Irreconcilable Differences

[badgolferman]

just the fact that neither party seems to

have been totally honest to acf about what caused the rift; its all
she said she said.

That's what I said...!!! (grin)

 

[Nicolaas Hawkins]

I did not tell Susan to quit, and I would not presume to do so. I
gave my opinion about what I thought would be best. I honestly did
not expect her to quit.

Then have you considered sending Susan a personal E-Mail apologising,
clarifying your somewhat ambiguous comments (Susan is not the only one who
read your post as advocating, if not inviting, both her resignation and
Genna's), and requesting - nay, begging - her to reconsider?

 

[Jack D. Russell, Sr.]

======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "John Fitzsimons" <[email protected]>
* Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:03:22 +1000
* Subj: Re: Irreconcilable Differences
======================================================================

JF> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:51:02 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."

FL>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:39:26 +1000, John Fitzsimons

JF> < snip >

FL>> The first post I've seen here that makes any sense at all.
FL>> Hear,hear.

JF> Unfortunately Genna has ignored it. I must say that I am rather
JF> disappointed in her. I thought she was more sensible that that.
JF> Looks like she wants this thread to go on forever too. :-(

I don't get that impression.The impression that I get is that Genna
was blindsided by the whole thing and is trying (futilely) to find out
what is going on. Seeing that the thread wasn't going to accomplish
that result, she did the honorable thing to set the record straight by
voicing the facts as she knows them to be and then bowed out. Can't
blame her for defending herself. I'm a totally disinterested party as
I have no ties to this group, the pricelessware site, Genna, Susan, or
anyone else here. Just a reader/occasional user of the group. Had the
suggestion of how to handle the "problem" not been so "On target"
(IMHO), I wouldn't have even participated....

 

[Cruising Chrissy]

The first acf murder?!?

There never has been a first?

Luckiest software NG on the planet.

 

[Cruising Chrissy]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:36:06 -0400, Cruising Chrissy

nothing of any importance...

Curousity got the best of me. I just had to google to see who this
person mucking about in a serious conversation is. It doesn't take
more than the first page of results or so to see that but another
unsupervised child was left home alone.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q="Cruising+Chrissy"&btnG=Search

sleuth wow impressive.

Hey, REM, wanna try out my hand at technologies? Hmmmmmmmmmmm...??

 

[Dan Goodman]

I don't have a problem with Genna, Susan or the PL website or the
contributions they've made, just the fact that neither party seems to
have been totally honest to acf about what caused the rift;

Looks to me like you're confusing "honest" with "open".

If I say that I wouldn't want to be married to, say, Margaret Thatcher,
for reasons that I didn't care to state, that would be honest.

No matter how much you cared about my reasons. There's nothing dishonest
about deciding it's none of your business whether I consider her much too
far to the left; or I suspect her of having Viking ancestors, or I
believe she's the reincarnation of Cleopatra.

(Note: In case anyone cares, she hasn't asked me lately.)

 

[burnr]

I did not tell Susan to quit, and I would not presume to do so. I
gave my opinion about what I thought would be best. I honestly did
not expect her to quit.

Perhaps it was more an unkind cut than you intended.

Susan worked as a volunteer and considered the site of ACF, by ACF,
and for ACF. This is the reason it was addressed here.

She was relying specifically upon you and a few others to give a vote
of confidence based on her past efforts, without going into any
specifics about exactly what the problems were. She was let down, to
say the least, and said that she could not continue in disagreement,
with those who come here that she holds in high respect. I received
the parting email this morning.

This apparently was a mistake, in reading some of the opposing
comments. It seems a great many people have no idea of exactly how
dedicated she was in this position, or just how much work she
accomplished. ie: the comment to delete her work -> [the whole site]
to extract vengence, without regard to the fact her work _is_ the
current site. Short of working knowledge or appreciation for her
efforts phrases like drama queen emerged from many.

Maybe I just followed her actions more closely than others. She
scanned the group many times daily, identifying anything on PL that
needed changing/updating and made the changes in almost real time. I'm
surprised that her work was taken in such a for granted fashion. She
was pro-active in keeping all information on the site correct and up
to date daily.

As to the exacts, I know no more than has been said here. I can see
how she might get miffed if someone not active in ACF and who hasn't
responded to email in months came in and started messing with what she
had meticulously put together. She had group approval for everything
she did. I know there was a question as to whether the ACF CD was
"commercialized" and a page about a dishonest author (informally voted
for) was called into question. Second guessing, apparently with tones
of physical control of the site, did not go over very well. The out of
the blue change, or changes, was too much. All that she really wanted
was a vote of confidence from those she respected and a free hand to
keep her work in top order, answering _only_ to the group ACF. This
was not possible with the current deal, as Geena pays for it. This is
why she wanted a group vote to move to another host.


The question is, now... what is best for PL?

Is PL still an active ACF project?

Is anyone remotely interested in taking her place?

I nominate John Fitzsimons if there are no takers. You really must
come to understand that of which you gripe John. Let's delete the old
site and let John bring everything back up to speed for educational
purposes.

Excellent post! Wish I were as articulate. I agree completely.

 

[John Corliss]

John, that's not sexism. To acknowledge there are general emotional
differences between men and women is just observation. A sexist would
denigrate one or the other *because* of those differences. Seeing them
as valid in order to functionally interact with one or the other is
both appropriate and necessary. Stereotypes happen because they tend
to reflect reality. The problems arise when people make judgments
about others based on the stereotypes *alone.*

I totally disagree. Carolyn is implying that because the argument is
between two women, it would best be mediated by a woman. That's
sexism. To say that one sex is better than another in any given
situation is sexism. Period.
To prove this, let's say that the argument is between two guys like
S.O.S. and Stephen Burns (not bloody likely, but just say.) A woman
offers her services to intermediate, and a guy steps in and says that
because the argument is between two guys, he would be willing instead
to mediate because he has a guy's view and the argument is between two
guys.

Do you see my point now?

 

[John Corliss]

Huh? Google Groups? Or my pointing out an accomplished troll (check
the link, Luke) that has just discovered this group?

The group is very open, you posted didn't you? Me too.

Anonymous? Where in the heck did you get this? I need some scriptures
here brother. We can logon with a real name just as well as with a
nym. Or, are you holding that a Google search violates a trolls right
to privacy??? I have no clue where your post is coming from.

Unmoderated? Of course it is. So I posted a link to trollery that
might well affect the readers of ACF. A moderator might well have
approved the post had this been a moderated group. I placed the OT
marker because this was not specifically about freeware. You removed
it. Why?

I must say that I have a difficult time following your logic. You also
rifled the PL thread. First you offer a site, then you jump on the
fence, then you offer two people who do not wish it a "chat." Then you
side with staying. Then you make several posts stating the thread is
useless... End of Thread. Then.. you... Start Another Thread!, again
pushing "chat" at "your" site.

Is there a pattern here that I haven't discovered?

Good catch, REM. And you're correct too. Cruising Chrissy is a very
skillful troll too.

 

[Cruising Chrissy]

Good catch, REM. And you're correct too. Cruising Chrissy is a very
skillful troll too.

Oh ,yessir, Mr. Corliss, thank you sir, Mr. Corliss, sorry to have so
bothered you Mr. Corliss, but I won't be leaving anytime soon Mr.
Corliss so engage your killfile Mr. Corliss.

Oh, and feel free, both you and REM, to kiss my "troll" ass Mr.
Corliss.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Then have you considered sending Susan a personal E-Mail
apologising, clarifying your somewhat ambiguous comments (Susan is
not the only one who read your post as advocating, if not
inviting, both her resignation and Genna's) and requesting - nay,
begging - her to reconsider?

"I think it would be best for the PL if you simply quit
doing all you have been."

I stand by that, and I am unsure about what you feel needs
clarifying. It was clearly my opinion; the first two words handle
that. Throughout my post, the word "you" had referred to Susan, not
Susan and Genna; I don't see ambiguity there. By "all" I did mean
all involvement with the PL.

When Olaf mischaracterized my posting of my opinion as telling Susan
what to do, I responded; I won't quibble with you if you want to
call it advocacy or invitation. I think a great lot of people here
disagree with my opinion, and I think that any perception that my
opinion does or could or should trump theirs is unfounded.

 

[Nicolaas Hawkins]

"I think it would be best for the PL if you simply quit
doing all you have been."

I stand by that, and I am unsure about what you feel needs
clarifying. It was clearly my opinion; the first two words handle
that. Throughout my post, the word "you" had referred to Susan, not
Susan and Genna; I don't see ambiguity there. By "all" I did mean
all involvement with the PL.

When Olaf mischaracterized my posting of my opinion as telling Susan
what to do, I responded; I won't quibble with you if you want to
call it advocacy or invitation. I think a great lot of people here
disagree with my opinion, and I think that any perception that my
opinion does or could or should trump theirs is unfounded.

If clearly advocating to Susan that "you simply quit doing all you have
been" is not telling her in a mealy-mouthed way that in your opinion she
should resign, I'm buggered if I know what is - your hollow protestations
to the contrary notwithstanding.

You got your wish. She got your ill-concealed message loud and clear,
and resigned on the spot. Susan's enthusiasm and skills are now lost to
us, as may also be the competent implementation of the Pricelessware
concept - and possibly the concept itself. I hope you are appropriately
satisfied and proud of yourself. For you to suggest it was not your wish
would be an exercise in preciousness.

It is my considered opinion that it would be in the best interests of
the PL and of ACF if you simply ceased having any involvement at all.

 

[Olaf Janson]

I did not tell Susan to quit, and I would not presume to do so. I
gave my opinion about what I thought would be best. I honestly did
not expect her to quit.

I'm quoting you telling Susan, "I think it would be best for the PL if
you simply quit
doing all you have been." Looks like you telling her to quit to me.

I guess you were right, though. She may have been looking for someone to
give her "an out", which you provided by your blunt comment.

Is this the end of Pricelessware?

 

[Olaf Janson]

Perhaps it was more an unkind cut than you intended.

Susan worked as a volunteer and considered the site of ACF, by ACF,
and for ACF. This is the reason it was addressed here.

[snip]

Everything you wrote, especially "All that she really wanted
was a vote of confidence from those she respected and a free hand to
keep her work in top order, answering only to the group ACF.", was
spot-on.

 

[Olaf Janson]

Fine. If you wish to be known as a libellous liar rather than a
slanderous one I'm perfectly happy with that. I note that you didn't
deal with the substantive issue, which is that you maliciously
insulted Genna without a shred of evidence.

Perhaps if you chose your words wisely, you would have more credibility.

You also seem to have missed one of the sentences I wrote-
"That is pure speculation on my part, though." See, that changes what I
wrote from libel to *opinion*.
I didn't "damage her reputation" by merely speculating about her
motives.

 

[*ProteanThread*]

Looks to me like you're confusing "honest" with "open".

If I say that I wouldn't want to be married to, say, Margaret Thatcher,
for reasons that I didn't care to state, that would be honest.

No matter how much you cared about my reasons. There's nothing dishonest
about deciding it's none of your business whether I consider her much too
far to the left; or I suspect her of having Viking ancestors, or I
believe she's the reincarnation of Cleopatra.

(Note: In case anyone cares, she hasn't asked me lately.)

But then why ask for an opinion if you're not gonna provide the facts ?

 

[Dan Goodman]

But then why ask for an opinion if you're not gonna provide the facts
?

Susan provided the one essential fact -- that there were irreconcilable
differences. I would say that Genna confirmed this.

There's a parable attributed to the Buddha: A man has been wounded on
the battlefield, and a doctor wants to remove the arrow.

The wounded man refuses to allow this until he has all the facts. Who
made the arrow? What caste did he belong to? Very much et cetera.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan worked as a volunteer and considered the site of ACF, by ACF,
and for ACF. This is the reason it was addressed here.

We weren't paying the bills. Genna was/is. She can run her own site
any way she likes/liked.

Susan wanted people here to gang up and tell Genna how to run the
web site that she so kindly provided for ACF readers. It didn't work
so Susan had a tantrum and quit. Her choice. A more sensible choice
would simply have been to move elsewhere.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Good. Maybe now you will go away and let Susan continue to do the good
work that she does.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Genna isn't stopping
Susan doing whatever she wants to do. On whatever site wants to do it
on. Excluding Genna's. Genna, quite correctly however has the say as
to what happens on her own site. As she should have.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:02:09 GMT, "Carolyn"

Men can argue all day long and then go out drinking together that night as
best buddies. Women seem take things more to heart and don't handle
conflicts in the same way as men do. There is a different perspective here,
guys.
Just my opinion.

A very valid opinion IMO Carolyn...and well put. It is only in recent
times that I worked out the above as well. I long wondered why women
hold grievances for so long and don't simply "move on".

Wish I had realised the above a few decades earlier. It might have
been handy to know. Thanks for your post.