Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (911 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Moderation on mailing list (was: Scan application question: [SOLVED])
David C. Rankin schreef op 23-12-2015 3:14:
On 12/22/2015 07:41 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
Richard Brown had him banned from all lists for some reasons which do
not looker kosher to me. However, the ban is only till February
(?beginning or end, cannot remember) so Carlos will be back with a
vengeance, hopefully :-) .

(The whole spectacle unfolded in Project if you care to look at the

It seems we have some we have some less than constructive currents
flowing through the community as of late. Sad... Seems a long way from
"Software und SystemEntwicklung"

Yeah, at least then ban me.

I'm trying to find the places in Project where Carlos has been offensive, but I can't find any. It's getting a bit tiring.

Except perhaps:

"Hopefully now Richard will see now that is nothing personal with me, as he usually seems to think."

I must say, just an opinion, and as usual quite worthless, that I thought this Richard Brown, as he is the project leader apparently, and I do not know such things, but: I thought mr. Richard to be less respectful in his wording and messaging than Carlos or any of the others.

For example, attacking someone because the person uses the "it was said" style of referring to other people's opinions (referring to an unknown group that has a certain opinion, without providing evidence or reference) and then saying " I'm very disappointed to see you use the technique of citing others without examples in order to make your opinion sound more widely supported." is not only a tad hostile but also rather dishonest itself. Other people chimed in (in that thread) and provided those "much wanted references" which kinda made it clear, or even proved, that mr. Carlos was not "inventing things". So even though his statements may be or may have been called "lazy" it was not a dishonest technique in order to influence the apparent public opinion in a dishonest or unfair way.

At the same time, mr. Richard's statement can certainly be called such: he tried to influence the apparent public opinion by dishonestly calling mr. Carlos's statement "ungrounded" when they were not.

So the one thing mr. Richard Brown accused mr. Carlos E.R. of, he was doing himself.

Now, perhaps, if someone is using dishonest techniques himself, in a subtle yet obvious way, as a means of stifling debate or cutting short some people or some opinions, I can imagine these people would respond eventually in a "aggressive" way.

First you disrespect people, and then if they object, you ban them for their "aggression". In this way, disagreement is framed as impoliteness and then framed in such a way as to be in violation of some Code of Conduct. It has happened before.

It is also simply a way to cut short any form of resistance.

We have, if I am this time allowed to refer to it, perhaps all heard of the Kubuntu debacle in which mr. Jonathan Riddell was one of those "aggressors" who violated the "CoC" when he became angry with attempts by the Ubuntu Council to thwart real dicussion and honest appraisal of his complaints. Riddell may have been ghastly, was often a bit arrogant and overly short and perhaps abrasive in his responses, which made UCC members feel rather afraid of working with him, but at the same time that doesn't mean those UCC members and Canonical itself hadn't been doing the exact thing he said they had been doing. And people sometimes become impatient and annoyed. And a company's or a group's mode of operation may very well be structurally disrespectful of other people's rights. Yet such disrespect is always framed as being civilized, appropriate and "well intended".

Meanwhile these civilized, appropriate and well-intending individuals often trample other people's rights and concerns. But they get away with it, because they are in charge. They are the ones wielding the ban stick.

You never see it the other way around: the 'oppressors' resorting to 'aggression' and violating the 'code of conduct' they themselves have devised to keep people in check.

Perhaps I am, as they say, being hyperbolic again. Perhaps my mode of operandus is overly assaultive again, at this point?.

But I just want to say that not all is as it appears. Every hierarchical organisation uses a stick to beat people that fall out of line. Often times, such falling out of line is framed in terms of a flaw in character: they fall out of line because they have an "authority issue" and if you want a funny yet horrid example of this just read the first chapter of "Living with the passsive-aggressive man" by Scott Wetzler to see how resistance is framed as a personal failing.

Succumbing or submitting to authority is seen as the proper way to live life. There are more such attributions that are well-known, such as "commitment issues" or "fear of commitment" when a man (always a man) doesn't want to stick to a fixed monogamous relationship. His natural tendency to be free is seen as personal failing. But in this case.

Mr. Carlos was probably being what we may call "disobedient" and he was punished for it.

It was said that they hope that this punishment will "improve" his behaviour. If anything, it will naturally make him more resentful and even more angry.

I think this is dishonest. He was being a trouble and he was disciplined for it. It has nothing to do with morals, or politeness, or behaviour, and everything to do with politics.

So if this is the truth, at least just say so. Say "We disciplined him because he was a troublesome element" or "He was disciplined for falling out of line."

Insincerity is the final hallmark of a repressive regime.

And I'd be happy to take his place as a banned person, as my contributions are practically worthless anyway, as I'm sure you'd all agree.

Regards, and signing out , ..

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >