bad behaviour and manipulation

[John Reimer]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:54:11 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For
Email) wrote:

> Ehm. It's much simpler than that. The problem with calumny, as opposed 
> to a technical argument, is that there is little meaningful defense one 
> can put forth, particularly in a newsgroup setting. That's why in any 
> newsgroup debate sticking to the technical argument is important, while 
> attacking the person is just an unprofessional cheap shot. The suggested 
> exercise of putting oneself on the receiving position of a personal 
> attack was meant to reveal exactly this issue (not posing as a victim 
> etc.).
> 
> However contradictory a technical argument might get, it just works to 
> follow this simple policy - stick to the technical points being made by 
> others, and put forth technical points as well. Progress can be made and 
> everybody can leave the discussion enriched. This has made my and 
> others' participation to moderated newsgroup enjoyable and productive - 
> indeed, I can't imagine myself programming in C++ or in general without 
> the newsgroups comp.lang.c++.moderated or comp.std.c++. It looks, 
> however, that on an unmoderated newsgroup technical ability is second to 
> the willingness of using potshots and personal attacks in winning an 
> argument.
> 
> You've said heavy words that were uncalled for, and I hope with time 
> you'll acquire the decency to wish you hadn't. I won't be part of this 
> bashing contest though; it's just silly and doesn't bring any good to 
> anybody, so I'll sign off.
> 
> 
> Andrei


Why do I persist?  It disturbs me to see this kind of display
of innocence and condescension. I don't know if people are seeing what
is going on here. But it looks like most would rather see it as one big
misunderstanding. Sure, misunderstandings happen; but that's the easy way
out.  We /could/ say that it's all just a misunderstanding, and everything
would be all right, right? Wrong!  It does no good if it's not the truth.
We are not so fortunate to be having that happen here. I'll do Andrei and
others the courtesy (?) of trying to explain why I think all this is
happening.

Andrei, your days in a moderated C++ group must have done much for you; I
don't believe moderated groups are the essence of empiricism and
objectivity... members of such groups still have human natures
intact and still find ways to "get at" the other person; it just
becomes more subversive and tangentical. Call all my words "calumny",
"cheap-shots", or "ad hominems" but they are never meant to be; you /seem/
(stressing "seem" now since it appears I must) to have purposely
interpreted them at an extreme /instead/ of going over your own writings
to find out why someone might think you were representing such traits in
your posts. Your posts in many topics have slowly worked that strange aura
of distrust by quickly alienating people that have been loyal contributors
to D.  It doesn't have to be that way. You can do what you do well and
simultaneously avoid such alienation. There is a reason this is happening,
and it's not all one-sided.  You can admit that you are wrong sometimes.

Another point that engenders distrust: you /seem/ very good at capturing
your audience and helping them see you as the "victim".  More calumny
from me? No, don't discredit me so quickly (the simple solution)! I state
my opinion frankly. I'm afraid that I see all these "ad hominum" arguments
I've apparently used are really nothing in comparison to the way you throw
your own weight around in these situations.  You are the participant,
/not/ the innocent bystander whose character has been put on trial. My
viewpoint was an opportunity, not for you to take offense, but for you to
wonder if there were a valid reason for me to be so deliberate as to
"misunderstand" you like that.

For those that think that this is all a misunderstanding or
miscommunication or that we all just yearn for mutual respect, please note
well the Latin phrase that Andrei posted on signoff. His methods are not
direct, but subtle. I'm not reacting as a bitter respondant.  I just don't
trust the aspect of a person that moves with what appears to be slight of
hand.  Why not be forthright?  

Let's pursue this little Latin "last word" for a moment: what if some of us
don't know Latin, Andrei? Don't you think some might believe that phrase
to be condescending (disregarding the actual content of the message for
the moment)? What would be the point of posting that if you really meant to
help us learn? What do you think people start to think about such a person
and his motives?  Do you really seek to teach and help and encourage?  Or
is this a "pompous" display of education (note this is merely a question,
not a calumny) mixed with a condescending last word? How are you
connecting with us, Andrei, to talk to the most common denominator without
"lording" it over us?  Perhaps, Don Clougston should sign off every post
he makes in Classical Greek?  There are many people in this group that have
much academic background, and I've rarely seen such "airs" from them.
That's one particular aspect I've enjoyed about this community for a long
time.

Andrei, I ask you to just consider that you don't have to make yourself
sound important to be important; you don't have to correct people's
spellings to capture their awe; skills and experience come from many
sources and this community has a wealth of knowledge. People here have
been through many nasty tangles before and have, I believe, developed a
fair bit of patience and perseverence with one another. If you are frank
about what you want to do, what you want to say, and where you want to go,
that would be so much better.

In short, my evaluation of you, Andrei, was not meant to pull you down and
confound you, but to /stop/ all argument that is based on subversive 
motivation or indeterminate foundation (the "troll" word was used for a
very real reason); sure I can't be certain that such motivations exist;
but patterns certainly become more and more evident as threads progress.
Evidence builds a case.

We are human beings; the source of every debate has a basis that is rarely
purely technical or purely objective (in fact, it seems most things in CS
eventually come down to some subjective source eventually). My purpose in
mentioning this is to consider that sticking "to the technical points" is
not going to accomplish much given a faulty foundation or compromised
initial condition.  Technical points, especially minute ones, may be
argued endlessly without a bigger picture.  If an "agenda" is called into
question, then I believe the merit of certain technical points will need
be reassessed in light of that. (Tango objectives, I note, had to be
repeated several times in this long thread to /emphasize/ why certain
design decisions were to stay as is; but, despite this, the technical
detail debates kept resurfacing as if there were a blissful ignorance of
the importance of that emphasis).

Lastly, I admit that I have trouble dealing with indirect people; they
just plain bother me. Direct people, without discretion, can also be
difficult, yet I find I have an easier time understanding the latter than
the former, ad hominems and all. 

Forgive me for pursuing this to this degree.  I found the last post
the most inexplicable. Andrei, you often appear to represent yourself as
innocent, a champion of objectivity and strict argumentation for technical
merits, but some aspects of your posts /seems/ to show otherwise. And you
never, ever admit it.  I'm sorry to see that since I think you would gain
so much more appreciation from people if you did admit when you were wrong.

-JJR