Regarding the "PsyGuy vs. His Nemeses" Squabble
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:38 am
I just want to weigh in a bit on this petty squabble. OK, calling it petty is a bit unfair, as there are people trying to weigh in and reduce someone's credibility (ostensibly) in order to prevent unknowing readers from trusting their more controversial advice.
The pseudo-doxxing stuff that @Walter, @hawkeye, et al are pulling is rather creepy. And I'm writing that as someone who agrees that @PsyGuy is: (a) out of his depth on many issues; (b) borderline-trolling with his stubbornness; (c) probably overstating his qualifications for weighing in on certain topics. He MAY even be flat-out lying about his CV (I have no evidence that he is). I've gone on record quite a few times calling @PsyGuy out. But that fact that @PsyGuy may be giving bad advice or engaging in immature arguments does not justify crossing what I believe is a red line: taking an anonymous forum poster and flirting with outing them in order to win your argument or silence someone you deem a nuisance.
The cure for bad speech is more speech. All @PsyGuy is doing, at his worst, is annoying people and giving some dubious views on topics. Catch him spreading nonsense about the rental market in The Hague? Prove him wrong. But to threaten to reveal who he is on a forum, or even to claim that you know who he is and therefore that he's lying? That's over the line.
I'll provide the most egregious example I've found so far. Granted, it's from 2012. But in that previously cited thread, @hawkeye writes:
> So, what's it to be Psyguy- would you like to test your theory about there not being a blacklist or would you like to keep
> going with the charade and have your real identity come out? I’ve tried to drop hints in my posting to tell you I know
> you are but you seem the type who needs the sledgehammer approach. I'm sure the heads who are watching this board
> would be delighted to know who you are. You know of course that Search will now be very interested to know who you are
> as well. Imagine writing that you attended a Search fair that had been set up and run by Search for Search candidates, and
> had no scruples about interviewing them even though you were not registered with them. I know this is an absolute lie
> anyway, but this says a lot about you and your ethics, and I can tell you that you are not the person that an international
> school should hire.
> Over to you now…I'm happy to keep dropping tidbits about you on this forum so the heads can do their own searching just
> as I did.
Later in the thread, @hawkeye raises the threat level:
> If you keep insisting you were at Sydney, I'll post enough information to let Search and recruiters know exactly who you
> are. You should never work in a reputable international school, and to be honest, looking at your CV, there really isn't
> much of a chance, but I'm giving you a last chance. Come clean, admit you weren't at Sydney and don't work in Denmark,
> and I'll stop.
And then @hawkeye begins trickling out supposed information about @PsyGuy.
That's just wrong. You can claim he deserves it. You can declare him homo sacer and argue that he doesn't deserve to be treated according to the same principles that might ordinarily guide you. But that's a scary argument to make and one I always have a hard time buying. In fact, I'd lean closer to ruling you violated some torts just by making that threat than that anyone deserves it.
In that same 2012 thread, @walter, who claims to have been a school head for more than 20 years at that point, is just as vociferous with the ad hominem attacks. He then states that he looked up @PsyGuy's profile and rattles off his tenures at "Tier 9" schools. Really? Is that the kind of maturity, civility, and respect for privacy that we expect in a career school administrator?
The sad thing is that I'm actually on the side of these people who think @PsyGuy needs to stay in his lane, stop making stuff up, and stop giving bad advice. Even when he tries to give constructive advice, I'm critical of its inaccessibility, given @PsyGuy's penchant for (often made-up) jargon and acronyms. But the anti-PsyGuy brigade scares me a lot more than some (likely) strange person who posts here far too often and sometimes expresses questionable information/views.
The pseudo-doxxing stuff that @Walter, @hawkeye, et al are pulling is rather creepy. And I'm writing that as someone who agrees that @PsyGuy is: (a) out of his depth on many issues; (b) borderline-trolling with his stubbornness; (c) probably overstating his qualifications for weighing in on certain topics. He MAY even be flat-out lying about his CV (I have no evidence that he is). I've gone on record quite a few times calling @PsyGuy out. But that fact that @PsyGuy may be giving bad advice or engaging in immature arguments does not justify crossing what I believe is a red line: taking an anonymous forum poster and flirting with outing them in order to win your argument or silence someone you deem a nuisance.
The cure for bad speech is more speech. All @PsyGuy is doing, at his worst, is annoying people and giving some dubious views on topics. Catch him spreading nonsense about the rental market in The Hague? Prove him wrong. But to threaten to reveal who he is on a forum, or even to claim that you know who he is and therefore that he's lying? That's over the line.
I'll provide the most egregious example I've found so far. Granted, it's from 2012. But in that previously cited thread, @hawkeye writes:
> So, what's it to be Psyguy- would you like to test your theory about there not being a blacklist or would you like to keep
> going with the charade and have your real identity come out? I’ve tried to drop hints in my posting to tell you I know
> you are but you seem the type who needs the sledgehammer approach. I'm sure the heads who are watching this board
> would be delighted to know who you are. You know of course that Search will now be very interested to know who you are
> as well. Imagine writing that you attended a Search fair that had been set up and run by Search for Search candidates, and
> had no scruples about interviewing them even though you were not registered with them. I know this is an absolute lie
> anyway, but this says a lot about you and your ethics, and I can tell you that you are not the person that an international
> school should hire.
> Over to you now…I'm happy to keep dropping tidbits about you on this forum so the heads can do their own searching just
> as I did.
Later in the thread, @hawkeye raises the threat level:
> If you keep insisting you were at Sydney, I'll post enough information to let Search and recruiters know exactly who you
> are. You should never work in a reputable international school, and to be honest, looking at your CV, there really isn't
> much of a chance, but I'm giving you a last chance. Come clean, admit you weren't at Sydney and don't work in Denmark,
> and I'll stop.
And then @hawkeye begins trickling out supposed information about @PsyGuy.
That's just wrong. You can claim he deserves it. You can declare him homo sacer and argue that he doesn't deserve to be treated according to the same principles that might ordinarily guide you. But that's a scary argument to make and one I always have a hard time buying. In fact, I'd lean closer to ruling you violated some torts just by making that threat than that anyone deserves it.
In that same 2012 thread, @walter, who claims to have been a school head for more than 20 years at that point, is just as vociferous with the ad hominem attacks. He then states that he looked up @PsyGuy's profile and rattles off his tenures at "Tier 9" schools. Really? Is that the kind of maturity, civility, and respect for privacy that we expect in a career school administrator?
The sad thing is that I'm actually on the side of these people who think @PsyGuy needs to stay in his lane, stop making stuff up, and stop giving bad advice. Even when he tries to give constructive advice, I'm critical of its inaccessibility, given @PsyGuy's penchant for (often made-up) jargon and acronyms. But the anti-PsyGuy brigade scares me a lot more than some (likely) strange person who posts here far too often and sometimes expresses questionable information/views.