Re: SUO: SUMO / IFF
Bob Spillers wrote:
> Gee Chris, I am so glad that you oppose mud-slinging.
As a tactic employed in lieu of sound argument, yes.
> Of course "sarcastic, innuendo-laden personal attacks" that are
> "distasteful and inappropriate" suggesting a "hidden agenda" and relying
> on "ad hominem mud-slinging" are considered and temperate judgments
> that "stick to the issues".
Yes indeed. The issue in my post was your behavior on this list, which,
unfortunately, has become relevant, and all of my comments were explicitly
directed at that issue. As to your messages to Adam regularly being
sarcastic, innuendo-laden, and ad hominem, that is just a simple
observation. I don't think I need to collect quotes. As to their being
distasteful and inappropriate, that was clearly stated to be a personal
judgment -- though one shared by at least one other regular participant on
the list who has spoken up, and I'd bet a slew of others who have not. And
the point about a hidden agenda was not itself meant to be innuendo -- I
have no evidence that you have one, and I apologize if I gave that
impression -- but only a comment on the negative rhetorical effect that
your bullying tactics have on your arguments. You are *so* strident that
the mind is left groping for explanations instead of paying attention to
anything that looks like reasoning.
> Pardon me while I wipe off enough mud ...
That's from your own hand, Bob -- you can't sling mud without soiling
yourself. You just happen finally to have noticed.
> to be able to point out what I think it was intended to obscure:
>
> (1) Teknowledge's desire to gain and maintain a privileged status
> vis-a-vis other contributors.
As to their desiring to gain a "privileged" status for SUMO, why not? They
have taken the initiative with that document and they believe in it, have
invested resources in it, and want people to work on it. As to its being
"privileged", all it means for a document to be privileged in this context
is that a subset of the people in the group have agreed -- via a certain
possibly flawed procedure -- to work on it, or have at least agreed to
support work on it. Why shouldn't Teknowledge want that?
As to your charge (tacked on subtly to the innocuous observation above)
that they wish to *maintain* that "privileged" status uniquely for the
SUMO -- a much more serious and ethically significant charge -- your
"arguments" amount to nothing more than a stump speech tactic: say
something enough times and people will start believing it. In my
recollection, Adam has repeatedly expressed his willingness to have any
document become similarly "privileged" through accepted procedures, and I
challenge you here and now to make your charge to the contrary stick.
> (2) Their view that opposition is obstruction and those opposed should
> leave
> Do you find it "ad hominem mud-slinging" if one frequently and
> forcefully suggests that I only wish to obstruct the process of creating
> a greater and more glorious SUMO
Obstruct? I don't recall him using that language. But you certainly
oppose SUMO -- and there's nothing wrong with that (though the "greater
and more glorious" rhetoric obscures the point needlessly).
> and that I (and those weak minded
> enough to also oppose it) should leave the SUO?
He has never made any such claim. My recollection of the one remark of
Adam's that might be construed in this fashion -- one I recall directed
solely at you and no one else -- was in regard to your opposition to the
*process* by which the SUMO had become a starter document. *Many* SUO
participants have forcefully opposed the SUMO -- with arguments -- yet all
I can recall is Adam attempting (for good or ill) to respond to them,
generally with a good deal of courtesy and patience. I don't recall him
ever hinting that they should leave the SUO. Why is that, when it is so
clear to you that Adam believes that *everyone* opposed to the SUMO should
leave?
Regards,
-chris