Phango - questions

[Jeff Nowakowski]

David B. Held wrote:
> No matter how wrong you think I was, you have no excuse for claiming my 
> actions were worse.

You crossed the line from debate to taking an underhanded action.  You 
made a fraudulent post and used the opportunity to make a personal 
attack of a nature that I've never seen you do under your own name.  The 
end does not justify the means.

I wasn't going to continue this thread, but I have additional context to 
offer, and a response to the nature of the original anonymous poster. 
You seem to be coming at this from a Tango vs Phobos angle, to the point 
that you think I'm attacking Janice from the Tango side.  That's not the 
case, and I hope you read the following with an open mind.

First, what were my motives for entering this thread?  Here's what 
happened.  I saw the personal animosity between Kris and Janice go up a 
notch when Kris accused Janice of being a sock puppet ("There's a fair 
chance the poster below is actually Janice").  Kris later retracted his 
statement ("Honest mistake, Janice. Really."), but still felt upset 
about an "amateurish" charge that Janice made earlier ("I recall not so 
long ago you accused people involved with Tango as being "amateurs", or 
something like that. I'm not sure how that meshes with your sudden rash 
of indignation?")

To which Janice replied "Consider the possibility that you may have 
misunderstood? Alas, I don't recall the quote you mention, but I'm sure 
that if you drag up exactly what I said word for word, I can either 
clarify the quote or change my mind or whatever."

It seems better to argue about what was actually said if possible (as an 
aside, this is why I hate the idea of forums where you can edit your 
posts). After it was clear that neither Kris nor Janice would supply the 
quote and Janice didn't see any injustice, I found the quote and posted 
it. I even made sure to quote the part that softened Janice's statement 
in an effort to be fair, for which Janice thanked me.

It was only after Janice still felt that nothing was wrong with the 
original "amateurish/petty" statement that I tried to convey that Kris 
was upset for the same underlying reason that upset Janice.  It was not 
my intention at all to further the accusation against Janice, and that I 
did so I completely apologize for.  I only meant to show it was a 
reasonable suspicion (not probable), and that it should not have been 
publically aired, and neither should have the "amateur/petty" charge.

So, in light of all that, I never claimed that *I* was the only victim, 
nor do I agree that Janice is the only "true victim".  As is usual in 
these kinds of disagreements, everybody involved is damaged in some 
respects.

> I already deconstructed this bit of hogwash.  The only way for you to 
> make this defense is to claim stupidity: "Yes, I really was swayed by 
> the phango at phangowant.com endorsement...until I realized it could only 
> have been Janice in disguise!!!"

You're exaggerating my position by saying "it could only have been". 
Personally, my Occam's razor point of view is that the post was made 
earnestly by somebody who chose to be anonymous.  I don't see it as an 
attack against Janice at all -- if the very same post was made by a 
regular, you would have no problem with it.  The "phango at phangowant.com" 
identity is no worse than an "I <heart> New York" t-shirt. My "hmm" view 
is that *maybe* it was Janice.

Now you claim that this is stupid.  Your view, that this was an attack 
against Janice, I find just as unreasonable as you find mine.  Asking 
for a fork of Tango that many might find appealing would be a really bad 
idea from Tango's perspective, one that nobody pro-Tango would ask for 
even as a false flag attack.

Are you willing to admit to being wrong?  Ask Walter to check the logs 
of the web forum.  The date of the post was Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:23:45 
-0500.  Find the IP address associated with that post and I bet you'll 
find the same IP belongs to a regular poster, either via the news server 
or via the web interface.

> Either that, or you are gravely insulting Janice's intelligence,
> which would be your third offence: "Yes, I really think Janice is
> stupid enough to post a sock puppet as phango at phangowant.com...in
> fact, I think she's a blazing idiot!!!"

As already stated, I don't see the email address as incriminating.  It's 
only the fact that the poster is anonymous and not a regular that raised 
a flag for me.

By the way, smart people do stupid things all the time.  For reference, 
see the story of the CEO of Whole Foods, who posted under a pseudonym 
based on an anagram of his wife's name.  He said things of himself like 
"I like Mackey's haircut. I think he looks cute!":

http://valleywag.com/tech/john-mackey/whole-foods-ceo-proud-to-be-an-internet-blowhard-277793.php

> When *you* were the victim, all of the sudden is was worth your time
> to not only consider the implications of person X being the author,
> you made a concerted effort to find out who X was!

For the record, your outing is the 4th time I have uncovered an 
anonymous attacker.  I find the practice despicable, to the point that 
the previous three times all involved an anonymous person attacking 
people I personally disliked.  I'll provide archive references if you 
wish.  I checked the original phango at ... post and only saw that it came 
from the web, so I was blocked.

So it wasn't that it was about me that got me upset.  It was the action 
itself.  It's totally out of bounds for newsgroup ethics, even given all 
the usual flamewars that go on.

> And still, you lack the ability to put yourself in Janice's shoes and
> imagine that *perhaps she felt the same way you did when you accused 
> her of being her own attacker*.

I completely understand and empathize with Janice's perspective, and 
your actions had nothing to do with it.  I also understand Kris's 
perspective, and that's why I tried to relate the two to Janice.  By the 
way, I've also been publically accused of making an anonymous attack 
before, and I responded calmly.  I can provide an archival reference for 
that too.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but to show that your portrayal of 
my motives and character is completely wrong.

-Jeff