From: Bob Perez Subject: Re: Observations on anti-Derek Smart threads Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 11:45 AM "Fib Dynamo" wrote in message news:8tvacn$11b$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > So Bob, you having fun yet? Yes! I have to admit it has many elements of interest to me. As fascinating sociological phenomena, compelling mystery, there's lot to have fun with here. > Granted, you're not quite there yet, but sooner or later, Spambo will > deliver one too many totally-uncalled-for flames at you, and you will > begin fighting back. Perhaps. But I've a pretty thick skin and am easily able to shut things off when I tire of them. I don't think you'll see me doing any flaming. ;-> I think I understand the PhD issue now and have come to terms with both sides of the argument and neither gives me heartburn. The racist thing is despicable and I'd like to understand who's responsible for that fiasco. Not because I intend to become a fixture as a detractor or a defender, I won't. I just would like to reach closure on the issue if it's possible. I hate to see an injustice go unresolved. Might not be avoidable in this case, but so far I don't mind the effort it's taken to understand this much. I'll keep going. > But here's my theory, and I think it's kinda interesting - lemme know > what you think. > > People go after Derek because he's an American Dream fraud. He likes > to pose amongst people as an amazing success. He tells people about > all the stuff he's done, he drops names, tells us about his expensive > cars (sure), all the big deals he's making (yeah right), and spouts an > amazing amount of technobabble to try to impress the impressionable. > And I need not go into too much detail about that PhD thing, right? He > claims to be a huge success and bends over backwards trying to > demonstrate this. > > But for all that talk, what has he done? He was involved in some lame > DOS based space game many years ago. He claims to have designed it, > but there was many other people involved. He has since bought the > rights to it, done little tweaks to the code and held them aloft as new > games (which they are not, of course). And that's it. He's a failure > at the 'big time'. > > Which most of us are as well. Let's face it, no one on this group is > 20% as successful as Derek claims to be - but at least we know it. > Derek does not seem to. His dealings with most other people are - or > become - condescending and arrogant. He is constantly trying to > demonstrate how superior he is. He's a stuffed-shirt phoney, but is > without a *real* accomplishment to his name. > > And in the time-honored tradition of America, he becomes an > irresistible target for satire. Can't argue with tradition. I think there's a lot to your theory. Derek is a fascinating character who has tragically set himself up for most of what has been tossed his way. I don't know much about his game but it doesn't sound like it's been very successful, and there are very few cases in business where a bad launch can be overcome with subsequent releases so I'm not very optimistic for him or BC3K. Honestly, if I were him I would change my name and start a new game all over again if I really wanted to make it in the game world. I'm not kidding. That said, I think he shares a lot with guys like Richard Nixon (not on the same scale, obviously, hear me out). He's done something questionable (the degree-mill PhD) and once confronted by a hostile reaction, took a confrontational approach that did nothing but solidify the opposition. History has shown over and over again that this only leads to disaster. Nixon was forced to resign the Presidency. Clinton was impeached. Derek is crucified. By way of contrast, go back and look at what happened to Nixon with his dog Checkers. He could have played hardball on that one too and been crucified by the press. Instead he explained his situation in an uncharacteristically (for him) human manner and wound up delivering the famous "Checkers speech" that saved his career and led ultimately to his becoming President. People are suckers for this type of "owning up", and if Derek had simply stated up front "Hey, I didn't mean to offend anyone and I honestly didn't realize it would have that effect, I'm sorry" and stopped sticking it in everyone's face in his sig, none of this would ever have happened. It would have gone completely away. But he took the confrontational approach and the rest is piling on. I think your theory hits on a major truth. People love to tear down public figures, particularly if they ask for it. Maybe because it illustrates that these public figures aren't really any better than them, and thereby props up their own self image. In Derek's case he's provided a lot of great material for these people to work with. Instead of defusing the situation easily, he's drawn the lines in the sand and guaranteed an army of detractors. What has surprised me about this particular one is that it's endured so long. What is it about this particular one? Is it just that it's got so much history and momentum that it carries its own weight? There have to be dozens of more appealing targets out there. I'm coming to the conclusion that the real reason is simply that he's so accessible. Unlike a lot of other targets, Derek shows up and perpetuates the discussion. Imagine if Linda Tripp were to show up in a newsgroup and defend herself year after year. Derek's problem is that he's chosen to make his name and his career in the very same forum in which he has drawn the lines in the sand in his confrontations. So his every attempt to publicize his efforts get met by the same crowd with which he's argued his other case and it just never goes away. And probably never will. BP