W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Is Triple-A possible?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:12:56 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20001221085852.00b1fb00@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
Cc: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@home.com>, "Bruce Bailey \(E-mail\)" <bbailey@clark.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 01:28 PM 12/20/2000 , Charles F. Munat wrote:
>Dear Kynn,
>I love it when you say things such as "I just feel that many on this list
>need...." As if we don't know who you're talking about. As the person most
>likely to disagree with you (and the most vocal), I must be at the top of
>that list, the ringleader of that group of people that can't seem to grasp
>reality, though you've certainly bent over backwards to teach us.

Don't be so self-centered; I disagree with a _lot_ of people on
this issue.  Would you rather, though, have me say "Charles Munat
and many others on this list"...?  Surely that makes little sense,
but if you insist.

>We must be slow learners.

>It's so much safer to speak of us in general terms, isn't it? After all, if
>you named names you'd have to provide evidence to back up your claims that
>we're unrealistic, wouldn't you? Instead, you can just make blanket
>pronouncements about our lack of vision.

Charles, my concern is with guidelines which are unrealistic, not
with proving that I'm smarter than Charles or whatever.  You insist
on making this _personal_, dear friend, and then you berate me for
making "blanket pronouncements" because I don't include your name?

This is about making a better set of guidelines -- not about which
personality (Kynn, Charles, Marti, Bruce, David, etc.) comes out as
the top dog.

I fight in the realm of _ideas_, of concepts, of theories, of
principles -- please don't expect me to sully myself in the dirty
gutter of personal attacks and "naming names" attached to concepts
which I disagree with.

>It's really a cheap shot to keep painting everyone who disagrees with you as
>unrealistic and too stupid to see that we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

Charles, I'm not calling you that, but since you seem insist on 
taking a _philosophical_ debate as a _personal_ insult, there is
clearly nothing I will be able to do to persuade you otherwise,
besides admit complete and total adherence with your viewpoint.

I can't do that because, well, I disagree.  If you feel that is an
insult to you, personally, Charles, then I suggest you learn to get
over yourself soon.

>If you think that you're going to win any converts among us by calling us
>names, I think you're mistaken.

I'm not calling you names, Charles.  I'm sorry if you take your
philosophy so personal that you take disagreement as insults.

>But then maybe this isn't about convincing
>us. Maybe it's about solidifying your credentials as a master of
>realpolitik.

Charles, I'm so very, very sorry to see that you have taken things
so seriously that you've decided anyone who disagrees with you must
have impure motives.  I've never said that your motives were impure;
I've never called you stupid.  I _thought_ this was a situation 
where two intelligent, caring, passionate, thoughtful people who
care strongly about an issue were having a disagreement on principle.

Instead, I find you attempting to impugn my motives repeatedly;
this isn't the type of philosophical discussion I signed up for,
Charles.  This isn't productive -- this is you tearing down anyone
who disagrees with you.  Tearing down personally, not tearing down
the ideas.

I've never challenged the integrity or intelligence of Charles
F. Munat -- I _have_ challenged the ideas held by Charles F. 
Munat.

>Maybe it's really about selling yourself as a paragon of
>moderation and restraint regarding accessibility. If so, you're undoubtedly
>succeeding.

I'm sorry if you view my vocal advocacy of an unpopular position as
some sort of betrayal, Charles.

>Bye, Kynn. I hope you make a lot of money out there in the real world. It
>was nice having you here for a while. Sorry we couldn't keep up.

Which "we" are you speaking for here, specifically?  You accuse me
of being vague, and yet when you dismiss me (I don't recall EVER telling
anyone "bye" on the WAI list because I _disagree_ with them on how
exactly to accomplish our goals), you presume a "we" instead of
simply stating the truth:  You're speaking for yourself.  Don't use
the common Internet sham of claiming a "vast support" for yourself
and pretend as if I have harmed a huge number of people by disagreeing
with Charles F. Munat.

Remember, Charles F. Munat, our goals are the same -- increased
accessibility for everyone.  We may differ on the details, but in the
end, the whole reason we are here is to achieve a result.  I'd thought
there's room within that goal for different approaches; and in fact,
I still do believe there is.  I don't think, however, there's room 
for an approach such as yours, which says "I'm right, and anyone
who disagrees with me has impure motives and doesn't make enough
personal attacks by name."

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 13:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:51 GMT