On 11 Oct 2007 at 20:57:33 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree that the mishandling of stalking / abuse situations has largely gotten us where we are today, I would have hoped to see people make that point in a civil and respectful manner rather than crossing the line into blaming the vicitms as you did above, Phil.
This was not constructive, even if it was wrapped around an important point.
I disagree; it's the whole business that we need to constantly pussyfoot around these topics and not say what we really mean, for fear of offending somebody or being labeled as "blaming the victim" (or worse), that is a major part of the problem.
on 10/12/07 8:23 AM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
it's the whole business that we need to constantly pussyfoot around these topics and not say what we really mean, for fear of offending somebody or being labeled as "blaming the victim" (or worse), that is a major part of the problem.
I agree with you, Dan. There is a huge difference between attacking an issue and attacking a person. If you want to attack an issue - do it honestly, and in public. If you must attack a person - make it a confrontation - make it verbally - and in private.
Marc
On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/12/07 8:23 AM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
it's the whole business that we need to constantly pussyfoot around these topics and not say what we really mean, for fear of offending somebody or being labeled as "blaming the victim" (or worse), that is a major part of the problem.
I agree with you, Dan. There is a huge difference between attacking an issue and attacking a person. If you want to attack an issue - do it honestly, and in public. If you must attack a person - make it a confrontation - make it verbally - and in private.
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
So where does the line between issue and person get drawn here?
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/12/07 8:23 AM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
it's the whole business that we need to constantly pussyfoot around these topics and not say what we really mean, for fear of offending somebody or being labeled as "blaming the victim" (or worse), that is a major part of the problem.
I agree with you, Dan. There is a huge difference between attacking an issue and attacking a person. If you want to attack an issue - do it honestly, and in public. If you must attack a person - make it a confrontation - make it verbally - and in private.
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
Actually I think the depiction of Brandt as "a complete nutter" is more a symptom of someone who gets too much of their information from Wikipedia (and Wikipedia-related resources like this mailing list). If you actually read what he himself has written or (God forbid) actually have a conversation with him I think you'll get a totally different view. For instance, he doesn't push the MI-5 thing, and he expressly is against using the term "spy".
So in that sense the efforts of Fred and company are working, Brandt has been painted as "a complete nutter" to Wikipedians.
I agree with Anthony on this point. Brandt has been an asshole at times. He's had some weird (and wrong) ideas at times. But so have others.
He has also been right at times We ultimately decided to delete his bio after all...
On 10/12/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 10/12/07 8:23 AM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
it's the whole business that we need to constantly pussyfoot around these topics and not say what we really mean, for fear of offending somebody or being labeled as "blaming the victim" (or worse), that is a major part of the problem.
I agree with you, Dan. There is a huge difference between attacking an issue and attacking a person. If you want to attack an issue - do it honestly, and in public. If you must attack a person - make it a confrontation - make it verbally - and in private.
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
Actually I think the depiction of Brandt as "a complete nutter" is more a symptom of someone who gets too much of their information from Wikipedia (and Wikipedia-related resources like this mailing list). If you actually read what he himself has written or (God forbid) actually have a conversation with him I think you'll get a totally different view. For instance, he doesn't push the MI-5 thing, and he expressly is against using the term "spy".
So in that sense the efforts of Fred and company are working, Brandt has been painted as "a complete nutter" to Wikipedians.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Anthony on this point. Brandt has been an asshole at times. He's had some weird (and wrong) ideas at times. But so have others.
He has also been right at times We ultimately decided to delete his bio after all...
We did, but more because we got tired of the arguments than that we decided he was right.
On 10/12/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
We did, but more because we got tired of the arguments than that we decided he was right.
And because enough people thought he'd stop harassing people if he got what he wanted. Joke's on us.
—C.W.
On 12/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
We did, but more because we got tired of the arguments than that we decided he was right.
And because enough people thought he'd stop harassing people if he got what he wanted.
Did people seriously believe that?
On 2007.10.12 20:15:12 +0100, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com scribbled 11 lines:
On 12/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
We did, but more because we got tired of the arguments than that we decided he was right.
And because enough people thought he'd stop harassing people if he got what he wanted.
Did people seriously believe that?
Oh yes, they most emphatically did. Us pro-keep folks tried to point that out, but...
-- gwern CAVE bet Bletchley Linus mol Ansar ISEP HRM AGT. ASIO
On 12/10/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.10.12 20:15:12 +0100, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com scribbled 11 lines:
On 12/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
We did, but more because we got tired of the arguments than that we decided he was right.
And because enough people thought he'd stop harassing people if he got what he wanted.
Did people seriously believe that?
Oh yes, they most emphatically did.
I despair.
On 12/10/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.10.12 20:15:12 +0100, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com scribbled 11 lines:
On 12/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
We did, but more because we got tired of the arguments than that we decided he was right.
And because enough people thought he'd stop harassing people if he got what he wanted.
Did people seriously believe that?
Oh yes, they most emphatically did.
I despair.
Brandt is a sociopath. "Truth" and "lies" only have relevance as far as furtherance of self. Trusting him to be anything other than a sociopath is not sensible behaviour.
- d.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
Actually I think the depiction of Brandt as "a complete nutter" is more a symptom of someone who gets too much of their information from Wikipedia (and Wikipedia-related resources like this mailing list).
I'd actually describe it as a symptom of someone of whom Brandt said "If I know anything about how grad school works, it wouldn't take much to put him in a position where he either decides to leave Wikipedia or decides that he doesn't need a Ph.D. after all" shortly before an unknown person called the local police in Gainesville in an active and deliberate attempt to get me harassed by them.
I can understand how you'd confuse the two, though.
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
Actually I think the depiction of Brandt as "a complete nutter" is more a symptom of someone who gets too much of their information from Wikipedia (and Wikipedia-related resources like this mailing list).
I'd actually describe it as a symptom of someone of whom Brandt said "If I know anything about how grad school works, it wouldn't take much to put him in a position where he either decides to leave Wikipedia or decides that he doesn't need a Ph.D. after all" shortly before an unknown person called the local police in Gainesville in an active and deliberate attempt to get me harassed by them.
I can understand how you'd confuse the two, though.
I fail to see how that story, even if it's true, implies that he's "a complete nutter". Jerk, maybe, but not nuts.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Anthony wrote:
I fail to see how that story, even if it's true, implies that he's "a complete nutter". Jerk, maybe, but not nuts.
"sociopathic fuckwit" seems to me a subclass of nutter I went with the higher order classification because I suspect that he slots neatly into other subclasses, however.
And what, exactly, were you trying to accomplish by implying I might be making those events up?
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Anthony wrote:
I fail to see how that story, even if it's true, implies that he's "a complete nutter". Jerk, maybe, but not nuts.
"sociopathic fuckwit" seems to me a subclass of nutter I went with the higher order classification because I suspect that he slots neatly into other subclasses, however.
I don't see how it's sociopathic. Would you say that anyone who ever harasses anyone else is a sociopath.
And what, exactly, were you trying to accomplish by implying I might be making those events up?
I was trying to avoid slandering the guy for something which I have no evidence of. If what you're saying is false, it's libelous, and unless I'm shown that it's true I'm not going to imply that it is.
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
So where does the line between issue and person get drawn here?
Beyond right and wrong, there is... an encyclopedia to write.
—C.W.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
So where does the line between issue and person get drawn here?
Beyond right and wrong, there is... an encyclopedia to write.
Yeah. I do that logged out these days. Far fewer people bother you when you do that.
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
So where does the line between issue and person get drawn here?
Beyond right and wrong, there is... an encyclopedia to write.
Yeah. I do that logged out these days. Far fewer people bother you when you do that.
I've found I get reverted a whole lot more, though.
On 10/12/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
So where does the line between issue and person get drawn here?
Beyond right and wrong, there is... an encyclopedia to write.
Yeah. I do that logged out these days. Far fewer people bother you when you do that.
I've found I get reverted a whole lot more, though.
I've found I get checkusered a lot less.
—C.W.