Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Seriously??

As someone much smarter than me once said: "When you reach the bottom of 
the hole, stop digging." While I admire persistence in trying to defend 
an untenable position, I'm at a loss to understand why this is 
acceptable behavior from the SAA?  As far as I can tell, you've tried 
your best to imply the worst possible meaning of my statement even in 
the face of multiple folk explaining the difference between calling some 
one stupid and calling a result a stupidity.

You also - again - seem to be missing the context.  The actual * quote was:

> With respect to the term "stupidity", this was the least offensive
> term I was able to come up with that had the appropriate impact in the
> above statement. This is not an "unfortunate event" or a "well meaning
> action" or even a "mistake". "Stupidity" at least leaves the question of
> malign intent open.

"this stupidity" is conjugate with "unfortunate event", "well meaning 
action" and "mistake" all items relating to the event/result.   Had I 
been able to prove malign intent, or I were trying to be offensive just 
to be offensive I would have used something more like: "this crime", 
"nefarious outcome", "underhanded result", or "dishonorable treatment".

But I'm sure we would then be discussing why I called someone a criminal.

This subject and this poster are in my kill file.  If you want me to 
read any further, again, please use your inside voice and mail me 
directly as I've now ask three times.

Later, Mike


On 7/1/2019 6:39 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:23:22PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>> I'm going to top post because replying to this line by line isn't really
>> the best way to dispose of this part of the thread.  And as someone
> Agreed.  I will just make a few key points (and reorder slightly for my
> convenience).  FWIW, my stance on the goal of "dispos[ing] of this part of
> the thread" is not to come to agreement on the definition of "stupidity",
> since that's off-topic for this list; I will try to limit myself to trying
> to explain why, with my Sergeant-at-Arms hat, I continue to believe it is
> not appropriate.
>
>> noted, if I remained silent it might be taken as implicit approval of
>> what I consider a unsupportable take on "stupidity" as described below.
> [...]
>> To finish up - I appreciate that the Sargent at Arms has to walk a fine
>> line here, but I don't think this is even close.  Again, I'd appreciate
>> it if in the future we follow the general contract and first have
>> private conversations.   You'll  have plenty of time afterward to make
>> your explicit disapproval clear if necessary.
> In this case, we felt a public statement was necessary, precisely because
> you decided to use the word after a (presumed) careful deliberation and
> thought it was still appropriate, and used it in the same sentence as "the
> question of malign intent".  Situations and objects do not have "intent";
> individuals (and perhaps groups) do.  To speak of "stupidity" as the result
> of something with intent seems really hard to separate from the perceived
> "stupidity" of the intended action leading to that result, i.e., the action
> taken by the individual or group.  I do not think that's appropriate
> professional conduct for this forum, and am compelled to publicly dispute
> the stance that such conduct is a valid result of a careful consideration
> of how to say something.
>
>> Also I'd really appreciate it if you don't attribute a particular
>> emotion to my persistence with this set of discussions - it's yet
>> another form of demeaning behavior. You attributed "frustration", and
>> another I* attributed "upset" to me.  What I actually am is "sad" at the
>> state of affairs and "disappointed" in the various folk that caused this
>> stupidity to occur somewhat including myself.  Feel free to use either
>> of those words in future correspondence.
> My apologies.  (Perhaps I was projecting my own frustration onto you, since
> our responses to the situation seemed otherwise similar.)  I'll try to keep
> that in mind.
>
> -Ben