MESSAGE
| DATE | 2015-12-25 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout-NYLXS] [list@xenhideout.nl: Re: [opensuse] Moderation on
|
Anyone see this? I thought it was like an end of year joke and then
just realized that these idiots actually banned Carlos ER from the opensuse
group. Anyone who has ever needed tech support of read the opensuse list
known Carlos ER as being the backbone of that mailing lists tech support.
UNBELIEVABLE.
How do people behave in such a self destructive fasion?
Ruben
----- Forwarded message from Xen -----
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:13:27 +0100
From: Xen
To: suse
Subject: Re: [opensuse] Moderation on mailing list (was: Scan application question: [SOLVED])
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.3
David C. Rankin schreef op 23-12-2015 3:14:
> On 12/22/2015 07:41 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>> Richard Brown had him banned from all lists for some reasons which do
>> not looker kosher to me. However, the ban is only till February
>> (?beginning or end, cannot remember) so Carlos will be back with a
>> vengeance, hopefully :-) .
>>
>> (The whole spectacle unfolded in Project if you care to look at the
>> archives.)
>>
>
> It seems we have some we have some less than constructive currents
> flowing through the community as of late. Sad... Seems a long way from
> "Software und SystemEntwicklung"
Yeah, at least then ban me.
I'm trying to find the places in Project where Carlos has been
offensive, but I can't find any. It's getting a bit tiring.
Except perhaps:
"Hopefully now Richard will see now that is nothing personal with me,
as he usually seems to think."
I must say, just an opinion, and as usual quite worthless, that I
thought this Richard Brown, as he is the project leader apparently,
and I do not know such things, but: I thought mr. Richard to be less
respectful in his wording and messaging than Carlos or any of the
others.
For example, attacking someone because the person uses the "it was
said" style of referring to other people's opinions (referring to an
unknown group that has a certain opinion, without providing evidence
or reference) and then saying " I'm very disappointed to see you use
the technique of citing others without examples in order to make your
opinion sound more widely supported." is not only a tad hostile but
also rather dishonest itself. Other people chimed in (in that thread)
and provided those "much wanted references" which kinda made it clear,
or even proved, that mr. Carlos was not "inventing things". So even
though his statements may be or may have been called "lazy" it was not
a dishonest technique in order to influence the apparent public
opinion in a dishonest or unfair way.
At the same time, mr. Richard's statement can certainly be called
such: he tried to influence the apparent public opinion by dishonestly
calling mr. Carlos's statement "ungrounded" when they were not.
So the one thing mr. Richard Brown accused mr. Carlos E.R. of, he was
doing himself.
Now, perhaps, if someone is using dishonest techniques himself, in a
subtle yet obvious way, as a means of stifling debate or cutting short
some people or some opinions, I can imagine these people would respond
eventually in a "aggressive" way.
First you disrespect people, and then if they object, you ban them for
their "aggression". In this way, disagreement is framed as
impoliteness and then framed in such a way as to be in violation of
some Code of Conduct. It has happened before.
It is also simply a way to cut short any form of resistance.
We have, if I am this time allowed to refer to it, perhaps all heard
of the Kubuntu debacle in which mr. Jonathan Riddell was one of those
"aggressors" who violated the "CoC" when he became angry with attempts
by the Ubuntu Council to thwart real dicussion and honest appraisal of
his complaints. Riddell may have been ghastly, was often a bit
arrogant and overly short and perhaps abrasive in his responses, which
made UCC members feel rather afraid of working with him, but at the
same time that doesn't mean those UCC members and Canonical itself
hadn't been doing the exact thing he said they had been doing. And
people sometimes become impatient and annoyed. And a company's or a
group's mode of operation may very well be structurally disrespectful
of other people's rights. Yet such disrespect is always framed as
being civilized, appropriate and "well intended".
Meanwhile these civilized, appropriate and well-intending individuals
often trample other people's rights and concerns. But they get away
with it, because they are in charge. They are the ones wielding the
ban stick.
You never see it the other way around: the 'oppressors' resorting to
'aggression' and violating the 'code of conduct' they themselves have
devised to keep people in check.
Perhaps I am, as they say, being hyperbolic again. Perhaps my mode of
operandus is overly assaultive again, at this point?.
But I just want to say that not all is as it appears. Every
hierarchical organisation uses a stick to beat people that fall out of
line. Often times, such falling out of line is framed in terms of a
flaw in character: they fall out of line because they have an
"authority issue" and if you want a funny yet horrid example of this
just read the first chapter of "Living with the passsive-aggressive
man" by Scott Wetzler to see how resistance is framed as a personal
failing.
Succumbing or submitting to authority is seen as the proper way to
live life. There are more such attributions that are well-known, such
as "commitment issues" or "fear of commitment" when a man (always a
man) doesn't want to stick to a fixed monogamous relationship. His
natural tendency to be free is seen as personal failing. But in this
case.
Mr. Carlos was probably being what we may call "disobedient" and he
was punished for it.
It was said that they hope that this punishment will "improve" his
behaviour. If anything, it will naturally make him more resentful and
even more angry.
I think this is dishonest. He was being a trouble and he was
disciplined for it. It has nothing to do with morals, or politeness,
or behaviour, and everything to do with politics.
So if this is the truth, at least just say so. Say "We disciplined him
because he was a troublesome element" or "He was disciplined for
falling out of line."
Insincerity is the final hallmark of a repressive regime.
And I'd be happy to take his place as a banned person, as my
contributions are practically worthless anyway, as I'm sure you'd all
agree.
Regards, and signing out , ..
"Xen".
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe-at-opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner-at-opensuse.org
----- End forwarded message -----
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
