Open source radicals--eat cake

TalkBack 12 of 99:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

I *agree* with John's points, I think?!: John,

I agree with your first point, using analogy and changing the "over-emotionally tainted" words and subjects to others in order to explore the general abstractions and principles *can* lead to a more "sane" debate.

Of course, this presumes those with the bias and are reading your article have a desire to at least explore other positions. And that is where I think you might presume too much. I wish it worked as such for both your and my sake. It does not. An invitation to take another perspective does wonders for opening up a conversation, as long as it is genuine.

I also agree with you about "Open Source Radicals"...
A) and their highly judgmental and intense moralizing making them quite arrogant.
B) and their thinking they should decide what ought to be protected and codified (or not) in law making them strident.
C) and their deciding that the voluntary work of another ought to be "forced" into the public as unjust.
D) and their self-righteousness of theirs being the "higher moral ground in choice" and how that ought to override other individual's choices is deeply hypocritical.

And finally, I agree with your last statement saying "Don't get carried away by your enthusiasm for open source." I would expand that to include anyone who demonstrates a fixation on a particular position; Open Source *AND* proprietary software by dropping the last three words, ?for open source?.

Now, what confuses me is this - exactly what was the purpose in your writing this article? Who are you trying to convince of what? And is the "who" you are addressing likely listening to you in a way where they are "open" to hearing your point? And what kind of action are you looking for that ?who? to take once moved by your words?

Or perhaps you are just venting your frustration at their "crystal clear (to you) hypocrisy" and feel better doing so?

I will say, you certainly light up the forum responses. When I see you have written a piece, I almost always find a huge set of responses. Perhaps that is a clue to your motivation(s).

Anyway, it is clear you find both proprietary and "free" software desirable. You seem to be "automatically biased" to defend proprietary software. And I am not sure why. Are you afraid it is going to be decimated by FOSS? If not, how in the world do *you* benefit defending proprietary software?

Perhaps you use your writing similar to the way I use my speaking - it is a place for you to trial positions, get feedback and then "perfect" your positions before staunchly defending them.

Whatever your motivation, I think I am beginning to see you have a more balanced view than my "first impression" of you tended to grant you. Which of course begs this question:

If the default "listening" of you is as a proprietary software shill, how about spending your time demonstrating your understanding of both sides of this issue by writing articles which identify the balance of concerns on both sides and then offers possible negotiation points? Or help with ways to reason about why each of the needs on each side MAKES SENSE FOR THAT SIDE and then show some sort of path to negotiated resolution?

Until you do this, you are inhibiting YOUR grown as a writer/transmitter. Why? Because your listener's biases will keep you trapped in the gravity of their "biased listening". You are only as effective a writer as you have involved and understanding listeners, right?

You are clearly a good writer. I do enjoy reading most of your pieces, even when I think I disagree with them. It takes a good second read and then some thinking to realize your positions are more in line with my thinking than not. That is quiet a bit of effort on my part before I am ?aligned? with you.

Does it serve you for me, your listener, to have to go to that much effort to establish whether I agree/disagree with you? And do you have a goal to move me to take action in my own life?

If so, what?s the call to action you request? I did not see one besides ?not getting carried away?. I must say that it was sufficiently nebulous as to leave me unable to convert it to any sort of reasonable action, at least on the face of it. How did you want me to move to action to support your point?

These were all genuine questions I had after reading your article. Perhaps they are unimportant to you. I hope they are.

Good luck,

Jim O'Flaherty

PS. My motivation for writing to you is to hope for your shifting your approach. You clearly get an enormous number of people listening to you. I just think they do not necessarily respond in ways you find desirable.

It is very hard work to be responsible for generating persuasion - it is not as simple as being condemnatory...it doesn't work for the FOSS zealots. It doesn't work for the proprietary shills.

And it doesn't and won't work for you either, presuming your goal is to do some good (based in your own value system).

PS. Like you, I am using ?other types of meaning and word usage? to play outside of the default meaning paths in traditional communication. Sometimes, it helps reduce the ?automatic filtering? of my listeners.; Posted by: jim_oflaherty_jr Posted on: 03/03/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use