The Observation Deck

Hi Kenneth,

In regards to your mention of marijuana, I don't know why everyone is focusing on that one substance. Anne mentioned illicit substances not marijuana specifically.

As for reports to Law Enforcement. We have never sent suspicion reports. They were all based on probable cause and back-up was provided. Even Law Enforcement officers submitted reports and were also ignored.

This isn't just about DiStasio. Our work covers the entire country.

Using the psychological card on a predator is your choice but please don't use it on us. It doesn't work, we don't have time. This is one case you "fell" into. Our work goes beyond this one case.

We can't answer why Law Enforcement failed but we didn't.

Oh, and by the way. It isn't because Law Enforcement doesn't grasp the gravity. It's that they go after the easy kill. They spend their time in real time chat rooms pretending. We don't do that. LEO is looking for headlines.

Jan

Anne. Jan.

Ken knows me really well and Charyn's read is accurate because it doesn't fill in the blanks.

Both of you provide contextual details I was not aware of; no Observer has provided any advisories to me.

This said, that my stating my interest in comparison to a lesser interest echoes tactics turned upon you at other times by manipulative persons with dark antagonistic agendas makes sense.

Also, I am not myself completely free of fashioning words for manipulative purposes. This echo hurt and for that I'm sorry.

***

Everything boils down in terms of human will, affect, cognition, action to matters of psychology. We each express our idiosyncratic mental grip and yet all such 'grips' are in 'something' together. In other words, the swirl of relations and the swirl of motivations are extremely complicated and of great interest to me.

Still, I well know that almost nobody wishes to be psychologized or even feel it might be in their future! As I said previously, it's bad form.

Alas, as DIY post-social scientist I view and analyze human affairs to be deeply entangled, not easily reduceable, not clean and non-contradictory, and as I am want to say, both Pogo and Gautama Buddha were spot on.

It's what I do; dig at stuff, pry, try to get under the presentation and behind the curtain.

***

This, as Ken implies, makes the Deck and the Observer method a rough and tumble experiment. Ken's "predatory psychology" is a good snap on this. After all, it's psychological anthropology I'm on about.

Now this unfolds as the observation turns away from the perp. The mentally ill are mostly boring. Distacio was especially so. The idiosyncratic, usually, for me, are not boring.

You see: some people's job is to support the pedophile being hunted and captured. I endorse the effort of course but it isn't my job. Still, I recognize the context for even those efforts are very complicated.

Likewise, turning in the other direction, toward the dark currents running in every community, the context for those currents, as well as my own efforts to observe and understand, are complex.

None of this can be simple for me. 'Interest' "under-describes" my motivation and commitment to understanding.

...as I mentioned, rough and tumble...

Kenneth Warren wrote:It is interesting to me that Ms. Cox raises the question of marijuana use in the Lakewood Observer triangulation session with Distasio at the Phoenix Coffee House. Perhaps she infers this from Gill’s article which states Distasio was seeking a community of pot-smoking adults.
Kenneth Warren

It also could be that in tracking Distasio, she could read about his "THC Ministry," his feelings about his particular brand of "sanctuary" and "sacrament" on the many ganja & anarchy boards he frequented.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Anne. Jan.

Ken knows me really well and Charyn's read is accurate because it doesn't fill in the blanks.

Both of you provide contextual details I was not aware of; no Observer has provided any advisories to me.

This said, that my stating my interest in comparison to a lesser interest echoes tactics turned upon you at other times by manipulative persons with dark antagonistic agendas makes sense.

Also, I am not myself completely free of fashioning words for manipulative purposes. This echo hurt and for that I'm sorry.

***

Everything boils down in terms of human will, affect, cognition, action to matters of psychology. We each express our idiosyncratic mental grip and yet all such 'grips' are in 'something' together. In other words, the swirl of relations and the swirl of motivations are extremely complicated and of great interest to me.

Still, I well know that almost nobody wishes to be psychologized or even feel it might be in their future! As I said previously, it's bad form.

Alas, as DIY post-social scientist I view and analyze human affairs to be deeply entangled, not easily reduceable, not clean and non-contradictory, and as I am want to say, both Pogo and Gautama Buddha were spot on.

It's what I do; dig at stuff, pry, try to get under the presentation and behind the curtain.

***

This, as Ken implies, makes the Deck and the Observer method a rough and tumble experiment. Ken's "predatory psychology" is a good snap on this. After all, it's psychological anthropology I'm on about.

Now this unfolds as the observation turns away from the perp. The mentally ill are mostly boring. Distacio was especially so. The idiosyncratic, usually, for me, are not boring.

You see: some people's job is to support the pedophile being hunted and captured. I endorse the effort of course but it isn't my job. Still, I recognize the context for even those efforts are very complicated.

Likewise, turning in the other direction, toward the dark currents running in every community, the context for those currents, as well as my own efforts to observe and understand, are complex.

None of this can be simple for me. 'Interest' "under-describes" my motivation and commitment to understanding.

...as I mentioned, rough and tumble...

Apology accepted and I apologize for misunderstanding. Maybe you could start focusing all that energy you appear to have on tracking pedophiles like we do. You'd be a welcome addition.

dl meckes wrote:

Kenneth Warren wrote:It is interesting to me that Ms. Cox raises the question of marijuana use in the Lakewood Observer triangulation session with Distasio at the Phoenix Coffee House. Perhaps she infers this from Gill’s article which states Distasio was seeking a community of pot-smoking adults.
Kenneth Warren

It also could be that in tracking Distasio, she could read about his "THC Ministry," his feelings about his particular brand of "sanctuary" and "sacrament" on the many ganja & anarchy boards he frequented.

Exactly. His life has been an open book to us.

Jim.

NOBODY talks like this!

This is the most blowhard thing I think I've ever read!

Nobody? I can think of at least one person who talks like this. As for it being the most blowhard thing you've ever read, it isn't in the top 10,000 of blowhard things I've written. (Imagine.)

We've been around this loop before. Your bile rises, you blast the person, not the argument. Then you react negatively and go on the attack. On my end I wonder what you wish to accomplish in doing this.

Last time you attacked me I wrote here on the Deck something about how you seem to take me way too seriously.

[deleted by author]

Attack the argument, not the person. Read Frankfurt's On Bullshit.

o.

Jim.

The funniest thing--to me--about your admittedly mean spirited response is that it could be seen to encourage the very thing you decry, my 'egocentricism'.

Given the choice between being mean and egocentric, I'll almost always opt for being egocentric.

***

To re-coup, as a matter of special interest to those who may be interested, in Lakewood specifically, but also about what Lakewood itself is entangled in, there are the actual phenomena of, in this specific case, the cultures of pedophilia and law enforcement and citizen and vigilante action. Those cultures are driven by fascinating problems in social relations and group psychology and those necessarily refer to individual psychology too. Both anthropological and sociological, (even in the form of a folk, DIY, independently disciplinary,) researches emerge from these complicated psychological factors.

Although this may not be your own cup of tea, it is part and parcel of understanding the web of phenomena better, if not expertly.

Similarly, in the context of a discussion board there exist complicated interpersonal and intrapsychic phenomena. Mistakes of attribution, projection, construal, etc. are part of the intrapsychic stream amongst people whom, as you note, are persons with good intentions.

[deletions by author]

I really don't like seeing personal attacks on the Deck and I believe that amateur psychoanalysis is easily misunderstood in the "rough and tumble."

Anne felt attacked over a comment regarding her psychological make-up, which was, perhaps, an unfortunately worded thought.

Jim feels frustration over Stephen's communication style and doesn't mince words in the expression of his thoughts. Stephen reacts angrily to Jim, amping up the sarcasm.

Stephen, if you were wondering what brings people to track certain types of criminals, it might be better to communicate that more plainly. And Jim's wife & dog (and cats) are dearly loved and unabused.

Jim - like you, Stephen is an emotional being with a particular knack for self-expression. I'd ask you to concentrate on Stephen's words rather than his intentions or style.

Both Stephen and Jim enjoy thoughtful and often pointed communication.

I feel the discussion has gone past the point of of being purposeful and investigatory and has degenerated into personal attack.

This makes me very uncomfortable. Not because I shy away from confrontation, but in such a public arena, a private style war does not promote discussion.

I ask you both to reconsider the tone of your discussion and to try to be more civil. I hate seeing the Observation Deck degenerate into an "attack" board.

Jan:

It’s quite possible our experiences, methods, paths and priorities are different, and therefore interesting, if you can spare the time, to explore.

True, I don’t hunt predators. However, I have fallen into other cases, perhaps classified as “easy killâ€Â￾ dropping to the ground in my neighborhood. When I have called the police, they do their work. If a crime has been committed the police make the bust, the prosecutor prosecutes.

As you describe your work, it sounds like you are up against considerable obstacles.

Why is the lack of alignment occurring?

Is there an inability to integrate professional law enforcement / DIY citizen interests on this front?

Is there a lack of resources to support the police and prosecutors in taking on the increased caseload generated from your work, which seems focused primarily in cyberspace?

Does the scrutiny of cyberspace allow you to dig up more crime than the justice system can handle?

Is the primary obstacle limited resources or lack of will - among which agents?

Are victims unwilling to step forward?

Are there instances of corruption and protected assets that block your work from going forward?


Kenneth Warren

Thanks DL for the reality check. I was being, of course, really sarcastic to Jim and others. I wasn't especially angry or upset but I did/do feel perturbed. Yes, there is a better way to express my interests other than personalizing them. Again, Anne, I apologize for doing this.

Let’s acknowledge the high stakes competition among human agents who to dare to put up or shut up on the Deck of the city that would know itself better than any other.

To post is to make a public exhibition of the self, a conceptual and semantically filled appearance that affirms by real name in computer space our status as human agents and objects of the social research required for the city to know itself.

The Deck joins ordinary language and the discursive terms of social research in an effort to push beyond small talk.

The sense of the commonplace is easily unhinged. Hence the “buckle up,â€Â￾ as Dr. Calhoun warned Mr. O'Bryan.

As sociologist Anthony Giddens reminds us, “…deviation from certain accepted canons of small talk was perceived as a disturbing oneâ€Â￾ (143, The Giddens Reader, 1993).

Giddens reminds us the posture of “righteous hostilityâ€Â￾ is likely to emerge from the breakdown in communication that erupts between the commonplace and social research.

The demand for the precision of meaning will cut both ways. Such demand will breach the commonplace, which banks on unstated trust and assumed mutuality.

What is interesting, however, is that our interaction with Distasio turned quickly from trust on the basis of his refusal to use a real name. From there we drew deeply from the force of suspicion.

Currents of trust and current of suspician will flow through the postings we present. There will be good intentions and unintended consequences, as there are in all social productions.

To attempt to gain a social look on these complex cultural affairs, even through a human agent’s deployment of a language that nobody speaks, at least, that is, in a commonplace sense, does not mean the intent is malicious.

We intend to realize the gain on Lakewood as an uncommon place, i.e. the city that knows itself better than any other.

Again, it will be a difficult undertaking, as Giddens might warn us, to feel good about advancing “deviation from accepted cannons of small talk.â€Â￾

That's my sense of the Lakewood Observer civic experiment.

Kenneth Warren

Kenneth Warren wrote:Jan:

It’s quite possible our experiences, methods, paths and priorities are different, and therefore interesting, if you can spare the time, to explore.

True, I don’t hunt predators. However, I have fallen into other cases, perhaps classified as “easy killâ€Â￾ dropping to the ground in my neighborhood. When I have called the police, they do their work. If a crime has been committed the police make the bust, the prosecutor prosecutes.

As you describe your work, it sounds like you are up against considerable obstacles.

Why is the lack of alignment occurring?

Is there an inability to integrate professional law enforcement / DIY citizen interests on this front?

Is there a lack of resources to support the police and prosecutors in taking on the increased caseload generated from your work, which seems focused primarily in cyberspace?

Does the scrutiny of cyberspace allow you to dig up more crime than the justice system can handle?

Is the primary obstacle limited resources or lack of will - among which agents?

Are victims unwilling to step forward?

Are there instances of corruption and protected assets that block your work from going forward?


Kenneth Warren

Kenneth,

I've been pretty busy this weekend and just read your post. Today has been the pits. I have a furnace that isn't working and it's a bit cold here. I'll try to come back and attempt to answer your questions in a day or two.

Take care,
Jan