<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Bertrand,<br>
<br>
Pl see inline. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM,
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH-s_=CwY4EddO266xtoWBZPnzsYF9E_coS7XjjP6+WEUw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time
now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as
one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of
this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am
extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and
indeed becoming irrelevant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent
exchange. You wrote: "<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><i>Ad
hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist
people's words in order to score political points</i>"".</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to differ. <span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"<i>You
tend to twist people's words in order to score political
points</i>" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia)
because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific
argument of yours. It is rather a judgement </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">about your behavior,
about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in
representing somebody else's position. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">To illustrate
the point: </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">An
ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is
usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must
not be true". However, </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">if someone says A and
another person says: "this person said B and therefore this
person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting
people's words. In this case, you are basically saying:
Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore
she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's
mouth. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">To be frank, I understand
the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment
about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask
yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible
if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior
motives to other people's comments just because of their
alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of
actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of
civil society purity, etc... </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">This behavior is harming the
civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening
its influence in the global debate. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I always respect
your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them
and engage in debates with you. </span><font face="arial,
sans-serif">But I resent your becoming one of the main
sources of ad hominem attack on this list. </font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I have many things to say about your email, but for the present,
would you be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your
above sweeping statement(s). You have made some serious allegations
against a civil society colleague with whom you have worked for
around 8 years now. I sincerely hope you would not shrink from
standing your ground on this, and not slip away.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH-s_=CwY4EddO266xtoWBZPnzsYF9E_coS7XjjP6+WEUw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">There are
moments when one must call a spade a spade.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments
presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from an
incident of calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade that
laid in full view of the list members, in the text of emails
exchanged on the list. <br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH-s_=CwY4EddO266xtoWBZPnzsYF9E_coS7XjjP6+WEUw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> I wish the
co-coordinators of this list </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">had called your
attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a
sound debate.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This is below
you. You have more to contribute. </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Respectfully
still.</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">
Bertrand</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH-s_=CwY4EddO266xtoWBZPnzsYF9E_coS7XjjP6+WEUw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">On
31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">ad
hominem comment<br>
</blockquote>
(to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing
asbestos -<br>
i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would
just go away and we could all get back to rational
calm conversations)<br>
<br>
an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because
someone is a bully, their views are
illegitimate/irrelevant.<br>
It does not include the content of calling a bully a
bully.<br>
<br>
I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack
on this list.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what
is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs
when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's
character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view
to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a
specious distinction above that does not hold. In middle
of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made -
certainly in conditions like of this list, where people
otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus
no particular reason for animosity - with a view to
undermine that person's argument.<br>
<br>
On the other hand there is indeed some difference between
just an allegation and an ad hominem attack.<br>
<br>
Saying something like , to stick to present case of
Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an
allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite
serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc,
whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.)<br>
<br>
, Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to
twist people's words in order to score political points".
That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and
personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to
distract from the argument made - which in this case what
that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the
Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me
for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view.
Nothing personal here.
<div class="im"> <br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">For
example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible
bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the
bullying, X makes a lot of sense.<br>
Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with
what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid
that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get
beat up for it.<br>
<br>
One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX
says, but X is just so mean.<br>
<br>
(I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed
IGC participants)<br>
<br>
Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you,
are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of
the positions you represent.<br>
Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say
so on the list for fear of starting a flame war.<br>
Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and
wait for the storm to pass.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's
character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your
above statements themselves tends towards such an ad
hominem attack, and you have very often said such things
about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments
rather than anything else. However, I would give you an
opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take
this challenge. Please point out the precise language in
the current exchange over the last few days that you find
problematic in my emails, that is something other than a
critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make,
and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just
give even one example. You may even go back further to
earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are
a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I
promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you
provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for
everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your
insinuations.
<div class="im"> <br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Someone/everyone,
please stop the venom.<br>
It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC
irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about.
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">When
the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is
the outrageousness of a few individuals.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some
views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about.
(And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in
views on this list that at times one side and at other
times the other side will feel strongly about things.)
But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am
almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be
given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for
personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even
your reference above of not responding to me with the fear
of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a
somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards.<br>
<br>
(Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the
role and positions of a good part of civil society
involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression -
and its support for certain power structures, which I do
often voice, which I understand may not go well with some
people. But I always voice it in a collective structural
manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set
f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very
important in the current global circumstances - and I
cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.)
<div class="im"> <br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">The
words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of
many.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to
examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic
question!<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder</font></span>
<div class="">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">please
stop<br>
<br>
Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but
sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would
bring great relief.<br>
I have heard others say similar things.<br>
<br>
And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will
pass.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle
<div>Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director,
International Diplomatic Academy (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net" target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a>)</div>
<div>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"
Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting
humans")</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>