[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Colin, you said the flavour changed after September 11. I did an > archive search and saw that just before September 11, the list was in > uproar because someone received what they took to be a rude private > email from a jmdl-er. This person posted it to the list, and people > took sides and started sending each other offensive emails. The > argument even went on through September 11 and beyond (which I find > incredible) with the person perceived to have been rude being kicked > off the list, and even his friends being attacked for being his > friends. So this kind of thing precedes September 11 unfortunately.
No, Sarah, that particular situation was unlike any other, and was something that went on for years and involved many private nasty emails and many people, although only a couple of us got fed up enough to finally say anything openly, and that was after years of trying many different ways to deal with the situation. Resolving that situation was an extremely difficult experience for everyone and very painful and I'd expect those feelings to come through to anyone reading messages from that time. To see it now characterized as being so simple and to give the impression that one person -- I guess that would be me -- was offended by one email and frivolously started the uproar is completely wrong. Not only is it incorrect information, it's wrong for it to be used now to take an underhanded jab at me, and it's even more wrong to completely disregard people's feelings in order to (inaccurately) make your point. There were many other examples you could have used, so pulling out that one is deliberately provocative and hurtful (from my point of view). I could call that behavior all sorts of other things but will leave it at that. Speaking generally about the list, I'm struck by the number of people who say they don't like and don't understand disagreements between people being played out on the list. Since I'm one of the people who does that, I'd like to give my view of it. In my opinion, disagreements that start onlist need to finish onlist. Because of my experience referred to above, I have an intense gut aversion to going to private emails to sort out unpleasantness with someone I don't already have a friendly offlist relationship with. I know how out of control private emails can be, and I'm not opening the door to that with any onlist-only person again. I don't send nasty emails and I don't receive them anymore either. (Friendly emails have always been welcome!) So I'm someone who, annoyingly in some people's view, will probably always keep arguments onlist when that's the only way I know that person. If it's any help for listers impatient with such unpleasantness, I always try to keep the exchange short, and also (believe it or not) try to avoid getting involved in personal arguments in the first place. One of the appeals recently of joni-only for me (for the first time ever) was not only to avoid the bombardment of information and determined pro-war proselytizing, but also to steer clear of the sarcastically insulting remarks I was taking personally, and which I can and did fall into responding to in a less than gracious manner. Just because someone is not being directly insulting, doesn't mean they're not getting their jabs in. It just means they won't be held accountable for it, and sometimes don't even feel responsible for it. And, to add to the confusion, often will then start accusing people who respond to their jabs of initiating it all. Maybe they have, and maybe not. That's why "insult policing" would never work in such intertwined situations. As MG mentioned in her message, feeling insulted often is "in the eye of the beholder". And one more unpleasant subject: the overuse recently of the word abuse. There's only one person's behavior in my entire time on the list that I've ever applied that word to, and that was after a very long time when there was a pattern rather than an occasional lapse. To see that word so lightly tossed around here now is disturbing. Maybe it's just a matter of different understandings of that word. In my understanding, abuse has certain characteristics: the demand for privacy or secrecy, consistently attempting to belittle and intimidate, treating one person (or persons) differently than others, and completely disregarding what the "receiving" person has requested (even as clear cut a request as no more private emails please). And, it continues over time. So it's NOT momentary rudeness (perceived or actual), or a single remark that may be taken the wrong way by someone, or someone having a bad day and being unusually sensitive or annoying, or not even someone strongly challenging another person's opinion. Those things might not feel good, but labeling those actions abuse is inaccurate and confusing. In my opinion, abuse is an extremely serious charge and the word should be used very precisely. And regarding newcomers: although there are occasional exceptions, from what I can see the newcomers who have difficulty are the ones who "behave badly" themselves, as in making demands right away on the list (why aren't you all talking only about joni?, for example) or not being willing to pay attention to anyone else or just being rude to people here in general. People entering any group, party, pub, wherever, are going to get a negative reaction if that's how they come across. Like someone said, it does take some listening to get a feel for the place and the people. Newcomers not willing to do that are the ones who probably have the roughest time here. When people stick around, though, it's been interesting to see how people change. Sometimes newcomers who've slammed open the door with the greatest force, so to speak, eventually soften a bit. And people on list usually come to see and understand other people's quirks and ways of communicating, and sometimes learn a bit about their background, and become more forgiving. I see such changes as one of the loving influences of this list. I agree with the many people who've said the general mood of the list changes. When I joined years ago, there was an intense argument going on about Joni's use of the word "reoccurring" in the "The Reoccurring Dream", with some people saying there's no such word and Joni's wrong, and other people just as adamantly disagreeing and giving reasons why. What a thrill to find people who care enough about words and about Joni to so passionately argue what would be of no interest to anyone else in the world! That kind of passionate interest continues here and is what I value most about this list. Also around the time I joined there was a discussion about how the list "isn't what it used to be." Since I was a newcomer then, of course I had no idea what people missed so much. After being here a while, I see that that discussion is one that comes around every so often, and since it refocuses people and makes some people, myself included, think about the role they play here, it's a very good discussion to have once in a while. Thank you, Les, for bringing up the subject. I don't think you need to do anything other than that. The one specific suggestion given that I do think would be helpful is to include PC in the subject line if it's a "political" post. Some people have already been doing that. Then people not interested in such posts, and yet wanting to stay on NJC, could automatically and easily filter out those messages and still get everything else. Debra Shea
