----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:01 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Commentary: Why Europe Sides Against the Jews / tim e.com
> At 10:50 29-04-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > >2) Gracefully retreat from positions that prove to be in error. An example > >of this is your claim that you never read a post you quoted > > Er, when did I say that? During the landmine debate. You used the word debunk, and then were upset when I expected you to have a very high threshold of proof in order to debunk an idea. I had defined debunk fairly early in the discussion and you claimed that you should not have been expected to have read that post. When I pointed out that you quoted from that very post, you ignored the subject. One can see relevant discussions in posts 74167, 74172 and 74188 in the Yahoo archives. The first and third of these posts make extensive references to earlier posts. I >I tend to have a fairly good memory when it comes > to remembering what I wrote, but I do not remember saying I never read a > post I quoted (after all, how can I quote something I did not read?). That was my point, which you ignored. > > >4) Watch for how your arguments play in the community. In particular, you > >can see the responses to your "threat" to put people in you "these bad > >people hurt my feelings" website. No one has written in support of this. > > As I have said before, those pages would show the misbehavior of people > towards other members, not just towards me (although I still believe I > could fill a few megabytes of webspace with just that). I don't buy that. You are the only person who shows an interest > The purpose of those pages would be twofold. First, it might encourage > people to keep their behavior civilized when they know their misbehavior > will become a matter of public record. Well, look at the posts that are made in response. To put it bluntly, there appears to be exactly one active poster who would consider such a record seriously: you. Indeed, several posters have stated that they consider it a mark of favorable behavior to be put on that list. You need to realize, as the person who gets into scrapes with more people than anyone else, you are probably the least likely candidate to put up a webpage of shame. >Second, it will give others an indication about the extent to which a poster is to be taken seriously. > Someone with a spotless record can be taken seriously, but someone whose > record measures hundreds of kilobytes or more is likely to be someone to > stay away from, since that person is likely to just start another flame war > when someone disagrees with him. Well, from what you've written, it appears that you will include people who, in my opinion, have written some of the best posts on the list as people who cannot be taken seriously and will ignore the person who I think has shown the worst list behavior. If I were asked by the list to compile such a website, I'd turn down the request. But, if I were offered a hypothetical million dollars to do it by myself, then I'd come up with a site that looked far different than yours. I'd strive for objectivity, but I'd realize that my list would be highly subjective. I'd also realize that the only good reason for doing it would be to take a fool's money. In short, there is no indication at all that anyone but you would take this web site very seriously. Further, this is a dangerous type of behavior. It leads you away from community and forging consensus towards obsessing on how you were hurt. Yes, you may dress it up with other examples, but the idea of providing an objective record of shame just doesn't hold water. I strongly suggest that, for your own sake, you think more about forging bonds to the other people on the list instead of concentrating on when you think they misbehaved. Dan M.
