I could have responded to any number of posts but I am responding directly to this one becouse it is the easiest to include everything I wish to say.
I would like to note here that I strongly disagree with JvB's ideas and opinions on almost every political topic and many other topics as well, and I am put-off by his anti-americanism. --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of Jan Coffey > > ... > > > I believe Jeroen to be sincere, and I would like to add my own caution. > > Sincerity is not the only issue in a situation like this. I don't think a > community is obligated to tolerate someone's anti-social behavior because > they are making a sincere effort not to be anti-social. A failed sincere > effort is still a failure and is still anti-social. I do believe that > sometimes a separation is needed and appropriate. I just don't know what to say to this. I'm really not very good with words and I tend to speak in extreams and expect everyone to see the 'gray scale' I am talking about. Far too often they just don't get it. Even when I explain before hand they still read it as threatenting or only listen to the extream or the personification (which I don't believe in). This among other things has coused me some dificulty at times. When I was younger I thought it was becouse such people were simply stupid, but as I have grown older I realize that it is due to a compleatly differnt way of thinking. Alter which type is the majority in a particular group and you have a compleatly differnt set of "anti-socials". That said...and hopefully understood, ... If you ask a racist why they hate a particular "race" (bad word, but I can't think of the better one just now), they will generaly give you a list of reasons that have some anticdotal truth to them. There are stereotypes and the like which are gernalized to the whole group. If we remove this generalization and the racists said that they simply hate people who have that particular quality most would agree that it is still unaceptable. I am reminded of high school football players who daily atach smaller and weeker nerds, and a principle who shrugs and says, "boys will be boys". Contrast this with the skate punks who bring the nerd along, when they go to the gym, taking him with them to concerts and clubs, teach him balance, teach him to skate, they might laugh at his expense from time to time, but they do it in friendhsip. The nerd learns how to fit in, learns the differnce between perspectives, learns a type of social interaction that allows him to understad the majority, and avoid what to him appears to be their crazyness. The majority are almost incapable of seperating ideas from the personality that hosts the idea. I do not share this disfunction and can speak about the way something nick has said without thinking ill of nick becouse fo the implications of this. Please try and keep this in mind. It's all about perspectives. Can you honestly say that the words above do not sound intolerant? Can you not see that perspective? "I don't think a community is obligated to tolerate someone's anti-social behavior because they are making a sincere effort not to be anti-social. I do believe that sometimes a separation is needed and appropriate" Sounds an aufull lot like a twin-cen seperatist to me. It seems very intolerant. Literaly, this idea _scares_ me. It makes me cautious and warry of danger. > The main issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the person's behavior. Perhaps > a sincere effort can be recognized by substantial change in behavior, in > which case a sincere effort might be "enough" to make a difference... but > it is the behavior that counts. You still don't get that form jeroen (and other's) perspecitve what was done to him did appear to be abusive. Can you not step outside your norms, outside your own feelings and history? Can you not stretch to view anothers perspecitve? Maybe that skill is something you learn when you are differnt than the majority. Maybe the necessity that I, and others, had to leanred to translate perspectives just to get along with people has made this easier for us, but I can't believe that you are incapable. I am not saying what JvB did was right. No, I agree that many of his actions were very wrong. He acted childishly and took things further than most would. JvB is a poude person with a strong affinity for justice. He does not back down easily or let himself be walked on. >From his perspecitve he was first singled out and attacked, then when he responded in the same manner as his attackers he was scolded for it. He tried to make others see how he was being wronged and finaly blue up. He was shuned and baned from a comunity that ment a lot to him. All, in his perspective, for doing nothing more than what other had done. You don't get that this is real his perspective is justified, it may not agree with your view of reality, but that does not make it any less real. Where did this all go wrong? Jeroen of course was not attacked in the majority perspective. I personaly still do not understand this perspecive, I can recognize it, and I can avoide dificulty becouse of it, but seriously, from the evidence against JvB people have been sending me.... I unserstand that it wasn't, but I don't know why it wasn't. Jeroen then responded in the same way he saw himself being attacked. Maybe someone else would simply have let it go and wondered off. But JvB. like I said, is proud and has a strong affinity for justice. He couldn't let it go and live with himself. Any number of people would have done the same. But the manner in which he did it was socialy unacceptable. But no one was around to see his side of it, so you all just battled away. A fight has two sides you know, when things get to the point they are now, no one wins, no one gets to have it all their way. > > My concerns about Jeroen have to do with behavior that appears to me to be > manipulative, attention-seeking, blaming, blackmailing and personalizing. > I don't see any change in those in the message Jan forwarded to the list. Your views here, your inability to see the oppositions perspective is prolonging the conflict. Personalizing: Hell, JvB is a social singularity, that is rather personal how would you honestly feel in his place? How would you respond? Blackmailing: Not at all, you seem to want to strip him of every little last bit of dignity. You can't see that he refuses to meet you on any other level than an equal one. The further you push it, the further he is going to go to stand eye to eye with you. an asside, this would have been a wonderful insite to have long before this escilated to the point it is. Simply meeting someone as an equal can go a long way to finding a sensible resolution, even when you think they don't deserve it. No one would say that JvB is not ego driven, and I personaly do not care much for that myself, but compleatly ignoring others ego's can be just as inifective as being ego driven. It's not about the way things should be, it's about the way things are. > > > Someone told me off-list "No one is out to get you! Just leave > > them alone, > > and they'll leave you alone". While I have my doubts about the first part > > (nobody being out to get me) being true, I'm willing to give the > > second part > > a try: I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone. > > This is not reasonable. We have left him alone. If he's hoping no one > will > ever mention him again in a negative context, that's wishful thinking, at > best. I believe that it is a more than resonable request. You want to banish him and yet not give him an honerable banishment? Maybe you are mistaking punishment with banishment. Punishment is what happens when someoen commits a crime for which there is a set rule and a set outcome. Banishment is when the comunity decides colectivly that it can no-longer live with an individual. The individual is never to be publicly spoken of again. Not by name or by any reference, directly or aluded to. Even if that individual is allowed to return they are never again refered to with the same name. No reference is ever made publicly to the time before. Unless of course the banished wishes to speak of it to teach others. That is their, and only their perogative. Personaly I find banishmet dispicable, but if you are going to do it, you have to do it right. It simply doesn't work if you do it any other way. You have to never speak of or reference him again in negative context or otherwise. Anything less and you are keeping the conflict alive. If -you- keep it alive, then you can not expect it to not have 2 sides. > Living in community means being stuck with one's past. But you banished him. He isn't in the community any longer. You have taken away his ability to live with and deal with this past with the community. So how can you say he is stuck with it? >This seems > like attention-seeking to me. This isn't about how things seem. Is it not clear to you that your perspective is narrow? It's not about making judgments from one perspective. Please don't be childish, is not attention-seeking. Really, from my personal and most natural perspective you appear to be trying everything you can to escilate this. I think however, that I will give you the benifit of the doubt. I do not no what has led you to the opinon you have, but I do know that it is wrong. > > This means > > that you will > > cease complaining to any and all companies I do business with > > (ISP's, hosting > > companies, etcetera) > > I complained to freeler.nl because he was sending me dozens of unwanted > e-mails. I'm not going to promise not to protect myself from that sort of > abuse. I see this as childish manipulation. Let me show you my natural perspecitve so that perhaps you get some insite into why this is escilating: -You insinuate that he has no intention of stoping. Calling him a lier in essence. You talk of protecting youself from his abuse, and then in the very next centence you abuse him. The underlying sense is that you can protect yourself, but he shoudl not be allowed to. What's more, you acuse him of childish manipulation. From my perspecitve this is itself childish manipulation.- Why do you twist it in the way your are? Why would a resonable person do that? I ask myself. This is not about the past. Of course if this ends it ends and you will no-longer get the mail you speak of. Of course JvB is not asking you to not notify his ISP if the battle wages on. He is clearly asking for the battle to end. We all know why you complained to freeler.nl. Do you not understand why he was sending those e-mails? Don't you think that it would be more effective if you tried to see things from the other side? Did you ever ask youself why he was sending those e-mails? Why would a resonable peson do that? Why not take that tack first and then come to the conclusion that the person is unreasonable? None of it is right in my opinon. it escilates and escilates. >From my perspective one side is trying to put an end to it. The other is still scratching and clawing. it looks like you want this peson to go down and stay down, do you really expect that to happen? Can you explain your perspective to me? > > > and that you will refrain from any more > > Jeroen-bashing > > in any form (on-list, on websites, weblogs, etcetera). In return I will > > disappear from old-Brin-L entirely and leave you alone. Then, in > > a few weeks, > > once I'm confident that you're keeping your end of the bargain, I'll also > > remove my er... opinion piece... about certain Brinellers from my > website. > > Manipulative blackmail. We have a right to be left alone without having to > make any promises, etc. You will probably think that I am making a threat here, but their is an old saying from a people known as the grandfather tribe, and the bringers of peace, which pertains very well. This saying is not a call to arms, but rather a warning about what is required to negotiate peace. I have modified it to make it sound less like a threat. The original was more like "preparing for death" than "preparing for war" . The idea that many in war die and that war is a bad thing is an assumption to the saying. I question puting this here becouse so manny clearly have dificulty seperating true threats from that which can be twisted to seem as such. But still it pertains so much that I just have to say it. He who comes to the table to talk peace, and yet can not meet his oponent as an equal, should spend his time instead preparing for war. > > I recommend that you accept this offer -- otherwise things can > > and probably > > will only escalate even further (no, that's not a threat, that's insight > > into how conflicts can escalate) and nobody stands to gain anything from > > that. > > That is a threat, unquestionably, in my eyes. Then use your ears becouse your eyes are are not seeing so well. If it were a threat then why would he not simply have made it a threat. He is clearly talking about the reprocusions on both sides, and attempting to be convincing that it is in fact in all best interests. The only way that I can think of that you would see this as equestionaly being a threat is if you believe this can escilate and you or the list suffer no negative reprocussions. I do not wish to believe this however, becouse that would suggest that your seeming willingness for it to escilate is also a willingness to see him suffer the reprocussions of that escilation. If you know him and you know how he will respond, if you do expect the wosre from him as you are saying, and you believe that the escilation of this will result in no negative consequences for you, but you do believe that it will result in very negative consequences for him, if you are the reasonable party, and he is unreasonable, then you are driving, you are directing the conflict to the inevitable end where Jeroen suffers. > > > Don't demand apologies; this is the best offer you'll get. > > Accept it, > > then we can go our separate ways and get on with our lives. > > What is being "offered" is not Jeroen's to offer, since he is offering to > "allow" us to be free of his anti-social behavior -- abusive mails, etc. > He > cannot give us something that we already have. This strikes me as > grandiose > self-importance. At this point I loose patience. I have spent hours on this and I am tiered. I have other things to do. My mind will no-longer follow your path. It is too painful for me to contort in that manner any longer. I must rest. > > The other alternative of course is to bury this and let me return, but I > > doubt Nick will ever agree to that. > > This is personalization. I believe it is clear that the unhappiness in the > community goes is deep and wide. > > > And no, this is not the proposal of someone who's desperately trying to > > save his Internet access and on-line presence; this is the proposal of > > someone who tries to end this before it escalates to a point where people > > start suffering some very serious real-life consequences (no, > > that's not a > > threat either, that's insight). > > Again a threat. > > I have had very little to say about this situation, but decided that I > would > offer these thoughts in hopes that they might help us to decide what kind > of > language would indicate a real change in behavior and attitudes. > > For those who might be wondering how I've handled the unwanted e-mails, I > did not respond to any of them. In fact, I did nothing at all until the > volume became more than I cared to have to delete, then I complained to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And that's how I intend to deal with such behavior in > the > future -- totally ignore it unless it crosses a threshold of annoyance, > distraction, abuse or whatever, and then take it to the appropriate > authorities. > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ ===== _________________________________________________ Jan William Coffey _________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
