From: "Sir Galahad"
All of the people I know who have met her find her to be a pleasant person, and the occasional Email messages we have exchanged have certainly been positive and friendly.
Irrelevant, of course. Some of the most terrible people in the world have been pleasant. D. Denning may or may not be the most terrible person in the world, but her pleasantness is unrelated. ............................................................ Statements like these, with which cpunks retort to each other all the time, are examples of the ever-continuing exercise of logic which goes on on the list - even if not formally delineated nor announced as being of such intent (LOGOS). I am glad for the points which "Sir Galahad" brought up, because they point out the difference between essential vs non-essential elements in arguments like this one. Objections present the opportunity to more definitely identify what *is* the critical element which makes up the substance of an issue (such as what is really is offensive and objectionable about Denning, aside from her personality characteristics). Denning is considered credible solely because her statements are consistent with the interests and views of those in authority. Yet even if one's statements are not consistent with the established authorities, they could be credible and noteworthy to a wide audience, were the statements in consonance with reality, expressing truths observable to any (once they were isolated and identified) and understable to those who hear or read them. The 'authorities' (appointed, not necessarily actually "authorities" in terms of knowledge) may find Denning's statements agreeable because these support their own views and government positions, but what is crucial in this support is the consequence of her arguments about GAK: if her statements convince the right people into complicity, into giving up the authority over their right to self-determined privacy, then the 'authorities' will be satisified that they will not have to deal with any protesting opposition which would prevent them from implementing their plans - they can proceed with their 'authority' intact, as though it had been validated. But if she (among others, of course) cannot convince the right influential bodies that passive acceptance of the 'authorized' point of view is correct and noble, then this means that the authorities cannot not proceed as they would like, and this would reduce the power of their position in society. If there was not an issue of power involved, it wouldn't matter so much what Denning has to say or whether it is credible or not. But if what she has to say adds support to the positions of those already in 'authority' - that is, if people accept her arguments for GAK in place of their own apprehensions against it, then control in the central corridors of government will have been preserved and it will be 'business as usual'. So is Denning offensive because she is unpleasant per se, or do negative opinions of her exist because of who/what she is supporting? i.e., because she is on "their" side, rather than "ours", because she employes her reasoning to their benefit, rather than to ours whose singular authority in this matter is under contention? .. Blanc