<Suppose there is a situation in which cussing someone out, on the list, is
just exactly what is needed to get him to wake up, or whatever it is, and
become a helpful, friendly, entertaining, and productive listmember? >
"Tough love" on the list is like corporal punishment with children.
To wit, if it has a legitimate use, the person most desirous to employ it is
rarely
the person to apply it well or appropriately.
----- Original Message ----
From: Robert Michael Abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 6:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Bill Nye, the anti-God "Science Guy"
At 06:01 AM 8/22/07, Paul Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I did not take particular offense to your "rant"
Mazel tov. Neither did I. Possibly because, your characterization
notwithstanding, it wasn't a rant.
>and thought it reasonably harmless given that the person in question had
>left the list already
You appear to be making the factually incorrect assumption that I
intended to speak only to him.
>but you have to be pretty inexperienced with email to recognize the
>potential for any stylistic exaggeration to be seen as hostile or angry.
1. I see YOUR stylistic exaggeration as condescending and pedantic.
2. You appear to be making the incorrect assumption that Jeff was
not, in fact, "hostile or angry," and, therefore, by implication, I was
wrong or unfair to have seen him that way. Perhaps, though, you are to be
excused for your error, because you do not have the additional benefit of
an off-list post from Jeff to me in which he confirmed just how "hostile or
angry" he was. I am reluctant, for obvious reasons of Netiquette, to share
a private post with the list. But you have his e-mail address. You are free
to ask him to send you a copy of his private post to me, if you want to
make up your own mind about whether or not he was "hostile or angry."
3. Just because I interpret any one instance, or any set of
instances, of stylistic exaggeration [that's a GREAT phrase, BTW] as
"hostile or angry," it does not follow logically that I will necessarily
interpret any other instance, or set of instances, that way, as well.
>No matter what the topic we all have a responsibility to be respectful.
That's YOUR opinion. It also strikes me as dogmatic and inflexible.
It wouldn't occur to me to state such a thing as a rule for anyone other
than myself, since I don't think I'm wise enough to discern, before the
fact, every set of circumstances that might occur to everybody else, and
then conclude that being respectful is the best course for all of them.
Suppose there is a situation in which cussing someone out, on the list, is
just exactly what is needed to get him to wake up, or whatever it is, and
become a helpful, friendly, entertaining, and productive listmember?
Suppose you discern, correctly, that some other listmember will continue to
dish you dirt unless and until you give HIM a dose, at which point he will
back off?
As a general proposition, however, I agree that being respectful is
the way to go when responding to posts, particularly if the posts to which
you respond are respectful of you. I don't know that one is the final
arbiter of whether or not one is or was respectful, though. Suppose, for
instance, that somebody sends you a post that is condescending and
pedantic, yet the sender insists that everybody has "a responsibility to be
respectful." How would you handle THAT?
One more thing: I wonder how many listmembers, apart from myself,
believe that you have to be pretty arrogant to think that it is your place
to tell every other listmember what his or her responsibility is.
>I actually think the Nye thread was somewhat offensive.
All of it? Particular parts or comments? I don't understand your
observation, because you don't provide, for me, anyway, sufficient specificity.
>Maybe its patronizing but I tend to see people with fundamentalist views
>as somehow deprived (of info, education, etc).
Just as, I guess (and guessing is all I'm doing, since I don't claim
to speak for those to/about whom Bill Nye spoke), they view you as deprived
of the benefits of God's grace and salvation through Jesus. In both
instances, though, each of you views yourself as somehow "better off than"
the other guy. And, also in both instances, it is a VERY short step from
seeing oneself as "better off than" the other guy to seeing oneself as
"better than" the other guy.
Perhaps you have noticed that some people are better than others at
avoiding that step.
Or perhaps not.
>We could say that the "retarded" are "stupid" and no matter how accurate
>it is seem both mean-spirited and pointless. Such a statement only serves
>the need of the speaker to vent (or be cruel).
Unless, of course, your point is to BE mean-spirited or cruel. But
then, one might excuse oneself such mean-spiritedness, or fail even to
recognize it, in the first place, if one believed one were "better than"
the other guy.
>Though we all need to vent but I don't think I would enjoy any list where
>it happens too often (more than seldom?). Anyone think that venting
>(especially near the line of OT) is an appealing feature of this list?
I think that a venti is an appealing feature of Starbucks.
Bob
Thinking clearly and logically is hard. If it were easy, everyone would do it.
OK
End
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
