Let's not [LWN.net]

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 8, 2005 19:22 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

Alex Fernández / man_ls wrote:

Can you tell us where are the pages containing comparable attacks against the people mentioned above?

Again, for your assistance: "This would come close to being a relevant objection if I had said that Web pages existed (and could be cited) that personally attacked that set of persons. But of course I said no such thing."

Additional emphasis has not been added, this time, because it's already about as clear as my powers of composition can accomplish. Instead, I'll spell it out a second -- no, wait, third -- time, in different words for you:

What I said was that "I've found myself on LUG mailing lists and Linux newsgroups having to debunk, over the years, dumbass non-sequitur personal [and usually anonymous, by the way] slurs against Bruce, Linus, Eric, [Miguel] de Icaza, Richard Stallman, Paul Vixie, Larry Wall, Sam Ockman, Russ Nelson, and probably others whose names aren't occurring to me at the moment", and that in recent years I've seen an escalation in that technique, as the trolls in question create anonymous pages and then reference them as sources.

Now, did I say that I've found anonymous-personal-backbiting Web pages created and being used in that fashion for everyone in that list? Did you pretend I did in order to create a completely irrelevant and time-wasting objection? Sure. Did you ignore my telling you that the first time? Of course!

Alex, I've done you the favour of taking you seriously (particularly when I realised you weren't just another anonymous flamer), even though you've been stubbornly ignoring the point and raising irrelevancies. Time for you to stop that.

grown-ups can defend themselves, and Nelson already resigned

Clue: I've not been defending Russ or anyone else; I've been attacking the anonymous gossip-mongers who have taken their bullshit way too far, and been tolerated by our community far too long. That should have been abundantly clear from the plain wording of every single one of my posts. Where were you?

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 9, 2005 6:28 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

"This would come close to being a relevant objection if I had said that Web
pages existed (and could be cited) that personally attacked that set of
persons. But of course I said no such thing."

This is the statement lead me (and I believe Alex as well but he will have
to speak for himself) to believe you were making such a claim:

[About the evolution in tactics]
"Anonymous parties would start putting up (uncredited) Web pages to house
this stuff [...]"

Maybe you only meant those two pages despite all the plurals and the
progressive tense or reference to this as the start of new tactics years
ago. Or maybe you knew of others but they no longer exist. Fair enough.
Maybe the problem isn't with those reading the statement, but the way it
was worded?
(I don't question that there have been a lot of these attacks, but I also
see where Alex is coming from. Personally, I do question the idea that
these attacks are an orchestrated attack or conspiracy. More likely it is
one or two people posting the same garbage from different places -- very
low tech and even more lame.)

You state that your only problem is that people disparage these
"celebrities" anonymously. I fail to see why it matters: if what they say
is true then it is true no matter who says it, if it is false then the
poster is a liar no matter who they are (and it should be easy to refute
them). Just respond with a cut-and-pasted pre-written response. That's
all that should be neccessary no matter what the name of the poster.
You talk about people posting anonymously to avoid destroying their
credibility... but that assumes random anonymous posters have more
credibility than people posting with real names.

Instead, rather than responding to the contents of those posts, you jump
all over anyone who says anything bad, or even references disussions taking
place elsewhere, about one of your "celebrities". You don't say anything
useful except to poke at them for not revealing their name.

That's not a healthy discussion any more than what you are crusading against.

In your repsonse to my earlier post you said that it isn't "about you".
Yet you are trying to make it "about them". If the discussion isn't
allowed to drift then we shouldn't be talking about anything but
Michael Tiemann and OSI.

Now the amazing thing is that I actually agree with your basic position
(I think). Slinging mud is wrong and doing it anonymously to make it
difficult for people to follow up with you is even worse.

I'm not trying to speak for Alex (and he doesn't need defending) but I feel
that a few of your statements need to be highlighted in the off-chance
that you don't realize how condescending they were:

"Again, for your assistance [...]"

The real problem isn't reading comprehension or lack of mental ability,
but a disagreement over what you were claiming earlier.

"Instead, I'll spell it out a second -- no, wait, third -- time, in
different words for you"

Again, I'm pretty sure we can all read. We're aware that you feel certain
individuals have been wronged and that you further feel there is some group
of anonymous conspirators who are behind it. People aren't arguing that
you don't believe that. And I'm not going to disagree with it, just with
the actions you are taking due to those beliefs because they are annoying.
I think some others do disagree with the premise. Shouting louder that you
believe that what you believe is true is not likely to convince them.

"Now, did I say that I've found anonymous-personal-backbiting Web pages
created and being used in that fashion for everyone in that list?"

You implied it was a common occurance. You haven't provided examples of
web pages or other slanderous material for the vast majority of the wronged
parties despite your sweeping claims. Why list their names if you don't
have examples of them being wronged? The list of names doesn't help
support your claims when you can't say why the names are in there. Some
have suggested that a select few people in that list attract this kind of
negative treatment, and that while it there is no excuse for people to
treat them this way, that it should be understood by our public figures so
they can be more effective. You have mostly ignored that argument and
continued with your troll crusades.

"Did you pretend [...]"

assumption: he acted in bad faith or intentional ignorance
I think it makes a statement even though it is stated as a question.
How is that assumption any better than the one he made about the Web pages?

"done you the favour of taking you seriously"

Uh, yeah, thanks for gracing him with your favors.

"[...] even though you've been stubbornly ignoring the point and raising
irrelevancies."

The discussion doesn't have to be limited to why anonymous flamers are
evil or should not be tolerated or whatever. There are legitimate and
intersting topics related to this outside of that narrow subject. What
you want to discuss isn't any more important that what we want to
discuss.

"Time for you to stop that."

You forgot to swat him with the newspaper and make him sit in the corner.
I'm sure we are all better off no being told what to do.

[On not defending Russ]
"That should have been abundantly clear from the plain wording of every
single one of my posts"

It really wasn't. I mean, yes, you always started out by scolding
people for posting anonymously but you didn't start doing this until we
were discussing Russ, and it has continued in each new story on the
subject of Russ leaving or being replaced. So if it isn't about Russ can
we expect you to continue after the last coverage of this event?

I can't believe this ended up so long. Apologies to anyone who read
through it.

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 9, 2005 6:54 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

"Ross" wrote:

This is the statement lead me (and I believe Alex as well but he will have to speak for himself) to believe you were making such a claim.

When exactly would that have been in relation to the several times I pointed out that I in fact had not?

"Ross", don't try to play rhetorical footsie with me.

Maybe you only meant those two pages [...] Dood: Those are two examples I found off the top of my head. I've seen others.

Personally, I do question the idea that these attacks are an orchestrated attack or conspiracy.

This would be a relevant objection if I had so claimed. "Ross", to repeat, kindly don't try to play rhetorical footsie with me.

You state that your only problem is that people disparage these "celebrities" anonymously. I fail to see why it matters.

OK, someone named "Ross" seems to be now putting himself on the record as stating that he has no problem with conducting personal slur campaigns against community notables, carrying them out behind cover of anonymity in order to avoid accountability. (Maybe he also has no problem with putting that sludge on anonymous Web pages and then citing that as a "source".) But wait:

Slinging mud is wrong and doing it anonymously to make it difficult for people to follow up with you is even worse.

d00d. Make up your mind.

Again, I'm pretty sure we can all read. Selectively, in recent cases.

You haven't provided examples of web pages or other slanderous material for the vast majority of the wronged parties despite your sweeping claims.

d00d! I will have to amend the above: Selectively, and very, very, very, badly. I made no claim that gossip-campaign Web pages have been created by anonymous cretins to attack every single cited notable in the open-source community against whom I've observed and demolished dumbass ad-hominem attacks.

But frankly, you already knew that. And by the way, "Ross", don't try to play rhetorical footsie with me.

[much snipped]

It really wasn't.

Read until you get it, then. It was in plain English, for crying out loud. Sheesh.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 9, 2005 18:03 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

It is obvious we are talking in circles on the other issues, that you will
continue to say that I am not understanding what you are saying, and that
there will be little progress toward agreement or better mutual
understanding. I am limiting my reply to discussing only this new claim:

I said:
'You state that your only problem is that people disparage these
"celebrities" anonymously. I fail to see why it matters.'

You said:
'OK, someone named "Ross" seems to be now putting himself on the record as
stating that he has no problem with conducting personal slur campaigns
against community notables, carrying them out behind cover of anonymity in
order to avoid accountability.'

Now who has reading comprehension problems? I didn't say it was good to
slur people or that it was something I approve of or anything of that
nature. I said it doesn't matter. As in, does it matter what is said by
anonymous trolls? Do you really expect to be able to ferret out their
identities by mocking them in web forums? But I suppose your goal is to
simply point out that they were anonymous trolls, which they weren't in
every case. That goal could have been achieved through better means as
discussed in my previous message.

You said:
'(Maybe he also has no problem with putting that sludge on anonymous Web
pages and then citing that as a "source".)'

Now you are just repeating yourself. How is that any different than the
other thing you accuse me of not having a problem with? See above.

I said:
'Slinging mud is wrong and doing it anonymously to make it difficult for
people to follow up with you is even worse.'

You said:
'd00d. Make up your mind.'

I fail to see the contradiction which bothers you so much. There are many
things in this world which are wrong which do not deserve much of our time
because they are not important compared to either the amount of effort to
address them or the damage which would be done in addressing them.

In this specific case, stamping out trolls is like tilting at windmills.
I don't expect that you will ever make any progress. Of course you are
free to spend your time any way you like, but in addition to being a waste,
it has negative side effects which affect everyone else. I expect that
a number of non-trolls will be given the same treatment and the flame wars
will obscure other discussions. The ends don't (always) justify the means.

Now I will take my own advice. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 9, 2005 18:22 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

"Ross" (Ross Combs) said:

I said it doesn't matter.

So, you agree with my point but think it doesn't matter (presumably because, per you, nobody does or should pay any heed to anonymous gossip-mongering, or those who cite it). Boy, you sure could have saved a whole lot of innocent electrons, getting more directly to your point.

But the fact is that this sort of idiocy has been allowed to become well established, as if it were real discourse, even here on LWN and on OSI license-discuss (of all places). And I'm fed up with it. It doesn't suffice to hit delete and move on. The decent thing is to distance ourselves from it. There are times when speaking out is simply the right thing.

You think that's a waste of time and prefer to sort lint or something. Well, bully for you, but I have higher standards.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 16, 2005 17:40 UTC (Wed) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]

Rick - Ross wrote a very sensible and cogent post explaining why there was confusion over what you wrote and why you have been posting in a tiresomely agressive and condescending fashion. You then reply with as much condescension as you can muster and much repetition about 'rhetorical footsie'.

I'm afraid you are not making a good impression here. I agree with your central point about anonymous backbiting but the way you press it does you no credit.

Wookey

Oh, c'mon

Posted Mar 16, 2005 17:49 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

"Wookey" wrote:

Ross wrote a very sensible and cogent post explaining why there was confusion over what you wrote and why you have been posting in a tiresomely agressive and condescending fashion. You then reply with as much condescension as you can muster and much repetition about 'rhetorical footsie'.

Ross wrote a set of excuses for numerous (mostly namely) parties' continuing resistance to my very simple and obvious underlying point, attempts to attribute to me conveniently stupid assertions I had not in fact made, and a long parade of attempts to distract attention from it that followed -- including such highlights as erroneous accusing me of posting a "straw man", which a twenty-second Google search would have revealed as in error.

Did these time-wasting gambits tick me off a bit? Sure. It would have with you, too.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Thanks

Posted Mar 9, 2005 9:41 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Thanks, Ross Combs. [Yes, "Ross" kindly identified himself in the great-great-grandparent comment, probably (and unsuccessfully) not to be accused of anonymous $THIS_OR_THAT.] Thanks for taking the trouble, and for explaining it much better than I might ever have.