Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:17 PM
John -- As you may know, I value your contributions considerably -- except in connection with conclusions on the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir episode.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:20 PM
"...love means never having to say you're sorry (or apologize)."
Opinions are like friends, everyone has some but what matters is how you respect them!
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:20 PM
Let me ask this, however: Do you think that the rhetoric on this thread has helped get you any closer to your goals? Do you think that further discussion is likely to lead to a desirable result?
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:24 PM
Perefectly phonetic from where I"m standing
Sorry Wilfrid I didn't see your post. I don't think anyone is asking for Suvir to resign. I'm certainly not. I think people just want an explanation as to what happened. The truth would be a good starting point. As for me personally, I would be happy with an apology to those who were personally offended (which happens to include me.) I said it the day it happened and I am still saying it. I just apologized to John and others because he and others took my reference the wrong way. Why can't those who crossed the line that day act the same way?
Jaybee - Alevai. And I'm sure Nina will correct me if I spelled it wrong.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:32 PM
"Just read Whiting's piece again. One point that I don't think has been raised: his dig at members with supposedely unlimited money does not hold with his praise of Suvir for serving up feasts for the...what was it...conjures up banquets for the greats and near-greats. Seems as if he is trying to have it both ways with those comments. And one more thing: if there truly was no agenda regarding Suvir, then why only mention him? Why no mentions of other moderators?"
If Suvir doesn't want to respond to the questions put forth here, or if management has told him not to respond, I'm not going to complain about it. But like Israel and Egypt, it's a cold peace and everyone does their best given the circumstances.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:42 PM
I asked, "Are these messages helping you acheive your very reasonable goals?" Instead of answering, you respond with "Hey, I didn't start it!"
Really, it's not very interesting to me who started it. I'm interested in finishing it, and I'm wondering why this conversation is still happening if no one can articulate any useful purpose that it is serving.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:43 PM
The reason I see this as a witch hunt is Because Suvir used the word "apologize" before asking for "an opportunity to start afresh" in his return announcement. My suspicion is that no matter how he phrases his apology, someone will need just a bit more personal attention and require more of an apology if the first one isn't sufficient.
I would be happy with an apology to those who were personally offended (which happens to include me.) I said it the day it happened and I am still saying it.
Eventually, if we haven't already, we'll discuss this on the plane of "when did you stop beating your wife." There are accusations that cannot be proven, but that can also not be disproven. I am disturbed as the underlying dishonesty of points made earlier show up as alterior motives come to the surface.
Move on. Any single user has the power to disrupt this site and ruin it for everyone. All we can do is prevent someone from ruining it for others by making it in his image. Sabotage and terrorism can never be adequately defended against. All I ask is that we move on.
Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.
My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 12:46 PM
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:02 PM
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:06 PM
I think the management faces a tough choice right about now. Not sure what more I can add at this point.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:06 PM
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:07 PM
Bux - As far as I know, Suvir insulted three people. Jaybee, Robert S. and myself. Those are the only three people I have ever asked him to apologize to. For you to say it would be a never ending procession of people wanting apologies is just avoiding the issue. If he doesn't want to that is fine. But you should know that there not being a resolution to that incident curtails my involvement on the site. For example, yesterday when Suvir posted about Kalustyan's, I had loads to say about it. Including the fact that I had considered approaching the owners about buying the place and trying to turn the Kalustyan's brand into the top spice mail order company in the country (unfortunately Sept 11 made me rethink going into the middle eastern food business . ) But I held myself back from participating because of the nature of what was said to me that day and what Suvir said about me to people in private. So I don't know what to tell you. It is not a witchhunt at all and it has nothing to do with beating anyone's wife. The people who were offended, whomever they are, had every right to be and have every right to ask for an apology.
But as I promised one of the moderators around here, I am quite happy to drop discussing it and move on. And as I stated earlier, I didn't bring it up. Whiting did. And if you agree to drop it right now so will I. But for the record, my position on it stands.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:18 PM
Cabrales - Certainly no disrespect, but you seem to misunderstand my meaning. My point is not members who ignore threads. I ignore threads that don't interest me, don't you? My concerns are also not extended to members who post based solely on a thread's title [I]without[I] reading the posts of other members. Afterall, those members are still participating even when their comments don't quite connect with the discussion.
As Steve P and others have mentioned in multiple contexts, members can ignore threads that do not interest them. A counterargument might be that the title of a thread may not end up being necessarily indicative of its full contents. But that is a fact of participation in the board. How can a member who does not even take the time to peek into a thread expect that she could absorb everything about a thread by reviewing its title? Such a member should have no legitimate expectation of being party to all discussions on the board.
I am questioning the occurrance of new members who join with the full intention of participating but are turned off either by what they experience directly, or by what they view. These aren't necessarily disengaged individuals. There is an incredible string of names with one or two posts or none at all that comprises the Member List. They get started then suddenly, they disappear without a trace. There's a reason for it, and I don't believe it's all disinterest or a fear of typos. Believe it or ignore it, but a significant number of those people are voting with their feet.
If that's is true it's very unfortunate for a site like this, and the point that John made in this regard is very clear regardless of who did and didn't like what he said. The irritation over the statement about wealth is noted, but it only serves to obscure a larger, more important set of circumstances that I hope everyone will stop and take a breath to consider. I think the site deserves it. After that, please return to a discussion of Gale Gand's beignets.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:29 PM
Just for the record, and I did post about this - I asked Suvir to apologize to me. He PMd me, more than once, suggesting that I was either anti-gay, anti-Indian, anti-Muslim, or all three. And that wasn't all. I did ask him to apologize, and I was ignored except to the extent that he referred me back to his "apology" on the main board.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:36 PM
"He PMd me, more than once, suggesting that I was either anti-gay, anti-Indian, anti-Muslim, or all three"
Nina - LOL as hard as I can.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:43 PM
* The sanctimoniousness.
* The petty and personal disputes between long time users.
* Quoting/Paraphrasing of private messages as ammunition in threads (they're private for a reason.)
* The belief of some users that you are automatically owed an apology if somebody offends you (expressed after almost any contetemps, not just the ones in this thread.)
* The belief that somebody who doesn't agree with you is automatically a 'troll'
I have no real background on the incidents mentioned in this thread, I have no background on the level or type of offense. I can guarantee one thing - it's nowhere near as bad as what you'd see on Usenet.
The opinions in this post in no way imply that I expect anybody to agree with me.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 01:54 PM
Posted 23 July 2002 - 02:20 PM
I guess it's worth repeating here that the nature of my life, personal and professional, is private. Jaybee has taken himself out of this, and in the interest of returning the site to the level of quality to which it aspires, and of which it is demonstrably capable, I am herewith doing the same by saying that there isn't anything I don't have in words from anyone that I still want. I don't mean to be intentionally vague or cute about it, but I do want to emphasize that I'm out in a way that leaves me satisfied, if not sanguine.
As far as I know, Suvir insulted three people. Jaybee, Robert S. and myself. Those are the only three people I have ever asked him to apologize to.
This leaves not just Steve, but all the others who were offended by the viciousness and malice that beset a question that really overlapped our plate. (What goes on on Usenet or anywhere else is of no relevance whatsoever.) The trollish behavior that occured simultaneously didn't help, nor has Mr. Whiting's recent snipe at the affair, which someone called mischievious. I can think of other words. It also didn't help that the moderators failed to deal with the matter publicly, as democracy demands. It's my own feeling that, had they done so, it *might* have been a big help. Unanswered questions are never a big help in a free speech zone.
I sincerely doubt that my fellows, with whom I proclaim immovable solidarity on the underlying issues yet again, will ever receive an apology, although each of them deserves it individually, as does the site collectively. Democracy is messy, but it's the best we've got. Please, guys, let's move on. I promise you: one night, at a dinner somewhere, there will be a round of toasts on this, and other, subjects, that will make Mel Brooks proud.
Posted 23 July 2002 - 03:03 PM
Posted 23 July 2002 - 03:10 PM
"15's my limit on schnitzengruber, baby".
Posted 23 July 2002 - 03:15 PM
seems appropriate for this thread, don'tcha think?
Posted 23 July 2002 - 04:05 PM
"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.
"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."
Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM
Posted 23 July 2002 - 09:42 PM
Yeah, I waded through all 7 pages. Thanx Jin. All I needed was the first page and your last post.