[Wplug-web] [wplug-plan] Logo Contest (fwd)

Zach Paine zman at angstrom.net
Mon Jan 8 21:48:43 EST 2001


David, who are you protecting here?  What are you trying to do?  It seems that
your trying to say that this has damaged the group and that worries you, but
it makes me think you are just using this oppurtunity to cast your imaginary
'clique' in a light of shame.  I don't believe such a clique exists.  The term
'clique' carries a connotation of exclusion, an element which simply does not
exist.  Jonathan's offhand remark doesn't seem to have offended anyone, or
they would have said something.  You yourself don't seem to be offended, just
carrying on with your political manuvering.  

It seems to me that after Jonathan responded to your last email about 'Those
concerned about the future of WPLUG' and made some very good points, you have
resorted to attacking HIM personally under the cover of, 'look what you've
done to the group'.

Zach

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:32:07PM -0500, David Tessitor wrote:
> Jonathan, how can you impugn the reputation of the club with
> such a remark?
> Such a salacious open remark not only maligns the group and
> its members by
> implying that WPLUG is a haven for ped0philes, but worse, it
> casts an eye of
> suspicion on everyone associated with the group.
> 
> Imagine how this must be taken by any thoughtful parent who
> might look through
> the archives, maybe to find out more about the group or just
> to understand the
> contest their child is participating in.  They would certainly
> be immediately
> dissuaded from allowing their child to have anything to do
> with the group and
> they could very well report the matter to law enforcement
> authorities and then
> ... I'll leave it to your imagination to carry it further, but
> the horror
> stories of destruction to peoples lives over even more
> frivolous accusations
> is real.
> 
> Needless to say, your careless, shoot from the hip, hide
> behind the keyboard
> style of cowardly, reckless remarks are one thing when
> assailing efforts to
> improve the organization of the group.  However, while those
> harm the group as
> a whole, here your crass thoughtlessness can have a serious
> negative impact
> upon WPLUG members' individual lives as well.  You have
> certainly gone too
> far.
> 
> 
> Jonathan, maybe you and others of the inner clique (and yes,
> Virginia, there
> is an inner clique) have some idea of whom you are accusing. 
> But I dare say
> the majority do not, nor could it justify the comment even if
> it were common
> knowledge.  In the Internet age of distribution and permanence
> of email
> communications, in an age of search bots that read through
> entire sites to
> categorize and index words, your careless remark risks setting
> an egregious
> label that can cause great harm to the organization.
> 
> Jonathan, I could echo your most recent attack on me and ask,
> why don't you
> name names?  However, I don't want you to publish the names of
> anybody and
> risk carrying the group into such libel territory.  I should
> point out though,
> that in psychology there is a term called "projecting" in
> which a person
> projects their own short comings onto others and then tries to
> call
> everybody's attention to them.  I think you demonstrate that
> at least once
> here:  you attacked me with, "Name names, rather than hinting"
> for my saying
> that many members are satisfied with the status quo ("members"
> being a loose
> term, because other than through an action of the member
> meetings that you
> have sought to undermine, membership has never otherwise been
> defined), and
> you have acted as if I was making an accusation (which amazes
> me, because I
> don't know how you can think that either being a member or
> being satisfied
> should be taken as an accusation).  Yet here you have made a
> truly serious
> accusation.  One might say you've exhibited a case of the pot
> calling the
> kettle black, but really it's more like the pot calling the
> milk jug black.
> 
> Finally, not only have you cast aspersions upon WPLUG and
> denigrated the group
> before outsiders, but you have asked every member to now look
> askance at every
> other WPLUG member and wonder about them from this point on.
> 
> Jonathan, I think you owe the group a very serious apology on
> this one.
> Unfortunately, the damage is undoably done --- you have begged
> the question
> and neither the most sincere apology nor even your resignation
> from the group
> can remove the suspicions you have raised.
> 
> 
> About the only positive product of your remark is that you
> have provided a
> perfect example of "begging the question" (and you did it
> without using a question yourself) -- clearly demonstrating
> why begging the question is considered disreputable and is
> disdained by civil individuals.
> 
> David Tessitor
> _______________________________________________
> wplug-plan mailing list
> wplug-plan at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-plan
> 




More information about the wplug-plan mailing list