Re: Personal Attacks, Power, and the PAB

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

Dave,

  Well let me say right up front.  This is no doubt one of your best
postings.
I agree with nearly every statment made in it.  All be it in your usual
sarcastic tone.  Now for my response!  >;)

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> This is great, folks.
> 
>         Good job!
> 
>         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?

  I am sure that Rick, Yourself, and a couple of others can find a
number of
ways.  But as you seem to be indicating here, it is indeed a total waste
of time and bandwidth.  Add my vote for striving to eliminate this sort
of reteric.  Pass that on to Rick Wesson as well, in that he seemed to
be the one to re-open this line of discourse.
> 
>         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?

  Yes,(Sadly), wouldn't it just now!
> 
>         I have a news flash for all the reporters who are covering this topic, but
> who don't want to get into any of the real detail of our work:
> 
>                 Somebody Somewhere Said Something Bad about Something
> 
>         You can quote me on this.

  LOL!  I am sure someone somewhere will Dave!  >;)
> 
>         Further, they probably said it on some mailing list and it probably had
> some responses that were supportive.

  Well arn't there always two sides to every subject or statment?
> 
>         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.

  Bad is one thing.  Downright lying is another!  And you Dave, I know,
know's the diffrence.  
> 
>         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.

  Any inflamatory statments made about anyone without and solid facts
to support them is damaging to all concerned.  Thomas Jefferson eluded
to
that many years ago.  It was true than and is true now.  So maybe PAB
or at least the "Deputy Director" should take note of this and make the
approiate adjustment.
> 
>         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.

  Oh Dave, many have as is evident in the postings to this list of late
in
response to some of your attempts at retorical bliss, and of course
Rick Wessons recent post.
> 
>         For that matter, let me just suggest that we step back and ask questions.

  Believe me, I am, as I am sure many others are as well.  So please
take
note.  >;)
> 
>         Rather than assume or conclude the meaning of the Something Bad that was
> said, how about checking the issues out a bit further and finding out about
> its meaning and basis?  At the least, ask whether it has anything at all to
> do with the mainline of work.

  I could not agree more!
> 
>         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.
> Why don't we all get really radical and actually ignore such silliness,
> instead focussing on statements and content that ARE important?

  Any inflamatory statment made to anyone or about anyone without
subsitive
basis is indeed a consideration as to it's content value.  
> 
>         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.

  Well it isn't that difficult.
> 
> d/
> 
> 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.

  I do hope the thought police do come knocking.  I have quite a bit of
usefull documentation for them to review.  Your door may be next!
> --------------------
> Dave Crocker                                          dcrocker@imc.org
> Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
> 675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA               info@imc.org, http://www.imc.org
> 
> Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee     http://www.gtld-mou.org

Regards,
-- 
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