[vcf-midatlantic] What does Al Kossow have against VCF?

[Dean Notarnicola]

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 at 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
>