[matilda] RE: Re[2]: Matilda's non-commercial use clause

[dan at aktivix.org]

Great...

> Considering you've physically threatened someone in the space and smashed
> a window with a hammer because of your inability to control your anger, I'm
> quite astonished at your cheek!

Ive never physically threatened anyone, Joe.  What the f**k are you talking
about!? I've shouted at 0742, and then apologised and worked to change that
dysfunctional behaviour, and both me n him know we push each other's buttons,
after a number of years of political shenanigans together.  I think me n him
are getting on OK now. I don't recall threatening to hurt him - or anyone else
- physically.

Back that up, or retract it.

Thanks for bringing up the hammer thing. There's something I feel right proud
of.  Not gonna go on about why I think your method of argument is scary and
indimidating; we've talked about it before.  We could again, but I don't
suppose you want to.  You should, coz I personally feel unable to speak to you
any more. Having said that, I guess this doesn't bother you like it bothers
me...

>I don't HAVE to relate to you Dan, because you're never in Matilda, so this
>is all academic. If the needs arises where I have to listen to you, then maybe
>I can accomodate you.

Sorry, Joe: gotta work, got quite a lot of volunteering too. (Community
mediation, would you believe?) Do my best.

But thanks for making me feel welcome. I'm particularly touched by this
invitation to have a rational, calm and sensible conversation:

Dan>I find it difficult to argue or discuss with someone who will say things
Dan>like'read my e-mails next time', as though the truth of your theoretical
Dan>insight should be self-apparent to us all.

Joe>Then don't discuss anything with me? Simple.

That's damn friendly of you.  It's gonna make for a lovely atmosphere next time
I'm there.  Not sure what I'm supposed to do now, if I don't agree with you
about selling art.  Work through a solicitor or something? Damn expensive.

What's ad hominem mean...? Lemme go look on the web... oh, attack on the
person...

Bill: "I believe that wage labour is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're an anarchist."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're an anarchist, so you have to say
that wage labour is wrong."

Yeah, did some of that.  I also asked why raising money from the state was any
better than raising it from selling your own pictures, given that one supports
the status quo of the state - and uses that to further MATILDA - and the other
gives someone autonomy and self-determination - which I personally think
MATILDA should support.

And I also asked: if there is an issue there (which I'm not expecting you to
concede for a moment, but hey...), do you think that might make trying to ban
someone from selling their artwork in the space over the top?

You're both supporting the status quo in your own way.  Argument back? Play nice
please.

And believe me, I'd love it if I could get enough money from somewhere to pay
off my debts and spend more of my time at MATILDA.  As it is, that ain't gonna
happen.

Dan>Again, who else aside from you believes this?

Jo>What does that matter?

Because we work on consensus: absolutely, having an opinion different from
everybody else is not only fine, it's vital to keep argument alive.  But at the
end, we have to move towards consensus...?  Ah, which probably means that it's
for a Monday meeting, but we're getting rather too many issues to discuss at
Monday meetings now!

Now please back up that accusation that I physically threatened someone.

Then maybe we can start working towards getting friendly again, coz this is
getting stupid.  

Thing is, I get the feeling that you have no desire to be friendly to people
that you have dismissed. Am I wrong? Do you have any desire to talk?

Dan