[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00082: Re: On Filia's accusations against me (Eric lim)

From: fkdh(at)xs4all.nl
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:56:34 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: On Filia's accusations against me (Eric lim)

Hi, I know you have asked Stephen, but you have my consent as well.
Kind regards,
Filia


Hi Stephen,

Filia has made at the WDDM some very serious public accussations against
me arising from the 3-person private email exchanges (Filia, Stephen and
Eric).

My best defence now is to make all relevant emails public. May I have your
consent to make them public?

Best Regards
Eric



Filia den Hollander <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hello,

Thank you for your replies; both backstage and “onstage”.

My last email was pain driven, based on bad experiences of the past. I
hope people understood this and can forgive me for the “rash” gesture
which was in it. Of course I understand that each situation, each
composition of people differs and thus new situations should be given a
chance rather than put in the line of old, bad experiences.

Related to Eric Lim and Stephen Neitzke I wish to make a couple of
comments (Eric is on the WDDM list, Stephen isn’t). I hope it is
understood not as personal attacks but (A) as an explanation of what
exactly freaked me out, and (B) as a comment on respectful conduct in
general.
-Eric tried to damage my sovereignty in a play between one-to-one emails
and public (Stephen included) emails. Further explanation is unnecessary,
I think we all know the experience of being manipulated and of activities
on the cost of oneself and in the case of Eric and Stephen Eric tried to
manoeuvre me in the situation of a “lesser species” (macho is the word for
that).
-Stephen and I got in an argument about “tone”. Need I say more? I
criticized his and then was simply put aside. (Cc to Stephen)

Related to tone, everybody sings with the voice they have, so it’s hard
—even ridiculous— to make some sort of code of conduct of it. But if one
person criticizes something of somebody else (and did so discretely
privately), I think it should be understood that this is meant for
constructive reasons. If there is no self-reflection on the comment, but
rather the commenting person soon becomes a non-person (eliminated out of
the dialogue), then the issue of respect comes in.

Related to damaging one’s sovereignty — that’s just simply intolerable,
especially in a democratic community. I hope Eric realizes this for else
we can, shall and will have trouble in the future. I would appreciate an
apology, for else I will stay on my qui-vive (on my guard). Moreover, I
will in general guard the respect of everyone’s sovereignty and of fair
conduct towards one another.


Some people may experience these comments as “going personal” or as
“personal attacks”. To me it is very simple. If a government or
institution does something wrong, they usually become warned from the
inside. If the institution ignores this or compromises the warning
person(s), then at some point these warning person(s) go to the media.
They do this in order to get the issue to the common consciousness, and to
make it impossible (hopefully) for the institution to silently, secretive,
continue their conduct.
I’ve learned that one can apply the same to individual situations. I
“objectify” situations, i.e. make public not because I want to nail some
bastard down (or whatever language belongs to it) but to make the issue,
not the person, subject to common debate and digestion. (To
intellectualize, it’s turning an “ad hominem” into an “ad casu”.)
Perhaps superfluous, here’s another example. I read somewhere an article
on women abuse. A man would beat up his wife. Then they didn’t catch this
guy but they spread the news out in the community. So the man would simply
get the response of: “Ah, you’re the guy who beats up his wife?”. The
abuse stopped.
This is the role of communities and I think we can be aware of this and
develop it.




Related to new applicants, in terms of procedure, I would advise that the
moderator asks for the people who have experience with this new applicant,
to come forward first.

I have a problem with Antonio Rossin, not with him as a person but with
the way he debates. He throws in a subject and when the subject is tackled
he shifts the subject and always has the last say. On top of this, if
someone rebukes him (not sure if I use this term correct), he somehow gets
to you on a personal level. Especially with this subject shifting, we then
run the risk of never being able to move forward.

With this I’m not saying I’m for or against his participation. I don’t
know — would it be possible or even desirable to allow participation if
someone accepts certain conditions beforehand?

Having said all this, I haven’t followed all debates between Antonio and
others. So it might be that his contributions are very valuable on the
subjects which I haven’t closely followed.


Well — that’s it. This became a long email. Thank you for bearing with me.


Kind regards,
Filia (who is flexible with the term “temporary” ;-)



PS Being the only woman in this environment does of course NOT mean that
I can in one form or another, blackmail this forum with it. And, yes, I
think we should encourage other women to participate.


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]