over on his fadedpage forums, rfrank said:
> For those of you that read gutvol-d,
> you should know that I do, also.
ok. that clears that up, for anyone who was wondering.
> Bowerbird seems very interested in the work
> we are doing here
you're darn tooting i am. :+)
rfrank is currently doing the most interesting work in
the whole arena of book distribution, and that's an arena
where i have exhibited keen interest for a very long time,
certainly long before rfrank ever became involved with it.
> Bowerbird seems very interested in
> the work we are doing here and posts his
> observations and suggestions of the gutvol-d list.
well, yeah, i've been posting on this listserve since 2003,
except for that short time when the attack-pack got me
"moderated", and i went on strike until it was rescinded.
so again, nothing new there...
> Though his style grates on many
> and his egotism seems boundless,
ok, let's break this down, shall we?
> his style grates on many
yes it does. and this is particularly so for those people
who subscribe to the dale-carnegie school-of-thought
on "how to win friends and influence people", of which
i do firmly believe that rfrank is a very big follower...
(and al haines too, as well as juliet sutherland.)
so let me be perfectly clear on this matter once again.
i _hate_ the dale-carnegie philosophy. with a passion.
i consider it to be tremendously duplicitous, in that it
zeros in on one of the most pathetic of human traits
-- our insecurity about our worth -- and trades on it.
it encourages one to feed people positive reinforcement,
so as to make them feel good and overcome insecurity,
so they will come to like you and be influenced by you...
i'm not denying that it _works_. it works all too well!
but it's cynical. and it's manipulative. and it's ugly.
it tip-toes around the issue of flagrant dishonesty
by informing its adherents to strive to be honest,
and not to lie outright, but that's largely a cover-up
which denies the fact one can't _always_ be positive,
not if one feels any solid commitment to the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as i do.
so i will often go out of my way to do reverse-carnegie.
dale says "never tell someone they are wrong".
so when i am thoroughly convinced someone is wrong,
when it's true, i say it, and with gusto: "you are wrong."
and then i give all of the reasons _why_ they are wrong,
which is also a reverse-carnegie, because dale says that
you should always give people an out, a way to save face.
those are just two quick examples. but that's enough,
because we're not really here to talk about dale carnegie.
the thing to remember is, i don't give a crap if anyone
here becomes my "friend" or not. i have enough friends,
and i don't even _want_ friends who i can't be honest with.
and i'm not here attempting to "influence" anyone either.
a lot of people get confused about this, because i'm often
saying that things _should_be_done_ in a certain way, so
people think i have some kind of personal interest about
actually _having_ them done that way. i don't really care.
you can do it however you want. because when i talk about
"how something should be done", i'm talking about _logic_.
i'm talking about the _arguments_ that dictate that decision.
as shown here, frequently, a lot of people here don't seem to
care about "logic" and "reasoned decisions" and stuff like that.
which is fine by me. please make decisions however you want.
the thing is, it really pisses off the carnegie adherents when
you don't care whether you influence them or not, probably
because they are willing to sell their soul to have influence,
so your apathy (or hostility) about it contradicts their values.
so when you fail to butter them up before you lobby them,
like dale advises, they get all offended, and even _mean_...
(that's right, they forget dale's advice to always be nice,
which just goes to show they didn't absorb it very deeply;
they only use it because it often works on a surface level.)
so, yeah, my style "grates" on some people. so what?
because a whole lot of other people -- who i actually
like a lot better -- actually _appreciate_ and _respect_
someone who is willing to speak their mind honestly...
> and his egotism seems boundless
that's just a silly projection.
i'm a humble person. i am honestly and truly humble.
i'm unimposing, and i'm tremendously kind and gentle.
and it's not just a phony act i put on to "win friends"...
but there is something about truth. when you have truth
on your side, you become strong. you become invincible.
i work -- hard! -- to make sure i get to the bottom
of a situation, and consider every angle, because it is
_vitally_ important to me that i have truth on my side.
if i'm on one side of an issue, and the strength of the
argumentation suddenly flips truth to the _other_ side,
i flip right along with it. because truth is important...
yes, one of my biggest flaws is saying "i told you so."
but one of my biggest assets is that i have absolutely
no reluctance, at all, to say "i was wrong" when i was.
a lot of people think i'm "egotistical" when i'm _really_
just extremely confident that i have truth on my side...
so it actually has nothing to do with _me_, or my _ego_.
instead, it has _everything_ to do with _truth_...
> Though his style grates on many
> and his egotism seems boundless,
> at times there is something of worth in what he posts.
of course there is. that's because i have truth on my side.
it's also because i'm enough of a scientist that i'm willing
-- nay, _eager_ -- to listen when someone says they think
that i'm wrong. because if they're correct that i am wrong,
i _want_ them to show me the light, so i can switch sides...
but again, i don't really care if i "convince" anyone or not.
it's an intellectual exercise for me, not a power struggle...
> at times there is something of worth in what he posts.
oh yeah, and the _other_ thing is that you can never trust
a carnegie follower when they say anything nice about you,
because they're probably just attempting to butter you up.
so maybe roger doesn't even _believe_ what he said there.
> He mistakenly reported that the SR version of the book
> is being incrementally updated.
well, the file that is now posted on your site, to which i
gave the u.r.l., is _not_ the file that was posted yesterday.
the pagination error i pointed out yesterday was corrected.
so i'm not sure how you can use the term "mistakenly"...
> He also shows he hasn't come to a complete understanding
> of the unusual situation in the text regarding the
> inconsistent usage of Wrangel and Wrangell spellings
> as it applies to Barons, islands and native population.
> It still isn't right and will be bimodally normalized
> after smoothreading completes.
i didn't really try to "come to a complete understanding".
the p-book appears to me to be inconsistent in its usage,
and you appear to be inconsistent too, and your usage
does not achieve consistency with the p-book's usage...
i pointed out the inconsistencies to show i'd found them.
but there's no payoff for me to do any more work on that.
> He did, however, correctly spot the effect of a superfluous
> page transition marker after the last illustration
> on a numbered page in the book. Since these books are
> all generated from one source file, it was a simple fix
> and it was regenerated in a heartbeat.
ok. so the file that's up online was _not_ "updated", but it
_was_ "regenerated". i'll try to remember this terminology.
> He also believes that I may have post-processed
> over 500 books, and I have not.
well, i'd rather give rfrank _more_ credit than _less_...
i know he's done _hundreds_and_hundreds_ of books.
he's also programmed a lot of tools, and is now running the
roundless experimental site, plus he's on the board at d.p.,
so it's clear that he's doing a lot, and i give him credit for it.
> Though I could have a lot to say about his posts, I choose
> not to engage him for historical and practical reasons.
the "historical" reason might be that when he did engage me,
he tried to deny reality, so i rubbed his nose in it, just like you
rub a dog's nose in his pee when he urinates in your house...
and the "practical" reason might be that he knows i will do that
again if he tries to deny reality again, carnegie notwithstanding.
but hey, i don't need for us to "engage". i'm self-motivated.
i will say what i have to say, whether anyone listens or not...
so he can say what he wants on his board, and i'll post here.
-bowerbird
