Re: OT: reply styles, family matters
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
"Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
annoying."
What did he say when you asked what he meant by this? I mean,
how on earth could it possibly be patronising?
I haven't asked him yet, in the interest of not muddying still
waters. I've been thinking about his "patronizing" response and
I believe it is an objection to the obvious clarity and
precision that inline responses afford. Clarity and precision
are not exactly in the ascendancy as far as cultural values are
concerned. It is thought much more important to be "passionate"
and "authentic," In the introductory assay of a little book of
his from 1928, _Sceptical Essays_, Russell said
"...it is undesirable to believe a proposition for which there
is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
Nobody anymore has the least interest in such an approach to
life, in fact, it is deemed dangerous and probably evil in most
of our university English departments and beyond.
However Russell's little gem of a claim describes very
accurately what is done on email lists devoted to computing
topics. We want to know what is the case, and why. The vast
majority of our fellow citizens *do* find a constant focus on
those aims quite disconcerting in any context, and, very likely,
"patronizing." They think "How dare you subject me to
your rules of inference and standards of factuality! What sort
of horrible person are you?"
I'm guessing your nephew isn't subscribed to any mailing
lists.
I doubt it.
Would I be correct in that he uses Windoze and outhouse as a
mailer?
He uses a gmail account with "Ipad Mail".
Oh well. Thanks Chris.
--
Bob Bernstein
Reply to: