So let me start by saying I am not leaving the list. I considered
unsusbcribing immediately when I read Jeroen's post last Sunday morning
(dated 8:18) but I was going away for a few days and wanted to think about
it. What follows will be a response to much that has gone on in the interim.
Let me start by saying that I will be talking mostly about Jeroen's
subsequent posts and Marvin's replies to them. I will try to be straight
forward and honest in my statements. I will state what I believe to be true.
I will do my best to avoid sarcasm even if that means that I have to avoid a
clever phrase. I would ask members of list to check my impressions with their
own.
When I read the initial post I composed a long response. I was about to send
it but then on consideration I decided not to respond on a point by point
basis because of the presence of a threat of legal action, a threat that was
repeated twice in the post.
I will get back to the general notion of what I consider to be reasonable and
unreasonable on the list in a bit since that is the heart of what I wish to
talk about. First let me deal with the two parenthetic phrases that caused
the uproar. I say parenthetical because they were asides within in the
overall arguement and at least one was literally in parentheses.
Let me start with the second statement about comparing Israeli actions to the
holocast because it is the easiest but most painful for me to deal with. This
should not have been in the post for several reasons. 1) It was completely
peripheral to the discussion; 2) It was sure to make the debate more
agrimonious and 3) I was wrong to dredge up an old discussion in which I
could not remember the details of the arguement. I now know that it was not
Jeroen who made the comparison and I apologize for suggesting that it was
him.
The first comment concerned my statement that I believed that the Jeroen
viewed the US and Nazi Germany as essentially equivalent. I feel I have to
split hairs here a bit because this needs to be seen in the context of what
went before. I suggested that Jeroen viewed the two governments were
equivalent not that the US was a fascist dictatorship. There is a difference.
There are a huge number of ways in which two governments can be equivalent
but no more than one or two that would make them both fascist governments.
This statement was part of a discussion about the responsiblities of citizens
in a country for that country's behavior. Some members of the list had
objected to Jeroen's assertion that the US position in the land mine debate
was a crime against humanity since it implied that the Americans on the list
were party to this crime. Jeroen had replied that he did not believe that
individuals were responsible for the government's actions. I responded that
individuals do bear some responsiblilty and that this responsibilty was a
least to some extent dependent upon political freedom in a country. Jeroen
brought up the fact that the Nazi party was initially elected. Within this
context I added a parenthetical statement about my belief that Jereon viewed
the actions of the US as equivalent to those of the Nazi's. I believe that
Jeroen has a deep dislike for the US and that this colors most of his
opinions about the US. The statement was meant to highlight what I perceived
to be this prejudice but it was a cheap shot. One of the lessons I will take
from this incident is to be careful about flip remarks and inuendo. More
often than not they just distract attention from or minimize the very thing
that I am trying to discuss.
This is pretty much what I had composed before I decided that it was
inappropriate to respond in the usual manner because of the threats of legal
action. So let me be blunt here. I do not think that there is any question
that this was a threat. To quibble over whether the threat was directed at
current behavior on list or future behavior is irrelevent. Does it really
matter whether I threaten to bash your head in for what you just did or for
what you might do in the future? I believe further that this represented
something new and bad on the list. At no time in the past have there been any
statements concerning consequences of posting other than those that occur on
list. You call me a jerk, I call you a jerk. We have had some very
acrimonious debates. Tempers have flaired and yet no one has ever said or
implied that anything said on the list could have negative real life
consequences. No one has threatened to bash another person's head in. No one
has discussed legal action. The threat went over the line that seperates the
list from real life. The list is for fun and enlightment with the freedom to
say pretty much what you want because there are no consequences outside of
the opinions of those on the list. Real life is where law suits occur.
Marvin suggested in one of his posts that Jeroen was misunderstood because of
linguistic or cultural reasons. Jeroen said this was possible. Frankly I do
not buy this "No speaky the English" defense. I believe there is no way to
interpret the two mentions of legal action in the same post as anything but a
threat of real life consequences. It may be an empty threat. It may be a joke
threat but it is a threat. I believe that Jeroen knew exactly what he was
saying. I would ask all of the list members who are not from the US and those
for whom English is a second language to ask yourself if you had any problem
understanding what Jeroen was saying. Is there any culture to which list
members belong that would not see this as a threat? By the way, the cultural
arguement cuts both ways. If Jeroen can not be expected to understand the
concept of an implied threat because he is not from the US, how am I supposed
to know what it does mean to him? I do not know if lawsuits are common or
rare in his country. I do not know if he is one of those individuals who file
lawsuits at the drop of a hat. Let me state that I am not now implying that
he engages in such actions, simply that I do not know enough about him to
make an informed decision. This is the beauty and danger of the internet. We
can discuss things across an ocean on a daily basis with total strangers. But
the freedom that the distance and anonimity of the net provides is also a
source of potential danger. We do not know each other and therefore we cannot
bring to bear the normal tools humans use to judge someone'e intentions not
words.
Now I know that many feel that I have over reacted to Jeroen's remarks.
They believe that Jeroen was just blowing smoke. He has since stated that he
did not then and does not now contemplate such action. That is a relief.
Erik thought the whole thing funny. But my life experience makes me extremely
wary when anyone starts talking about courts and judges and law suits. As
Marvin guessed, as a physician, I have had more than a passing experience
with the courts. My experience is of two sorts. Because of my expertise in
Neuroradiology I am often called upon to render opnions about findings on
imaging studies in Medical Malpractice and Liability cases. This had given me
familiarity with how the civil legal system works. More importantly I have
been sued myself on about 5-10 occaisons. It comes with the territory
especially when you work in a large teaching hospital and have your name on
thousands of reports each year. In the US when a suit is filed the lawyers
for the plaintiff cast a very wide net. They include everyone whose name they
can find in the official records. In most cases, my name is eventually
dropped without further action and there is no negative impact on my life. It
just means that my secretary has to attach some extra pages to a bunch of
accreditation forms every year. But in two cases, direct accusations of wrong
doing on my part were made. I was exonerated in both instances but I can
assure you that Jeroen's glib statements that the innocent have nothing to
fear does not match my experience. When you are sued you have to defend
yourself. This takes time and money. The money in these cases came from my
employer not me (probably $50,000 over the course of my professional career)
but the time lost was my time. In one case I spent about a 10 hours preparing
for my depostion by the plaintiff's law firm and another 5 hours being
deposed. For those who have not been deposed, it is only slightly less formal
than actually testifying in court and it is just as unpleasent. In this
circumstances it consisted of 5 hours of a lawyer trying to get me to admit
that I was the scum of the earth and that my actions were directly
responsible for the plaintiff's horrible state condition. In the second case,
I was deposed for two days. The plaintiff's lwawyer was so hostile that my
lawyer stopped the deposition at one point. This produced an automatic fine
for the firm representing me. This case went to trial. The trial lasted 5
days and I had to be present for all of those days to prove to the jury that
I cared about the outcome. I had to listen to attacks on my character and
skill for an entire week. I won the case but I can assure all of you that the
relief of victory did not erase the pain or anger that the whole thing
produced. Basically someone took about 10 days of my life away from me for
utter nonsense. The older I get the less willing I am to let anyone steal my
time. There was also no guarentee that I would win. In my position as an
expert I have seen many lawsuits lost when the basic allegations were
completely disproved by the findings on the imaging studies). I hope that
none of you find yourself in the position as a defendant in a lawsuit.
Subsequently to my post , Jeroen responded by providing me with a reminder of
how to unscribe to the list along with several other unpleasent statements.
He then expressed surprise that some of the things he posts are
misinterpreted. He said he didn't "have a clue" as to why this occured.
Marvin offered to analyze Jeroen's posts to see if he could find the source
of confusion. As this would require some effort on Marvin's part he sought
assurances that Jeroen would take his efforts seriously. Marvin criticized me
and I have tried to respond as best I could to these criticisms. And yet when
Marvin pointed out that providing the means to unsubscribe was an
unambiguously hostile act, Jeroen twice denied this. He was simply providing
a service. Marvin analyzed these posts for Jeroen's benefit and as usual cut
directly to the heart of the issue. Either Jeroen was not serious when asked
for help in determining why people respond so negatively to him (that is that
he treated the whole thing as a joke despite Marvin's sincere efforts to
provide assistance) or he simply did not tell the truth in his posts.
I feel that this behavior (specifically disavowing any hostile intent in
providing me with information about how to unsubscribe), as unpleasent and as
frustrating as it is, does not actually cross any barriers to appropriate
behavior on the list. It is just one list member exercising his right to be a
jerk. I am fine with that. My response will be to avoid interacting with
individuals who behave in this way. Each list member has free will (I
promised no jokes but I couldn't resist giving Dan a chuckle) and therefore
can respond or not respond to any other member (I do mean this in the most
general way. I am not trying to single Jeroen out here). If I find it
frustrating debating someone because of their style I will not do it. I will
move on to something else. If enough people do this the debate will die a
natural death. If I want to debate someone I will go for it and I suggest all
of you do the same. It is all for fun. As long as that is all it is. As long
as there are no real life consequences.
