response 25 of 97:

Nov 5 19:06 UTC 1996

I think this item is in some ways as important as anything going on in the
conference.

The issue  is not Kerouac's ideas.  I have no particular objection to Keroauc's
ideas.  They are not especially better or worse than other people's ideas. 
I've suggested things at least as dumb as anything Kerouac has ever suggested. 
If the issue were ideas, I wouldn't be raising the problem.

But this is not a conference like any other on Grex.  We are not here simply to
share our ideas.  We are here to discover a consensus of opinion.  There are
several processes going on here:

  - Brainstorming:  Suggesting a wide variety of ideas and possible pro and con
      arguments.  Good ideas, stupid ideas, and some outright silliness are all
      valuable.  Even bad ideas can give someone a good idea.  This is a
      wonderful way to discover creative solutions and analyze every aspect of
      an idea.

  - Consensus building:  The first stage of reaching a decision is to get a
      sense of how many people hold which opinions how strongly.  If a lot of
      people are worried over one aspect of an idea, it means we need to work
      more on that aspect.  If most every agrees on something, then the board
      will probably be very comfortable deciding it.

My problem with Kerouac is not with his ideas, but with what he does with his
ideas.  He latches onto an idea, and holds onto it for dear life, repeating it
and repeating it, without any sensitivity to how people are reacting.

What happens to a brainstorming session when one person latches onto a single
idea and loudly and repeatedly keeps advocating it?  The brainstorming session
ends, that's what happens.  The whole free flow of ideas gets latched around
that one issue.

What happens to a consensus building session when one person latches onto a
single idea and loudly and repeatedly keeps advocating it?  You get a consensus
on that one issue.  So we now have, after much discussion, a consensus that we
don't think staff/board separation is an important issue.  Fine, but so what?
It was obvious five responses after Kerouac raised the issue that we had a
consensus on the issue, but his refusal to recognize the consensus drew out the
discussion far past the point of any productive purpose.

The basic fact is that Keroauc's style of discourse significantly undermines
the effective operation of this conference.

We are engaged in a rather unlikely enterprise here...trying to do serious
decision-making in an open public forum.  *Nobody* does this.  No governmental
body or corporation lets any random person wander in off the street and
join into its meetings.  I think its wonderful that we can do so, but I think
we have to recognize that it is a fragile process and can easily be disrupted.

So how do you deal with a person who is disrupting a conference like this?
Ask people to ignore him?  Grin and bear it?  Send private Email messages?
I don't have a good answer.  I think we seriously need to think about how
we deal with this, not just in the particular case of Kerouac, but in general.
When Grex has problems, the problem has to be dealt with with open, public
discussion.  That's what this is about.

response 27 of 97:

Nov 5 21:24 UTC 1996

But jan, how do I know or how does anyone know when concensus is
reached?  A non-resp[onse can be read as an endorsement just as
easily as it can be read as a rejection.  If someone has no
objection to an idea, they may just stay quiet.  

And I do drop items when it is appropriate.  I havent been pushing
anyone about doing anything to save mnet in the last several weeks
have I?  I havent been pushing anyone to open voting to non-members
have I recently?  I havent been pushing, except for one parargaraph
in one item, my continuing dislike for the countdown que have I?
I havent been continuing to push for anonymous reads in backtalk
lately have I?

I reject outright the notion that I dont know when to end arguments.
I contribute and try to participate in the brainstorming. Your
arguments are unwarranted and unfair.  The only thing I am guilty
of is that read this conf more than most and am long winded.
But aMarcus wAtts often posts messages that are five screens long
and noone says a damn thing.

I say that Iam being discriminated against because I am not part of
your inner circle.  My big crime is that I havent met any of you
in person so my opinions cant be as valid.

People who are not part of the Borg can contribute but only up to and
to a certain level.  It doesnt take a genius to figure that out.

response 29 of 97:

Nov 5 23:11 UTC 1996

Uh, Richard, Did you happen to notice that you got right back onto Grex after
it had been down for an hour and a half?  Grex crashed.  When an active Unix
machine crashes, files occasionally get lost.  I'm guessing that's what
happened here.  As the root who was on at the time the file probably
disappeared, I really resent your accusation.

response 31 of 97:

Nov 6 00:10 UTC 1996

Re: 28-30

HAHAHAHAHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHEHEH BAHAHAHEHEHAH
hehehahah <LAUGH>  *ROTFLMAO*

This totally cracks me up.  Sorry, but it is extremely funny, and I 
couldn't help myself.

response 33 of 97:

Nov 6 23:51 UTC 1996

But is itmy behaviour or is it the reaction to my behaviour.
As remmers poins out, all Im ding is responding to the
responses that are posted here.  I would aregue that a number
ofyou here dont know how to deal with anything but a
totally controversy-free conferencing enviroment.   Soome of
your reaciotions have been as bad as mine frankly...reactions

response 35 of 97:

Nov 7 01:10 UTC 1996

nd Catriona, respones like the one you entered dont help
either.  All I am trying to do is contribute and you are the one who
singling someone out for attack.  If you dont like my style
of confing, email me or keep it toyourself.  

I'm putting up wiht a lot of abuse just to stay in this conf, and
its because I care about grex.  I make my statements and
defend them because I have a lot of conferencing experience and
have seen enough boards live and die to have a pretty good idea of
what it takes.  Its not all coding and tech stuff.  It is
aesthetics and making sure users know they can play a role.  The best
code in the world wont make a good board.  It is the people that do.
SCG and Remmers and many of you act holier than thou about how to act and how
build concensuses.    But nobody is an expert.  There a million
ways to reach conclusions.   The ancient greeks believed that\
one could not make meritorious conclusions until all the arguments had been
exhausted.  Until there was nothing left to defend.

If I feel like a point I made has merit, and that it is worth
defending, it benefits this conf to make the most of it.   I support
every concensus here but that doesnt mean that I cant say how I feel
or try to defend my positions.  

I am in several different  oconferences on this board.  COOP is the
only one that I have a problem in.  In fact the politics conf, which
I co-fw, has a bit of disharmonyu between two users going on right
now.  But Im not even a part of it.  I dont get personal.  My motives
are honest and so are my views.  If this conf doesnt have room for users
like me and if I end up looked down upon simply becuase of my stle, something
is 
wrong.  The responses I have seen in this item and others arent building a
consensus.  They 
arent helping anyone except those whohavea conscious need to folame me.
I'd like the question of who is misusing this conf to be reconsidered.

response 37 of 97:

Nov 7 05:41 UTC 1996

        Too many kerouac's fer me, jack ;-)

        <snort and snuffle> I love this place ;->

response 39 of 97:

Nov 7 16:11 UTC 1996

Kerouac, re: #35.  Yes, it is you.  For example, in the one member one vote
item, when there was a question about ID for childred, I entered a suggestion
that social security cards be used since every child in this country who is
over the age of 1 has one if he or she has been claimed as a dependent on an
income tax return.  
Your uninformed, rude response was "I have a three year old nephew and I KNOW
he doesn't have a social security number."  [emphasis yours]
Since I knew what I was talking about and you didn't, that was neither helpful
to the ongoing discussion, nor was it a polite way to ask for information on
a subject you (obviously) knew nothing about.  
   I later quoted the IRS regulation on the topic, which you ignored. Nowhere
in that item do you so, Oops, I was wrong or sorry I was ill-informed or Now
I KNOW differently. 
It is this type of behavior that causes disruption and friction.  My
irritation is at your so-called contribution to the discussion which was both
totally inaccurate, and arrogant.  

response 41 of 97:

Nov 7 18:59 UTC 1996

<nodding>  It *does* make sense.  Social Security numbers are required for
things like health insurance, taxes (since he's a dependent);  It is basically
your identity according to the government.  Whoops -- I'm drifitng...

response 43 of 97:

Nov 7 21:09 UTC 1996

Catriona, how do  you know I havent checked my facts...you
are the one who is being arrogant.  I have checkec them.
The change is fairly recent.  I didnt apply for
a social security number myself until I was 16.

response 45 of 97:

Nov 7 23:19 UTC 1996

I think I'll just content myself with a few more proverbs that
somehow come to mind:

        Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly.

        Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he
        holds his tongue.

        Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.

        As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

        Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?  There is more hope for a
        fool than for him.

        Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a
        pestle, you will not remove his folly from him.

        A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself
        under control.

        Do you see a man who speaks in haste?  There is more hope for a fool
        than for him.

response 47 of 97:

Nov 8 02:36 UTC 1996

In more foolish days, Dave, I'd've taken #45 as a flame without $46 as a
disclaimer, but on some levles I've grown up and calmed down.
Now, if I could fix those other levels...

response 49 of 97:

Nov 8 04:01 UTC 1996

Ah, that makes sense now.  I was going to interject that I think I was six
or seven by the time I got a Social Security Number, but that was twelve or
thirteen years ago, and my parents weren't divorced.

set drift=off