Archive/File: orgs/american/oregon/banished.cpu ritual.defamat Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,alt.conspiracy,soc.ethics,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast Subject: Gannon's attempt to appear the victim of 'ritual defamation' fails Summary: Gannon clearly cannot seek support for his paranoia from his article regarding ritual defamation - it doesn't apply to him, no matter how deeply he wished for it to do so. Expires: References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Distribution: world Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Keywords: In article <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Dan Gannon) complains that he is the victim of "ritual defamation," and offers the following in support of his contention: > The Elements of a Ritual Defamation are these: > > 1. In a ritual defamation the victim must have violated a >particular taboo in some way, usually by expressing or identifying with >a forbidden attitude, opinion or belief. It is not necessary that he >"do" anything about it or undertake any course of action, only that he >engage in some form of communication or expression. Gannon, of course, hasn't violated any "taboos," but rather he has consistently offered racist and discriminatory material to anyone and everyone he can reach, while showing a complete disregard for truth. > 2. The method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the >character of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory >challenge to the particular attitudes, opinions or beliefs expressed or >implied. _Character assassination_ is its primary tool. Gannon's long postings to the net, and on his bulletin board (Portland, Oregon), where he assumes the (appropriate) persona of a Nerd, has resulted in repeated and persistent challenges from a wide spectrum of users. His assertions regarding Fred Leuchter, a demonstrated liar and intellectual fraud, have not only been challenged repeatedly by myself and others - the challenges have been specific, well documented, and unanswered, beyond his ritual publication of paleo-nazi material from Willis Carto's anti-semitic racial supremacy machine, the IHR. The Holocaust FAQ series, which I edit and publish, provides a regular and extensively documented series of challenges to Mr. Gannon's material. Gannon, contrary to what's implied in #2 above, does a superb job of demolishing any claim to character in his own right, and completely negates any need for others to do so. He is, in short, his own worst enemy. Point #2 does not apply, clearly. > 3. An important rule is to avoid engaging in honest debate over >the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only >condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and >discussion on its merits, which is just what the ritual defamer is >trying to avoid. The primary goal is _Censorship_ and _repression_. Gannon has not been censored, although he would have us believe that he has, nor has he been repressed. He did, as many know, lose his feed due to his constant abuse of the net, and because he was a liar - here's the proof: From: email@example.com (Michel Fingerhut) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship Subject: Who's Maynard (Re: Ken "McVay" spews hateful falsehoods yet again) Message-ID: <1992Jun20.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 20 Jun 92 23:31:46 GMT References: <1992Jun17.email@example.com>
Organization: IRCAM, Paris (France) Lines: 14 I wrote that Dan Gannon was maynard. He had replied: > Oh my. So you're the source of the "Maynard is REALLY Dan Gannon" > rumor? The above statements are untrue, and you must know it. Now here is my first source, Alan Batie, the sysop of agora, who had written to me in 9/6/91: > I will forward your message to the admin of b-cpu > (Dan Gannon, firstname.lastname@example.org) Quoted with Alan Batie's permission and confirmation. Newsgroups: news.groups, soc.history, pdx.general, alt.revisionism Path: agora!batie From: email@example.com (Alan Batie) Subject: Re: "soc.history.revisionism.holocaust" discussion in news.groups Message-ID: <1992Jun18.firstname.lastname@example.org> Followups-To: /dev/null Organization: Open Communications Forum References: <1992Jun11.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1992Jun11.email@example.com> <1992Jun15.firstname.lastname@example.org> Distribution: world Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 15:34:32 GMT email@example.com (Robert Barton) writes: >In article <1992Jun11.firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com ..ca (Ken Mcvay) writes: >> >>"Maynard", by the way, is a phoney name. The man's name is Dan Gannon. > Do you have any evidence for this Maynard=Gannon claim? I do (or did): I run agora, and because I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech have bent over backwards accomodating this site because I do not want to cut off a site just because I disagree with their point of view. This has caused some hassles with a few individuals who felt otherwise, and significant soul searching. Providing news feeds is not what agora is about (and their feed is limited), and I asked them to get a connection to uunet, as that is what they are for. They suggested a compromise, which I agreed to, which was that they would keep their stuff in alt.revisionism, or soc.history.revisionism(.holocaust?). At this point, however, I grow weary. I know for a fact that Dan Gannon is Maynard, as at one point he'd installed a phone line here so that he could get a full feed (there was a misunderstanding over who was going to provide what sort of a modem on my end, and the line was cancelled however). During the conversations, he so identified himself, and a phone line confirmation notice was sent here in the name of Dan Gannon. I'm tired of this "group"s abuse of netiquette. I'm tired of their manners and when they won't even identify themselves and in fact lie about it, that's the last straw. As of this point, their connection to agora is terminated. -- Alan Batie \ Some people believe they have firstname.lastname@example.org \ never met a gay person. +1 503 452-0960 / \ That's what we get for hiding. 45 28 59 N / 122 43 20 W / 440' MSL / \ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to avoiding debate regarding Mr. Gannon's articles and assertions, I can only say that anyone following alt.revisionism and other groups Mr. Gannon frequents are well aware of two things: First, the detailed and concise material provided by myself, Seth Bradley, Dr. Keren, and many others which refutes and/or challenges his posts; second, the complete lack of point by point response from Gannon - as someone noted a day or two ago, Gannon hasn't posted more than a few direct replies since he returned to the net - his record in this regard makes it clear who is willing to debate and who is avoiding the matter. Point #3 also does not apply to Mr. Gannon. > 4. The victim is very often someone in the public eye, although >perhaps only in a modest way. It could be a school-teacher, a writer, >a businessman, a minor official, or merely an outspoken citizen. >Visibility enhances vulnerability to ritual defamation. Mr. Gannon would seem to qualify on this point - he is in the public eye, at least here on the net, whatever that means. > 5. An attempt, often successful, is made to involve others in the >defamation. In the case of a public official, other public officials >will be urged to denounce the offender. In the case of a student, >other students will be called upon, and so on. In my case, I didn't have to ask - when I began posting Holocaust-related citations as a challenge to Mr. Gannon, I was literally deluged with offers of help. In fact, these requests eventually led to the creation of my Holocaust research mailing list, which was so successful that it eventually clogged the upstream VAX to the point where outbound email from Malaspina College was delayed for eight to twelve hours at a time - at the point where the mailing list's traffic volume exceeded 2000 messages within a short period (24 hours or so), I was asked to shut it down, in order to let the folks at Malaspina move their mail. The list has been dormant ever since. > 6. In order for a ritual defamation to be effective, the victim >must be _dehumanized_ to the extent that he becomes identical with the >offending attitude, opinion or belief, and in a manner which distorts >it to the point where it appears at its most extreme. For example, a >victim who is defamed as a "subversive" will be identified with the >worst images of subversion, such as espionage or treason. A victim >defamed as a "pervert" will be identified with the worst images of >perversion, including child molestation. A victim defamed as a >"racist" or "anti-Semitic" will be identified with the worst images of >racism or anti-Semitism, such as lynchings or gas chambers, and so on. Gannon's messages and articles, and his praise of anti-semitic and racist material on his own system stand as mute evidence to his position. There is, in fact, no real need for anyone to condemn his attitudes to point them out to others - they are quite clear within his own public utterances. #6 doesn't apply to Mr. Gannon. > 7. Also to be successful, a ritual defamation must bring pressure >and humiliation from every quarter, including family and friends, who >may begin to shun him. If the victim has school children, they may be >taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse publicity. If he is >employed, he may be fired from his job. Gannon does an effective job of humiliating himself, through his postings and abuse of the net. There is no need (or desire, for that matter) for anyone else to take a crack at it. #7 does not apply. > 8. Anyone who defends a victim runs the risk of being associated >with him and similarly defamed. Even if their own reputation is beyond >question, their judgement and involvement with the victim may become an >issue. Often, the victim of a ritual defamation becomes isolated and >abandoned. Gannon has yet to defend any victims - in fact, he devotes a great deal of time to insulting and defaming them through his writing. #8 won't wash either, Dan. > 9. Any explanation the victim may offer, including the claim of >being misunderstood, is considered irrelevant. To claim truth as a >defense is interpreted as unrepentance and only compounds the problem. >Ritual defamation is not necessarily an offense of being wrong or >incorrect, but rather "insensitivity" and failing to observe social >taboos. Mr. Gannon has yet to respond to challenges, nor has he, to my knowledge, claimed we "misunderstand" him. The Holocaust-related material he offers here (I don't often read the rest, as it is on no interest to me) has yet to stand as "truth." #9 does not wash. > 10. Many victims succumb early on and go through a "confessional" >stage complete with apologies and remorse. They may even denounce >friends associated with the forbidden values, opinions and beliefs, or >claim that they were "duped," as was the case with many suspected >"subversives" during the McCarthy era. If the charges against them >involve "morals," they may claim stress or mental illness as a defense. If Mr. Gannon is mentally ill, he hasn't mentioned it to us, and he certainly hasn't apologized for his activities. #10 won't wash either, Dan. > 11. The viciousness of ritual defamation is inspired not merely >by revenge, although that is an important factor, but also to create an >example so others will know of the savaging they can expect for >stepping out of line. Ritual defamation is an important means of >_social control_. Mr. Gannon fails his own test as to 'ritual defamation,' ergo #11 does not apply, either. > 12. An interesting aspect of ritual defamation is its >universality. It is not specific to any particular value, opinion or >belief or to any group or subculture. It may be used either for or >against any political, ethnic or religious minority and also by any >political, ethnic or religious minority. None of which relates to Gannon. #12 does not apply. > 13. Ritual Defamation often appears in paradoxical forms, as in >the case of organizations claiming to oppose defamation itself, even >using the term "anti-defamation" in their name. Psychologically, this >may represent a projective mechanism, in which the organization >attempts to camoflage its own propensities in the form of an official >myth, a kind of agreed-upon fiction that perfumes its actual >activities, which are often transparently evident from its >publications. Does not apply to Mr. Gannon. #13 fails the test. > 14. The power of ritual defamation lies entirely in its capacity >to intimidate. It embraces some elements of primitive supersitious >belief, as in a "curse" or "hex." It also plays on the subconscious >fear most people have of being rejected by the "tribe" and being cut >off from social and psychological support systems. Only the truly >courageous and independent person can withstand the full force of a >ritual defamation, and occasionally they may even survive such an >attempt relatively unscathed. Does not apply - Gannon cannot be shown to have been a victem of such defamation. #14 fails also. > 15. The weak points of ritual defamation lie in its tendency >toward overkill and in its rather transparent maliciousness. >Occasionally, a ritual defamation will fail because of inadequate >planning and failure to correctly estimate the vulnerability of the >victim. Ritual defamers often exhibit extensive projective mechanisms >and delusions of persecution themselves. Although it may appear to be >an offensive maneuver, it's actually quite defensive in nature. As >Eric Hoffer said: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by >observing the means he uses to frighten you." (_The True Believer_, >1951.) Got me there, Dan - I don't like you. Be that as it may, #15 must also fail, since I don't believe you'll convince anyone that my dislike of you and what you stand for translates into malicious articles here on the net. (If some of your detractors wanted to get malicious, I suspect you wouldn't be here today.) > 16. Paradoxically, a ritual defamation often brings about the >very values, opinions and beliefs that it condemns, as in a self- >fulfilling prophecy. It enhances paranoia and hatred and generally >serves to divide and alienate. It hardens positions and polarizes a >situation as nothing else can. A person accused of supporting a >particular belief may find themselves propelled into that position. >Politically, for example, it's quite effective in creating rebels and >dissidents. It has been used in various forms by dictatorships and >totalitarian systems all throughout history. In democratic societies >it has become a favorite tool of special interest groups to villify and >neutralize their critics and opponents. Given that you clearly are not a victim of this 'ritual defamation,' #16 also falls flat. The odds, parenthetically, of my coming around to your way of thinking with regard to the Holocaust, racial supremacy, and anti-Semitism are nil, old son. I learned how to determine truth from fantasy long ago. > It's important to recognize and identify the pattern of a ritual >defamation and call attention to it whenever the opportunity presents >itself. Ritual defamation is accomplished entirely through the >manipulation of language and symbols, and when one understands that >then it becomes recognized for the hypocritical, slanderous assault on >human dignity that it really is. I agree completely, but virtually none of this applies to Mr. Gannon, although he would seem to hope we'd accept that it did, in order to inflate his weak self-esteem and to create a martyr image here on the net. Good luck, Gannon - you're going to need it to pull that one off. Followups to alt.revisionism, where folks are still waiting for Gannon to debate real issues, point by point.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor