Tony makes a good point, but perhaps not one he had thought of
making:
His having written,
> >John's assertion is not very defensible. However,
> >the more interesting question is why a "35 year old computer
> >technical analyst residing in Chicago, Illinois, USA" with a
> >US domain and a passion for counting down to the year 2000 on
> >his web site, should care, much less make such pronouncements.
> >At a certain level, it's interesting to put ourselves in the
> >place of our psychologist friend in Sunnyvale and ask what
> >motivates people.
and then following up,
> >P.S. Tony: the fact that I am an ordinary Internet user and not a hired
> >gun does not disqualify me from commenting on matters of Internet policy.
>
> You missed my point. I'm speaking favorably
> about your participation in discussions -
> just wondering why you (and for that matter
> other people who passionately argue a particular
> point or attempt to speak authoritatively) care.
>
> In my own case, I've been analyzing and writing
> about similar public policy, legal developments
> for the past 25 years. None of what is now
> occurring domestically and internationally is
> particularly new. What you find typically with
> these developments, is that there are multiple
> different potential outcomes that evolve with
> time, and no intrinsically right or authoritative
> answer - just directions.
>
illustrate how easily good intentions can be derailed by hasty
language. I'm sure he did not mean that ordinary citizens cannot
participate, or that they have no interest in participating, or that his
25 years make him more "authoritative" than a relative newcomer --
but the way he expresses his support for such participation is
problematic. If one's point is to speak favorably of another, it's a bit
of a puzzle why then one says the other missed the point, instead
of trying to express oneself better.
1. Internet discourse is something like jail discourse: one doesnt
usually strike up acquaintance by asking what somebody is in for.
In the time Ive been on this list, I have seen few other cases of
someone being asked what their interest is - why John, then,
whose passion at least has been more relevant than that of a few I
could name?
2. Indeed, I see very few instances of someone actually *asking*
an open question -- rather, comments are phrased as
"authoritatively" as possible: "the more interesting question *is*...";
"I'm just wondering..."; "What *you* find typically..." and so forth
(instead of "Is there interest in..."; "Why..."; "Do others agree
that..."). Most of the time, of course, we let this kind of 'trivia' go,
so one might well ask, what's my point?
3. In fact, I do agree that "potential outcomes" evolve with time,
and that there are few intrinsically right or authoritative answers -
just directions. Why then do so many well-intentioned folks fail to
recognize or incorporate the implications for their style of
discourse? Specifically, doesnt "authority" rest on having right
answers? If one describes another's "passionate argu[ing]" as an
"speak[ing] authoritatively," isnt one *implicitly* denying that the
argument could help identify the *direction? Further, doesnt the
additional phrase, "*attempt to* speak authoritatively" imply that
one has knowledge of -- that is, is an authority on -- what
authoritative speaking *is*? Isnt this kind of pecking-order one-
upmanship utterly typical of net discourse, and might it not be why
so many good threads never even find direction, much less an
outcome? Isnt it more than a little terrifying to realize that after 25
years, we -- the net community -- still dont distinguish "free"
speech from _thoughtless_ speech? - and that (as a direct
consequence, imo) we continually slide (as in the most recent
example) from a) the issues requiring clarification ("representation"
in ICANN jargon) to b) *how to clarify to c) *who will clarify to d)
*why them? When every issue gets swept into _ad hominem_
drivel, is it any wonder that most ordinary users (not to mention
members of the Interim Board!) stay well out of the discussion?
4. I too am just an ordinary user. As for my reasons for
participating, I think the more interesting question is why they
should be anybody's damn business, if you see my point?
Cheers,
kerry
"In a critical sense, we are not democrats anymore.
Cyberspace has shown us this, and it should push
us to figure out why." -- L. Lessig, "Governance"
http://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/Ny_q_d1.pdf
