I'm wrapping bits from a couple of posts into this
response.
>Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> > The general rule of civil discourse that I've
> >always followed is that one
> > signs off an argument by either not responding, or
> >responding with a "lets
> > table this message, I'm busy."
> It seems to me that that was what you got: An
> explanation (the call of
> debate is hard to resist) and a request to let it
> drop into the
> background. That's how it looked to me, at any rate.
With the admission on Himself's side that he _has
difficulty controlling_ his zeal for clarification,
at least in areas he feels passionately about. A big
"du-uh" there! <wry snort>
> > 3) Do we need to accept without question any
> >derogatory tones he uses with
> > people he differs with?
> I'm sorry, Dan, but I saw the tone used on him
> first, solo, and then in
> two- and three-part harmony. Perhaps others didn't
> see it happening
> that way, but *I* was feeling distinctly embattled
> as a *spectator*.
Agreed. (Had I been reading listmail while this was
actively going on, I'd have jumped in -- which
probably would not have been helpful, as I'm currently
quite upset over the loss of my cat Zimmie. :{ )
OTOH, as previously noted, Himself does have a
regrettable tendency to fire all boosters without a
prior cooling-off period -- not that He is at all
alone in that failing on-list. At least He does
usually apologize for such outbursts swiftly.
Julia wrote:
"You know what would really help? It would really
help if there were a rule observed, not just specially
for the name member of the list, but for *everyone*,
not to assume knowing someone else's motivation for
saying whatever.
<snip>
"It's a form of disrespect, IMO, and the interpersonal
problems around here arise from one person
disrespecting another for whatever reason. If you
can't reply to something in a manner that doesn't
respect the person whose words you're replying to,
maybe you should think twice about sending that
response."
Bang on. I've tried to follow that ideal -- although
I've certainly failed, rather appallingly, in the
past.
The problem of posts that are perceived as blatantly
insulting has been raised several times in the past
year or so; I think that some have made an effort to
revise their style of address (at least part of the
time!), yet others have not. So I'm seconding Julia's
request.
And in a forthcoming post will be quite specific re:
insulting assumptions - again - with examples; if I
fired it off right now, I would guarantee snarkiness.
<no smiley>
Debbi
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
