At 22:04 24-8-01 -0400, Bob Zimmerman wrote:
>I will state what I believe to be true.
That is what I have been doing. Turned out to have quite unpleasant
consequences.
>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.
No, that was a warning which you *misinterpreted* as a threat of legal
action. I cannot help it that you refuse to accept a (repeated!)
explanation of a statement, simply because it does not match your own
initial interpretation of that statement.
>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.
You literally said:
>(I would argue that this very quickly changed into a dictatorship but
>lets not quibble about the differences between the US form of government and
>that of Nazi Germany. Given past statements I would guess you see them as
>essentially equivalent).
You first call the Nazi regime a dictatorship (which we all know was a
fascist one), then go on to say I see the German and US governments as
"essentially equivalent". I can only interpret that as "Jeroen considers
the US government to be a fascist dictatorship as well".
>I believe that Jeroen has a deep dislike for the US
Time to change your beliefs, then.
I do not have a deep dislike for the US. If I did, why would I have spent
so much time trying to get our 5th Anniversary Party organised, a party
that was to take place in the United States? And why would I have planned a
three-weeks vacation in the US and Canada around the time the Party was to
take place, if I have such a deep dislike for the US?
I also do not have a deep dislike for the American people in general --
only for a few individual US citizens (but I also have a dislike for some
Dutch individuals, without having a dislike for the entire population of
The Netherlands).
What I *do* dislike is the way in which the US behave in the world, acting
as they own the world and everyone has to follow their orders. That does
not however constitute a deep dislike for the US as a whole.
>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.
I am going to be tiresome here, and repeat that it was not a threat of
legal action, but a warning that throwing accusations around without
providing proof is the kind of behaviour that can get a person in legal
trouble.
>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?
There is a difference. When someone beats up my kid because he stole
someone's wallet, the beating up is a consequence of my son's misbehaviour.
When I teach my son "do not steal people's wallets, because if you do that
someone might beat you up", I am not threatening him, I am telling him that
misbehaviour can get him in trouble.
>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.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Again.
<sidestep>
When I first had the idea of building a complete Brin-L Archive, I thought
it would be used for things like retrieving someone's e-mail address,
checking how often a certain topic had been discussed in the past, or
retrieving a specific book review or something. Little did I know that the
Archive would mostly be used to provide evidence...
</sidestep>
Anyway, here goes:
At 22:56 14-12-98 +0000, Julia Thompson wrote:
>Any further instance of anyone on this list using my
>e-mail address as their "from" could result in LEGAL ACTION. Watch it!
>(I'm pretty damn sensitive about e-mail address forgery. Anyone using any
>of my e-mail addresses to commit fraud is going to be looking at one hell
>of a lawsuit. Just a friendly warning.)
(This happened after an other Brineller sent a message to the list under
Julia's name.)
>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.
Yet, this last week or so I have had to spend so much time defending
myself, that it is beginning to feel like I am on trial here... :-(
>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.
But then, your beliefs have been proven wrong more than once.
>It may be an empty threat. It may be a joke threat but it is a threat.
For the umpteenth time, it was NOT a threat. As I have posted earlier, if I
had wanted to threaten you with legal action, I would have written
something that could not *possibly* be interpreted other than as a direct
threat of legal action. (Something like "shut up or I will sue you for
every penny you have".)
>Is there any culture to which list
>members belong that would not see this as a threat?
It would not be considered a threat in The Netherlands.
>I do not know if lawsuits are common or rare in his country.
I wrote a reply to that, but when I realized how long it was I decided to
save it for a separate post.
>I do not know if he is one of those individuals who file
>lawsuits at the drop of a hat.
I am not. In The Netherlands, people do not go about sueing each other over
every petty argument (and when we do sue, it certainly is not for millions
of guilders in damages).
I have filed a few lawsuits in the past, though, both times against my
employer of that time. The first case (for wrongful discharge) made it to
court, but then the other party suddenly was willing to settle (which they
had refused previously). In the second case (employer refused to give me
the raise I had coming because after 13 months he suddenly decided that I
was not doing my job right), my employer was subpoened (sp), but the case
was settled before we actually met in the courtroom.
>Now I know that many feel that I have over reacted to Jeroen's remarks.
You made an accusation without providing proof. I criticised this
behaviour, after which you proclaimed you would consider leaving. Yeah, I
believe that such childish behaviour qualifies as overreacting.
>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.
He also pointed out that *this* is not a medical issue.
>I have been sued myself on about 5-10 occaisons.
<snip>
>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.
True, but AFAIK, the US legal system is still based on the principle of
"innocent until proven guilty". You do not have to prove you are innocent,
someone else must prove that you are guilty. If you are not guilty, there
can be no evidence that you are guilty. Without evidence, no judge can find
you guilty.
(All this, of course, assuming everyone involved is playing by the rules,
and nobody did something nasty like planting incriminating evidence.)
>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.
Do you have any idea how much time this trial I seem to be on has cost me?
Do you have any idea how many hours I have spent defending myself here,
when I could have spent that time doing more useful things, like spending
time with my family, or studying?
Let me put it this way: if you had to pay me NLG 350 per hour for it (the
average fee a lawyer here charges per hour), you would essentially be
working for me for the next few months (because that is where your paycheck
would be going then: to me).
>I had to listen to attacks on my character and skill for an entire week.
Sucks, heh? Imagine this: I have been enduring attacks on both me and my
arguments for at least a week too. Care to take a guess at how I feel right
now?
>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.
Likewise.
>Basically someone took about 10 days of my life away from me for
>utter nonsense.
Believe me, I know exactly how that feels now...
>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.
More specifically, I said that I did not have a clue why this happens, even
after repeatedly explaining my arguments, and sometimes even saying "this
is how my post must be interpreted".
>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.
And I still do. Just because a few oversensitive people such as you want to
consider it a hostile act does not make it so. I have repeatedly stated
that their was no hostile intent; if you nevertheless still want to believe
it was hostile, it is your problem, not mine. I can not *force* you to
accept the truth.
>He was simply providing a service.
As I have done for others. Those others did not complain.
>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.
Yeah, I love you too...
You people have really placed me in an impossible position. I provided Bob
with information on how to unsubscribe (after he said he would seriously
consider doing so), and promptly got scolded for that. Yet at the same
time, people complain that I haven't provided assistance *every* time
someone talked about leaving. In other words: when I do it, it is wrong,
but when I don't, it is also wrong. Makes it quite difficult to do anything
at all, wouldn't you say?
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
