Phango - questions

[David B. Held]

Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> 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.

 From my perspective, the thread had left the realm of "debate" long 
before I joined it.  And as far as I'm concerned, taking something as 
dirty as an anonymous post and accusing the victim of being the 
perpetrator is as underhanded as it gets (in a way analogous to blaming 
rape victims, though I don't want to trivialize the issue of rape).  So 
I didn't think I was muddying the waters any more than they already were.

> [...]
> 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.

This isn't about Tango or Phobos at all, except to the extent that 
comments about those libraries happened to be at the beginning of the 
thread.  This is about playing dirty tricks with anonymity (which is the 
double-edged sword of the internet).

> [...]
> 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.

Right, because the poster would obviously not be afraid of putting their 
name on the idea.  The fact that it was *anonymous* is what tips me off 
that it isn't sincere...and if we look at folks who are not always 
sincere...

> 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.

I think it's ridiculous, because if that were an honest sentiment, you 
wouldn't be afraid to put your name on it.  You generally don't wear 
shirts with your name on them, but you regularly put your name on NG 
posts, so I don't buy the analogy.

> 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.

It would make the perfect setup for an accusation of sock puppetry to 
discredit someone you disagree with and don't like.

> 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.

Oh, it seems almost certain that phango@ is a regular poster.  I think 
it would be great if we knew who it was, and I wish we tried to do that 
before this thread went anywhere.  I wish Walter had a policy of outing 
any anonymous posters, but he's a busy man and doesn't have the time for 
such petty things.

> [...]
> 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.

If you find it so despicable, why did you think it was ok to point fingers?

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

I'm willing to agree with that, and I think the context you provide is 
very helpful.  I'm sorry I resorted to posting anonymously against you, 
and I won't do it again (for the obvious reason that I think one 
demonstration is well more than enough).  I do find it incongruent that 
you seem to be so opposed to anonymous posting, but were willing to 
point fingers anyway; but I think we can agree that it's an ugly 
practice that ought not to be tolerated.

Dave