[eDebate] Huh? a/t Marks and Culpepper

Michael Antonucci antonucci23
Wed Apr 2 22:40:59 CDT 2008

I don't have anything against lawyers.  

I'm making a pragmatic and predictive point.  You are
misinterpreting it as normative.

"Nonetheless, I don't think your infantilizing of my
concern (which has been validated by many others) is
any more mature than the yelling you criticize."

Uh huh...

My caricature of these concerns is not meant to
reflect poorly on the character of people who might
make them.  It might poke a little fun at them -
frankly, I thought they could take a joke.  (I
certainly boned that call.)

My larger concern is twofold, and I'll put it more

There's a hidden labor input.  Phil does these things.
 People don't see him doing it because he's good at it
so the machinery runs smoothly and quietly.

Therefore, when people say "Phil should it - and it
will be easy/effortless" (I can pull non-Wolmer cards
on this if need be?) - they should think twice.  A
single request will be multiplied.

I believe either Korcok or Hyland said this as well.

This is a valid pragmatic concern.  I would thus
kindly suggest that you withhold your derision, as
pragmatic alterations of a collective project must
begin with pragmatic considerations, not missives on
the relative merits of The Law.

More importantly, this discussion will burn out in
about a week because people will post their thoughts
and feelings, then sort of look at each other waiting
to see who actually does what has to be done, and,
next week, that'll still be Phil, so he's pretty much
calling the shots.

Sorry if you don't like that, but I didn't make the
world.  I'm just commenting on it.

"Second, you're flat out wrong that people should not
be allowed to say, "uh.... can something be done about
this" just because they don't know html. "

I certainly didn't say that...
Say it.  I'm not censoring you.  I'm saying that it
will be largely futile.

You are badly confusing the normative dimension of my
claim with the predictive.

I think you should have input.  I think, however, that
you really don't, unless you pay someone to do this
work.  Therefore, it seems a bit pointless to yell at

"I'm sorry you think this is some sort of
over-reacting "the partners are watching!" scream but
frankly it's reality for some of us. "

Well, that joke went over poorly.

My real point, again, is not that you're being
infantile.  I'm actually SERIOUS - WilmerHale may well
be composed of grammar nazis.  If that's true - as it
is - then future lawyers may - with utter validity -
ask Phil to fix their punctuation.

Totally valid.  Totally smart.  Doesn't change the
fact that it's a ***** of a job for Phil Kerpen the
volunteer.  Not "easy."  Not "effortless."

My real point is that these minor labor costs
multiply, and I am discomfited by the collective
repeated willingness to discount them - *largely* as a
pragmatist, and *slightly* as a leftie who does have a
bit of concern with the way a community of privilege
treats the question of labor.

"...Antonucci's apparent disdain and condemnation
on this subject."


Where's my disdain?

I'm making a pragmatic point.  You are simply not
collectively in a situation where your various
proposals will necessarily be implemented, as you
collectively lack the relevant skills.

Therefore, a successful proposal should certainly take
these labor costs into account in a more detailed
fashion than "perhaps we could make it collective." 

This is no more "disdainful" than looking at a
proposal for a business and seeing that the proposal
fails to account for the need to hire labor. 

It could be written by a genius.  In truth, every one
of these posts IS written by a genius - I acknowledge
that joyfully.

However, if you don't successfully account for labor,
it ain't gonna work.  Sorry.  We can argue endlessly
about the world as it should be - I'm arguing about
the world as it is.

"Of course, lets see if we can take the post down
because it might hurt Kacey in her employment. Really,
it's an edebate post that can be easily removed and it
helps someone who is a part of our
community. "

It's not easy.

If you think stuff like that is easy - run your own

I don't think you can, because you're studying to
become a lawyer, which is perfectly respectable and
praiseworthy.  You don't have the time.  Maybe Phil
doesn't either.  

I just think when you want people to do you favors,
you ask nice.  Is this really such a radical claim?

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  

More information about the Mailman mailing list