Re: Personal Attacks, Power, and the PAB

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bryan,

  Good post my friend!  And very accurate evaluation if I do say so
myself.

Infobahn Consulting wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > This is great, folks.
> >       Good job!
> 
> Takes some of the responsibility off you for stirring the pot eh?
> 
> >       How many different ways can we all find, to keep from dealing with
> > substantive matters?  It is really soooooo much more fun to constantly get
> > into personalities and abstractions?
> 
> One more way than you knew about yesterday.
> 
> >       I will bet that we can keep this up long enough to completely derail any
> > efforts at getting serious work done.  Wouldn't that be wonderful?
> 
> If everyone pitches in and helps the way they have been so far, I'm sure
> you'll be successful.
> 
> >       For the portion of the community that is worried about this phenomenon,
> > let me observe the following:  For any discussion which has factions, there
> > is ALWAYS Someone who will Say Something Bad about the other side.
> 
> That someone has been YOU up until today.
> 
> I always thought the world was what we made it?
> 
> >       Having Somebody Somewhere Say Something Bad doesn't represent a dominant
> > view.  It doesn't represent an official view.  In fact, it does not mean
> > anything at all.  It is quoted by reporters and those On The Other Side
> > because it is inflammatory, not because it is meaningful.
> 
> Correct. It's just an idiosyncratic notion. A notion is something not good
> enough to be called an idea. And an idea is an unrefined view.
> 
> >       So before we all get excited at this or the next occurrence of Somebody
> > Somewhere Saying Something Bad about Something, let me suggest that we all
> > step back and ask whether there is any real content.
> 
> I've been asking myself this for weeks.
> 
> >       The fact that I claim your mother wears combat boots or that you claim I
> > am a greedy son of a gun is entirely irrelevant to that mainline of work.
> 
> Which is why you've relied on these tactics so heavily??
> 
> > Why don't we all get really radical and actually ignore such silliness,
> > instead focussing on statements and content that ARE important?
> 
> Splendid idea. You first.
> 
> >       I know that that's more work than getting inflamed and firing off
> > judgmental missives, but no one said that responsible participation in open
> > processes was easy.
> 
> No, not easy. We've all been suspecting for weeks that responsible
> participation was quite beyond you. But maybe I am wrong??
> 
> > ps. As to the facts of this particular topic, yes, someone on the PAB list
> > Said Something Bad about Jay.  Oh gosh.  Dear me.  A Very Bad Thing Indeed.
> >  How could we allow such a thing?  Well, believe it or not, we let people
> > say what is on their minds, just as is done on all lists which follow the
> > spirit of Internet participation.  It shouldn't happen.  It isn't helpful.
> > However, adult supervision for such contributions only takes place when the
> > thread of exchange has significantly distracted the list discussion.  That
> > didn't happen in this case.  In any event taking a single participant's
> > message and declaring it to be a significant representation of PAB feeling
> > or, worse, an official PAB position is not merely wrong.  It is silly.  So
> > I suggest that those wishing to claim that such reactions are anything
> > other than silly should watch their own statements and consider whether the
> > Thought Police won't be knocking on THEIR door, next.
> 
> Well, I guess I've drilled home the "pot calling the kettle black"
> hypocrisy point enough by now. If you really *are* willing to turn over a
> new leaf and have a serious discussion on here, well then I'm all in
> favour of it. But you must forgive my scepticism: a cannibal may eat a
> head of cabbage every now and then, but that doesn't make him a
> vegetarian!
> 
> On the "official vs unofficial" debate: Witness the case a few months back
> of Texaco(?) executives deliberately conspiring to keep blacks out of the
> Texaco workforce or from owning Texaco franchises. Was this an *official*
> Texaco policy? No -- good luck finding "Thou shalt not be black" in the
> franchise agreement contract!!! But the personal views of the guilty
> executives had the effect of contaminating Texaco's official dealings with
> the public and it sure as hell looked bad for the company when it all hit
> the fan!!
> 
> Bryan Trussler
> (bryan@i-bahn.com)
> 
> ******************************************************
>              Infobahn Consulting Services
> Mail: bryan@i-bahn.com  ||  Web: http://www.i-bahn.com
> ******************************************************
> "All good Web sites resemble one another; every bad
> Web site is bad in its own fashion"
>        -- Leo Tolstoi in "Anna Karenina" (sort of ...)

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com