[governance] A false consensus is broken

Fri Dec 21 20:22:59 EST 2012

All of this phony outrage is a bit much.

Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay its
fair share of taxes. that's something to be outraged about.

Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on agreements
to extend broadband access to countries in the South. that's something to be
outraged about.

Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements re-interating
already agreed to commitments in the area of Human Rights. that's something
to be outraged about.

But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of the
meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement accepted by
2/3rds of the countries attending) . that seems to me to be a matter of the
utmost triviality . of interest, dare I say, only to those who don't have
anything more substantial to argue against.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Koven Ronald
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com; avri at acm.org
Cc: gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken

What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation or
factual error. Period. 

No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction would be
in order.

Orwellian language is not in order.

If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in these
discussions. 

Bests, Rony Koven

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Cc: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm
Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken

But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically
locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting.  "Walked out" has
both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me at
least - intended the phrase in a figurative way.   This should be especially
obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked out, not a
specific person. 

Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a
charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even
sure why people are so hot on this), and appoint myself judge and dismiss
this claim, on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative meaning
and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit without the
broad meaning of "walked out". :) 

The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation."  Why the
pre-occupation with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be
answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts
before me to do so.  :) 

Paul Lehto, J.D.

PS  If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here,
then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused and
also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own facts" -
which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed judgment at
that.  In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light
most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake.

All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the
extent to which there was or wasn't a figurative walk out, and that could be
enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but which
devolved into something more ad hominem in the nature of a game of gotcha.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote:

> Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic
medium...
>
> Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of
(journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where
a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation
(the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion
of substantive debate...

It is simple:

Because you are not permitted to have your own facts.

avri

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1 
Ishpeming, MI  49849 
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121221/74841a62/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t