Re: [atlarge-discuss] Pax pax...

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

Richard [et al]:

I agree with your view and vision 99.9%.

My 0.1% difference is with your view (inferred by me) that seems to picture Satyajit is an innocent political “every-man” entitled to every-man protection of his private view and belief regarding his very public action.

While I have been around here only a short while and literally know no one in this organization, nevertheless I am impressed that a fair number of Satyajit’s critics are feeling he betrayed his previously stated publicly espoused position.

In other words, he put himself out there as a fair target of criticism. I’m sorry, I cannot defend any right of his to privacy on this matter.

His refusal to respond leaves it open to others, me now included, to now suggest that he violated his own earlier stated position on At-Large representation.

I do not think anyone is abandoning social skills or respect for minority opinion in this.

I agree that Satyajit can vote for whomever he wants.

I do not agree however in that he put himself forward publicly for election to the panel based on publicly expressed views he held up that he should be elected for, and that he can then turn around and refuse to answer for his public behavior which appears to be in stark contradiction to those views.

It has nothing to do with his right to do as he wishes. It has everything to do with answering for what he does to those who elected him to the panel based on his public proclamations that seems inconsistent with that election.

If he chooses not to answer, if he chooses not to persuade me to his view in this particular matter, then he leaves me to formulate entirely my own uninformed conclusion for the position he’s taken, a conclusion that potentially will lead me to oppose him in future elections.

At present I can only conclude, absent his response, that he is “anti-at-large.” That is neither good nor bad. It is not acrimony, it is not haughty, it is not laughable, it is not discourteous, it is not small, it is not unkind, it is not stingy, it is not humorless, it is not unfriendly, it is not disrespectful, it is not persecutorial nor prosecutorial -- I am not any of these things simply because I want Satyajit to clear up an important seeming contradiction for me.

For a fact, I don’t know what his reply is or might be. My question is not rhetorical. I make no attempt to suggest anything about his character by my inquiry. I only want an answer.

I agree that “community is built by humour, friendship, tolerance, generosity of spirit, idealism, romance, patience, kindness, surprise, encounters, inner peace, honesty, openness, inclusiveness... lots of things like that...”

Community building, from time to time, requires confrontation regarding disagreements, and the solution of those disagreements. That is what voting is ultimately about.

And that is why what Satyajit did is important in our public sense. He cast a “vote.” Yes, it was his vote to cast, and apparently unassociated with, unaffiliated with atlarge.com. Nevertheless it was not wholly so, if only because of the mistaken perception by me and other members within atlarge.com that it was contrary to our interests, AND the mistaken perception outside of atlarge.com that his “vote” was somehow representative, since he is a panelist, of something of atlarge.com.

Perhaps I should restate my level of agreement with you. It is more likely 99.99%, with 0.01% disagreement, that is how closely I share your larger view of things.

I do not know you Richard, yet by everything I’ve read of yours I have every good reason to like you indeed.

/s/ Joey

Friday, September 13, 2002 * 12:28 PM EDT USA
=====
DISCLAIMER: I had not read any posts following on this one on the occasion of its composition, and my responses here are uninformed in that regard. This is also a second attempt to post it to the list, the first somehow having gone awry. ... /s/ Joey... Saturday, September 14, 2002 * 8:19 AM EDT USA
=====

At 08:36 PM 9/12/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:


>----- Original Message -----
>From: Satyajit Gupta <icheckemail@indiatimes.com>
>I am sure anyone who is not part of the movement is either having a good
>laugh or is disgusted by this vulgar display of acrimony in the group
>archives...
>
>
>-----Next Message -----
>From: Richard Henderson richardhenderson@ntlworld.com
>
>I'm disgusted at the tone of debate and yes, frankly, it's laughable...
>
>Who do we think we are?
>
>What a lack of magnanimity and courtesy... why would *anyone* want to join
>us if we carry on like this?
>
>Please participate objectively and constructively or it will be a stillborn
>project
>
>Let's look forward to the decision on the name, and then let's get in touch
>with regional and national members to see what support exists... and try to
>mobilise it
>
>For the record, I believe Satyajit can vote for whoever he wants : I didn't
>share his views, but I want a democracy where people are entitled to have
>personal views without being insulted and villified. I would prefer this
>organisation to be diverse and complex and even at times self-contradictory.
>
>What are we? Diverse groups of individuals. Self-organising and free.
>Jefsey's uncontrollable @large. Please don't try to "control" Satyajit. He
>can be the @large anyway. We all can. Wherever we are. Whether we're voted
>"in" or voted "out". There's no real "in" anyway. The @large is bottom up.
>The @large is free of control. The @large is you and me, wherever we are,
>creating community and networking (if we wish to).
>
>Satyajit endorses someone different to me? Well I'm not going to have a
>nervous breakdown over it!
>
>Community is built by humour, friendship, tolerance, generosity of spirit,
>idealism, romance, patience, kindness, surprise, encounters, inner peace,
>honesty, openness, inclusiveness... lots of things like that
>
>If we abandon social skills, if we abandon respect for minority opinion, if
>we abandon the admirable qualities - then our community (however politically
>correct or doctrinaire) will not be worth belonging to
>
>I'm interested in the QUALITY of our community, starting with respect for
>others. I'm interested in the SUBSTANCE of our community, more than its
>interface with ICANN (though I'm interested in that too!).
>
>But the level of acrimony is almost intolerable at times - bizarre even...
>
>It drives me towards Jefsey's much more local vision of the @large
>
>Its tempting to just go and re-organise, in place of an inbox of endless
>embittered arguments
>
>I personally regard Vittorio as a sane and courteous colleague - I disagree
>with some of his premisses - but I see the quality in him as a human
>being... he is substantial... he is mature... he has taken a lot of
>criticisms, but mostly endured them with patience
>
>I can respect that
>
>Now, personally, I hold Vivek and YJ in the highest regard. But if someone
>wants to support a different candidate, then... that is democracy - for
>goodness sake, shrug your shoulders, give a wry smile, and move on...
>
>Life is too short...
>
>There are some nations where democracy is used to suppress legitimate
>minorities ... I would not like to see that culture or that tribalistic
>mentality taking over our panel or our methodology... our organisation must
>never become like them... even if "cabinet members" disagree (and I hardly
>see the @ large as having a cabinet anyway!)... but even then... democracy
>must accommodate that fact... without internecine warfare breaking out!
>
>Democracy is not "majority" outvotes "minority"... democracy is a quality of
>life built upon bottom-up values... a democracy is generally defined by the
>way it respects diverse minority views - or it is not democracy
>
>The terrible things I see in Zimbabwe, in the Holy Lands, in Chechnya...
>they are often done purportedly in the name of democracies... and voices of
>internal dissent are rarely listened to... the processes of democracy may
>simply "legitimise" the tyranny of democracy... Mugabe claims "victory" in a
>climate of intimidation and fear... Ariel Sharon "uses" democracy but turns
>it into a travesty... and the right of the Chechen people to determine their
>future for themselves is subordinated to the purported democratic will of an
>imperialistic neighbour...
>
>We need to make the quality of democracy so "attractive" that people want
>what we have, want to join in, want to aspire to the dreams of what is
>best - and... we should protect people different from ourselves
>
>Democracy should be open and freedom of expression should be defended to the
>end - including the right to vote (or endorse) as you judge best - that's
>Satyajit's right, without having to explain himself, whether you or I agree
>with him or not
>
>Our @large should grow - from a multiplicity of local cells - with these
>democratic values... but with a multiplicity of views and enthusiasms - that
>is thehumanrace@large
>
>That is the only @large I'm interested in belonging to
>
>IMHO
>
>Richard