Part of Dave Winer's ability to influence any discussion, despite being a relatively geeky software developer with an undiplomatic manner and an absolutely faith in his own conclusions that appears to newcomers as hubris (and to old hands as a reason to stock Advil near your computer) is his almost scientific approach to opinion. To Dave, everything is like programming.

He comes up with a theory and he goes about testing or implementing it. If it works, he uses it. If it doesn't, he tries until he finds something that does. If you think his theories are wrong, even though they work, you have to prove it to him. If you do, then generally, he jumps on your bandwagon. If you can't prove that your ideas are better than his, then he says "More power to you, but I'm happy over here."

Because of this, shouting at him really doesn't work. Programmers from the early days like Dave are used to being told they can't do things, and then they sat down and did them anyway. This tends to give them faith in their own abilities to detect when people are trying to stop them merely by shouting them down, and their responses are often eviscerating. Look at today's take-down of the Wingnutty Professor.

Lots of us pound on Dave from time to time, especially because the same skills that let you smell unprincipled opposition also tend to make you think that your choices that are purely personal preference, like computer platform or gadgets, are right for everyone else, too. Glenn Reynolds, however, is using his top-ranked blog to pound on Dave for disagreeing with him, and Dave's not having any of it, no sir. I'm quoting the whole thing so that I don't accidentally edit out any of Dave's intent.

Glenn Reynolds's Instapundit weblog is quite a flow machine. In the last few days since BlogNashville, he's been sending his readers over here, always with a scolding message. My behavior isn't up to his standards, I am too rude for him, so he's now telling everyone who reads his blog that I'm not a nice person.

Okay, I'll survive. I'm not your typical shirking liberal, scared of a few nasty words from the Limbaugh crowd. Only it's a surprise to see Reynolds defending their right to control the conversation, especially since he didn't have anything to say at the session on Saturday. It's like the citizen who doesn't vote yet has the gall to complain about the outcome.

Over the objections of those who Reynolds defends, the mission actually was accomplished, we came up with a great list of shared values -- imho that's what we should be discussing. Right and Left did get together on Saturday, between the slurs and attacks, we managed to draft a pretty good list. It's not ratified by anyone, but at least it's the beginning of an important discussion.

Instead Reynolds wants the focus on my personality. I don't know why, but I can imagine. It's his worst nightmare that his conservative colleagues would work with my liberal friends to help our country. That's right Glenn, it's our country, and don't you forget it. People from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco and Los Angeles go to war and die for America when our country needs us. Patriotism isn't exclusive to conservatives or Christians. The strength of our country is its diversity, intelligence, ambition, idealism, resources and our love of country.

At the beginning of the conference we sang America The Beautiful. At the time I wasn't sure if that was the right song, but after the fact I feel it was the perfect song.

So to Glenn Reynolds, you pointed to me when I was sarcastic and angry. How about pointing to me now? Sure I don't agree with your focus, but I will fight to the death for your right to speak, for your dignity as an American, for your right to disagree with me. Let's get back on the road to success in America. And to do that, we need everyone's help.

Of course, it's important to understand that Dave, unthreatened by a relatively obscure law professor who's managed to become a celebrity by validating conservative fantasies and being "confused" or "disappointed" by all criticism of them, told Reynolds as much in E-mail:

BUT DAVE, it was your behavior that was the problem, and pointing fingers at others and engaging in juvenile revenge fantasies doesn't change that. It was the only dark spot on an otherwise successful conference.

In fact, your "moderation" of the civility session was anything but. You insisted on shutting people down, and repeatedly charged off the topic under discussion to make sure they knew you disagreed with them on peripheral issues. You embarrassed yourself, people have noticed, and the gentlemanly thing to do would be to apologize, not play the victim and accuse your critics of being confederate sympathizers.

UPDATE: Winer emails:

The other people in the room were trying to say something to you, but you were too focused on me to hear them. You're just another Limbaugh ditto-head, I thought you were more than that. I thought you were MUCH more than that. You're just another flamer. Too fucking bad. Dave

Um, okay, Dave, though I have no idea what you're talking about here. But I thought that you were too focused on you to hear what people were saying. (My only comment during the session was to note, in response to a question from Dave, that I would have liked to hear what another audience member had been trying to say before Dave cut him off). And making what is fundamentally a question of personal deportment into a matter of political name-calling just illustrates the problem.

I don't think that this whole affair is a big deal -- though Dave's email makes it a slightly bigger deal, at least to me -- but I do think that when moderating a session like this, it's best to make the session about other participants' views.

On a more constructive note, here are some good suggestions for blogospheric conduct.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Actually, these suggestions are good, too.

Funnily enough, both lists of "suggestions" for conduct pretty much represent how Winer always blogs: be thick-skinned, have a sense of humor, avoid name-calling, don't post something you wouldn't say over a cup of coffee to that person's face. These are rules for blogging. Reynolds, of course, would prefer to impose them on all aspects of his critics' lives so he can shake his head sadly and be so disappointed when they don't meet standards he invented for them.

Dave didn't blog that Reynolds is "just another Limbaugh ditto-head," he said it in E-mail - based on evidence he gathered in person that changed his mind about the Wingnutty Professor. (Similarly, I'm going to call him that until I see evidence that his main purpose in blogging is not to be an apologist for the wingnuts, and there's damn little of it to date.) Dave's blog entry was far more subtle and devastating. Dave says, indirectly, that Glenn urged right-wing bloggers to hurl insults at left-wing bloggers, while he "sat back and enjoyed the scene (and left early because he had better things to do)." In response, Reynolds whines that the real story was that Dave, moderating the session, wouldn't let those people get control of it and moderate it for him. Any bets - any bets - on how tolerant Reynolds would be of progressives trying to use the floor to hijack any forum he moderated on any subject?

Didn't think so.

Poor Glenn, he never has any idea what anyone criticizing him could possibly be talking about. It's all just so confusing why people won't drink the Kool-Aid, on any topic:

Repeat after me: Fog of War!: If you're stuck with how to make a case on how things could be improved by more war, simply point out how confusing everything is. It looks really, really cool if you use the phrase "fog of war" to show how inscrutable the current situation is. See, you can look at a situation with seemingly no good option involving force (oh, a massive uprising against the American military, for example) and just say, "Boy, we really don't know what's going on here. This looks like a real 'fog of war' kind of thing. I'm in a wait and see mode here." Bingo! Off the hook. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, now he's the master of this. His "this Valerie Plame stuff is just so confusing, I can't make sense of it" post was a classic of the genre, even if it wasn't really a war post. Watch him, and learn.

Dave's wrong about enough stuff to prevent him from being Pope, no matter how many domain names Rogers Cadenhead buys, but he's never going to back down just because someone says so. Prove him wrong or sit down. People like Glenn Reynolds are quite unused to this concept.

Ouch.

Few Presbyterians ace energy quiz

Not one of 1,600 in poll could answer eight true/false questions

by Jerry L. Van Marter

LOUISVILLE — In a survey sure to disappoint environmentalists, not one of more than 1,600 participants in a recent Presbyterian Panel poll was able to correctly answer eight true-false questions on energy issues.

The questions, put to a random scientific sample of Presbyterian members, elders, pastors and specialized clergy by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Research Services office (answers below):

1. Compared to 20 years ago, the overall energy efficiency of U.S. motor vehicles has improved.
2. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of recent global climate change.
3. On average, food in the U.S. travels more than 1,200 miles to get from the farmer to the consumer.
4. The United States government’s long-term plan for dealing with nuclear waste is to ship the waste to outer space.
5. Only a little over one-third of the energy used in a conventional oil or coal-fired power plant is converted into electricity.
6. Less than a quarter of all petroleum consumed in the United States is imported.
7. Of renewable resources used by electric utilities (such as hydro-electric, solar, wind), wind currently generates the most power.
8. The U.S., with 5 percent of the world’s population, annually accounts for more than 40 percent of worldwide petroleum consumption.

Of the 938 members and elders who responded to the panel, 22 percent got five or more correct; 7 percent got six or seven more correct; and 1 percent got seven correct. Among the 724 ministers, 34 percent got five or more correct; 15 percent six or more; and 3 percent got seven correct.

The article gives plenty of hope that Presbyterians hold rather progressive energy ideas, but we're pretty bad with the facts. I wonder how that can be, with AM Radio telling us the energy industry's party line for 12 hours every day and calling anyone who disagrees un-American?

Answers: 1 false; 2 true; 3 true; 4 false; 5 true; 6 false; 7 true; 8 false.

(Via Presbyterian News Service.)