[atlarge-discuss] Who are “They?” [Might have been RE: [ atlarge-discuss] resignation, but not really.]

[Joey Borda **star*walker** <starwalker@gay.com>]

Everyone:

I’ve just responded to a private off-list query that I choose now to 
publish to this list. I have stripped off identifying information of my own 
judgment, not at the request of the author.

The query was:

> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0209/msg00523.html
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0209/msg00529.html
> From: Joey Borda **star*walker** <starwalker@gay.com>
> "Now is not the time for ANYONE to resign, let alone you.
> Don't you see that by your resignation "they" will be winning without even 
> having fired a shot!"
> ====
>
> Who is "they"...??
My answer: Why the “proverbial they,” at the very least.

In real-world politics there is always a “they.” Whether they be benign or 
malign, there are those especially designated by their seeming silence or 
hidden voices with an absolute vested interest in what is going on.

In my experience it has been the chairman of the local, most powerful bank, 
his son-in-law president of the very same bank and all the puppets of said 
bank, all too numerous too count, but all involved in the process in one 
way or another. It is their bought and paid for office holders, and party 
apparachicks.

They been the well-meaning but envious or jealous miscreant “allies.”

They have been the “loyal opposition” political party unrestrained in their 
objectives and tactics.

The list can be, and usually is, endless.

In our instant case, take your pick. Examining from bottom up...

Members who are genuine in their interest and care, yet who are not 
sufficiently supportive to some of our needs, or unable to come to our aid 
even when they might want to.

Members who are paper members only because they thought somehow it was just 
a good idea to sign up.

Members who are opposition members, who’ve added themselves to our 
membership, either with marching orders to oppose or simply natures to oppose.

These things can also be speculated as to panelists.

Certainly “they” are directly or indirectly in the background of the 
brouhaha pointlessly raised regarding the use of “ICANN” in our 
organizational name.

Consider that if you wanted a group of contrarian people to do what you 
wanted then surely the best way is to give them the impression, by whatever 
means, that you DON’T want them to do it! In that respect we’ve been 
royally had.

Especially when the Joanna, and then the whole of the election trustees, 
proposed what was rightly perceived as anti-democratic! -- the equivalent 
of a red cape in front of all us bulls.

I suppose I am most bothered with those among us that I regard as my 
“friends” or most likely to become my friends who continue to be naïve to 
the world and ways of real politics. Perhaps you too are among those, I 
don't know. Or perhaps you are one of “them.” It does not matter.

In real world politics you don’t get many, if any, second chances. You 
either get things right the first time, or you wait a very long time for 
things to come round again.

I do not bother repeating myself on the list to the best of my ability. I 
consider my offerings worth stating once, whether they please people or 
piss them off, to be offerings of gold, offerings of incredible value.

That they are ignored, forgotten, treated lightly and so on, is I believe 
to the real and practical disadvantage of the organization. And as I had to 
in my practice of group psychotherapy I cannot be wed to the outcomes, and 
only hope that in ways I cannot even imagine my impact with people will be 
felt, demonstrated and perhaps even be vindicated at some future time.

So as “righteous” as my contributions may be, I never submit them for 
righteousness sake. I submit them because I’ve learned to trust my own 
experience and knowledge of the real world I have lived in, and still do, 
and achingly want to advance the democracy of this cause.

In conclusion, perhaps the best operating definition of “they” is those who 
see their lives as 24/7 jobs (self-asserted obligations) to covet, expand, 
and exercise power over others.

I, and we, am (are) typically disadvantaged in the face of “them” for what 
should be the obvious reasons. We are not likewise inclined, and even if we 
were we are not in the “capital” positions to do so.

“They's” greatest tool (and weapon) is their sustained anonymity, their 
seeming invisibility, their perfection of plausible deniability, all the 
while at the helm and in control.

While you may struggle to “know” who “they” are I can assure they do not 
have to struggle to know who you are, who I am, or who we all are. And in 
that we advantage them. And espousing democratic values, so it must be.

Our best tool-weapon?! Being forewarned and forearmed with the perspective 
I've just given you.

/s/ Joey

Wednesday, September 25, 2002 * 2:14 PM EDT USA
[Wednesday, September 25, 2002 * 2:23 PM EDT USA]