Re: tlug: Intimidation? [was: Office suite for use under Linux]

[Kei Furuuchi <kfur@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Can we stop this bickering, please, like right now?
>

Well, I am not bitter. How can I be when I do not getsensible answers? I
thought my apology clause closed
the previous thread. If you are offering me any consolation,
technical consultation like others did really helped.
I find it considerate.

> No.  And I bet you won't.  Think about the dynamics of mailing list
> creation and membership as compared to creating and joining a
> corporation.  I think you'll see it can't.  The power relations are
> different.[1]
>

Yes, this power thing is fictitious in the internet.But, people involved so
much may not find themselves
naked, until someone shows them by being naked himself.

> ... Windows-bashing, mostly in fun, and forcefully expressed opinions
> are part of the culture of this ML.  It hasn't been an issue to this
> point.  Eg, as the ML expands, I am personally concerned about my own
> style, which is forceful and sometimes intimidating.  But I've been
> encouraged by several people to continue in the same style; evidently
> what I have to contribute outweighs, or perhaps is complemented, by my
> style.
>

You are totally missing the points, This is not about Windows-bashing.

If you allow me my personal observation, I find your occasional
use of Kanji complex little annoying. It reminds me of the immigration
officers trying some japanese phrases on Japanese tourists at the
immigration gate in the airport.


> Your analogy doesn't work.
>
> 1.  There is no ML-Hou under which TLUG officers can go to jail, thus
>     no reason for constructing plausible deniability.
>
> 2.  There is only one route to power and success in a corporation, and
>     your boss controls it.  This is the Internet; there are plenty of
>     people on this ML with both the resources and willpower to create
>     a new ML/user's group if circumstances warrant.
>

OK. let me produce another analogy as to what a threat is so you can
understandeasily.
It is Clinton Sex scandal.
As you know, the case with Paula Jones is dissmissed for lack of enough
evidence
and perjury issue with Monica Lewinski. Let's say even though Clinton
denies it, he tried to make passes at both women only once. Why the outcomes
are
different? One felt it was harrassment and later demoted for refusing, The
other
fun game that comes with benefits. Why the impact is different for the same
act.
Who is held responsible for it. The answer is one who has power regardless
of
nature of power, even fictitious because what matters is how it is
interpreted.
And power to see the consequences is part of responsibility.


> Of course this way of looking at things is very much informed by my
> culture.  But I think (what with 海外留学・研修・出向 by the non-North
> American members) it's probably the majority culture on the list.
> That doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) be changed.  But precedent
> does give it a certain priority.
>

I really don't believe in the culture difference at least, in the samemarket
though it is easy excuse and sells a lot.
People are not so much differnt.
Again you missed the points.

Regards,
Kei.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 15 May Fri, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next TLUG Meeting: 13 June Sat, Tokyo Station Yaesu gate 12:30
Featuring Stone and Turnbull on .rpm and .deb packages
---------------------------------------------------------------
a word from the sponsor:
TWICS - Japan's First Public-Access Internet System
www.twics.com  info@example.com  Tel:03-3351-5977  Fax:03-3353-6096