Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[jaybee]

As I said earlier, hounding John gets us nowhere, except in the direction of losing an excellent contributor. The issue lies elsewhere, and we can either drop it or beat it into the ground.

Earlier I wrote that I would post no more on this thread, but it seems my convictions are not as strong as my emotions. To borrow Tommy's declaration, I am writing for myself here when I say that, aside from one or two trolls who put me in their sights, I have not felt personally affronted by any posts that either disagreed with mine or took issue with me except for some of John's. I admire his skill as a writer, and his ability to turn a phrase to express a point differently than others have done. His bistro reviews are very well done and informative. We shared private emails on several subjects which I enjoyed doing. I expect he would be an enjoyable dinner companion. That said, I find the tone and expression of some of his retorts to be demeaning to the individual he is addressing. Not just to their point or view, which is fair game, but to their values or basic philosophy. His so-called facetious comment about well-heeled punters and conspicuous consumption, and his put down of people who are affluent, or care to be,

bespeaks a contempt for people whose values and desires differ from his in ways that are important to him. That contempt fairly oozes through his satire and sardony.

I've read a fair amount of what has been posted on eGullet since joining last January. And I have not read or felt contempt from any other posters. If someone wishes to tell me I can't tell a good wine from a great one, or that my taste in restaurants is woeful or demonstrates ignorance, that's goose for the gander. If they want to argue me to tears on why French haut cuisine is as good as cuisine can get, that's OK. But if someone makes me feel that they have contempt for me or what I believe, that is not OK by a long shot. If this is not a fair reading of John's feelings or intent, I apologize to him. And I mean that. But it is a gut feeling I have, and I won't apologize for that.

[=Mark]

Mark, it's like a real Beanery but it's not real. What's a Beanery?

A real Beanery run by a buddy of mine on a BBQ list.

[Steve Plotnicki]

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.

[Bux]

Some people are not reading carefully. My last post said goodbye. Plotnicki has won. He now has two notches in his pistol. I'll join Suvir and post occasionally in the Indian ghetto, but mostly I'm back to caring for my own web site again.

Saying goodbye once is never good form. Saying it twice is less good and more pointless. It's not about winning, but whatever. If you post half as often as Suvir, I trust we'll see you around plenty in the future. As for your site, it's a worthwhile cause and I hope you keep us in touch by posting updates here, or in the appropriate board.

[Wilfrid]

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...

Okay. But if the explanation is not forthcoming, what then? There is no way that most of the people using this site - including, I suspect, John, can give you what you want. Only a handful of individuals might be able to, and I'm sure you've messengered them about it. Is there no way that we can just acknowledge the fact that you feel you are owed an explanation and apology, and then move on?

[cabrales]

The only think I seek, consistent with my prior acquiescence, is for John and other legitimate, valuable members of our community not to peel open old scabs by repeating their views on what happened during the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir episode -- views that, in the face of moderator silence, are at a minimum unsubstantiated and in my mind misleading. It's one thing to accept lack of disclosure; it's another to be asked to stay silent in the face of "conclusions" so abundantly being dispensed in a manner that could appear to be "documentary" in nature (i.e., a statement of purported, known facts and assessments).

John -- As you may know, I value your contributions considerably -- except in connection with conclusions on the Neo-Nazi/France/Suvir episode.

[rich]

from the 60's (maybe 70's):

"...love means never having to say you're sorry (or apologize)."

[jordyn]

Steve P and Cabrales: Both of you have expressed very reasonable goals.

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?

[LaNiña]

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.

Perefectly phonetic from where I"m standing

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid & Jordyn - Hey I didn't bring Suvir up. John did. I've been on a don't even mention Suvir diet for weeks now. It is other people who bring him up. Part of the reason everyone is so pissed off here is that John was trying to rehabilitate Suvir's reputation in his article. And one of the tactics he was using was to denigrate the members who have an issue with Suvir. Fortunately we have smart posters around here and one of them just PM'd me the following,

"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.

[tommy]

Welcome.

ROTFL!!!!!!!

[jordyn]

Steve P: That was completely non-responsive.

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.

[Bux]

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.

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.

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.

[LaNiña]

I'd like to "move on" too, but truth be told, a hollow apology makes that quite difficult.

[Wilfrid]

Well, great, Nina - that means we're stuck with it does it? Including all the hundreds of us who can't do a thing to resolve the matter? I guess each of us should just try and decide where their priorities lie.

[LaNiña]

Well for me, anyway, I've tried to just not think about it. I haven't posted about it, haven't brought it up, and I've moved on. But when the topic comes up (this time by Whiting), it's hard not to comment. And when Suvir starts posting on threads other than the India board, which I've avoided, it becomes all the more difficult. If had had apologize to me for his quite inappropriate comments, to me, perhaps I'd feel differently. But he didn't.

I think the management faces a tough choice right about now. Not sure what more I can add at this point.

[jaybee]

I would be remiss if I did not reveal that Suvir apolgized to me for any hurt he may have caused by his words in a private message upon his return to the forum. I accepted his apology in the spirit in which it was offered and have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Nor do I wish to contribute any further to this discussion, (until given further irresistable provocation )

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jordyn - I have no idea how to finish it short of the resolutions I outlined. Yesterday when I posted what peeved me about John's article, which was not about the contents of the article but about his membership here, I had thought the thread would have died with that point. But the moderators are the ones who weren't happy with that point and they perpetuated the thread. And like many things around here, it took on a life of its own. Now we are waiting for it to die a natural death, unless someone comes along and does something to significantly change the landscape.

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.

[Aurora]

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.

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 without reading the posts of other members. Afterall, those members are still participating even when their comments don't quite connect with the discussion.

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.

[LaNiña]

"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."

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.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Aurora - In my experience, the biggest reason that people are turned off from posting is they don't want to particpate in a site where bickering is constantly going on. And also in my experience, the thing that creates the most bickering are incessant discussions about how people on the site speak to each other. John's article is just a variation on that theme. You will find out that all websites suffer when the conversation goes off topic and turns towards the members.

"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.

[kjohn]

Speaking as a 'new' user, here are some turnoffs for new users:

* 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.

[Wilfrid]

But those are fair points. And you don't have to be a new user to be pretty weary of it all. Don't forget the bickering too.

[Robert Schonfeld]

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.

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.

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.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert S. - Amen brother. But then again I'm like you, I prefer that we limit contentiousness to discussions about food, not to discussions about other people. And maybe Mel will join us for dinner. Also, I hope you forgive me the same way after I post my upcoming thread on pasta. May the forks be with you. .