Re: [vcf-midatlantic] What does Al Kossow have against VCF?
On 8/19/2021 11:39 AM, Christian Liendo wrote:
Please allow me to respectfully disagree, since I first posed the question. I need to explain more.
In a way, I thank you for your explanation in response to my post. It reveals the logic you used in deciding to post, what amounts to your personal opinions about individuals and organizations. And, you express your sense of how other people and an organization "should" respond about such things in a public discussion. Now, in a way, this continues a public and *critical* discussion about a private person's merits and actions. That's inappropriate on its face. So I won't respond to points particular to a person or an organization. I'll respond to the process and the reasoning, which were MY point in my post, and in Christian's response. (I'll add one point specific to VCFed-Midatlantic at the end.) By "inappropriate", I mean this. The power of public discussion should not be used as a platform to criticize individuals, subject them or their actions to scrutiny. That doesn't (shouldn't) need much explanation. Those who choose to do that, won't accept an explanation anyway. But some Web searching on "trolls" and "discussion groups" will be informative. Also, about "authority": who has the authority to decide in a public way, if some person did something that merits "public trial"? To present evidence and to ask leading questions - in public? And: does the "accused" have a right or obligation to respond - or is it smarter to simply ignore such discussions? Some study and experience says they should ignore it. These considerations make the case against such public discussions, as patently unfair. Also: if someone with authority is indiscreet? Well, that should not be an excuse to be indiscreet in response. But sometimes it's hard to resist. So, *privately*, if one wonders personally, why someone did or said something? Well, a) is it any of their business? b) are they in any position of power or authority to find out or judge? c) are they obliged to take any actions? Some of Christian's comments, amount to these sort of questions. For the most part, the simple answers for people who aren't involved or responsible, are no, no, and no. One might argue, that if any response appears to be of merit - yet one is NOT responsible for taking actions - then MAYBE one can report the situation to those who ARE responsible. That is, contact the potentially-injured party. Of course, that's also a excuse for passing gossip. One must use some discretion. Otherwise: if someone posts some criticism about some thing or practice or activity, then discuss that subject or not on the merits - if there are any. Not discuss the person. One other thing. OK, two. I asserted, neither Christian nor I have any special authority about what is or is not to be discussed in this email list - that falls to the owners of the list. I don't want to be repetitive or persistent; I'm creating my own counter-productive example (!) but I have a point which challenges that. My point: I think there is one, mitigating circumstance, with this VCFed-Midatlantic email list in particular; which would not be so in other email lists. That is: this list is actively used by the VCFed-Midatlantic, for discussions and actions of the organization itself. And so, one such "action" could be: the operation of this email list. Also: VCFed-Midatlantic by explicit by-laws, defines membership in that organization, as "anyone who joins the mailing list". So participants in this list, are members of the organization. So those active in this list, have some claims for an interest, and for responsibility. Maybe, something like that, suggested to Christian that he was obliged to take certain actions. But - no "member" has any more authority than any other. Only management has more authority, that is more power. And: on the matter of "being formal". Now, I don't expect people, to engage in legalisms and formal logic and complicated arguments. As a practical matter, then, here's why some people try to post (the kind of stuff I'm talking about). They see it in previous posts, from people who decide it's OK to post stuff like this. Nobody objects. And then they see, people who respond (like me!); they want to join in. Again: For those not familiar with these matters, do some Web searching on "trolls", to find out why personalized discussions are *a bad idea*; and why some people engage in it anyway. I don't wanna be a troll, even about NOT being a troll. I posted my objection; I made a case; I responded to the response. That's enough from Herb Johnson, maybe too much. regards, Herb Johnson -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net
All, I'm all for open discussion, but this thread has become counterproductive and off topic. Please refrain from replying. Regards, Dean On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 2:04 PM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2021 11:39 AM, Christian Liendo wrote:
Please allow me to respectfully disagree, since I first posed the question. I need to explain more.
In a way, I thank you for your explanation in response to my post. It reveals the logic you used in deciding to post, what amounts to your personal opinions about individuals and organizations. And, you express your sense of how other people and an organization "should" respond about such things in a public discussion.
Now, in a way, this continues a public and *critical* discussion about a private person's merits and actions. That's inappropriate on its face. So I won't respond to points particular to a person or an organization. I'll respond to the process and the reasoning, which were MY point in my post, and in Christian's response. (I'll add one point specific to VCFed-Midatlantic at the end.)
By "inappropriate", I mean this. The power of public discussion should not be used as a platform to criticize individuals, subject them or their actions to scrutiny. That doesn't (shouldn't) need much explanation. Those who choose to do that, won't accept an explanation anyway. But some Web searching on "trolls" and "discussion groups" will be informative.
Also, about "authority": who has the authority to decide in a public way, if some person did something that merits "public trial"? To present evidence and to ask leading questions - in public? And: does the "accused" have a right or obligation to respond - or is it smarter to simply ignore such discussions? Some study and experience says they should ignore it. These considerations make the case against such public discussions, as patently unfair.
Also: if someone with authority is indiscreet? Well, that should not be an excuse to be indiscreet in response. But sometimes it's hard to resist.
So, *privately*, if one wonders personally, why someone did or said something? Well, a) is it any of their business? b) are they in any position of power or authority to find out or judge? c) are they obliged to take any actions? Some of Christian's comments, amount to these sort of questions.
For the most part, the simple answers for people who aren't involved or responsible, are no, no, and no. One might argue, that if any response appears to be of merit - yet one is NOT responsible for taking actions - then MAYBE one can report the situation to those who ARE responsible. That is, contact the potentially-injured party. Of course, that's also a excuse for passing gossip. One must use some discretion.
Otherwise: if someone posts some criticism about some thing or practice or activity, then discuss that subject or not on the merits - if there are any. Not discuss the person.
One other thing. OK, two.
I asserted, neither Christian nor I have any special authority about what is or is not to be discussed in this email list - that falls to the owners of the list. I don't want to be repetitive or persistent; I'm creating my own counter-productive example (!) but I have a point which challenges that.
My point: I think there is one, mitigating circumstance, with this VCFed-Midatlantic email list in particular; which would not be so in other email lists. That is: this list is actively used by the VCFed-Midatlantic, for discussions and actions of the organization itself. And so, one such "action" could be: the operation of this email list. Also: VCFed-Midatlantic by explicit by-laws, defines membership in that organization, as "anyone who joins the mailing list".
So participants in this list, are members of the organization. So those active in this list, have some claims for an interest, and for responsibility. Maybe, something like that, suggested to Christian that he was obliged to take certain actions. But - no "member" has any more authority than any other. Only management has more authority, that is more power.
And: on the matter of "being formal".
Now, I don't expect people, to engage in legalisms and formal logic and complicated arguments. As a practical matter, then, here's why some people try to post (the kind of stuff I'm talking about). They see it in previous posts, from people who decide it's OK to post stuff like this. Nobody objects. And then they see, people who respond (like me!); they want to join in. Again: For those not familiar with these matters, do some Web searching on "trolls", to find out why personalized discussions are *a bad idea*; and why some people engage in it anyway.
I don't wanna be a troll, even about NOT being a troll. I posted my objection; I made a case; I responded to the response. That's enough from Herb Johnson, maybe too much.
regards, Herb Johnson
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net
On 8/19/2021 4:01 PM, Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
All, I'm all for open discussion, but this thread has become counterproductive and off topic. Please refrain from replying.
An attempt to refrain was made, but my immature side won this round... Many apologies, Dean... Jim (Sorry, again...)
You said nothing wrong, no need to apologize, no worries Jim! On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:04 PM RETRO Innovations via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2021 4:01 PM, Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
All, I'm all for open discussion, but this thread has become counterproductive and off topic. Please refrain from replying.
An attempt to refrain was made, but my immature side won this round... Many apologies, Dean...
Jim
(Sorry, again...)
Thank you, Dean. I whole heartedly agree! On Aug 19, 2021, at 5:01 PM, Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote: All, I'm all for open discussion, but this thread has become counterproductive and off topic. Please refrain from replying. Regards, Dean On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 2:04 PM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2021 11:39 AM, Christian Liendo wrote:
Please allow me to respectfully disagree, since I first posed the question. I need to explain more.
In a way, I thank you for your explanation in response to my post. It reveals the logic you used in deciding to post, what amounts to your personal opinions about individuals and organizations. And, you express your sense of how other people and an organization "should" respond about such things in a public discussion.
Now, in a way, this continues a public and *critical* discussion about a private person's merits and actions. That's inappropriate on its face. So I won't respond to points particular to a person or an organization. I'll respond to the process and the reasoning, which were MY point in my post, and in Christian's response. (I'll add one point specific to VCFed-Midatlantic at the end.)
By "inappropriate", I mean this. The power of public discussion should not be used as a platform to criticize individuals, subject them or their actions to scrutiny. That doesn't (shouldn't) need much explanation. Those who choose to do that, won't accept an explanation anyway. But some Web searching on "trolls" and "discussion groups" will be informative.
Also, about "authority": who has the authority to decide in a public way, if some person did something that merits "public trial"? To present evidence and to ask leading questions - in public? And: does the "accused" have a right or obligation to respond - or is it smarter to simply ignore such discussions? Some study and experience says they should ignore it. These considerations make the case against such public discussions, as patently unfair.
Also: if someone with authority is indiscreet? Well, that should not be an excuse to be indiscreet in response. But sometimes it's hard to resist.
So, *privately*, if one wonders personally, why someone did or said something? Well, a) is it any of their business? b) are they in any position of power or authority to find out or judge? c) are they obliged to take any actions? Some of Christian's comments, amount to these sort of questions.
For the most part, the simple answers for people who aren't involved or responsible, are no, no, and no. One might argue, that if any response appears to be of merit - yet one is NOT responsible for taking actions - then MAYBE one can report the situation to those who ARE responsible. That is, contact the potentially-injured party. Of course, that's also a excuse for passing gossip. One must use some discretion.
Otherwise: if someone posts some criticism about some thing or practice or activity, then discuss that subject or not on the merits - if there are any. Not discuss the person.
One other thing. OK, two.
I asserted, neither Christian nor I have any special authority about what is or is not to be discussed in this email list - that falls to the owners of the list. I don't want to be repetitive or persistent; I'm creating my own counter-productive example (!) but I have a point which challenges that.
My point: I think there is one, mitigating circumstance, with this VCFed-Midatlantic email list in particular; which would not be so in other email lists. That is: this list is actively used by the VCFed-Midatlantic, for discussions and actions of the organization itself. And so, one such "action" could be: the operation of this email list. Also: VCFed-Midatlantic by explicit by-laws, defines membership in that organization, as "anyone who joins the mailing list".
So participants in this list, are members of the organization. So those active in this list, have some claims for an interest, and for responsibility. Maybe, something like that, suggested to Christian that he was obliged to take certain actions. But - no "member" has any more authority than any other. Only management has more authority, that is more power.
And: on the matter of "being formal".
Now, I don't expect people, to engage in legalisms and formal logic and complicated arguments. As a practical matter, then, here's why some people try to post (the kind of stuff I'm talking about). They see it in previous posts, from people who decide it's OK to post stuff like this. Nobody objects. And then they see, people who respond (like me!); they want to join in. Again: For those not familiar with these matters, do some Web searching on "trolls", to find out why personalized discussions are *a bad idea*; and why some people engage in it anyway.
I don't wanna be a troll, even about NOT being a troll. I posted my objection; I made a case; I responded to the response. That's enough from Herb Johnson, maybe too much.
regards, Herb Johnson
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net
participants (5)
-
Chris Fala -
Dean Notarnicola -
Dean Notarnicola -
Herb Johnson -
RETRO Innovations