From: Antistoicus
To: Ellen
Subject: Meetings, bashings, and a crate of antacid
On Thu, 25 May 2000 you wrote:
> ... In a message dated 5/25/00 9:33:19 AM Central
> ... Daylight Time, (Antistoicus) writes:
>
> ... << ... why not have an informal get to know each
> ... ........ other type deal open to any who choose
> ............ to come, and from there we can decide
> ............ what moves to make. ... >>
>
> ... That sounds like sence to me.
Actually, it was (deleted)'s suggestion, and she should get the credit.
> ... I must admit that when two of my respected
> ... friends were violently trashed on this list,
> ... after they were unsubscribed and
> ... thus unable to defend themselves, it made me
> ... hesitant to open myself to the same attacks,
It is good, when you write things like this, to be specific. Which two friends? Three people were removed from this list, prior to Sunday. What was it that occured on this list, that you considered "violent trashing"?
Mike did get trashed on this list. But then, Mike also passed himself off as our spokesman (with nobody having given him permission to do so) and dared the owner of the Towne Shoppe to sue us, on every single Chicago area Pagan mailing list over at WebForum that I've heard of, to date. This much is public knowledge.
You weren't planning on doing any of this yourself, were you? If not, why worry about it?
The only other people who were removed from the list, prior to Sunday, were Harriet, and Sally (aka (deleted)). Given that you claim to have seen two people "violently trashed", at least one of those two must have been one of them. I read Markov's remarks, which you seem to allude to, below, but saw no reference to any specific elder, merely an observation that the Pagan elders, in general, were a "pain in the (deleted)". Such an observation does not rule out exceptions, and as such, would not constitute an attack against either.
I would add that neither of these two women were removed from the list lightly or capriciously, and so their removal should not have been a cause for concern. I'll try to refrain from rehashing events that you have already seen, and I've already spoken of. Most of them are documented, ad nauseum, on the listing for the Temple of Prima Nocturne over at
anyway. Here is what you did not see, though :
- Harriet, having been removed from the internal mailing list, asked to be returned to it. Strictly speaking, this was done at her own request since, as you saw in her letter, forwarded to the list, she indicated that she did not want to be counted either on the Shrine or the Council. (Her own words. Moot point with the Shrine, of course, as she would not be eligible).
She then wrote back to say that she really didn't mean it, but just didn't want to be spending her own money. In other words, this was a corporate-style negotiating tactic. Except that this is not a corporation. To be returned to the list, after one voluntarily departs it, is purely up to the discretion of the person running the list. Harriet's request was declined. I do not have time for people who play games, and I am not going to ask those who stay here to make time for them.
(Harriet, apparently, was expecting automatic funding, and was shocked to learn that she'd be expected to make a presentation and sales pitch, if she was on the editorial board, and wanted funds. What can I say? Welcome to reality. On what authority (and with what source of funding) could I grant such a wish, in such an unprecedented fashion?
No institution or business runs that way, with good reason. Nevertheless, Harriet seemed to think that a dramatic exit would get her this unheard-of concession).
- You were on the lists, when Sally began her repetitive questions game, in classical Usenet style. (Ask impossibly broad questions, requiring impossibly long answers, like "what is the council and what do they do", which have already been answered in articles at urls one has been given, and in person. Repeatedly. On getting those answer, ask questions that have already been answered by those answers. Or, even better, act like they haven't been answered, forcing their repetition as one replies. Lather, rinse, repeat.
For good measure, then send the person who has snapped at the bait, a letter or two complaining about the length of his replies, cc-ed to a few other people).
This pattern of behavior, if allowed to continue, will bring the discussion to a screeching halt. Sally was not thrown out of the group for this, though. Her membership on the list was merely suspended. It was her subsequent actions that got her thrown out.
She was given a copy of the rebuttals to her arguments. She was asked if she would be willing to accept the rule that "once a question has been answered, it has been answered", or, as a lawyer might put it, "asked and answered". Counterarguments against an answer are fine, but repetition is not. Sally was offered, as an alternative, the choice of writing to me directly for clarification, if she wanted something repeated, instead of asking for such on the list. This is standard Netiquette, if you follow such things.
Sally's response was to send a letter, starting with a string of insults, followed by a call to all of the members of the group to abandon it and come join her, and the staffs of the previous newsletters, to put out her own newsletter. This, she cc-ed to me, another person on the list, the mailing list itself (apparently forgetting that she had been suspended from it), and the staffs of said newsletters.
At this point, she had breached the understanding that one was to refrain from politicing, in an attempt to isolate an opponent in an argument. This rule, perhaps THE rule here, is one of the primary reasons for having even established the Council, and is listed verbatim on our listing at the Witches' Voice, at
(url deleted; Council has dissolved)
which Sally had already visited. Sally agreed to this, and then breached her own oath, because she didn't like the direction in which a conversation was going. In particular, because policy in a group other than Prima Nocturne, was not being set according to her preferences, without backtalk.
She then, like Mike, went into WebForum, this time, having somebody forward her letter to every single Chicago area Pagan mailing list there that we know of. (Have these people heard of restraint?) She revealed the shocking news that ... well, you've already seen her letter here. Another rehash. Trying to win through sheer persistence, and again, violating the above understanding.
Having breached the social contract defining the group, she forfeited her protection under it. Like Mike, she freely chose to engage in behavior that undermined freedom of expression on this list. As we all know from Civics 100, or should, one can not properly extend a right, past that point at which it would come at the expense of the freedom of another to engage in the exercise of that right himself. Hence, Sally, in seeking to isolate another in an attempt to keep him from being heard, forfeited her right to be heard, herself. She was ejected from this group with ample cause. I'm sorry if she is your friend, but she will never be welcome here again.
Given how much of an effort she put into breaking up, both the Shrine and the Council, and into isolating both from the rest of community, merely for the 'temerity' of trying to start a publication that her circle of friends would not have effective control over, how crazy would I have to be, to invite her back? It's not even going to be a consideration.
Again, I would ask - could you picture yourself doing any of this? If not, then why worry?
Let us remember, that while Sally's actions were fully public, as they were announced at length on WebForum, the criticism of her you just saw was just written, for no eyes except your own, so far. All that she, and Harriet, saw on the list, was rebuttal. Please understand that I have to ask this. Is it the case that, like Sally, you see counterargument as a form of "trashing", and a strongly effective counterargument as a "violent trashing"?
(Note : my guess is that you don't, but I have to ask, under the circumstances, as you haven't quite made it clear what your concerns were).
If that were the case, then I would be concerned that you might not be very happy, at either the Shrine, or at the Council (should the latter continue). At the former, you would be confronted with the reality that no scholarly discussion ever proceeeds along the lines that Sally seems to want. At the latter ... you were all told, at the outset, that the point of the Council was to promote "free and open exchange". I never said, "unless somebody objects to hearing a counterargument".
It would seem strange to me, for someone who had an issue with that, to even be here, as she wouldn't believe in the stated mission of the group she had decided to participate in. Why would she want to come?
> ... so I sat back to see how things went. Also the
> ... attitude that "Pagan Elders (deleted)" is not
> ... compatable with building a magazine/newsletter
> ... that is supposed to bring the community together.
That depends on what you mean by "the community". If you're talking about bringing all of the Pagans in Chicago together, in one happy family, that's an exercise in futility. Would you want to bring Frank, and the owner of the Towne Shoppe together? Hope you have plenty of tourniquets handy, once that fight gets going!
A truly cohesive community never attempts to live together under one tent. Some people simply can't work together, and others (like Sally) aren't trying to work cooperatively at all. Our job would be to work with those we can and say goodbye to the rest.
It is a valid observation that most of those who call themselves "elders" in the community are looking for deference. Inequity and open communication do not mix. Those who are called "elders" (frequently over their own objections) are a much different matter.
(deleted) has, at no time, either sought to disrupt the forum that he sought to participate in or deny another effective access to it, as Sally has. Consequently, regardless of whether or not I agree with such a broad statement, it would have been his privilege to make it on the list - much as it would have been your privilege to offer a counterargument, and my privilege to join you in making it.
Let us add that, in context, his remark was not so broad as that, but merely referred to the practice of many of the politically connected in the community to suck the rest of us into their meaningless battles, ie. the tedious and infamous Witch Wars.
> ... I am aware that neither
> ... you, Antistoicus or (deleted),
> ... are proponents of this attitude,
Good. I'd like to be credited with a slightly more nuanced position that that. I expect that (deleted) would feel the same.
> ... but I wonder if others
> ... associated with you are.
If so, like I keep saying, that is their privilege. But what do you mean "associated"? Given that Mike has been shown the door, I would hope that he'd be off the list. As for Markov, he came to the group the same way you did. There was no prior connection.
All personal connections between me and anybody else in the group are above board, and acknowledged openly. I don't do politics.
> ... ( I am not an Elder btw.)
* shrug *
> ... Ya gotta remember that
> ... not everyone has the same goals, and flexibility
> ... is the key to working with large groups of people.
Sorry, but I really can't agree with that. Principle and a respect for propriety are the keys to working with large groups of people. Unhampered flexibility is the key to developing a truly corrupt system.
Cutting through large amounts of rationalization, Sally is, in effect, arguing that possessing clout in our little community so strongly entitles one to a say in how somebody else's publication is going to be run, that one is entitled to be admitted to the staff without pre-screening. No responsible organization would ever agree to this. Any publication put out on these terms would be devoid of credibility.
She has then, seemingly, taken the attitude that because she has seen some community support for this preposterously sleazy position, and apparently intimidated a handful of timid people into dropping out, that's she's going to get her way. Wrong. As for those who departed us for political reasons, I condemn Sally's motives, but I thank her for helping us clean house. If they would do it now, they would have done the same later, and people like that are a net liability.
The position taken, as hard as it is for some in this community to understand this, was one taken as a matter of principle. When Sally resorts to dishonorable tactics like these in order to get her way, apparently on Harriet's behalf, with Harriet's approval, she establishes nothing more than her moral unfitness to sit on the board of any responsible institution. Paganism is, after all, a branch of religion, not a segment of the corporate community, and corporate ethics have no place here. Principles aren't a diversion from our business here, principles are our business, and it we have to set them aside, in order to make the newsletter happen, it is best not to put it out at all.
Agreed?
I expect that a substantial portion of the community will be able to understand, and respect this. Any community that can't, though, isn't worth serving. Under the circumstances, I hope you can respect the fact that I am not going to be influenced by whose friends Sally and Harriet are, or how "respected" (or feared) they are in the community. If so, I also hope that you would credit the community with the same ability to put personal prejudices aside, and tell right from wrong, until it clearly shows us otherwise.
> ... It also costs a lot of money and TIME to put out a
> ... newsletter. Have you any plans for funding this
> ... endevor so far?
This was talked about, earlier. Given as many as 10 people dividing the expenses, it comes to $12/ month, which we should easily be able to bear until advertisers can be found. We're not looking at a full-fledged magazine, merely a photocopied bundle of pages like the old Gazette. The term for this is a "zine", and their budgets, historically haven't been especially high. More elegant things would gradually come later, and would be financed by the revenue from the humbler early efforts.
This is a matter of simple practicality, for more than financial reasons. It would take time for the volume and quality of writing produced by the community to justify a larger publication.
> ......... << ... I think that those who missed should
> ................. still be encouraged to come ... >>
Already done. The invitation was sent out to all formerly on the list, except for Mike, Harriet and Sally.
> ... I hope so!
>
> ... It occurs to me that when I remind people of an
> ... event a week before, and then again a few
> ... days before it happens, I get a higher turnout.
Good idea.
> ... Putting the meeting the WEEKEND BEFORE
> ... ELFEST, guaranteed that I could not make it,
> ... tho I gave plenty of notice that I could not make
> ... the meeting.
Yes, you did, and that was appreciated. The cessation of the list was not an act of personal pique. It was a reflection of a growing understanding that setting up a mailing list was the wrong way to go. You all were given my telephone number. Please feel free to use it.
I'm not really sure that the Internet has proved to be especially productive, as a communications medium. It's darn good for working mischief, though. The only thing I really like about it is that it makes it possible for one to give public access to large amounts of reference material, cheaply.
> ... Also, we are entering the season of vacations
> ... and Graduations, so please bear that in mind.
I always keep that in mind. I'm a grad student. But, still ...
A commitment is a commitment, and none of them wrote to say that they couldn't come. Let us add, that all on the list were asked if this time would work for them, and few expressed any difficulty, before the fact.
> ......... << ... but this is the final eliminator - those who
> ................. agree to be there for this one who
> ................. dont make it will be cut from the list
> ................. and the rest of us can get down to
> ................. business and start making this happen.
>
> ................. what do you say? ... >>
>
> ... Why cut them from the list? Perhaps they may
> ... not be able to take a terribly active part, but
> ... they can still spread the word and get
> ... others involved.
Because, more realistically, they'll sit around and do nothing and occasionally give us problems, a la Mike, Sally and Harriet. Besides which, the advent of the web has made getting the word out a bit easier than it used to be, back in remote antiquity (the early 90s).
> ... Perhaps a longer gestation period is needed. We
> ... are entering the busiest time of the year for
> ... most Pagans I know.
Summer vacation? You do remember that this is a mostly collegiate crowd, right? It's the one time most of us are free. Sort of.
> ... I personally have a pretty full calendar
> ... untill September. But in the WINTER,
> ... THEN is a time when people are going
> ... NUTS to get together.
Or, going nuts because of approaching midterms and the multiple jobs they're working to get through school.
> ... I am not saying that you cannot get anything
> ... accomplished till then, but perhaps it will take
> ... longer for things to get off the ground due to
> ... the busyness of Summer.
Winter is quite as bad. I didn't expect massive early involvement, but I did expect to see somebody come. If nobody, does, then this is just so much wheel spinning, and I'm not short on projects. Time to move on.
> ... I wish you luck
Thank you. Look, I know you're sticking up for your friends and I respect that. I've made an effort to handle an unpleasant subject as pleasantly as I could, and if through my awkwardness, I have caused offense, I beg your pardon. But please understand that if I allow political convenience to override principle here, the entire purpose of gathering will be gone. So, in enforcing policy, I can not concern myself with the friendships or the personalities involved. I'm sure that you're familiar with the concept of "a slippery slope". I'd rather not start down one.
............................ Respectfully yours,
............................ ......................... Antistoicus
Click here to return to the previous page.