February 20, 2007
Conspiracy Theories
We had a post to one of our other threads that deserves pulling out for its own discussion thread, in part to avoid taking the other one off topic again. I've reproduced most of it below. It came from a user named Lisa.
|
The last gazillion posts that I just read only reaffirmed for me that Josh is not real. How can he be?
Josh is everywhere. He doesn’t seem to sleep, he has an opinion on everything and it usually is in direct opposition to the editorial position of the paper.
I have pretty much concluded that Josh is really a member of the editorial team. They probably sit around at their weekly team meetings and “assign” someone to play “Josh” to exercise/sharpen their collective persuasive arguments for or against ANYTHING. “Josh” allows them a voice to say anything, then they can cyber-wink at each other and tell "him" to calm down.
How do you get to be Josh? Do you draw straws? Is this a coveted or deplored assignment? Does it help? Or is it really J.O.S.H. (Just Our Staff Here) a la H.A.L. from “A Space Odyssey, 2001”, a computer generated program that analyzes the political content of each editorial or issue,and then spits out the most political answer possible. How else does Josh win the 1000th post award? It is an inside game!
If the truth be told, part of me agrees with some (repeat: some, not most)of what Josh has to say, I think, kinda, sorta, maybe…when I can decipher it. And that is part of what makes me proud to be an American. We can agree and disagree in a more or less public forum.
Yes, I did post this, in part, a few weeks ago on another blog page, but watching this debate and Will's comments escalate to the point that someone (Will) feels like he needs to be silent, made me come forward again.
It seems simple enough to me. When Josh, or anyone, puts a partisan label on a non-partisan issue, don't take the bait. Remember, Josh is not real. (Cyber-wink).
|
Thank you for that moment of levity, Lisa. I literally laughed out loud.
Just to ease your concerns, I categorically deny that Josh is a product of the editorial board. I don't think we could come up with everything he does.
That said, I was discussing Josh with a friend of mine who follows the posts. He theorizes that Josh is actually members of the local Republican committee all collaborating under a shared username. I don't believe it, but it's fun to speculate.
So, here's the thread fpr everyone to share his or her favorite amusing conspiracy theories about the editorial board and the RT. Have some fun with it and keep it friendly.
Comments
[February 20, 2007 9:13 PM]
JoshI still want to know where my prize is for 1000th post.
[February 20, 2007 11:41 PM]
CeciliaMore proof ... having to defend themselves as "Josh" is becoming too obvious. Josh is the only one who gets reponses to their posts. Even if I believed Josh was other than a editorial board member Josh hijacks the board and discourages other bloggers. If this blog is ever to be a success then you guys need to ignore Josh's posts whoever he/they/it is.
[February 21, 2007 7:25 AM]
Dan RadmacherCecilia,
You probably have a point. We should learn to ignore Josh more often instead of letting him dominate things so much and draw us into inane and pointless debates. Maybe we could learn to treat him the way Darth Vader treats the general here.
[February 21, 2007 7:44 AM]
JoshCecilia,
I don't understand how offering an opinions 'discourages other bloggers.' Why don't you, instead, tell me how I'm wrong and offer evidence that proves it. But the thing is, you can't use some far-left kook website as 'proof' like some of these folks are wont to do.
And Dan,
If you don't want dissent from me, then don't publish silly, misleading, or wrongheaded editorials. Here are some buzz phrases for which you'll get it every time:
'tax cuts for the rich'
'unprovoked war'
'a woman's right to choose'
'tax fairness'
'diversity'
Stay away from these phrases, all of which mean something different than face value or are just plain wrong, and you'll cut down on my need to respond by 25%.
[February 21, 2007 8:25 AM]
BUDI can't believe it! In a BLOG ROOM a persistent opposing point of view has the lefties experiencing a hissy fit. Do you like swiss or provolone to go along with that WHINE??
[February 21, 2007 9:06 AM]
CeciliaJosh,
You miss my point - you monopolize the board. If your name is really Josh then I know a Josh who speaks publicly like you sound here. He interrupts loudly and annoys everyone. The editorial staff would be well served to ignore your irrelevent posts.
Bud
Have no idea what you just said.
[February 21, 2007 11:47 AM]
JoshBud,
I think that's it, entirely. The ones crying foul don't like an opposing point of view.
Cecilia,
If you notice, there is not a space limit on these blog threads, therefore, you and everyone else are free to comment as long and as often as you like. The idea that one individual 'dominates' this blog is silly. The liberals in charge control the contents of this blog and the newspaper. They, coupled with the libs who write on here, form the vast majority. Odd how folks like you, Lisa, and Will are threatened by one dissenting voice.
[February 21, 2007 12:33 PM]
WillJosh...
I had said previously that I would not be posting further comments on the Roanoke Times Blogosphere; however, your remark posted above warrants a full and swift reply.
In my earlier post, I was very clear to point out that EVERYONE has the right to their opinion. I further stated that the partisan bickering that I see infiltrating every aspect of every discussion is becoming ridiculous from both liberals and conservatives. It is time wasting lip service that does no good at all. I have decided to try to do things that are more productive that just lip service. Writing here really does little or no good other that to allow venting.
Finally...and let me be perfectly clear to you about this: I am NOT THREATENED BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE WHO CASTS ANY KIND OF A DISSENTING VOICE TO MY OPINIONS OR ANYONE ELSES. For you to believe that indicates that perhaps you value your opinions on a level higher than that perceived by others.
Quite the contrary, what would indeed be a threat to me or anyone else is the attempt to curtail any rational and well thought out discussion about an issue, dissenting or otherwise. Afterall, dissention is what initially founded the United States in the first place.
So, Josh, don't be so fool hearty to believe that you have that kind of power over anyone, especially me.
Kind regards to all. Remember that it is more important to walk your talk rather than just talk your talk.
[February 21, 2007 12:39 PM]
BUDHi Cecilia,
The last part of my post is a play on words referring to a WINE and CHEESE party..when people/kids are complaining you ask if you'd like CHEESE TO GO WITH THAT W(H)INE??
[February 21, 2007 5:26 PM]
JoshWill,
Psst. (It's 'foolhardy')
[February 21, 2007 5:31 PM]
WillJosh...
Either way...you get my point.
[February 21, 2007 7:41 PM]
Another WillI never thought I'd submit a post agreeing with Josh. But in this case I'm inclined to at least support his contention that he cannot dominate this blog. Like he says: "there is not a space limit on these blog threads, therefore, you and everyone else are free to comment as long and as often as you like.
Having said that, I also feel that the editorial board controls the contents of this blog and the newspaper in a fair and even-handed manner. They welcome dissenting opinion in letters to the editor, in commentaries submitted by readers, in columns by conservative pundits, and in other ways.
Josh is smart, but he isn't as smart as he thinks he is. There is no way that anyone can offer objective "proof" of one's correctness. We're dealing with opinions here, and Josh is no more capable of providing "proof" than am I or the editorial board or any other posters. He does have a way with language which makes folks feel like it is pointless to try to have a reasonable discussion. But it is easy to briefly scan his remarks and pass them by. Just scroll on down. Posters like BUD who offer nothing of substance, but throw out a few lines of derision are easy to ignore, too.
If Josh's remarks arouse the ire of those that do not agree with him, maybe it will have the effect of inspiring others to think more, get involved, make their beliefs known, and to do it in such a way as to bring about thoughtful, reasonable discourse.
It does seem to me that our friend Josh has much time on his hands. What with work and family and church and so forth it is difficult for me to find the time and energy to respond in a well-thought-out way. Maybe he just doesn't sleep.
[February 21, 2007 8:35 PM]
JoshAnother Will,
I don't spend that much time at it really. I get most of these down in a minute or less except for the few where I have to find a source to dispute some claim. Then it's maybe ten minutes. But I treat it the way people do crossword puzzles. Just a pastime.
I guess if you don't deal with words very often, I can understand why it may take a long time to write a post.
54 seconds for this one, btw.
[February 21, 2007 10:04 PM]
Another WillActually, Josh, this explains why you posts are difficult to stomach. Much of them are full of invective and resort to name-calling and reworks of ways to trash those who disagree with you. You don't really contrubute anything that is worth responding to most of the time.
You must type fast, Josh. Good for you.
[February 21, 2007 11:24 PM]
LisaOh man (whine), I didn't even notice this thread until just now, and I am too tired to be really witty (I DO need sleep). But look what has happened: Will came out of self imposed retirement and even engaged in battle, Bud has s-p-e-l-l-e-d out tired cliches, Cecilia called J.O.S.H. a hijacker, a Josh accused me (and Will and Cecilia) of being "threatened" by his dissenting voice. (Wasn't I quoted as saying "part of me...agrees with some of what J.O.S.H. has to say"? (That must be true, it was published, and anything published here must be true.) And Josh lets us in on his little secret: his posting is just a game for him, like a crossword puzzle.
Moral of the story folks. There is great danger in taking ourselves too seriously. (Just look at all of the capitalization in the preceeding posts). If you don't like what Josh (or Bud or Dan or Me)have to say, scroll down, or hit delete.
I admit that I was finding it tiring (ahem, Josh) to see EVERY issue become a partisan issue and get so far off topic so fast. I am really interested in hearing other people's opinions which is why I was delighted to find this board and engage.
Note to Will: Please stay.
Note to Josh: I read that the prize was mailed to you. It was probably intercepted by the Left.
PS to Josh: 13 minutes. I am just too tired.
[February 23, 2007 9:33 AM]
SamI for have to agree with Josh on alot. I do not agree however on all issues. I dont see the need for criticism when everyone that comes in here does so voluntarily. If you dont like what you see, you dont have to be in here. Everyone needs to remember, in the event Josh ever does become quieted, someone will take his place!
Keep up the good work Josh!
[February 23, 2007 4:32 PM]
LisaFan mail for Josh!
Josh probably won't ever be "quieted", but he might get bored and move on to Sudoku tournaments or something.
(20 seconds)
[February 23, 2007 5:38 PM]
JoshThanks, Sam
[June 1, 2007 4:56 PM]
RAHI found it quite funny that people are commenting about JOSH who posts a lot. I really liked that idea that Josh means (Just Our Staff Here). Personally I agree with a lot of what Josh says and I don't find what he says or his multitude of posts threatening or in anyway hogging the comments. Everyone is free to post comments. I may not agree with the editorial board of Roanoke Times but the business idea allowing the comments is very smart. Itincreases the amount of people who read the RT by internet and make the advertising dollar worth more. It allows residents of the area be more involved with issues that excite them. It increases the community involvment.
If a frequent poster like Josh engendered more posts this to the betterment of RT.
No one should feel that they should not post due to Josh's wit. I was amused at his 54 sec. I am not that fast of typist. and it takes several minutes for me.
[June 1, 2007 7:15 PM]
CeciliaJosh is actually a Democrat.
[June 1, 2007 11:38 PM]
JoshChristian.
You whine about me misrepresenting other readers. Cecilia is representing me by saying I am a Democrat. Why are you printing her comment?
[June 2, 2007 9:30 AM]
C. TrejbalJosh, Josh, Josh. You are so adept at jumping to conclusions based on your internal wants over reality...
As you know, there are five of us who oversee the RT blog. I had nothing to do with approving Cecilia's comment. No, I don't let you misrepresent other user comments. Apparently that causes you great dismay, which baffles me, but that's another issue. I would have asked Cecilia to back up her claim before approving it. Maybe one of my other board members did just that.
Amusing side note. I once worked with an editor who was one of the most conservative people I've met. Yet he was a registered democrat. Had been all his life. Party affiliation often has little to do with political views.
[June 2, 2007 11:34 AM]
WillJosh...
Ever thought about the notion that Cecilia might be trying to call you the Democratic Party mascot, in a nice sort of way???
I needed that chuckle this morning...it's been a bad week.
[June 2, 2007 12:59 PM]
JoshLOL. Christian. You were the very one who made me retract my statement that you were a 'liberal Democrat'.
You also made me prove my claim that Penny Kyle was a Republican.
Then last week, you went crazy because I interpreted someone else's sloppy writing for him and assigned my own meaning to it.
I normally don't care what people do in here, but if you and your staff are going to allow Cecilia's comment to remain, then you can't restrict similar comments from me.
Remove the comment now. Thanks.
[June 2, 2007 1:16 PM]
Lisa (the first one)I think that it is entirely possible, and Cecilia may have explained this to the moderator(s), that she was referring to J.O.S.H., who of course, are Democrats.
She probably forgot to put "Josh" in an acronym format and is now really, really sorry. I know I would be. We should cut her a little slack.
[June 2, 2007 3:50 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
There is nothing libelous about calling you a Democrat. It is not a personal attack. If you are not a Democrat, just say so. There's no reason to remove the comment.
[June 2, 2007 3:56 PM]
CeciliaGees, Josh,never imagined you would take it so seriously. As I am a "liberal Democrat" and proud of it I consider it a compliment.
If you called me a "right-wing nut job" it would just make me chuckle.
Whoever I think you really are matters not but maybe I am closer than I thought. If the comment annoys you that much then please remove it as I certainly would not want to cause Josh any distress.
Gees, I never thought anyone would even pay attention to it. LOL
[June 2, 2007 4:13 PM]
JoshDan,
Excellent, then you need to get a harness on your boy Christian for preventing me from exercising my free speech when I call him a Democrat. OK? You need to get him to stop asking for verification when I identify someone else's politics.
Either that, or you may restore my original posts. I will be happy to resend them to you if you don't have them.
I think a lot of people would disagree that being called a Democrat is not a personal attack.
[June 2, 2007 4:16 PM]
JoshBut this new policy is great because now I can freely speak untruths about anybody in this blog or out. As long as it isn't defamatory.
[June 2, 2007 9:46 PM]
ericJosh
wow, your own discussion board, what a great day for you ! And still, on a discussion board devoted to you , you manage to be derisive and partisan instead of basking in the warm glow of fame . Way to go ! what makes a person so angry ? do tell
[June 2, 2007 9:52 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
If you want to cement a reputation as a completely unreliable source, feel free.
[June 2, 2007 9:57 PM]
Another WillYou've been speaking untruths for months, Josh. Most of them consist of you stating your opiniona as if they were facts. I don't expect you to stop now.
[June 2, 2007 10:02 PM]
ericJosh, Will, Cecilai , Lisa Dan, Christian
You know, this sounds like quite the discussion group forming here. If you all would like to meet in real life, I would gladly volunteer my restaurant as a meeting place. As long as no physical violence, and everyone leaves at closing time . = )
[June 3, 2007 11:33 AM]
Cecilia : →http://savecountryside.blogspot.com/Eric,
Great idea! Where and what time. I say Josh would not show up. Let us challenge Josh to show up. I would respect him for doing so. This would make a great story for Dan... right Dan?
[June 3, 2007 1:04 PM]
ericWell of course a reporter should be there to cover events. I would hope Josh would show up.
[June 3, 2007 1:48 PM]
JoshDan,
That comment was pejorative as you are implying I have been unreliable with sources in the past. I, in fact, have been more of a 'journalist' than you and your staff.
Speaking of unreliability, I would have to say your misleading, even lying editorial about Bush 'cutting funding for cancer research' without printing a correction subsequently, takes the cake.
[June 4, 2007 3:38 PM]
Lisa (the first one)Eric,
You seem like a real nice guy. The reason I questioned Josh’s existence in the first place was that Christian and Dan mostly respond to Josh, and mostly when he is being just a tad (or more) bit inflammatory. I kind of figured that he must really be a literary device designed to boost readership. His writing is usually flawless, he has an awesome command of the language and goes to great lengths to prove it. But I keep staring at his last post. I can’t believe that I see “your”, instead of “you’re”. This is so unlike “Josh”, that I am going back to my original hypothesis that he is not real.
At one time, I thought that I had met Josh. I stood in line with a man who spoke so much like Josh writes, that I almost asked him his name. I tried to get my daughter to distract him so I could look at his service tag, but she wasn’t going along with my plan. She kept shaking her head saying “Josh who?”. I guess the whole “stranger danger” thing had kicked in. Thanks, Barney. (Note to Dan: Barney is a large purple dinosaur who is forever trying to help kids make good choices. Your son is probably entering this stage. Luann, you’ve been there. Christian, don’t worry about it, it’s not that relevant to the story. ) So much for subtlety, it’s hard to get a stranger’s first name with an uncooperative accomplice.
Anyway, “Josh” looked like a pretty normal guy, and I can say with certainty that he did NOT look like a Democrat. I am very good at judging people by how they look. Kind of a talent of mine. I can understand how he would be offended. I digress. “Josh” was somewhat peeved with the way things were going in the line we were in and explained to me, in the MOST southern gentleman-ly way why I would be too, were I in his shoes. I had to agree that his complaints seemed very legitimate and he did seem to be between a rock and a hard place.
Before I could actually work up the courage to ask his name (and not seem like I was somehow being forward), our issues were resolved and we left the computer department for the parking lot at the same time, where I saw him get in his Chevy Astro mini-van, buckle up and drive off. Leaving me to point at his taillights and say to my daughter “I think that was Josh”. She didn’t really care.
At the time, I would have conceded that he was real. But not anymore. Josh simply would not make such a simple grammatical error. It had to be the RT up to their old tricks, and it worked. But you see, they didn’t respond to your kind invitation, because they only answer J.O.S.H. So the man I met in the big box store was just the embodiment of I how I *imagine* that Josh would be, because he is not real. The conspiracy theory lives on.