From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Gordon looses it big time (was Usenet Culture, Part 2)
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:57:12 GMT

In that I am not as interested in having a protracted
argument with Mr. Isley in public I would like to make a few
points in response to his lengthy tirade. He makes an
interesting example. 

In article <1992Nov23.030141.10812@bagend.uucp>
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: 
>
> [...] sometimes you have to face up to psychodrama
> bullshit and call it what it is.  

Interesting.

> If you are not interested in the continuing story of
> Gordon Van Huizen's tenuous grip on reality as it slips
> further from sight  

I believe my 'grip on reality' is quite good. Not that I
always like what I see...  

> [Gordon's line length edited for the readers convenience]

I apologize for this. I use a GUI newsreader program that
deals with arbitrarily long lines. When a post is too wide
and would wrap you merely resize the window. Posts
created in it look great on this reader and to others in the
newsgroups where this form of reader is common. I will
attempt to construct posts that are readable by other
newsreaders, although with this particular newsreader
that is tedious. Note that I am not saying nasty things
about other newsreaders, citing "lowest common
denominator" and refusing to change. Look for parallels
where they fit.  

> In a previous post, I wrote:
> 
>  | ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis)
>  | writes:
>  | >
>  | >Since you, Gordon, ... as someone who knows both how the
>  | net works  
>  |...
>  |
>  | Best laugh I've had in weeks.
> 

For the record my e-mail response was a single line on the
order of "Is this kind of cheap shot really necessary?".
Note that I originally responded in e-mail, not publicly
attempting to avoid public confrontation. I later used
excerpts from the ensuing conversations (without using
names) as I feel they make a nice example. 

> That my statements were insults and barbs is debatable,
> and not relavent. 

Given the tone of some of Mr. Isley's recent posts it's
pretty easy to extrapolate the tone he used in his mail
message. The issue that I'm raising is one of attitude and
method of interaction. In that context the ratio of barbs
and insults to actual content is relevant, IMO. 

> I apologized to him 3 times.

Since this is a key point, I'll stress that this was not at
all clear. Mr. Isley's apologies apparently take a
similar form to his comments, suggestions and critique.
For the record, Mr. Isley sent a mail message that
indicated that he had considered sending an apology but
decided against it when I replied to his aformentioned
letter. 

> That he chooses to post a whining diatribe about it, well
> that is his personal problem too.

It was meant to exemplify an attitude and behavior that I
see as being common on the net. Mr. Isley's subsequent
public reply may help underscore my point. 

> [...] before Gordon continues to demand that something
> be changed, he needs to learn a lot more about that which he
> makes demands of *first* and yes he should SHUT UP until he
> does so.   

I don't know that I am "demanding" anything. I do feel
strongly about my position. I have also offered on many
occasions to help change things and I *am* doing so.  

> Gordon, you did not call up to discuss issues with me, you
> called to harass me, whine a lot and call me a few names. 
> Amazed my ass. 

For the record I did not call Mr. Isley to harass him. I was
hoping that verbally it would be easier for us to allow for
each others' points of view and tone down the hostility in
this debate. I was mistaken. I'll leave it to the reader to
imagine who called who names. The conversation "amazed
my ass" too. 

As for the paraphrasing of my points in that
conversation, I would like to point out that those are
paraphrased excerpts and request the reader to allow for
Mr. Isley's filtering mechanism when reading them. 

Mr. Isley continues to reference earlier in this debate
when I suggested that Chip Salzinger stop arguing and do
something to help the situation. Note that Mr. Isley
considers this an insult to Mr. Salzinger. For the
record, I acknowledge Chip for his contribution to the
net, and am sorry if a lack of recognition of that at the
time that I made my comment is offensive to Mr. Salzinger
or anyone else. 

Mr. Isley also likes to confuse the fact that I didn't
recall that Mr. Salzinger was a document author with not
having read or remembered the document. This is an
interesting point. I submit that not everyone recalls
who authored a particular article or document they read
many months ago. Admission of not recalling an author is
not an admission of not reading or attempting to
understand and remember its contents. The really
interesting thing is that Mr. Isley feels that it *is*
very important and that I should be reproved for not
remembering. Please recall what I said earlier about
Usenet being a club (in the social sense although other
inferences may apply as well) for some people.   

Mr. Isley, if you taped that conversation please extend
the courtesy to inform future callers that you tape. If
you didn't, please refrain from placing things you claim
I said in quotes.  

> Gordon, if it is too overwhelming, that should tell you
> something. 

It does, it has, and that is something I am trying to point
out. What it tells me and you are very different things
apparantly. 

> Again, the viewpoint you attribute to me and our
> conversation is *not* the reality of my viewpoint or my
> conversation. 

And I could say the same of my conversation.

> Good, problem solved, pull the plug.  So long.  Thanks for
> all the fish. 

It's clear that driving people from the net is an
acceptable solution to Mr. Isley. 

> To imply feelings from things that I did *not* say takes a
> big leap.

To use one of your own lines: Pot, Kettle, Black.

I am not interested in continued bickering. To address
the main factual issue raised by Mr. Isley's posts and
email, I have been on the net for 4 months. I have read all
the cited new user documentation, I have read the
guidlines for creating a new newsgroup, I have purchased
and read several books on Usenet and read primers and
other related articles as they have occured in
periodicals over the last year. I have also been a
partcipating member of a number of newsgroups for
several months, often attempting to provide
information in direct response to queries in my areas of
expertise. I take exception to the assertion that I have
not attempted to learn how this environment works.  

I have attempted to make suggestions that would improve
the system and its documentation and have repeatedly
demonstrated an interest in helping make the actual
changes. I am not sitting back demanding that people do
things on my behalf.  

If you think there is no value in my suggestions, fine. If
you think there are specific problems in any specific
suggestions, fine. I am however unwilling to submit to
blanket dismissals by people that don't even follow
their own personal guidelines. For a nice example, look
to Mr. Isley's post. I do think it is reasonable to treat
such actions as "trying to bully [someone] into
submission". 



 
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------