Apparently, some of my (and others') recent posts have lead to me/us(?)
[...] appear[ing] to be fanning the flames which others are trying to extinguish.Note: The terms "crusaders", "inquisition", and "infidels" are not meant in any derogative way whatsoever - I just couldn't come up with any other practicable shortcut for the rough ideas I was referring to.
I am honestly not trying to fan any flames. But I don't see where - in the public discussion everybody else was trying to extinguish them either (this is generalised - I am aware that some are trying to (like Leitchy, John, and Kerry) and others who may have a weighty and founded opinion in this matter are still factual and friendly in private communications (like JSE or Jeremy).
There are, in my eyes, two major fractions on the forum at the moment: Those in defence of Robin, his heirs, and KP (believing to know what is morally and legally right), and those who have no opinion on that topic. There seems to be a crusade going on but since the crusaders are lacking a proper enemy/opponent, their rage turns against the "infidels", in line with "si Robin pro nos quid contra nos", almost leading to an inquisition.To remain in the picture, I am surprised about the size and composition of people apparently having taken up the cross.
It reads as if you don't care about what, if any rights, the Crossby family have in this dispute.
To be honest, I do not
care. I do not care not in a sense that I was questioning or intending to violate anybody's rights (even though some seem to display an adamantine refusal to understand that). I do not care in a sense, though, that I am not hubristic or hypocratic enough to consider myself such a close friend of Robin and his family that I was in a position to speak for them. Nor am I hubristic enough to deem myself capable of being able or in a position to decide a legal/moral dispute based on a contract I haven't even seen based on a foreign country's legal system I do not understand.
I am not implying that those having an opinion about the legal/moral aspects are automatically hubristic or hypocratic. I am just stating that as far as I know, most of them probably don't have any professional knowledge in that regard, and certainly don't have the necessary legal authority. So maybe they ought to reconsider their claim of absoluteness? After all, not every single question or post vaguely involving any publishing, promotional, copyright, legal, moral, what-have-you issues calls for a moral or legal lecture nor is it inevidably meant as an offense.
If the sensitiveness reaches a stage where (admittedly badly phrased) "infidel" questions like mine for the distinct law article people are basing their opinions on, or somebody else's mere pondering up the question whether Hârn would possibly be in a state of public domain (and the possible consequences of that) leads to a flame war and people being labelled morally inferior and worse, then we have lost the sense of fairness, the spirit of open exchange and discussion, the liberal democratic basis for this board. If this is then spread to other (rather unrelated) threads the infidels participate in or open, then we are even losing maturity.
The point I am trying to make all along is that all the "crusaders" have - as long as there is no valid official legal decision - is an opinion
. They may base their opinion
on whatever "facts
" they want - they still only have an opinion
. And others may have and are entitled to a different
opinion. And, like it or not, again others have any right to have no
opinion on that matter.
But since the crusaders have only just an opinion
, they have no base
whatsoever for putting themselves on a high morale horse above anybody else, nor do they have the right to condemn people, be it on a legal or moral base, a long as the situation has not been clarified by an appropriate official institution/authority.
With the initial statement, I am also not
implying that those who feel thay have been (close) friends of Robin are automatically hubristic or hypocratic. Everybody has his/her own definition of friendship but maybe people should reconsider for themselves whether, according to their own definition, they actually were a real friend of Robin or rather an acquaintance or whatever, and hence consider their own justification to speak for them and claiming to know their thoughts. (Again, this is no attempt to tell anyody what fiendship is or to talk into people's attitudes.)
The sudden amount of people having known Robin so closely (and now knowing his family and their plans and opinions) is staggering, though. AFAIK, both Jeremy Baker and Ken Snellings have visited the family and can, I assume, be considered friends of the family and as being in the know of their plans and thoughts concerning Hârn. But what basis for their knowledge about the heirs and Robins plans does the multitude of others have?
I made acquaintance with him myself (through the internet only) and I suppose a lot of people know that. I talked to him occasionally and I worked together with him for a while for KP. We had a good time. Yet, we disagreed on a lot of issues, especially when (I'm exaggerating here) I told him his layout sucked and he told me he didn't give a rat's ass about my opinion. That was, however, no problem for neither of us and we continued to get along fine. Now, however, when I publicly state that I disagreed with Robin in any way, there surely is going to be at least one (more likely several) inquisitors putting me to the pyre.
I am sad that he is gone, but for me personally, there are much more tragic things. This is not intended to be harsh, insulting or disrespectful - it's just honest. I just haven't had the opportunity to get to know him good enough to claim feeling a tragic personal loss without lying. And while I can fully apprehend the tragedy of the loss for his family - my own father died when I was 16 - I do have my doubts about the credibility of the the multitude of claims to have known him and feeling a personal loss. Again, not single, distinct statements - I cannot judge that - but rather the sheer number itself.
I cannot help but sense an alarming decline in tolerance and at the same time, I do feel that in the regards mentioned above, hubris and hypocrisy are in advance. This cannot lead to any good results. I, for one, have never been belonging to either the CGI or the KP side. When I published 'Carved in Stone' after CGI changed their fanon policy in regards to the copyright notes, I continued to credit both plus the texts' author - in violation of either sides but in waht I deemd to be the best for the community - rather include a copyright too many then too little, was my opinion. And I informed each side of my motivation and intention. Then, as well as now, my foremost concern was the community. I have refrained from taking sides for the last five years, having worked for both CGI and KP, but always under the condition that that work would not interfere with my right of expressing my peronal opinion and vice versa.
Insisting on people shutting up or ending a discussion is both unlogic on a forum (as long as things remain civil) as well as infringing on their right of freedom of speech. And that right is not only inalienable, but also unconditional and not subject to modification no matter what. I know just too well how hard to accept it is for me myself if people do not agree with me and I simply cannot convince them. I, myself, don't tend to give in and let them be. But then again, I tend to stand alone in most such situations which makes it not so drastic for others. A whole group of crusaders can apply quite some pressure on people, though. But if they still cannot be convinced, is it okay to simply demand them to shut up? That, to me, rather shows lack of tolerance instead of moral high ground.
So please, let us return to a situation where people have freedom of speech and the right to both a different as well as no opinion at all. To a situation where people ask before being lectured on copyright issues, where questions can be asked freely without fear of retribution and where people ask when things were formulated badly rather than started a flamewar. I am in no way trying to make the impression that I (or perhaps other infidels) hadn't made any mistakes. I am honestly sorry if the wrong choice of words, bad and ambiguous phrasing of my own and faulty reading of others' posts on my part have hurt anybody's feelings. I am not sorry, though, if people are getting upset and angry if others just speak their mind or even just ask questions. And I refuse to be the single one scapegoat and whipping boy for the things that happened recently.
Good to have that off my chest. But the way things are standing now, I put on my asbestos undies this morning. So, please lead the way to the pyre and bring on the heat.