- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:12:56 -0800
- 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 UTC