[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

> Guys, let us take a step back from this arguement. It is easy to see
> from the outside that both of you seem angry now, so lets try and
> focus on the issue and not on each other. You two both need to calm
> down, and stop the ad hominem attacks. Though I am a proponent of loud
> and fervent debates, this is has morphed into a name calling match.

Thank you for interfering. No, I am not angry. I only feel challenged to 
react and explain. I don't quite understand Carlos' perceptions. A debate is 
typical about issues one does not agree on, so it is just logical to 
question each other's positions. That is not a personal attack. Furthermore, 
this is not a field of hard facts, but of feelings and opinions. While I do 
not claim an authority of any kind, I do have some experience in this field, 
and some education. Take it or leave it.
Our debate suffers from not reading what I actually say. It is age-old 
debating trick to take the other's argument, twist it and then argue that it 
is complete nonsense. If I say somthing is not always "black", the 
counter-argument is not that it is *not* always "white".
Actyually I am amazed how often my arguments are seen as personal insults 
and scornful language (I word I did not know so far). Even after I 
carefullly and honestly explained what I meant by "getting out of touch with 
reality", and apologised for my less than perfect command of the English 
language, Carlos still felt insulted. Assessing reality is often very 
difficult.
The recent debate on privacy shows that my analysis of privacy as a 
political issue was not understood at all. While we (PPI) all agree that the 
present surveillance society strongly conflicts with privacy, the general 
public usually shows very little interest in privacy. It is just hard to 
explain. The prevailing political mood is in the opposite direction.
Re "radicalism": for me this is, again, a substantive issue. And it is a 
common issue in politics. I favour gradual changes over more drastic changes 
such as a strong reduction of the copyright term. For reasons I explained: I 
believe that such a strategy is more likely to lead to results in the near 
future, and it avoids that the PPI is considered radical. But, granted, this 
is just an opinion, and based on an expectation that is - like any other 
expectation - not based on hard facts. "Predicting is difficult, especially 
predicting the future." Of course I am aware that there are conceivably 
other policies. E.g. in the software patent debate, some people reject 
gradual improvements because they would decrease the need for more drastical 
("radical") changes. One should also acknowledge that there is a difference 
between activism and politics. Politicians should strive for results, not 
just convey messages, in my opinion. Oh yes, this position may be influenced 
by my Dutch background. In NL we have a system with many political parties, 
and the government is always a coaltion, requiring compromises. Systems with 
a threshold (Germany) and bipartisan systems (UK) are different. And the 
Dutch - until recenty, I am afraid - were tolerant and solution-oriented. We 
always had to because we are a trading nation, plus half our country is 
below sea level so we need an effective government to keep our feet dry,

To be honest, I am not really irritated by Carlos. I am rather amused. 
(Don't take this as an offence! You did not aim to offend me, did you, 
Carlos?) Perhaps it is even creative, the way he persistently twists my 
words. Remember how angry he got when I questioned the authority (and the 
interpretation) of a UNDR provision - which tends to be (ab)used by 
copyright proponents. Perhaps I "insulted" the UN, and copyright proponents, 
but definitely no one else. Remember how angry he got when I quoted the 
realo/fundi dichotomy of the German Greens. This is actually about a very 
similar dilemma (take note: I deliberately use the word "dilemma") between 
PP policy directions: giving priority either to ambitious, long term goals, 
or to short-term results (given the fact that priorities must be set, due to 
1) limited resources 2) limited public attention 3) sometimes conflicting 
nature). BTW the "conflicting nature" imho works to ways: overly utopical 
goals will hurt the acceptance by other political parties to make 
coalitions - but otoh, as I just explained, any step to make present 
copyright more acceptable reduces the pressure to make drastic changes - the 
ultimate goal.

Carlos, please SMILE. have some FUN. And enjoy the challenge of solving THE 
political problem of the 21st century. The present financial crisis will be 
over in a couple of years. But the information crisis will last.

reinier