[extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....

[Harvey Newstrom]

Rafal Smigrodzki wrote,
> I'd never before had the experience of being quite this 
> baffled by things other people were saying. I've attended 
> lectures on quantum physics, group theory, cardiology, and 
> contract law, all fields about which I know nothing and all 
> of which have their own specialized jargon and notational 
> conventions. None of those lectures were as opaque as 
> anything these academics said. ", again intimating that he 
> does not have a reason to see himself as an all-around ignoramus.

This doesn't make sense.  You think all the speakers were bogus and
off-topic, and the only person on-topic was the author?

> > This person that you think was an accomplished speaker said, "we
> > discovered that we had grossly mischaracterized the audience by 
> > assuming that it would be like the crowd from the first
> > conference. I spent most of that first day furiously scribbling
> > notes."  This lead me to conclude that the author was 
> > not prepared and was not confident of his own presentation.
> 
> ### An unexpected appearance of strange guests at a 
> conference can hardly be seen as the fault of the speaker.

This doesn't make sense.  You think that the entire conference was filled
with bogus guests and no real engineers showed up except for the author?

> ### The first sentence of his presentation was a delightful 
> joke, you know.

So?

> > I don't know if this is actually true but it's a delightful
> > piece of slander regardless
> 
> ### This indicates that he has a sense of humor.

This indicates that he will publicly relay stories without caring if they
are true or not.

> > And in conclusion, after a very lengthy attempt at persuasion, the 
> > author finishes with a not-too-clear conclusion.  He says, 
> > "So, what are we to make of all this? I earlier stated that
> > my quest was to learn if there was any content to this stuff
> > and if it was or was not bogus. Well, my assessment is
> > that there is indeed some content, much of it interesting. The 
> > question of bogosity, however, is a little more difficult." 
> 
> ### His conclusions are clear, and entirely in agreement with 
> my own amateur opinions of the field.

This is clear conclusion?  The question of bogosity is difficult?  OK....

> ### I would fire an engineer incapable of parsing 
> Morningstar's satire from his more serious content, but of 
> course, to each employer his own.

Apparently.  Anybody who gives satire in response to a serious engineering
assignment, or gives a comedy sketch at a conference that invited him to
give a serious speech, isn't the kind of engineer I would like to work with.
I know you value a sense of humor, but turning everything into a joke, or
being the class clown while everybody else is trying to do serious work, is
not a helpful attribute.  

I have no objection to his satirical article (wherever it was published).
My objection was to his behavior at the conference or his methods used to
produce his content.  He literally plagiarized other people's words,
presented possibly slanderous statements without checking their accuracy,
and attacked and made fun of the conference that had invited him to speak.
This is not the kind of guy you want representing your company at events.  I
certainly don't want this guy doing this at future cyberspace conferences.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>