[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section



On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:

Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread
is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems.

Is it really significantly more obnoxious? At least it means you have to concentrate on the topic and "play the ball, not the man", which some have trouble with. Beyond that, it doesn't seem a particularly difficult task.

(And anyway, the "you" from my mail quoted above is an impersonal you,
synonymous with "one", so isn't on point for your complaint.)

They're indistinguishable and that's part of the problem when you reply using it. It's very easy (natural?) to read them as accusations about the quoted author.

Hah, me trying to explain how not to be offensive in email, without the aid of (much) medication. When do the horsemen arrive?

--
MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/



Reply to: