What I find extremely troubling is that there is a concern that Don's
response is degrading to Michael and those of you who find some merit in his
postings while there is not an equal concern that many of us find Michael's
posts degrading. This is not the bar where the good ol' boys can sit around
and tell off color jokes. This is a professional group and there should be
some concern that we all act professionally. I am not suggesting any form
of censorship. However I would like to be treated with respect. If Michael
would like to make a comment let him act a little less impulsively and think
about what he is saying and how it will affect his colleagues.
I have been a consistent Sylvester deleter. I got sucked into this thread
by reading a response by Linda. Once someone responds and if Michael's name
isn't in the subject I don't know this is a thread that I will find
offensive and degrading. If the group thinks that it is ok to have mail that
offends their colleagues then there should be someway to identify those
posts as such. Don may have been a bit dramatic in his suggestion but what
he intended (remember how important intention is) would be helpful.
I am getting to the same point Linda is at. Where is the civility and
professionalism of this group. One would be hard pressed to see this as a
group of Psychologists. Having spent 15 years working in the commercial
world I am amazed that academicians are more willing to accept a hostile
work environment then they were in the defense industry. It is not my
problem that Michael continuously says things that I find offensive.
Gary
Gary J. Klatsky
Department of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oswego State University (SUNY) http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
Oswego, NY 13126 Voice: (315) 341 3474
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Rick Adams
Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 6:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Michael Sylvester's inanities
Don wrote:
> Now I propose that anyone who feels it wise to respond to him should put
> "Re: Michael Sylvester's latest idiotic posting" in the Subject line.
> That way we can all save much time and effort.
Ok. But since some of us view him differently, would it be ok to put "Re:
Donald McBurney's latest idiotic posting" in the Subject line of messages
responding to you as well?
Or is the degradation limited only to those you personally don't like?
It's a simple matter to avoid Michael's (or anyone else's) posts--don't
read them! No one compells other members of the list to read any
thread--if it is offensive, then just skip those messages.
In the time it would take to write the above line of yours, you could
press the "delete" key 45 times--more than enough to delete nearly any
thread you, personally, find offensive.
What I can't understand is the logic displayed by those who insist that
because THEY don't care for a series of posts, those posts shouldn't
exist. If no one wanted to join those threads, Michael (or anyone else
targeted by the censors) would simply be posting for himself. But
apparently enough people are interested in the discussions to perpetuate
them--and as a result those who find them offensive (instead of simply
ignoring them and allowing others the freedom to participate in threads of
interest that they have the right to expect on a list of this nature),
jump into the threads themselves and perpetuate them with arguments that
they shouldn't exist. If a person feels a thread shouldn't exist, it's
rather absurd for that person to perpetuate it by participating in it
personally.
Rick
