Re: poster dist (again)

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

Kevin Brown writes:
> >In an atmosphere of vituperation, constant threats of lawsuits,
> >massive personal insults, and frequent wholesale misinterpretations of
> >one's comments, there is little incentive for an IAHC member to post
> >or answer a posting about 99% of the time.
[...]
> You accepted, as the others did, membership of the IAHC. If flames etc
> upset you, then you should not be a member of the IAHC.

They do not upset me. They merely have indicated to me that there
isn't any point in answering much of the time.

Cases in point:
> Putting" >Speaking for myself, and not for the IAHC" is such nonsense.

Excellent example. What could I possibly say about this that I haven't
already? The fact that I'm only one member of many of the IAHC and
that my opinions aren't official opinions (which we only come to at
rare intervals when we invoke our decision making procedure) should be
an obvious and simple idea. Does anyone here think that I'm actually a
dozen people?  The official opinion of the whole committee only gets
expressed through documents that we fine tune and all agree
to. Anything else is just an individual member's take on the
situation.

Well, in response to this, we see streams of comments making it sound
like this is somehow shocking or impossible that I might be expressing
my own opinion and not some secretly official opinion. Some have gone
so far as to use profanity when making their "point", as though this
improves their argument.

I quit answering "comments" on this topic long ago. What would the
point of my replying again be? Its certainly not going to change
anyone's mind -- anyone who insists on believing the disclaimer is
somehow "nonsense" isn't going to be swayed by logic. The best I'm
going to get is more insults, so why bother? Its not like it will gain
me anything.

Perry