding to Robert's accusatory posts. He was just as capable of stopping the exchange as I was. I am not responsible for stopping an exchange that he started, and in which I was accused of all sorts of unfair things.

until finally Larkin was so worn out he could not continue Olio

I accept responsibility neither for Robert being worn out by a conflict of his own making nor for his decision to leave Olio on that account.

Shaw trolled Olio on its final day.

I did no such thing. I angrily and drunkenly (this is where I failed to live up to my assurance to Robert that I would try to avoid further drunken posting) in a regrettable post told Robert exactly what I thought of him for his behaviour towards me, but this does not constitute trolling.

Rather than "Shaw trolled Olio on its final day" this quote should read "Robert banned Laird from Olio on its final day for no good reason", because that's exactly what he did (unless it was one of the other administrators, which seems unlikely) - hence my posting drunkenly under a pseudonym - Laird Chai.

Kudos to Laird Shaw, so committed to humour he would knowingly tax an already worn out heart for sake of a joke. Not even an Olio regular shows that kind of commitment to humour.

I knowingly did no such thing - my participation in the conflict was entirely in response to Robert's accusatory emails. If he didn't expect me to defend myself - and that this defence would tax him - then he didn't know me very well. I've already made it plain that I regarded neither the forum nor this conflict as a joke.

Concluding remarks

I'm sorry that this conflict reached the point that it did. I appreciated Robert's friendship. I would love to be able to take this page down, and will do so should Robert remove the unfair GED page that it is in response to, and let me know that he's done so.