[vcf-midatlantic] What does Al Kossow have against VCF?
DBC1964 at cox.net
Thu Aug 19 15:45:22 UTC 2021
Why not ask Al to explain, instead all this talking behind his back?
On 8/19/2021 11:39 AM, Christian Liendo via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
> Please allow me to respectfully disagree, since I first posed the
> question. I need to explain more.
> We all know who Al Kossow is. He is a pillar of the community, he is
> held in high regard. I hold him in high regard and so his opinion
> holds weight.
> When a person who is important in the community makes such a
> statement, you have to ask why. Which is what I did.
> Is it a critique of the organization?
> Is it a critique of the members?
> Is it a critique of our focus as hobbyists?
> VCF is an educational non-prof that does good work for the community
> as a whole, but when a member of the community who is that important
> makes such a claim, then you try to figure out why.
> My original question was "What does Al Kossow have against VCF?"
> I then stated to Mike Loewen:
> "I agree that Al Kossow has contributed immensely to the community and
> continues to do so. I respect what he does. Given his contributions
> and position in the community it was one of the reasons I asked the
> question in the first place. I just didn't know what warrented that
> response about VCF."
> Neither of these were negative against Al Kossow.
> I repeat, His opinion carries weight which affects how VCF is viewed.
> If it was anyone else, I wouldn't have asked.
> If Bill Herd or Amiga Bill or Jason Scott said anything like that, I
> would want to know why as well.
> I didn't go out to disparage Al Kossow, but to ask if there was a
> known issue as to why he would say something like that.
> If it's a valid critique then it's something that needs to be addressed.
> My mistake was not writing all of this in the original question as I
> considered this less formal.
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic
> <vcf-midatlantic at lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
>> I think this discussion as titled, is inappropriate on principles.
>> First, it's a public discussion about an individual, their actions and
>> their supposed motivations. What special knowledge or authority, do
>> particular persons have or possess, regarding some one person other than
>> themselves? I call this "gossip".
>> Second, this is a discussion group sponsored by a non-profit educational
>> corporation, for public purpose. I doubt discussions of this class suit
>> those purposes.
>> Any plausible rules of moderation would not permit persons to post
>> negative commentary about an individual. If the owners of this
>> discussion group fail to moderate, it falls to the members to
>> self-moderate. And so I post accordingly.
>> Discussions about the operation of a mail list, are usually
>> counter-productive; I choose this lesser evil.
>> Third, if there's a plausible discussion about something more
>> appropriate, such as say changes in tastes in the vintage computing
>> community (general or particular) - then change the subject line to
>> reflect that discussion, and continue that discussion.
>> Put another way: If no one moderates or complains about gossip and
>> personal arguments, and those posts continue, then that becomes the
>> standard. It becomes normalized. Makes it easier to do the next time,
>> and the next. This is the core argument for moderation.
>> 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
More information about the vcf-midatlantic