I think the people on this list (as in almost every reasonably-sized group) are representative of society in general and therefore we include people who are sensitive, insensitive and over-sensitive. In fact, all of us are probably sensitive, insensitive and over-sensitive at different times in our lives, indeed probably every day.
For the sake of argument, and because I'm feeling generous today, may I say that I believe the general (default) state of sensitivity of the people on this list is 'sensitive', i.e. aware of the feelings of others and careful not to say anything to upset anyone unnecessarily. However, if we are all assholes at one time or another (copyright Fred Simon, loose summary mine) then equally we are all insensitive at one time or another and the nature of e-mail is such that reflection and reconsideration is backburnered in favour of rapidity and immediacy. Everyone has bad days, causing us to become over-sensitive if we receive remarks which we perceive to be directed against our ideas, opinions or selves. Thus inflamed, we 'naturally' respond in kind and thus the general temperature of the debate rises. Perhaps one way to lower the temperature here at the moment is for the (temporarily) insensitive people to think more sensitively when writing in case they (we / I) touch a nerve with the (temporarily) over-sensitive people. All of us are (or can be) guilty of saying and writing things in haste. No exceptions. HOWEVER, there are some clarifications here: 1. None of the above is intended to say that people may not express their opinions freely, although the principle of free speech does not, as I think Chief Justice Learned Hand once remarked, give someone the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre. Express what you want, but moderation, please, in the manner of expression, or politeness at least. 2. I agree absolutely with Debra when she says that a racist remark does not mean the person making the remark is racist. Again, we have temporary states of mind where we say things we don't really believe, or say things without any real factual basis for saying them, or are simply under the influence of alcohol, enthusiasm, medication or psychotropic elements. To say that Britney Spears is a greater songwriter and singer than Joni Mitchell is an idiotic remark, but I hope it would not condemn me as an idiot. It is said that Elvis Costello once said (or is alleged to have said) that Ray Charles was 'a blind ignorant nigger'. This is not the Costello I love and I'm sure it's not what he believes, and maybe it's not even true that he said it. Whatever: if he said it, it was clearly a racist remark but I don't think Costello is a racist on the strength of one remark'. There are remarks and there are remarks, but one slip (for whatever reason) should not normally condemn anyone permanently as an idiot, or racist, sexist or whatever. 3. as someone else said, and I repeat here, one person's point of view, opinion, way of seeing the world etc is just exactly that; that person's pov, opinion etc. It's not a universal truth. Let's try to inform, not insult; let's try to find a common ground, not polarise our positions; when agreement is impossible, as it seems to be in some areas here, let's try to agree to disagree. I do not expect this over-long piece to have serious effect on people's writing styles, nor would I presume to lecture so many outstanding people, but I will at least start to apply these principles to my own writings to the list. After all, 'A journey of a thousand steps starts with a single step'. Actually the quote is not my own writing, as you smartasses will no doubt know ;-) mike in bcn NP Ravi Shankar and Philip Glass 'Passages' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
