Hey Shelley --> YOU'RE THE BULLY.

...thus distilling Dave's position down to its Pee Wee Herman essence -- when confronted about his own poor behavior, all he ever says comes down to "I know you are, but what am I?" The response of a 10 year old.

You've deleted so many of your comments here on this weblog, it's so weird that you think you have some kind of high ground in this area. It seems every other week you wipe this blog out and start over, erasing the record.

I withdrew my request for an apology, changed my mind. I think if you stop and think a bit Shelley, since you write professionally about my products and technology, that you can't afford to have such personal opinions about me. I believe in the last couple of days you have crossed the line of propriety. You should retract these statements if you want to maintain some semblance of objectivity in your professional work.

You've quoted me here as saying "I'm still a sick man," and while it's true, I don't think I've ever said that.

I apologized yesterday on the Web, less than 24 hours ago. I do it regularly. I also give forgiveness when people ask for it.

Cardinal, look up sycophant.

"Dave, this isn't a school yard, but I recognize another bully when I see one."

telling word, that "another"

Heh, Dave the misogynistic sociopathic bully trying desperately to seem relevant.

Yeah Dave, you're the victim... of your own self-loathing. Is it any wonder it's rubbed off on others, that they now loathe you too?

Zaphod, I'm not sure how you can find these so quickly, but I know that you'll respect the fact that I prefer you not bring your old fight with Dave into my comments. I respect that you're a reader and have something to say, but I would prefer at this time focusing on what I'm saying in this specific posting. Any why I'm saying it.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

BTW, I just tried the experiment of searching for "sorry" or "apologize" on Scripting News using Google, and it found lots of hits. Some of them are pretty funny. I don't know why you didn't find any.

What got you riled up in the first place was what I reported about a question Dave asked me on the phone. It was a good question, so I shared it. I also explained yesterday why I shared it. I also think Dave said all he needs to say about the issue, in a post on his blog.

Now you've brought up the s-word again. I've said all In want to say about that one too. Finally, you're calling Dave a bully, using my responses to his phone calls (note: not his posts) as evidence.

I don't think Dave is a bully. I think he's a grown-up who fortunately never stopped being a really challenging kid. This came to me this morning when I was trying to get the kid off to school while he challenged everything I did like a trial attorney cross-examining a witness. Something about it struck me....

The kid asks blunt, tough questions others would be afraid to ask. He probes beneath adult manners to find the very things those manners are often meant to conceal rather than reveal. He's quick with his opinions, and often just as quick to change them. When he contradicts himself, it's usually because he's learning something or trying to help others do the same. He's about as obedient as a cat. And I love him for all of it. Just like I love Dave.

Just a moment ago a hummingbird tried to get through the window into my office. For some reason, that brought to mind not only your nickname, but my favorite Victor Frankl quote (slogan of my favorite magazine): "What gives light must endure burning." That goes for all of us.

Peace.

BTW, to Shelley, I spoke with Doc again this morning, and we plotted our response together. We've been friends for 15 YEARS, that's why your coming between us isn't likely to get between us. ;->

Now the last thing I said to Doc was to ask that we find a way to be kind to you Shelley, because that's one of our shared values. I said that Shelley is surely feeling a lot of pain over this, so let's go easy on her. So that's what I've been trying to do.

It's so interesting that Zaphod, whoever he (or she) is, popped up in the middle of this. I wonder if you'd ever stand up to that person Shelley. Today you sort-of did. I think he smears the rest of you as he smears me.

When Doc was standing up for Beth the other day I pointed out that there are institutions out there set up to limit me, and as far as I know, no one ever challenges them. Why doesn't anyone stand against that? Where is your consistenncy Shelley. I don't know if you think men are equal to women, but why did you stand up for Beth, and not for me? Do you think somehow I deserve the abuse I get from the cowards behind the Zaphod name? Come on we know who they are don't we? Why do we put up with it?

Just some thoughts for you.

Like Doc says...

Peace

Doc, you need to read my post a little more -- I said Dave was a bully because of what he says to me and to others like me. Not you. I know you're buds, but you can't expect all of us to have the same tolerance you do.

And I also think its time for people to hold Dave accountable for his abusive language and behavior. You don't care for this, and that's cool. But you're not the definitive answer on this.

Neither is the discussion about sexism ended because you choose to not discuss it. By bringing the issue of sex into the picture, that was introducing a sexist element. I didn't. You all did.

Finally, at the very least I fight my own battles. I do not need others to call each other and "arrange" an answer. I questioned you yesterday, Doc. And I also apologized where I was out of line. And I strongly suggest you read what Dave's original comment was. While you're at it, I have about 100 other comments attached to various posts that are as bad or worse. Then if you want to pat Dave at the back and say that he's a big kid asking questions, you go right ahead.

You go ahead an give Dave the excuse he needs to continue his behavior.

Dave, you knew I stood up to Zaphod. It was Daypop 40 item, remember?

As for the institutions out to limit you Dave -- name them. Give instances. Don't allude to this grand, global conspiracy. And if there are institutions out to limit you without cause, then I will most likely defned you. But I won't without specifics. And I won't defend you against specific people -- fight your own battles.

If people want to flock to your support Dave, fine. If Doc wants to, fine. But I am no longer going to be a party to the charade that you're just a 'big kid' who is a little too blunt at times.

Wow. First day I discover these things and I get to see a fight. I'll take a lesson from Dave and give opinion where it's probably not wanted. ^_^

Dave, bro, pal, regardless of your rights and justification for what you do and say, if you hurt someone, you are still responsible for their pain. Trust me, I've been there. But when I hurt someone with my oh so harsh truths, I don't run rampant trying to prove I did nothing wrong, that I'm innocent, or that they deserved it. I try my damndest to make them feel better. Your actions aren't inherently wrong, but you seem to have aquired a hardening of heart that is going to earn you enemies where you would otherwise have allies and friends.

Doc, she nailed ya. Saying you won't go into something is essentially giving up the arguement. By choosing not to discuss the sexism inherent in some of the statements, you've plead no contest.

Look, boys, not you, not Shelley, not I, not anyone is purely innocent. We all have our faults. The best analogy for this came from the stupid commercials I've seen lately for some local elections. Many politicians try to win their office by making their competitors look bad, rather than making themselves look good. Seems to me that's what you guys are doin' here.

-------

On another note, what do you guys use for these logs? I'm tempted to make one myself, but I could always do the coding myself too.

I prefer to think I'm pretty innocent. You should see me when I toe the dirt, sway from side to side, and pout. It's simply adorable.

Okay, maybe Morbus is innocent. But no one else!

Innocent, ha!

What about that night when, well, you know, Morbus. _you_ know.

Weren't too innocent then were ya. Go ahead and pout, we know ALL about your pouts.

Dave and Shelley are both challenging, and they both have passionate opinions they bring to weblogging, which makes them both interesting to read.

I know from personal experience that Shelley calls folks to task, but she also debates with them openly, lets her word stand (to the scrutiny of those who read and comment here), says sorry when she hurts your feelings, and even says sorry when she's wrong. Dave, I gotta get to know you better. My curiosity over how two people with such a similar passion about life and technology can't get along is overwhelming.

Maybe it has something to do with the very nature of blogging as much as it does about who you both are as individuals. We're at a physicale distance from one another here. Perhaps if you and Shelley were in the same room and this conversation had taken place in real time, you would have had a real live disagreement with all its dynamics, shouted a couple of "You Said/No You Saids" at one another, then given eachother a friendly punch in the arm on the way out for a lemonade.

Well, I'd like to think so.

that last post was me. I lost my cookie.

Jeneane, here's the quote from Shelley. "Dave has this thing about anything to do with woman must therefore be a anti-male thing, and unfortunately, that's Dave's problem." That's abusive, hurtful, and not true, demonstrably so, on Scripting News, right now.

Dave, don't get me wrong, but you DID bring up the fact that she was female (assuming I'm understanding the situation correctly) and that what happened was at least partially based on the fact that she was female. Therefore, it can be gleaned that either you are sexist, or that you were accusing someone else of being sexist. (Sexist being defined as not just against a certain sex, but also in favor of a certain sex)

To be honest, it looks like you were saying that whomever defended her did so because he/she favored females. Unless you're psychic, that is essentially bullshit. Since the sexism started with you and your post, it makes you look sexist.

Now, if that isn't correct, you simply need to say "I didn't mean to sound sexist, sorry if I offended anyone" etc. And if it is correct, and is how you feel, you wouldn't be denying it in this fashion. Shelley's reaction is perfectly sensible. People tend to get upset very easily with all these -isms.

"And I also think its time for people to hold Dave accountable for his abusive language and behavior. You don't care for this, and that's cool. But you're not the definitive answer on this." --BB

Shelley, completely unsolicited opinion here, so please take with a mountain of salt.

I've been reading your weblog for a few months now, and in that space of time, I've seen you make quite a few abusive posts about Dave. Apparently, quite a few people aren't fans of Dave, and that's fine. However, the frequency with which you use your weblog to attack Dave has really stunned me at times. Some might term that as bullying, whether it's bullying in response to an inflammatory statement or not. Being new to weblogging, it really makes me wonder what dynamics exist among the a-listers here. It also sends out quite a negative impression to people new to your weblog.

You seem like a very cool person. You're passionate about many issues, deep, thoughtful, insightful. I enjoy reading your log very much. Your photos are beautiful, and it is obvious you put much passion and thought into your postings. However, there are times when I hit your page, see Dave Winer underlined within a post, and I groan, think, "Oh, geez, not AGAIN!", and don't read the post. That may be just me, but it gets old, quickly.

Now, I'm not sure what axe you have to grind with Dave, or even if you have an axe to grind. It doesn't matter, really. I'm just sorry to see your insightful posts displaced by posts so venomous. Honestly, the supposedly sexist comment didn't bother me much, but that may be because I don't know Dave at all. Maybe if I did know Dave, I would have been furious. But, I don't, and I didn't find it very offensive. It seemed like an honest question to me. Now, I can also see your side of things, but it does seem as if you're "trolling for a fight" with Dave, in your own words.

Wouldn't your talent be much better spent elsewhere, if he really is such an ass?

Again, just my measly 2 cents.

I'm sorry you think I'm spending too much time picking on Dave, Leesa. However, I believe if you'll look at my postings for the last few weeks, you'll find that i've covered other topics too. For instance, that little "Parable of the Languages" has had a considerable number of visitors to this point. Go figure -- I wrote that to cheer Jonathon (weblog.delacour.net) because he was having a very difficult time.

Outside of RDF/RSS I had two issues with Dave recently: one was the "Whining Australians" posting and the other was this item from Doc's comments. Both were items I did not feel I could disregard and still have respect for myself. However, I realize that these issues may not be of interest to others.

I appreciate my readers, and especially those readers kind enough to leave comments. But I will write on what interests me, or feel needs to be said.

I appreciate your extremely kind and frank words, Leesa. And I hope you'll continue coming around. But no guarantees about what I will and won't write about.

I gotcha Dave. I really do. And I got Shelley too. It's my nature to want to sit on a step with you two and share a couple of snickers bars, thinking maybe it would help you guys see that people as smart and firey as you and Shelley must have common ground somewhere moving forward (i.e., maybe not looking back). I know, I'm sappy that way.

Actually, I don't know much at all about the woman blogger who was poked fun at, but I did see the parody of her blog and it was rather... um... demeaning. Did she deserve it or not? I wish her blog were still up so I could form an intelligent opinion on that. I think it wasn't the best move for her to back off--I would have suggested that she come back with a trick or two of her own up her sleeve.

But then, that may just be my Sicilian side. Ask RB; it can be killer.

With all the crap coming out of Dave's mouth, it's not very _hard_ to find reason to write about it.

Heck, it could fill an entire blog on its own.. Oh yeah..

I've been watching this comments thread and although I thought of chipping in a number of times I didn't because I didn't want to give this spat oxygen.However Leesa's comment has prompted me to chip in.

I believe that high profile bloggers have a responsibility to behave in ways that reflect their impact on this virtual space we are inhabiting. The more we can make it a place where people behave at least as well as they do in the real world, or perhaps even better, then the more likely the internet is to improve the world and those who live in it.

This hasn't been a reasoned argument between mature adults - it has been a playground fight and is beneath both of you. It's like parents having an abusive fight in front of the kids - they may feel justified in behaving badly but it still sends the same message to the kids.

Shelley = I can't wait to see what you and Dave can do when you stop fighting and start working together. You are surprisingly in agreement on certain key points, if you look at them closely. For instance, when Dave took Doc to task for treating a female blogger differently than a male blogger, you were both in complete agreement that if women bloggers, coders, thinkers or whatever are not judged in the same way as their male counterparts, women are being shortchanged. You and Dave both disagree with sexism.

If you think he doesn't take you seriously because you're a woman, you're wrong. I know he takes you and your work seriously. If you want him to take you more seriously, stop using ad hominem arguments dropped on his head, and fight fair.

Is Dave a bully? I don't think so -- I think he's very smart, very powerful and has earned the right to his opinions, which many may not agree with, but he could give a shit about that.

We're in an amazing time right now -- the Wild Wild West pioneering stage of blogging -- can you two stop shooting one another in the ass with arrows, get back in the wagons and help us make it to the West Coast with some really cool code in our rucksacks -- something great to show for all this?!

Shelley, My point wasn't to ask you to censor yourself, that's the last thing I would want. I was just trying to provide a different perspective on how the conflict betwen you and Dave appears to people who aren't so familiar with either of you. I've read your postings on other topics lately, and have enjoyed them immensely. It's simply that I've enjoyed the posts on other topics much more than the posts on Dave.

Again, this is all just my unsolicited opinion. I come to your site to read wonderful, mellifulous postings about a hike, or insightful posts about trains derailing, or posts that strongly express your opinions on Iraq. The Parable of the Languages piece was wonderful, witty, ironic, sweet, all at the same time. These are why I come back here--your talent and insight is addictive.

The quote I cited above from you about calling Dave to task on his abusive language and behavior just seemed to me to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, in light of some posts that you made during the RDF/RSS debate. I realize that the whole RDF/RSS discussion inflamed a lot of tempers, and caused you to post angrily in response to many of Dave's comments. Perhaps that's why it seems as if it's been so frequent lately. Euan has stated it above much more eloquently than I ever could. It just seems beneath you.

It's your weblog, and what you post is purely up to you, as it should be. I never meant to imply that you should censor yourself. I merely hoped to provide some insight on the impression it gives others who enjoy reading your work.

For the little it's worth at this point:

I, too, have had interactions with Dave Winer that struck me as bullying and sexist. I, too, rolled my eyes at what Dave wrote to Doc S, and was surprised that Doc (generally a decent sort) took it seriously.

Unlike some other posters to this comment thread, I think it's important for Bb to get this on the table. Right now she is alone, except for my little dribble of support here, in calling Dave Winer on his behavior. Eventually, however, institutional memory will build -- all the faster because other people will have Bb to point to. They won't feel quite so alone.

Considerable institutional memory has already been built with regard to RSS. As for this -- Bb is a beginning, and I personally thank her for it. I *hope* she will be the end, and no one else will *need* to follow her example, but I'm not sanguine.

Got room in that doghouse for me, Bb?

Dorothea, well said. However, I've seen many people call Dave on his behavior, if not in this particular instance. For what it's worth, I read Bb's log. I don't read Dave's. Why? Because a while ago, when her readers suggested that she was attacking others personally in what was supposed to be a debate, she apologized, and has diligently worked to not let that happen again. Since that point, she has engaged in many debates on various issues that she feels passionately about, without resorting to name-calling or personal attacks. In some cases, the members of the opposing side did not extend her the same courtesy. That really impressed me, and earned my regard. In my opinion, one of the marks of a fine person is when they can acknowledge their mistakes, and learn from them. That denotes intelligence, compassion, empathy, and a commitment to self-improvement. Dave, in contrast, seems to be continuing on in his familiar manner of relating to people, never considering that it might benefit him to learn why he engenders so much ire in others. Instead, he chooses to defend to the death his statements, which is his perogative.

Will Dave ever change his opinion or attitudes? Not likely. Wouldn't it follow, then, that engaging him in a manner that has only served to make him angry, defensive, and abusive seem extremely futile? What is the purpose of calling Dave to task on his sexist/opinionated/etc. statements, if he isn't likely to change? Will what Dave said today even matter to Shelley in five years? This is what I was hoping to communicate, although I don't seem to have done it very well. Shelley has demonstrated an extreme level of caring, compassion, passion, intelligence, and maturity in her posts. Bb, it's obvious Dave causes you to "poof", in your own words. That's understandable. It's disappointing for me to see someone I esteem resort to abusive posts in return. Asking others to call Dave on his abusive posts and behavior will open up a floodgate, I believe, where Dave's supporters will in turn call you on your retorts to Dave. It's a neverending cycle.

I could have posted some thoughts to Dave about Dave's responses, but I chose to not. That choice is important. I choose not to waste my energy debating with someone who is unlikely to listen to what I'm saying. Instead, I choose to put my foot in my mouth repeatedly while commenting to someone I know will listen, consider what I've said, and will discard or use it as she sees fit. From reading Shelley's posts about Dave, I'm familiar with how angry she gets as a result of his comments. I may be simply too empathetic, but it really upsets me to see her waste her energy composing responses to a brick wall. That may be because I despise conflict. It may also be because I hold Shelley in high regard, and don't like to see her waste so much energy on something so futile. Whatever the case, I have certainly said more than enough on the issue, and will be quiet now.

Bb, blog away. Be it about Dave or whatever. Just make sure to check your blood pressure after you post a response to Dave, ok?:)

Wow, Leesa, well said. I kept thinking that encouraging them to get along was an answer, especially because they are both, as Euen points out, popular webloggers, and though Shelley may not want to think so, examples to the newer bloggers starting out and us old folks who need inspiration. But your post here on how we decide to "use our energy" is really the point isn't it? If someone gets your ire up in a way that throws you off task, then close the door and refocus on what feeds you, what energizes you. In Bb's case I think it's the photography, her exploration of the world and self in her blogging, and the wonders of technology. In Dave's case, I think it may be getting people's ire up. ;-)

Good point, Leesa, and well stated. Thank you; I hadn't considered it from that angle.

I guess I was willing to overlook the anger for the sake of seeing the words written. There's something to be said, I still think, for folks having plenty of warning of what's likely to happen when they cross Dave Winer. (I didn't know, when I did so, and it certainly hurt more and was harder to shrug off because of it.)

I still think it's valuable to say the words. Yes, it costs, in energy that might be spent in happier pursuits, in goodwill, even in credibility. (I've lost some over what I've said on this and other occasions.) Yes, each of us must decide whether to pay. And yeah, it sure as hell seems pointless sometimes.

Even so. Dave will never change, conceded without argument. Dave, however, isn't the only one reading this. Who else might change as a result? Who else might have their experience validated?

What is the cost of silence, also? I happen to know that Bb's been quiet about a lot of stuff along these lines that's happened to her lately. (Sorry, Bb; I'll accept the whack I deserve for bringing that up.) Very possibly Dave Winer and Doc Searls are paying the price for other people's behavior as well as their own -- which if anything suggests that it might be better to speak up quickly than let such things fester silently.

This has all been very ugly. I'm sorry for that. But I can't -- I honestly can't, whinging coward though I am -- find it in myself to be sorry that Bb spoke up, or to discourage her from calling it how she sees it in future.

I just found this thread via Caveat Lectorzilla,
this not being my usual neck of the woods.

Let me give my 2 cents euro:

That register article was out of line, no matter how boring the original blog was. It *was* bullying only justified because you know, she works for *Microsoft* and we all know those aren't human so everything is fair play.

Doc Searls was quite right to call the writer on this.

But Dave Winer?

I really get tired of people who attempt to use the language of oppression to justify theirs or others bullying. "Why such a chivalrous defense of Beth?" he ask, but he doesn't ask why such a vile attack on Beth happened in the first place.

Then, when he's called on it he starts bullying himself and if this isn't the behaviour of a bully:

" I think if you stop and think a bit Shelley, since you write professionally about my products and technology, that you can't afford to have such personal opinions about me. I believe in the last couple of days you have crossed the line of propriety. You should retract these statements if you want to maintain some semblance of objectivity in your professional work."

What is?

Bravo to Burningbird for not backing down under heavy fire.

Dorothea,
I agree, silence can be just as deadly, especially on important issues. Bb may change someone else's opinion, if not Dave's, and that's certainly important. However, things between her and Dave are so contentious, and the posts and replies reflect this. How many people are likely to change their opinion as a result? How many people are likely to dismiss what she has said outright because of the manner in which it was expressed? Would more people be likely to change their opinion if Shelley had written an insightful post on sexism in general, while leaving Dave out of it? People who know Bb may be likely to overlook the anger and see the words underneath, but is this true of everyone? More flies with honey, and all of that.

I read your post concerning this, and just want to make clear that I don't condone Dave's comment, and that I wasn't posting in response to the subject matter, sexism, but rather the directing of it at Dave, as the anger dulls the message. It seems to me that her messages are much more powerful and poetic when not directed at Dave, and as such, are likely to impact a larger audience. (Outside the circle of people who apparently know about the conflict between her and Dave.) I certainly don't condone sexism, nor support what Dave said.

I think in general, omitting Dave's posts in this thread, that this has been a very respectful dialogue. Not about sexism, about the apparent conflict between Bb and Dave, but nevertheless, respectful. Looking back on this thread, I seem to have been most prolific in my blathering, but I respect Shelley very much. If I came across otherwise, I sincerely apologize, as that was in no way my intention.

I doubtless show my ignorance of the higher realms of blogdom when I say this, but I had never heard of Dave Winer before running across this discussion. Perhaps that means my eyes are unblinded by awe; at any rate, having been to Dave's site and read the exchanges there and here, it seems very clear to me that Dave is a standard-issue bully (actually, I'd use a stronger term, but Shelley probably wouldn't like it). I've known a lot of guys like him (it's a testosterone-poisoning thing), and some of them have things to contribute, but I'll never like or accept the personality type. I reject the well-meaning attempts by some commenters to equate the two and suggest they kiss and make up; in some matters there is a right side and a wrong side, and this is one of them. Keep standing up for what's right, Shelley, and I'll keep reading.

I did want to take a moment and thank everyone for the comments here. This wasn't an easy posting to make, but I had to make it. If I haven't been responding in this thread, it's primarily because I wrote the new posting with additional thoughts.

I especially want to thank all of you for taking the time to write such thoughtful comments. I at least have come away richer for the experience.

(And Dorothea, your posting related to this posting (at http://www.yarinareth.net/caveatlector/archive/week_2002_10_20.html#e001013) was powerful and important. More than this posting, really. What can I say -- hot blogger coming through.

The new mirror (not yet taken down) of what started it all (seemingly). :)

http://www.geocities.com/bethgoza