> On 7 Dec 2016, at 12:49, Alistair Broomhead <alistair.broomh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I would prefer not to hold other people to a higher standard than I hold > myself. I know I'm certainly guilty of sending an email in a rush before, and > later seeing that it wasn't perfect.
It happens to everyone; a simple “Oops, sorry, should have re-read before posting” should be enough to smooth any ruffled feathers. > The matter of the email's spelling being raked up again and again, when > Sophie has apologised for it, and pointed out that this is something she > struggles with on account of her disability, quite frankly stinks of ableism, > which I have no time for. > This community has a reputation for being inclusive and friendly. Picking on > someone's disability is a great way to destroy that reputation. Please don’t. I am reading your last 2 sentences and I hope I’m horribly misunderstanding your post; I’m reading that you are implying that I was picking on someone’s disability. Could you just confirm that I’ve got it completely wrong? > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 11:44 Richard Barran <rich...@arbee-design.co.uk > <mailto:rich...@arbee-design.co.uk>> wrote: > > > On 7 Dec 2016, at 11:49, Daniele Procida <dani...@vurt.org > > <mailto:dani...@vurt.org>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, Richard Smith <rich...@indigo3.com > > <mailto:rich...@indigo3.com>> wrote: > > > >> What was rude about it? > > > > Referring to a person as a "lazy recruitment agent" is rude. > > > >> Sophie is > >> going to have to prove that she can be a trusted agent. > > > > Sophie doesn't have to prove anything. All she has to do is use the list in > > accordance with its agreed purposes, politely. > > > > I have to disagree; using a list in accordance with its agreed purpose, or > with a code of conduct, or whatever, is not enough. > The people who subscribe to this list are busy; we all have lives, jobs, > families, unreasonable bosses, tiring commutes, sick and elderly parents, etc… > Someone who requests our attention and time should respect that time, that > attention that we are giving them. > > The recruiter who started this thread has posted several times before to this > list; looking at her previous posts, they are well formatted, explain > succinctly the jobs on offer, and provide enough information for me to decide > if I want to contact her for more information (and just in case my boss is > reading this: no, I’m not *actually* reading the job ads in detail!). > > This latest post, however, was frankly lazy: > - typo in the title. > - a list of technologies that’s badly copy-and-pasted (e.g “Postgre”) as well > as showing poor understanding of the subject area (“tech stack” includes > “APIs”. Err, come again?). > > The OP has proven that "that she can be a trusted agent” (to quote from > Richard Smith’s email) in the past. > However, trust and respect is not something that is earned once and for all - > if I start spouting rubbish, I can expect to be called out on it, not matter > how much respect (or “browny points”) I might have earned in the past. And I > think that this should apply to anyone who posts to a mailing list. > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > python-uk mailing list > python-uk@python.org <mailto:python-uk@python.org> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk > <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk> > _______________________________________________ > python-uk mailing list > python-uk@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
_______________________________________________ python-uk mailing list python-uk@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-uk
