JoomlaLeaks

Leaks, Drips, and Spills

"obfuscation, misdirection and straight up lies"

05 Apr 2012
Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

A posting by Robert L. Borosage in the Huffington Post accuses Republican Candidate Mitt Romney of “obfuscation, misdirection and straight-up lies.” A review of the meaning of those words should be very instructive:

  1. Obfuscation: literally, “to darken.”   It is a word that means that a person makes an intentional act to muddy the waters, to turn out the lights, to deceive by hiding the truth.  The main point of obfuscation is that it is intentional.  It is not an accidental covering of the facts; the speaker is determined to confuse the listener in order to deceive.
  2. Misdirection: to give guidance or instruction which is incorrect.  The implication of misdirection is, again, intentional for the purpose of sending someone the wrong way.  It’s like stopping at a convenience store to get directions, only to be told by the clerk, who hasn’t a clue, the wrong information just to get you off (his) back.
  3. Straight-up lies are instructions that are intentionally designed to mislead the listener in order to avoid facts that undermine or deny the speaker’s truths.

Sound familiar? Just apply the above to what you have seen or failed to see from Open Source Matters, Inc. trustees.

So where are we now? April 5th, 2012. No minutes available for February, 2012. No financials available since October, 2011. No comments from OSM. No apologies for failing to keep up with promises made. No notices to the community about the delays seen in providing the promised reports.

I saw this same obfuscation attempt by Andrew Eddie in some of his comments to a few of my previous blogs. At the time I couldn't think of the appropriate word. Obfuscation - no wonder!

Update: Just a few hours after this blog was posted publically, Alice Grevet, OSM Secretary, posted a motion on the OSM Public Mailing List to approve the February 21, 2012 board minutes. One might draw the conclusion that this blog may have stimulated action. Who knows? What I do know is that 45 days elapsed between the meeting and the motion to approve the minutes. Also, another meeting was held during that time frame. Part of any formal meeting should be a systematic plan for the orderly conduct of business. The sequence in which business is taken up during a meeting is known as the "Order of Business." The Order of Business is a blueprint for the meeting. Usually the first order of business at a board meeting after the chair calls the meeting to order is to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Now, I can understand this not happening every now and then. But, this is the second time in a row. This long a delay in approving minutes stretches the memory of the rest of the board members to remember accurately what occurred. Alice diligently completed minutes as Assistant Secretary under Jacques Rentzke. The new chair is now Paul Orwig. So adding two and two. Wasn't Paul the Treasurer who failed to publish the financial reports for such a long period? Bingo - that makes 4!

I encourage all of you to read the two petitions  linked here and sign them. It is time OSM heard from its constituents!

  Definitions retrieved from The Penultimate Word

Additional Info

  • Revisions: 1
Read 5097 times
David Huelsmann

Dave Huelsmann was Treasurer of Open Source Matters, Inc. from 2008 to July, 2010 and Joomla Forum Global Moderator from 2005 to November, 2010. Now retired, he was a senior healthcare executive who managed large and diverse clinical laboratory, radiology, electroencephalography, and centralized patient transport operations/departments in both not-for-profit and for-profit companies throughout the United States.

Dave was a Navy Corpsman who served in Vietnam while attached to Seabee battalionmcb71
MCB-71.

Read more about Dave Huelsmann

Comments

0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-04-07 07:44
Nice to see I finally got a personal mention. I'm honoured. However, you should know obfuscation means something different to a developer ;-) Can't stay - got to run! Oh, other than to say no attribution for you definitions, again! Try footnotes, they don't clutter the blog as much as block quotes.
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-04-07 09:49
Andrew: you should really read all the way through the blog. Attribution for the definitions was the last line of the blog - almost exactly like a footnote :-)

P.S. Seems to me obfuscation should mean the same thing to a developer - not something different. How is your definition different?
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-04-07 16:16
I stopped reading after I hit the advertising banner for the petition (overwhelming support I see - I may have to start believing your stuff one day). Maybe you should consider using an inline SUP and a linked number to make it more obvious, less obscure. The highlight is also very tacky. You should date your updates so there is a relative context for the reader.
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-04-08 09:19
Not surprising about the lack of support. The reactions from the entrenched haven't been positive in the past. Don't blame anyone for not signing up.

So, you seem to be volunteering to be my blog style consultant. ;-) Perhaps you should provide your qualifications for filling that role. 8)
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-04-08 18:01
Let me get this straight. Your petition is validated by the fact that nobody supports it. Is that what you are saying?
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-04-09 10:19
Interesting interpretation but not even close. :eek:
Quoting David Huelsmann:
Not surprising about the lack of support. The reactions from the entrenched haven't been positive in the past. Don't blame anyone for not signing up.
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-04-09 16:28
So, it's reasonable to conclude that lack of support for your petitions translates to lack of support for your point of view, no?
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-04-09 19:08
No.
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-04-09 19:24
Well you can't have it both ways _shrug_
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-04-10 09:42
Quoting Andrew Eddie:
Well you can't have it both ways _shrug_


Let's see, what both ways you are speaking of Andrew:
1. Quoting Andrew Eddie:
Your petition is validated by the fact that nobody supports it. Is that what you are saying?

2. Quoting Andrew Eddie:
So, it's reasonable to conclude that lack of support for your petitions translates to lack of support for your point of view, no?


Those are the two options you presented. Whereas my only presented option was Quoting David Huelsmann:
Not surprising about the lack of support. The reactions from the entrenched haven't been positive in the past. Don't blame anyone for not signing up.


No match. Guess your interpretations - though creative - lack substance. :-*

Comments are now closed for this entry