BayLISA -> BayISSA

Fri Jun 18 12:25:15 PDT 2004

Let's do this inline so we can be perfectly clear.

richard childers / kg6hac wrote:
> Ooh, I didn't realize that whiny complaint had gone out to the whole crew.

Yes, since I felt that I owed you the courtesy of a public reply to
your public comment.

 >> ...
>> Maybe if your little group hadn't ganged up on me, when I tried to 
>> articulate to -my- peer group the events that had occurred at Oracle, 
>> we wouldn't have this confrontational relationship. After all, whose 
>> peer group is it, anyway?

Exactly-- whose peer group is it anyway?   You say that you were trying
to communicate to your peer group, but that somehow it was our peer
group it ganged up on you.  This seems contradictory.

>> But you did. You folks censored my communications on the topic. You 
>> will have to live with that. And, you know, in the long run, it didn't 
>> do a damned bit of good. The story's out. ... So, who were you trying 
>> to help?

It is not 'censorship' if we ask one person to refrain from turning a
public forum into his personal platform to attack a previous employer.
I think we disagree on matters of definition.  Did you ever offer to
form a splinter mailing list on which to discuss this subject of
non-universal interest?  No, and precisely because it would be a splinter
list and you would not have your guaranteed audience.

It's wonderful that 'the story' is out.  It's also wonderful that you
have stopped ceaselessly haranguing people with it here.  The 'who'
we were trying to help is our MEMBERS, who complained that one person
was trying to turn a quiet and formerly helpful mailing list into
alt.rant.oracle.

>> If a single barbarian at the gates is enough to bring your whole 
>> scheme to ruin, well, it wasn't a very good scheme, now was it.

Ah, so the barbarian is justified if enough damage is done?  And
if the rest of us 'play nice', then it's just our fault.  This sounds
a lot like "If she didn't dress like that, it wouldn't have happened."

Basically what you're saying is that it's ok for you to be an
antisocial combative asshole on a group mailing list, and threaten
the group with legal action if they try to shut you up or boot you,
and that simply exposes the fundamental flaw in the tragedy of the
commons and somehow absolves you of personal responsibility for
your own behavior.

I think you just enjoy coming up with rationalizations why it's 'okay'
or even 'good' that you can take out your hostility on other people
without having to think of yourself with negative labels.  It's a
very ordinary thing, but still regrettable.

>> The fact is that despite all your claims of running an open 
>> organization, you can only run it successfully, if it is carefully 
>> insulated from criticism ... because there are no good answers, once 
>> the questions start being asked.

^The fact^Richard Childers' opinion

I don't see where any criticism of yours has affected BayLISA.  Just
your aggressive presence on our list communities, which discourages
people who don't enjoy flaming from participating.  Given that attempts
at reasoned discourse with you simply escalate to ad-hominem attacks,
and that attempts at silence are responded to with 'ha! you aren't
replying, which proves I'm right!', there really aren't any good
strategies for the shy except not posting in the first place.

 >> ...
 >>
>> If you want people to invest emotionally in your group, then your 
>> group has to return the favor. I've been treated like a pariah. 

Earlier you said this was the group of your peers, and we were
censoring you.  Are your peers are treating you like a pariah?
If so, maybe you are acting like someone who they don't want to be
around.  Most of us are pretty easy-going, and don't hold grudges.
If you changed your public UI, people would respond differently.

 >>                                                             You
>> expect me to cushion my comments? 

I expect everyone here to behave like an adult professional.  You
have not been singled out in this regard.

 >>                                   I'd suggest you pick sides more
>> carefullly, next time. 

I have very carefully picked sides.  I am on the side of reasonable,
civil public discourse, mentoring the inexperienced, supporting newbies
interacting with our community, and giving people the benefit of the
doubt.  I hope that my actions show these principles at work.  People
ultimately judge us by a combination of our actions and our words.

Think about the impression of yourself that you personally are creating,
and ask yourself if you wouldn't prefer to create a different impression.
It is possible to be strongly opinionated and still respectful, to be
a person of firmly held principles and convictions who makes their views
known yet rarely makes anyone else feel ignorant, clumsy, or stupid.

Doing this is a great deal of work, and yet some of us find that it is
ultimately worth the effort.

> Regards,
> 
> -- richard

And my regards to you.  I think you have valuable things to add to
this group, but that the style in which you routinely say them negates
the bulk of their value.  I hope that you will consider changing your
style.  If not, I hope that you will find another community to frequent.

_Strata
-- 
========================================================================
Strata Rose Chalup [KF6NBZ]                      strata "@" virtual.net
VirtualNet Consulting                            http://www.virtual.net/
  ** Project Management & Architecture for ISP/ASP Systems Integration **
=========================================================================