Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Eric,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 1:58:52 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> In that I do not agree with the method of banning and i find Mr. Crispin and Mr. Crocker
> and Mr. Walsh far more culpable as far as stifling input, I post this concept from the
> Harald eradicted Mr. Williams as a suggestion that we are not outnumbered but only have to
> vote.  I finally realized why these list centurions were against campaigning, it might
> upset the goal they were sent to realize; Keep anyone who differs from their point of view
> off the active participation list and do it by whipping them to death so no one else tries
> the same thing.

Oh please.  Eric, your issue with my stating to the list why I felt
you were not suitable for the position of GA is getting a little out
of hand here.

And all you have done in response to it is prove that I was right all
along.

I told you once off list, now I'll tell it to you on the list.

You need to learn some maturity, and you need to learn how to live
with criticism.  I've wasted a lot of time on you, off list, trying to
make you understand some things, to make you a better GA member.  I
didn't try and convert you to my views on things, I focused
EXCLUSIVELY on how your way of responding and reacting to things was
working against you, and your credibility.

The above message gives me grounds to file a complaint against you,
but I'm not doing that yet.   I know from posts to me in private when
I've insisted on responding to you on list lately that a number of
people, on both sides of these issues btw, have already added you to
their filters.  You really are not coming across in a way where you
can or will have the kind of impact you think you should have.

You think that you can come on the seem in an aggressive way, and
immediately be a driving force.   The respect that is needed to be a
driving force is something that you can earn only over time, and you
don't earn it by the way you react to things.

For what it is worth, on matters of POLICY, on the list, we agree on
much.  But your personality and attitude get vastly in the way of
people understanding that.

Normally I would make this kind of post privately.  But your reaction
to my last and final attempt to do that intimates to me that maybe the
only way to get through to you is by making these points publicly.

If I didn't think you had good points to make, I would not have wasted
my time off-list trying to explain the things I was trying to get
across to you.  You do not do yourself, or your points, justice.

I assistant coached a high school forensics team for a year, as a TA.
The most effective leader on that team was a senior who had
transferred in from another school, and wasn't that well known on a
personal level by the students on our team.  What made him an
effective leader, was that he went about his way of doing things
quietly and without a big deal.  Because his ways were, in fact, the
right ways, the others followed in way they never would have had he
been more assertive about his ways and approaches being correct.  He
ended up being the driving force of that team, a position he didn't
directly seek, and overshadowed the seniors who had been on that team
for the 3 previous years.

There's a lesson in there I hope you hear.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html