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

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> While I do not claim an authority of any kind, I do have some 
> experience in this field
Your experience doesn't grant you being right. I even doubt about you 
experience in the field of polling when you state "/abolition of 
copyright - as an example - will be considered pretty radical by anyone 
outside PP circles/" without, probably, having asked anyone. 
Furthermore, that statement includes two fallacies and two inaccuracies 
-very /meritable/, for just one statement-:

- inaccuracy: we are PP, not PPI (you may consider this not relevant; 
however, for Spaniards it is essential not to be confounded with Popular 
Party)
- inaccuracy: at least in Spain there is no /c word/, but author's 
rights (well, in Spanish legal framework the /intellectual 
pro...whatever/ is also present though that's another story: you there 
talked about what we want, not about what currently is)
- fallacy: we don't aim to abolish commercial rights, but to reduce 
their term & scope
- fallacy: you don't know what people outside PPI thinks about that goal 
of reducing commercial rights term & scope

Hope this may serve as an example of what you usually do.
> and some education
Considering what I'm about to say, I would rather talk about your 
College trajectory as /training/, as for /education/ I think of a 
broader meaning -including politeness-.
> I don't quite understand Carlos' perceptions.
> Actyually I am amazed how often my arguments are seen as personal 
> insults and scornful language (I word I did not know so far).
Well, Will seems to have understood it, so try again: words and 
expressions used by you, like /stupid / fundamentalist / radical / 
getting out of touch with reality / violating human rights / etc/, lay 
within what can be considered as scornful and/or insulting / defamating 
language. Not quite polite in my viewpoint.
> 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".
It is age-old debating trick to blame others from your own faults. The 
other thing you do, calling me /sensitive/ because of complaining about 
the things you say, seems as bizarre to me as calling anyone /weepy/ 
because of complaining about having being punched -"/why have you 
punched me?/" "/come on, don't be so weepy/", and all that stuff-. Maybe 
you are seeking to have me replying you in your same terms, but I won't, 
at least not in this PPI list -not even in personal mails, I stopped 
considering them useful once you rejected shaking hands some days ago-.
> 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 prevailing political mood is in the opposite direction.
Yes the prevailing traditional politicians mood is in the opposite 
direction from ours; if it weren't so, I think there won't probably be 
need for PPI. However, it is, so here we are.
> The general public usually shows very little interest in privacy 
Have you asked /the general public/? I wonder why do you so often talk 
on behalf of people without having previously asked them.

Maybe -just in case people actually shows very little interest in 
privacy- the problem would be that -due to the lack of information there 
currently is- people would be unaware of the threats that currently 
exists; I haven't seen news about FRA in Spanish mass media outside the 
Internet -and very very few inside the Internet (just briefly mentioned 
in 1-2 digital versions of mass newspapers)-; data retention was also 
largely ignored by mass media, and so on.

You mocked (mail 31-XII-08, 10:12; a really peculiar mail; e.g., "/I 
communicated for some time with a gentleman called Callahan - a word 
that includes the letters "allah", and I hoped that the filters would be 
simple enough to identify me as a terrorist threat/") on those threats, 
however, Piraten Partei Deutschland proved that the Bavarian Government 
actually spied Bavarian citizens against the law -even, PPDE sites and 
some of their members' homes were stormed by Bavarian Police-, so I 
wonder why did you mock on this issue. If you don't agree with what I 
say, you may ask that Callahan just to have a third opinion.
> 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.
Hope you finally became able to distinguish between you considering 
those who aim to reduce commercial rights term & scope (nearly all of us 
within PPI?) as /radical/, and we actually being /radical/. I mean, it 
would help you to avoid using "/abolition of copyright - as an example - 
will be considered pretty radical by anyone outside PP circles/"-like 
statements.
> 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.
Again: you consider all who in PPI ask for those goals (nearly all of us 
within PPI?) /radical/, but in no way it implies that eligible voters 
may consider us /radicals/. Will traditional politicians accuse us of 
being /radical/? Of course, and they will even make bolder accusations; 
our duty is to counter and deny their accusations, with facts.
> 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.
Should we also strive for result, and not just convey messages? Of 
course; however, not all results are acceptable, nor all proposals may 
be agreed by us.
> 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,
Yes, political realities, while share some common characteristics, 
differ from one country to another. It, thus, I think should make 
recommendable to watch out when applying certain analysis to other 
scenarios.

About being tolerant, when I worked as a salesman, I was taught two 
basic principles:

- A salesman must always aim for an agreement
- Agreement is not always possible

To know whether agreement is possible, one should -according to what I 
was taught- graphicly compare the stances of the stakeholders and test 
if there is /overlapping/ between them; if there is -e.g., the seller 
wants at least 100 and the buyer offers up to 105-, agreement is 
possible; if there isn't -e.g., the seller wants at least 100 and the 
buyer offers up to 95-, agreement is not possible. *In the light of 
those principles, if anyone ask us to offer more than what we reasonably 
can afford, or to demand less that we reasonably can expect, I believe 
we should reject those conditions*.

Are you going to consider that as being intolerant? Well, as I'm not 
bullet-proof, I'm pretty intolerant to being shot; so yes, I use to 
reject certain approaches and scenarios. One thing is to be polite, and 
a different one is, in my opinion, falling deep into political 
correctness -which I consider harmful-; I believe it's good to not 
tolerate certain things -like scornful and/or insulting language-.
> 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.
Again, you are projecting onto me your tricks, purportedly trying to 
show that I would be the one who does it, when it's actually you. It's a 
classic ... and it's false, indeed.
> 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.
Yes, the one where it said /retrogressive/ and you read -don't know why, 
even when it was clarified- /retroactive/. Starting from that 
misreading, you built a very bizarre theory on human rights violation.
> Perhaps I "insulted" the UN, and copyright proponents, but definitely 
> no one else.
You accused anyone who defends the mood of applying retrogressive 
measures to author's commercial rights, of being violating human rights 
-the most despicable accusation one can ever receive, when false-.
> Remember how angry he got when I quoted the realo/fundi dichotomy of 
> the German Greens.
And you asked whether there was a simmilar divide in PPI.

I wonder /how/ could I become bothered /just/ because of being called 
/fundamentalist/ or /radical/, how /sensitive/ ... are you serious? For 
Reinier, using scornful, even insulting language would be /acceptable/, 
while complaining about such usage would be /sensitive/; quite bizarre.
> 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).
You have invented such false dichotomy, as I don't see here anyone 
wondering whether to choose one option or the other one: I think we all 
choose both -aiming for short, middle & long term goals, i.e., for all 
of our goals (while being aware of the fact that most of them won't be 
feasible in the short term)-.
> 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.
Again: our goals are not overly utopical, that statement from you is a 
distortion of facts; simply, their feasibility depends on our strength 
(i.e., the amount of our MEPs), thus they're not likely to be achieved 
in the short term. Also, as in my language the /c word/ doesn't exist, 
we in PIRATA don't make steps to make more acceptable something that 
doesn't exist -as you said in a former mail, what exist in Spain and in 
the EU are the author's rights; even talking about rejectable 
expressions, the /intellectual pro...whatever/ is present in the Spanish 
legal framework, while the /c word/ is not-; thus, I prefer not to use 
something that doesn't exist -at least in the legal contexts I talk about-.
> 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.
Besides the fact that some countries live within crisis for years, the 
thing is that I'm here to work on PPI issues, not to have fun -to have 
fun I have the pubs, the friends, the family, the hobbies, etc-; and 
specially I don't find funny being insulted nor defamated. If you find 
it funny you should better find better hobbies. You are welcomed to 
debate issues, while you are not welcomed (at least not by me) to keep 
using that /fundamentalist/stupid/fifthcolumnist/radical/ stuff.


                                                                                                       
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                                       
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                                 
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman

P.S.: From the 31-XII's mail: "/Or will they simply ignore me, because I 
don't look like someone of mediterrenean origin, with my blue eyes and 
blond hair?/" I have blue eyes and part of my family is red-haired ... 
and we still look mediterranean; I mean, some Mediterranean countries 
like Italy or Spain have a pretty ethnic mix, which ranges from 
dark-skin, dark-haired people to blond-haired, pale-skin. Just some 
information to /help you/ in case you again decide to mock again on some 
of our concerns, to allow you to add more accuracy to your comments.