Re: ASA re-visited

[Sylvain Robitaille <syl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim wrote:

> I don't think you'll have the time nor be able to actually get the
> "feel" of what's happened here over 6 years, ...

No, I can't claim to have gone anywhere near that far back.  :-(
(I do try to have some semblance of a life, though it doesn't always
show!)

> Everyone here gives information to end users and to each other,
> freely, but he USES that, along with his lies to make a profit. That's
> wrong. No if and's or but's. It's wrong.

I'm nowhere near arguing that it isn't wrong.  Please don't
misunderstand me;  I'm not trying to convince anyone that he _should_ do
what he's been doing;  what I'm trying to convince you of is that your
vocal (well, typed) opposition to it does more harm (in general) than
good.

> I don't really care if you believe what I'm saying or not.  ...

Oh, I _believe_ you, don't doubt that; I'm just trying to be one of the
voices that says "let it go ... people will see him for what he is
without any help".

> You seem to be offering a way to write more words that every
> one else is supposed to adhere to but that he will ignore.

Well, my offer was to "write more words" if there wasn't already any
document outlining a consensus of how participants in the group should
behave.  Frank pointed to some documents that in my opinion do represent
such consensus, so my current offer is to group the relevant sections of
those into a single document that, once agreed on by regular participants
in the group could be automatically posted on a regular basis.  I no
longer believe that a "new" document would be necessary, but rather that
a summary of existing documentation would suffice.

> ... no doubt ignoring him will be the decree of your masterpiece.

It's in the group's proposal (I believe), though it doesn't name
anyone specific.

> You've obviously not noticed that no one is interested in selling
> anything to anyone here except Bass.

Not directly, but I assure you that I would have no hesitation to
translate some of the information I've received from some of the
regulars here into hired services if I were looking for such.  I've
gotten an impression that the group is generally populated with folks
who have a professional attitude and take pride in a job well done, and
who perhaps occasionally need to let off steam about clients or
installations that were clearly done by less experienced personnel.
That means they're human too.  :-)

> So what does "reputation" have to do with anything.

Credibility: whether or not I can associate your messages with someone
who has credibility and whose opinions I can count on. ("I" in this
sentence referring to any reader, including but not limitted to,
myself).

> Also you haven't noticed that no one knows who I am and surely,
> never will.

That's true, I hadn't spotted that.

> The only thing that he's ever done to me is steal a post describing a
> technique and put it on his web site un-accredited.

That would be enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth ...  I think I'd
counter with placing a copy of the same post, with complete headers on
my own web site, and make sure that the bigger search engines take note
of it.  That way, at least, readers would have some opportunity to
locate the original message with its attribution.  :-)

> ... if you pick through the manure, you're likely to find
> some diamonds.

Well, I have to admit, in the time that I've been reading the group
directly (not via archives), it has been primarily diamonds.  It wasn't
until this thread started that I started to have the idea that perhaps
there was a history that I had yet to discover.  (note that I discovered
the group via archives, and added it to the news server I manage a
couple of weeks before starting to post in it ... that's all very
recent.)

>> A newsgroup should not be permitted to become personal.
>
> This is an alt group. You can't tell anyone what to do here. You don't
> control this group or anyone in it. If you don't like it you can leave.

That's true, but please understand that I'm not trying to control you or
the group.  I'm simply trying to propose an alternate to the behaviour
that has been seen in the past.  People can just as easily tell me to go
to hell and leave them alone in their merry chaos, of course.  I would
have dropped the idea immediately if I'd gotten the sense that the chaos
was "comfortable".

> Syl, you've got to understand. As long as Bass disrupts the group,
> and incites altercations, there are going to be people who will
> protest loudly and long at what he does to them.

True.  Then again, protest can also be more subtle.  A sharp blade will
cut much more deeply and more cleanly than a blunt one.

> So whether I continue to openly chastise Bass or not, chaos will
> continue with others, as long as he remains relentless in
> his quest to exploit this group.

I wouldn't claim to expect that _no_ chaos would ensue.  I do think that
a dull roar is likely unavoidable in most newsgroups.  ;-)

On the other hand, you and I have been having this discussion,
disagreement even, with messages that have caused others to comment more
about the length than about the content, yet we've managed to remain
completely civil to each other, without once resorting to personal
attacks against each other.

Then again, neither one of us has displayed the sort of behaviour that
the other is trying to argue against.  :-)

> it cannot be considered simply a coincidence that most of the
> regulars here, have, will, and do oppose what he does here.

I certainly have to agree with you on that.  not a coincidence ...
However, I haven't been trying to say that you don't have a point (I
did state that if you were one who felt "stepped on", that your points
cannot be seen as unbiased, but not that they weren't valid, or unclear.)
The fact that others (including, presumably, some who have had no reason
to feel personally slighted) feel the same does remove some of that
bias.

> I do see in this thread that you are trying to do something
> else to try to "smooth the waters"

Exactly.

> I'd be willing to try something new but I have to say that in the face
> of what we've dealt with in the past, more words are not going to have
> any effect on his conduct.

You may be (perhaps even probably are) right.  On the other hand, such
a document would clearly demonstrate what sort of behaviour is intended
to be found in the newsgroup.  People coming for advice (or trying to
find goods or services to purchase) would be able to see very quickly if
someone is stepping beyond those boundaries and exploiting the existence
of the group for personal gain.  They would then be able to proceed
according to their own morals.

> If he never returns and your "charter" is agreed upon, by the
> participants of ASA, it'll be a great thing for ASA and I'll embrace
> it with every bit of cooperation that I can muster.

The only response I would like to make to that is that I wouldn't want it
to be "my" charter.  I'm willing to put in the time to compile it from the
existing documentation, discuss it here with others, and more importantly
(in my opinion) to setup an automatic frequent posting of it, but there's
no way it would have any meaning in this newsgroup unless it were a
document agreed upon by those people for whom this group exists (and
I'm not really one of those, except insofar as I'm able to ask questions
and get useful answers from others who participate in the newsgroup).

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille                              syl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Systems and Network analyst                       Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology        Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------