Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)
On November 21, 2003 at 7:27PM +0800,
"David Palmer." <davidpalmer@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:24:16 +0000
> ben <ben_foley@web.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:50:09 -0800
> > "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +0000, ben (ben_foley@web.de)
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800
> > > > csj <csj@zapo.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800,
> > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj (csj@zapo.net)
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800,
> > > > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > > > > >
>
> Karsten and Colin are two completely different individuals, their
> approach to a situation is therefore also going to be individually
> different.
This goes without saying. We're not clones.
> If we have individuals here who feel a requirement to totally
> usurp the situation for their own personal needs, then
> obviously they are in the wrong place.
I don't think there were individuals who wanted to usurp the
list. Their "usurpation" was a product of their combined
postings. It's like a riot that gets started because two bar
patrons bumped into each other, started hitting, and because they
were fighting in a crowded room, started hitting others, who
started hitting back.
> With two individuals in a situation, one personality does not
> predominate, there is an interaction involved. One factor is
> Karstens' manner, but the other is your perception of it. The
> vocal personalities involved at the moment, have a completely
> different reaction to Karsten than I do. I don't mind a bit of
> straight talk. As far as I'm concerned there isn't enough of it
> in the world, and considering that there were more than 'one
> and a half' personalities still involved in the situation after
> Colins' request for 'moderation', perhaps there is a place for
> a manner that has the ability to cut through in situations of
> persistent idiocy.
Then the mass-emailing shouldn't have been used. The private
emails should have been sent to the recalcitrant individuals.
Even in such case, the emails should have phrased with a bit more
care. I don't mind straight talk when it comes to "talk".
Unfortunately you can't convey the nuances of speech in a
one-sentence email, especially in a list that isn't limited to
native speakers of the language. (This after isn't
debian-user-us or debian-user-uk. Maybe it's really time for
another poster's debian-user-world suggestion.)
> I'm not saying that the thread didn't have some excellent
> material, I'm saying that it had deteriorated, as I have said
> in a previous post, into a load of drivel.
Agreed.
> I got an email from Karsten, not the first one I've received
> from him either, but I didn't feel challenged by it. I woke up,
> wandered out, half asleep, clicked on send/receive, and
> Karstens' fist leapt out of the screen and smashed me in the
> face. It woke me up, set me up for the day.
It smashed into me as well. Guess what? It had a different
effect on me. To paraprhase your opening paragraph, our
reactions to the situation became individually different. Which
is why I insist the direct email was wrong. It was not written
with concern for those who might take it the wrong way. A
private email to an individual has greater power than a public
posting. And, to borrow the words of the great Spiderman, with
greater power comes greater responsibility.
> This world is full of different kinds of people, that's one of
> the many interesting aspects of it. Leave Karsten alone. He's
> got his own kind of value.
I just wish he'd take into account the values of people from
cultures where straight talk isn't necessarily the most effective
form of communication.
> Don't worry Karsten, you've got back-up.
I'm sure there's no plot to get Karsten.
Reply to: