[TAG] (forw) Re: Someone needs help in SF

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

[ Just to prove Rick's point, Bruce sent me this - after stripping TAG
from the CC list and adding "private" to the subject. I've corrected
both violations. ]


On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 01:53:12AM -0800, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> Ben,
> 
> This all started because I sent something to Rick on private e-mail 
> because I disagree with something he's said publicly.

Translation: you took a discussion on a public list, and decided to turn
it into a one-on-one session - exactly what you've just attempted to do
here. I deny that any "right to privacy" issue exists here; you have
simply violated list etiquette and were corrected by having the
violation erased (i.e., the CC list restored.) By Rick then, and by me
now. It was never a "private email" - it was a public discussion that
you attempted to hijack. Both Rick and I did you the favor of correcting
your violation.

You assumed, by truncating that CC list, that the person who posted this
material on a _public_ list was interested in your views in _private._
That assumption was unwarranted as well as offensively presumptious. You
have neither moral nor legal grounds for complaint, and yet you come out
huffing, puffing, and blowing nonsense about netiquette.

Come off it. It makes you look funny, and loses you what little regard
is normally due a stranger.

I'll even do you a big favor and show you the way out of the hole you've
dug:

1) Apologize. Sincerely, and perhaps including an enumeration of the
things you've done so that we know you _realize_ them and intend to
correct them.

2) Stick around and be pleasant for a while. It doesn't take long to
balance out one act of foolishness performed in ignorance, not with a
bunch as decent and as well-intentioned as The Gang.

See? Simple.

Or you can keep your high dudgeon, and we'll all wave goodbye as you
recede at the speed of light. Right at the moment, this is precisely
what you're doing - as well as illustrating Rick's dictum about
murder-suicides perfectly and with verve.

> I've known Rick for many years, you for a short period, (by reputation 
> for each of you) and while you've only "met" me today, I'd like it very 
> much if you'd keep in mind I did not make this a public fight the way he 
> did.

No, you simply disregarded Rick's choice - and this was the controlling
factor here - to make the discussion public instead of private. If he
was interested in your private opinion, he would have surely emailed you
- privately.

> To recap, he has:
> 
> Published a private message.
> 
> Threatened legal action to my response.

[sigh] I see that your reading comprehension is extremely low. You've
just dug that pit a few hundred feet deeper; that's one of the tools
that stood any chance of getting you out.

> Called me stupid and incompetent (not in so many words) and done all of 
> this quite publicly and repeatedly.

Strike two. He has _disagreed_ with you - in a very polite and balanced
manner that I often wish I had the patience (or the ability) to emulate.
Rick is far more tolerant than I am.

> Rick seems to have protected the "innocent" on that one, but he again 
> re-posted a private e-mail and used it's content to ridicule, not his 
> corespondant, but anyone so foolish as to run an SCO product... Even an 
> ancient one that may even be pre-linux.
> 
> 
> Not that it matters, but back in '89 or so, I was so foolish as to give 
> SCO some of my hard earned dollars so I could have an *IX system on my 
> '386... then found out I needed to give them yet more money to a driver 
> for my scsi card... and there was no TCP/IP or networking of any kind 
> unless I paid them yet more.

So... you made a mistake back then, and want it to not have been a
mistake. And will argue with anyone who tells you it was a mistake.
Strike three.

Bruce, I'm giving up on you. I may be wrong - you may yet drop that
obstinate and useless position you have assumed - but you've just tipped
the balance past my caring point. Have a nice day.

> In any case Ben I don't have anything personal against you or Rick...
> 
> But I think the [TAG] list has gotten WAY off the mark.

Thank for telling us how wrong we all are in the way that we choose to
run our own community. Your input will be filed appropriately.

> I think you and 
> I and Rick need to lay off of the sugar and caffine just a bit... And if 
> pissing contests are you're thing, have at... As you both have pointed 
> out, you have reputations.  I'm a working stiff.  Get my drift?

Why, no. I don't. If I did, I think that you _would_ see what truly
unpleasant behavior looks like.

I'm going to take this opportunity to, once again, talk to the broader
audience - this time, because I see absolutely no further percentage in
talking to you. Here it is:

The professional ethics that Rick has described here on this list
resemble mine to a great degree. Not only do I agree with him - I wish
that they were projected in neon over every major city in the world and
signed with my name (original credit to Rick, of course); I *want* the
people to whom these ethics are inimical to avoid me like the plague.
The people to whom they are the correct thing to do are the ones with
whom I wish to associate - in work and in leisure.

You, Bruce, have shown yourself to be outside that group - repeatedly
and with full intent. I wish you a good day, and the full joy of the
results of your ethics.


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *