Etiquette Guidelines
In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiquette Guidelines
John, In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. I agree and pledge to continue to use them to provide gentle correction, and never as a bludgeon, as you have done here. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Point taken. Would that it worked that way. It does seem to me that some folks get a pass for abusive behavior. I will only take so many public hits before I decide to counter them. In particular, I will not brook sustained personal attacks. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. That may be. I hope we'll get there. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. While I may be the most obvious target of your comments, I don't feel in any way abused by your appeal to better behavior. I hope that other recipients of your gentle reproof are as receptive. Thank you sincerely, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiquette Guidelines
At 06:56 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Dave Land wrote: John, In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. I agree and pledge to continue to use them to provide gentle correction, and never as a bludgeon, as you have done here. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Point taken. Would that it worked that way. It does seem to me that some folks get a pass for abusive behavior. I will only take so many public hits before I decide to counter them. In particular, I will not brook sustained personal attacks. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. That may be. I hope we'll get there. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. While I may be the most obvious target of your comments, I don't feel in any way abused by your appeal to better behavior. I hope that other recipients of your gentle reproof are as receptive. Thank you sincerely, FWIW, I've noticed some less-than-exemplary behavior today on other, quite different lists. Maybe we can blame the CME which hit Earth over the weekend . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Etiquette guidelines, was Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped some A personal attack is bad not because it is false or true but because it seeks to confuse the arguement with the person making the arguement. Can we add this to our etiquette guidelines? The reasoning behind the rule. Sonja :o) GCU: No attack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jeroen's Etiquette Guidelines Re: Our Friends at the UN
At 01:28 31-10-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: So, what do we have here? We have one hell of an inconsistency in JDG's beliefs. I can't help but wonder if right after the part about You must always answer every question posed to you in Jeroen's etiquette guidelines, if there just might not be anoter guideline to the effect of You must at least pretend to be rationally logical when writing posts. Where on the WWW did you find Jeroen's etiquette guidelines? Please provide the URL. It must have been an other Jeroen, because I certainly never published such a document. Now, something from the Brin-L Etiquette Guidelines (and something that has been pointed out to you many times over the years, although it had little or no effect): When you disagree with someone, attack the argument, not the poster. Jeroen Shape up or shut up van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jeroen's Etiquette Guidelines Re: Our Friends at the UN
At 10:57 PM 10/30/2002 +0100 J. van Baardwijk wrote: So, what do we have here? We have one hell of an inconsistency in JDG's beliefs. I can't help but wonder if right after the part about You must always answer every question posed to you in Jeroen's etiquette guidelines, if there just might not be anoter guideline to the effect of You must at least pretend to be rationally logical when writing posts. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
