|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [M].Quoting private emails
| [M].Quoting private emails [message #291073] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 22:57 |
|
On any half decent site about Usenet and netiquette you will find
something akin to the following:
"Quoting private email in any public context Usenet, mailing list, web
page, print publication etc) should be avoided unless the author
grants specific permission. Ask for permission."
In other words if you don't have permission you ***DON'T QUOTE IT***
The first time it was done I thought it may have been a slip, but this
second time has now annoyed me to the extreme. If this person feels
that by doing so they are getting an upper hand in something then they
are very much mistaken.
Hell quoting things out of context has been done on this group for
ages, but quoting things out of context from a private email always
used to be frowned upon, and it is worse than just bad manners, people
have even left the group because of the furore.
At this time I have no intention of naming names on the group, but
will do so if I suspect that it has occurred again. However I will
make the name available to anybody that requests it via email.
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291087 ] |
Mo, 26 Juni 2006 23:59 |
|
elfin wrote:
> On any half decent site about Usenet and netiquette you will find
> something akin to the following:
>
> "Quoting private email in any public context Usenet, mailing list,
> web page, print publication etc) should be avoided unless the author
> grants specific permission. Ask for permission."
>
> In other words if you don't have permission you ***DON'T QUOTE IT***
If you're talking about me, I asked permission to forward it, and you didn't
respond. I regard the correspondence as joint property, and if you refuse to
respond, I figure I'm within my rights to paraphrase you.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291095 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:14 |
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:59:47 +0000, Anastasia wrote:
> I regard the correspondence as joint property, and if you refuse to
> respond, I figure I'm within my rights to paraphrase you.
That unfortunately contravenes convention and breaches netiquette. In
other words: you're wrong.
If you think we're making this up - well, then so is everybody else. Check
out http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=netiquette+quote+priva te+email to
see what the perceived wisdom of the wider online community on this topic
is.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291097 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:20 |
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:59:47 +0000, Anastasia wrote:
>
> > I regard the correspondence as joint property, and if you refuse to
> > respond, I figure I'm within my rights to paraphrase you.
>
> That unfortunately contravenes convention and breaches netiquette. In
> other words: you're wrong.
>
Paraphrasing != quoting. If "joint property" is taken in the more
restrictive sense that's common with copyright (everyone must agree in
order to license something), I would have to agree entirely with
Anastasia. I certainly think there're circumstances where at least
paraphrasing emails people've received is necessary.
--
flippa [at] flippac.org
Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. Most
of the time you just get burnt worse though.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291098 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:23 |
|
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:59:47 +0000, Anastasia wrote:
>
>> I regard the correspondence as joint property, and if you refuse to
>> respond, I figure I'm within my rights to paraphrase you.
>
> That unfortunately contravenes convention and breaches netiquette.
> In other words: you're wrong.
It's no excuse to hide behind the sanctity of e-mail to be as nasty as you
please, and then refuse to respond when permission is asked. It has bearing
on the public discussion that I was privately all but invited to leave.
There are good reasons to take things to e-mail, and bad ones. Using privacy
to give a few digs so vicious you don't want others to see you doing it
isn't a good reason.
I gave the opportunity to say "no." This has gotten so dirty that there's a
limit to how far I'm willing to be pushed.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291100 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:13 |
|
Anastasia <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
(on Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:59:47 GMT):
> elfin wrote:
> > On any half decent site about Usenet and netiquette you will find
> > something akin to the following:
> >
> > "Quoting private email in any public context Usenet, mailing list,
> > web page, print publication etc) should be avoided unless the author
> > grants specific permission. Ask for permission."
> >
> > In other words if you don't have permission you ***DON'T QUOTE IT***
>
> If you're talking about me, I asked permission to forward it, and you didn't
> respond. I regard the correspondence as joint property, and if you refuse to
> respond, I figure I'm within my rights to paraphrase you.
Paraphrasing email has never been a serious netiquette breach, as far as
I am aware - outright quoting it is, but without the ability to paraphrase,
one wouldn't even be able to say "the lurkers support me in email!" So I
doubt he's talking about you, since elfin is well able to tell the difference
between a quote and a paraphrase.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291101 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:31 |
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:23:58 +0000, Anastasia wrote:
> It's no excuse to hide behind the sanctity of e-mail to be as nasty as you
> please, and then refuse to respond when permission is asked. It has bearing
> on the public discussion that I was privately all but invited to leave.
Refusal of permission = permission not granted.
> There are good reasons to take things to e-mail, and bad ones. Using privacy
> to give a few digs so vicious you don't want others to see you doing it
> isn't a good reason.
Washing dirty laundry in private is A Good Idea. If we all kept our flame
wars to private email, the usenet world would be a much nicer place.
Please take your time and have a read of one or three of the results of
the Google search link I posted above. It really does make sense.
> I gave the opportunity to say "no." This has gotten so dirty that
> there's a limit to how far I'm willing to be pushed.
But why do you feel you have to share your private dispute with the
rest of the world?
T.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291103 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:37 |
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:13:33 +0000, Ailbhe wrote:
> Paraphrasing email has never been a serious netiquette breach, as far as
> I am aware - outright quoting it is, but without the ability to paraphrase,
> one wouldn't even be able to say "the lurkers support me in email!" So I
> doubt he's talking about you, since elfin is well able to tell the difference
> between a quote and a paraphrase.
It can be a fine line between quoting and paraphrasing, though, don't you
think? Just using your own words doesn't necessarily stop it from being a
breach of confidence.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291104 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:38 |
|
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt wrote:
> But why do you feel you have to share your private dispute with the
> rest of the world?
It was never private. It started out public.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291106 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:50 |
|
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:13:33 +0000, Ailbhe wrote:
>
>> Paraphrasing email has never been a serious netiquette breach, as
>> far as
>> I am aware - outright quoting it is, but without the ability to
>> paraphrase, one wouldn't even be able to say "the lurkers support
>> me in email!" So I doubt he's talking about you, since elfin is
>> well able to tell the difference between a quote and a paraphrase.
>
> It can be a fine line between quoting and paraphrasing, though,
> don't you think? Just using your own words doesn't necessarily stop
> it from being a breach of confidence.
Certainly. But then, you don't know how close, do you?
This has been a public brawl, and I've tried to be nice. I'm the one getting
the brunt of it, and if someone hides behind netiquette after privately
implying that everyone would be happier if I packed my bags and left, I
believe I have the right to refer to the incident.
Thank you for the directions to the netiquette pages, but I know how to work
Google, read the FAQs, and I teach college freshmen the difference between
plagiarism and paraphrasing.
I made an informed choice, believe it.
Personal confidences of all kinds are safe with me, as the people who've
made them well know. But raking me across the coals in public and then
getting a last jab in private (and then failing to respond to a polite
request with either a yes or no) is an ethical breach, as far as I'm
concerned, and I don't propose to stand for it.
What I asked for was permission to forward the e-mail to a single other
person. Receiving no reply, I found it necessary to paraphrase in my own
defense.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291107 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:51 |
|
Anastasia said:
> elfin wrote:
>> On any half decent site about Usenet and netiquette you will find
>> something akin to the following:
>>
>> "Quoting private email in any public context Usenet, mailing list,
>> web page, print publication etc) should be avoided unless the author
>> grants specific permission. Ask for permission."
>>
>> In other words if you don't have permission you ***DON'T QUOTE IT***
>
> If you're talking about me, I asked permission to forward it, and you
> didn't respond. I regard the correspondence as joint property, and if you
> refuse to respond, I figure I'm within my rights to paraphrase you.
Legally, you're in the clear as far as paraphrasing goes. You are also
within your rights to quote a small amount of text directly. (I suppose
most people know this already.) You can't quote the whole thing without
permission, because of copyright law.
Netiquettically(!), it is certainly true that even paraphrasing private
email is widely seen as unacceptable. Personally, I think this view is
flawed, because it is too simplistic.
For example, it is sometimes the case that an email is sent which contains
threats - for example, threats of legal action over a Usenet article. I
have received such emails myself on a couple of occasions (not, I hasten to
add, from anyone here in afp - I'm going back some years now). In my view,
it is perfectly proper to publish the fact that one has been threatened in
email, to identify the person who made the threat, and to give some
indication of the nature of the threat by quoting a small amount from the
email or perhaps by paraphrasing it. This is beneficial to the group
because it may well be the case that the offender is sending threats to
other people in the group as well. If so, those other people may well feel
reassured by the facts that (a) they are not the only one being threatened,
and (b) someone who is threatening legal action against several individuals
in a newsgroup is unlikely to be serious about it.
IIRC in the two cases where I dealt with these matters publicly, I was
mildly rebuked for revealing the contents of a private email (because I was
breaching what these rebukers saw as being proper netiquettical behaviour),
but the people who had sent me the emails came off far worse, because other
Usenetters - who had of course been tracking the public side of the
discussion - recognised that the threats being made were utterly
unjustified.
In any event, it is IMHO always acceptable to post one's own words to Usenet
even if they were first sent via email. This can sometimes help to clarify
a confused situation. An example occurred here in afp recently, where one
poster complained of a threat received in email (good!, because we don't
like the idea of threatening emails, do we?) but in this case the subject
of the complaint posted the full text of his email, so that we could see
for ourselves whether the complaint was justified. (In my opinion, it was
not - the email was innocuous[1].)
It's a tricky area, though, and we should certainly think long and hard
about whether it is appropriate to publish the contents of a private
discussion. Usually it is not. Sometimes, as I hope I've managed to convey,
it may be the least bad way of resolving a problem or misunderstanding.
[1] And this time I've spelt it properly, so there!
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291108 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 00:56 |
|
In article <pan.2006.06.26.22.31.25.435296 [at] brumble.net>,
news [at] brumble.net says...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:23:58 +0000, Anastasia wrote:
>
> > It's no excuse to hide behind the sanctity of e-mail to be as nasty as you
> > please, and then refuse to respond when permission is asked. It has bearing
> > on the public discussion that I was privately all but invited to leave.
>
> Refusal of permission = permission not granted.
>
> > There are good reasons to take things to e-mail, and bad ones. Using privacy
> > to give a few digs so vicious you don't want others to see you doing it
> > isn't a good reason.
>
> Washing dirty laundry in private is A Good Idea. If we all kept our flame
> wars to private email, the usenet world would be a much nicer place.
> Please take your time and have a read of one or three of the results of
> the Google search link I posted above. It really does make sense.
>
> > I gave the opportunity to say "no." This has gotten so dirty that
> > there's a limit to how far I'm willing to be pushed.
>
> But why do you feel you have to share your private dispute with the
> rest of the world?
Because it is not a private dispute - it is part of a public dispute
which has been rumbling on here for weeks.
It is widely thought incorrect, and probably illegal without court
order, to record a conversation and publish the recordings unless the
parties involved were aware of and acquiesced to the fact. It is not
illegal to pass on what someone has told you in conversation, and only
immoral if they requested and were given your confidence in advance.
I regard this situation as analogous - though I accept that analogy is a
dangerous tool in argument. Publishing someone s email verbatim is the
equivalent of the wire recording - only to be done in the most extreme
of cases and in response to criminal or near criminal behaviour (for
example, if threats had been made). But passing on the gist of a
conversation which was not prefaced with an assurance of secrecy is part
of normal social habits.
There is a technique of social manipulation, which depends on people not
comparing notes about what the manipulator says about them in one-to-one
conversations. By altering their story according and attack each to all
the others, to who they are talking to, the manipulator sets everybody
against everybody - except themselves. I have seen this from the outside
and found myself (by post mortem analysis years later) to have been the
victim of it as well. There is an inverse method, of course, whereby you
use private attacks to goad the receiver into public rudeness while
keeping a sweet tone yourself, thus exposing them to scorn. There are
probably more subtle techniques which I am to stupid to understand, let
alone carry out. (The one thing these techniques need is a cgood social
memory so that you can remember who you have blackened to who).
Therefore, if people are behaving differently in private conversation
that they are in public, I would encourage people to share the gist of
that conversation so everybody on the social group is talking from a
common basis of knowledge.
This is not to imply that anybody has been using such techniques in this
case. But I remain convinced that information given to anybody without a
preceding agreement of secrecy is, to repeat the word just used, *given*
to them to use as they see fit.
Personally, I would never put into an email to someone I knew only from
Usenet anything which I would not be willing to see posted on Usenet - I
would use email only to avoid boring the group with OLFs or irrelevant
material, or to save *the receiver's* blushes by pointing out a faux pas
privately. Obviously, if you have a relationship outside Usenet, this
does not apply.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Quoting private emails [message #291112 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 01:12 |
|
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt <news [at] brumble.net> wrote in
news:pan.2006.06.26.22.37.06.209673 [at] brumble.net:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:13:33 +0000, Ailbhe wrote:
>
>> Paraphrasing email has never been a serious netiquette
>> breach, as far as I am aware - outright quoting it is, but
>> without the ability to paraphrase, one wouldn't even be able
>> to say "the lurkers support me in email!" So I doubt he's
>> talking about you, since elfin is well able to tell the
>> difference between a quote and a paraphrase.
>
> It can be a fine line between quoting and paraphrasing,
> though, don't you think? Just using your own words doesn't
> necessarily stop it from being a breach of confidence.
Furthermore, and, as your aforementioned links point out, actual
quoting of words (without permission) is a breach of copyright; a
civil offence in the eyes of the law pretty much everywhere.
If you don't have *specific* permission to repost emails in
public, then you are laying yourself open to possible
prosecution, and as such, it is *always* safer not to repost
someone else's text.
You *can* refer to it in public, but if your paraphrasing (or the
reference) is in any way incorrect, misleading or harmful, then
you're also opening yourself up to possible civil charges of
defamation.
(Not to mention the fact that the copyright owner is always free
to reproduce their own text; and if they simply post their text,
then the slanted paraphraser generally ends up looking pretty
foolish in public.)
You own your text; barring deeds of covenant and the like, you
don't own anyone else's; and misappropriating such things without
permission is an insanely risky thing to do.
Hence the various comments about not doing it in sundry
netiquette FAQs.
If you think that paraphrasing such text might be a breach of
confidence, then the onus is also on you to ask the other party;
and again, if you get no response, /don't/ do it.
Might it not be justified to suspend any judgements on this
matter unless or until Elfin clarifies whether he's talking about
a direct quote or a paraphrase? and, if applicable, until he
produces the evidence? - even if it's just one or two sentences
that indicate an unambiguous match, that should still suffice to
avoid any misunderstanding on our parts.
Until then, might a bit of sleep be in order?
cheers,
Gideon.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291113 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 01:43 |
|
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:TdqdnanbU4BK-T3ZRVnyuA [at] bt.com:
> Anastasia said:
>
>> elfin wrote:
>>> On any half decent site about Usenet and netiquette you will
>>> find something akin to the following:
>>>
<snip>
> Legally, you're in the clear as far as paraphrasing goes. You
> are also within your rights to quote a small amount of text
> directly. (I suppose most people know this already.) You can't
> quote the whole thing without permission, because of copyright
> law.
The danger then exists of not quoting 'true', though - and if
your quote is selective in a way that casts someone in a bad
light, then hi-ho possible defamation case - and the UK's libel
laws are frankly vicious.
> Netiquettically(!), it is certainly true that even
> paraphrasing private email is widely seen as unacceptable.
> Personally, I think this view is flawed, because it is too
> simplistic.
For 99% of all cases it's true; even paraphrasing someone else's
words is dangerous; and it's also damaging to a social group.
Email is private; a newsgroup isn't private; and different modes
of behaviour do apply to both.
It *is* generally recommended that you take personal disputes to
private email so as not to sour the tone of a public group.
(As per RFC 1855:
"If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person,
make your responses to each other via mail rather than continue
to send messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a
point on which the group might have some interest, you may
summarize for them later."
It should be pointed out, of course, that the RFCs are *not*
rules; they are guidelines or conventions and carry no
proscriptive power.)
One of the really corrosive things about reposting email, though,
is that it erodes interpersonal trust on the group in a way that
very few other things do; as well as damaging (if not sinking!)
the reputation of the person who does so.
(As such, it's also a very risky claim for someone to make
without proof; as I'm sure Elfin knows; you can't really unsay
something like that.)
I think that a poster *might* be excused a single occurrence of
reposting in certain circumstances; but any indication that this
was a non-unique act would look very iffy indeed.
cheers,
Gideon.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291123 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 03:07 |
|
Gideon wrote:
> It *is* generally recommended that you take personal disputes to
> private email so as not to sour the tone of a public group.
As much as I respect you, Gideon, and that's considerably--that hardly
applies here. The tone has gone so sour that it scarcely matters.
I'm stuck no matter what. I've been asked not to leave, and been the
subject, directly and indirectly, of a storm angry words. I've been blamed
and defended from various quarters, and if I eventually leave, I want it
known that I was given a bit of a nudge.
It's got to the point that afp is actually interfereing with my life, and
I've been advised that's the point at which there's a real problem. I don't
claim to be blameless in any of the recent issues, but I've been hit from
various directions, some unexpected.
This is the only group I subscribe to--whatever my merits or faults with
regard to usenet, I learned here. From the afp FAQ, from L-Space, and from
afpers.
The only reason I don't unsubscribe tonight is because I'm frankly afraid,
after what has been said to my face, what will be said behind my back. I'd
be happy enough for *anything* I have said privately to be public, as I feel
I have nothing to hide.
It's possible I could be wrong about any of it. I may have done wrong by
even referring to what someone said to me off-group, but I have been in the
middle of this for weeks. Congratulations. I was goaded, or let myself be
goaded, into doing something I wasn't completely comfortable with, although
I felt/feel justified.
Of *course* this isn't territoriality, or sour grapes, or meanness, and *of
course* no one can intimidate anyone or push them into leaving--goodness,
no. Everyone has choice! Right now, none of mine seem good. Leaving's bad,
staying's bad, and I begin to wonder how in the world *I* ever got to be in
the middle of this.
The Con is beginning to look like surgery without anesthetic.
I trust that you, Gideon, would have no problem with me saying that online
happenings can cause real problems for people. Well, it's hit that point for
me. Trying to follow the various factions (some of them overlapping) is
using up my headspace. Reading arguments back and forth, whether having to
do with me personally or a phenomenon of which I am merely the latest
symbol, is depressing and painful. Sure, don't read if you don't want to ( I
refer to myself) but I'm invested in the group.
I don't find it at all easy to leave, especially since I *am* concerned with
the group as an organism. If I wasn't, I wouldn't spend my hours thinking
about how to best deal with afp--I'd soend them on my reading list, and the
writing that's due in a few days, that *will* have real-world consequences
if I don't finish. I'm aware that simply ~poof~ disappearing can do more
harm than good, so I've been reluctant to just disappear; if you become a
part of a group, then your sudden departure, especially under tension, can
have unintended and unforseen consequences. I've been trying to ride it out
and not just walk away and leave a mess for others to take care of. I care
about what's going on here, enough that it's taking a serious toll on other
parts of my life.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291161 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 07:26 |
|
in article TdqdnanbU4BK-T3ZRVnyuA [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 26/06/2006 3:51 PM:
<snip>
> In any event, it is IMHO always acceptable to post one's own words to Usenet
> even if they were first sent via email. This can sometimes help to clarify
> a confused situation. An example occurred here in afp recently, where one
> poster complained of a threat received in email (good!, because we don't
> like the idea of threatening emails, do we?) but in this case the subject
> of the complaint posted the full text of his email, so that we could see
> for ourselves whether the complaint was justified. (In my opinion, it was
> not - the email was innocuous[1].)
That doesn't actually clarify; it just confuses further. I did *not*
complain on group that I had been threatened, that was Gideon's own wording
when he complained that I had complained. What I did say, addressing Daibhid
on group, was "I'm sure you're writing the truth as you see it, but even so
I can't believe it. There's just no way that anybody could make my
discussion with Gideon into an attempt on my part to force him off the
group. Vice versa, perhaps - you haven't seen the e-mail he sent me." In my
reply to Gideon *by e-mail*, I made reference to "rather far-fetched
threats" - they are indeed far-fetched, not realistic at all. Both e-mails
have since been posted, each by its respective author.
> [1] And this time I've spelt it properly, so there!
Well done!
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291174 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 09:10 |
|
Warning: Post contains plenty of Gratuitous Good Advice (GGA)[TM] that
many will find offensive. Please do not read further if you object to
these things!
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pardon me for saying so, but a number of posters have (once again - it is
a repeating pattern) lost much of the perspective necessary to deal with
usenet and the internet as a whole and survive as a sane person.
Remember: This is not Real Life. Do not take it so seriously. Chill out.
Have a bananana. Go and get some sunshine, it's good for you.
I have found out for myself over the years that stepping back for a few
days or weeks (or in my case even months and years) from a newsgroup or
even usenet can be very helpful. As entrenched as one can get in things
here, after a short while it begins to matter a lot less. It's like
kicking any habit - it smarts for a while. Then you realise you have
gained so much time to do useful things, your brain becomes your own, your
thoughts can be occupied with nice and beautiful things.
There's nothing wrong with leaving "a mess for others to take care of" in
this case. It's actually rather liberating. And in any case, there's no
"mess" that a "mark all read, display only new posts, ignore this thread"
can't sort out for anyone.
Seriously: if this begins to take a toll on the rest of your life,
take a break, however short, and then start again if you still want to.
I've just returned after several years of giving the whole thing a wide
berth. Did I miss it? Not for longer than a few days, if at all.
Why did I return? Mainly to see how old friends are doing, but also out of
a morbid pleasure of seeing that nothing really changes on usenet. And to
test my resilience. If I feel that I get the merest hint of raised blood
pressure or lose a single hair too early because of this, you won't even
hear a door slam, that's how quickly I'll be outta here. But I reckon
that's not going to happen. I can have the occasional fag, too, you see,
without starting the habit again.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Hey ho, that was my little morning rant. If you didn't like it, well, what
can I say? I've warned you not to read it. Now see that red button that
says "don't press"? I give you one more piece of GGA: don't press!
Salut,
T.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Quoting private emails [message #291176 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 09:19 |
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:12:54 +0000, Gideon wrote:
> Furthermore, and, as your aforementioned links point out, actual
> quoting of words (without permission) is a breach of copyright; a
> civil offence in the eyes of the law pretty much everywhere.
*sigh* why does everyone have to drag out the Cannons of Law everytime a
discussion gets a bit heated? It always goes like this:
-- "I don't like the things you say about me"
++ "I don't like you"
-- "You smell"
++ "I sent you an email telling you what I really think"
-- "S/he told me in an email that s/he thinks my brain is too small and
that s/he is going to smack me with a wet lettuce if I don't stop saying
s/he smells"
++ "You have quoted/paraphrased my email. Those stupid threats are my
copyright and you'll hear from my lawyers"
-- "You tell your lawyers, I tell my mate, he's a sysadmin. So nyah"
etc pp
Doesn't it /ever/ get boring?
> Until then, might a bit of sleep be in order?
I just had one of those. Lovely! And now I'm off to w*rk and then I won't
be around for a couple of days. But me and my lawyers and my geeky mate
will check what you've been saying behind my back, so watchit!
TFIC,
T.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Si vis pacem... (was Quoting private emails) [message #291182 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 09:33 |
|
Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:C0C60FE3.4A9FC%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk:
> in article TdqdnanbU4BK-T3ZRVnyuA [at] bt.com, Richard Heathfield
> at invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote on 26/06/2006 3:51 PM:
*sigh* - I'm going to reply to this one against my better
judgement.
I must confess, I *am* starting to lose patience somewhat here;
I'm getting tired of the veiled half-attacks made to third people
in public; and I can understand *why* previously moribund threads
have a habit of reanimating around Lesley.
> <snip>
> That doesn't actually clarify; it just confuses further. I did
> *not* complain on group that I had been threatened, that was
> Gideon's own wording when he complained that I had complained.
When did I say that?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.fan.pratchett/msg/8767a 83cce
50a330 is certainly not a complaint.
If people look at the text of that article and
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.fan.pratchett/msg/fa747 80156
13dfdd it should be fairly self-evident that I *didn't* say that
you said that you were being threatened.
I said that you *implied* on group that I had been threatening
you; which is something quite different, as I'm sure you know -
you're not illiterate, after all.
Had you simply said straight out that I was threatening you, then
you'd have overcommitted yourself and laid yourself wide open to
counterattack.
The position you actually took up was far more deniable; useful
to your argument, but if pressed on it, it was one that you could
abandon or obscure by dissembling or arguing terminology.
There are many people who've argued with you on AFP on various
subjects over the years, and a lot of them aren't entirely dim;
your modus operandi is easily recognisable and doesn't change
from thread to thread.
> There's just no way that anybody could make my
> discussion with Gideon into an attempt on my part to force him
> off the group. Vice versa, perhaps - you haven't seen the
> e-mail he sent me."
Are you *really* trying to deny the deliberate implication there?
> In my reply to Gideon *by e-mail*, I made
> reference to "rather far-fetched threats" - they are indeed
> far-fetched, not realistic at all.
And here is another classic example of word-ambiguation for the
purposes of defence; not dissimilar to the previous use of the
word 'amusing'.
If they weren't *realistic* threats to you, then why did you say
in public that I might be trying to force you off the group? -
it's a pretty damaging allegation, and not one that should be
made lightly or carelessly.
With regard to the other implication in that last paragraph
(which was, after all, posted to a thread about quoting email in
public - look at the emphasis on '*by email*', people!):
Firstly: as I said previously, I only mentioned and reposted the
email *after* you made the 'vice versa' comment above.
Secondly: of course I knew that you perceived the email as
threatening (as per your email); but 'threat' and 'threatening'
are the most common and generic terms for intimidation; as such,
any implication that I quoted one word of your email in my post
really is somewhat unsupportable!
Apologies, people.
Gideon.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291191 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 10:16 |
|
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:43:38 +0000 (UTC), Gideon
<diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>For 99% of all cases it's true; even paraphrasing someone else's
>words is dangerous; and it's also damaging to a social group.
>
>Email is private; a newsgroup isn't private; and different modes
>of behaviour do apply to both.
>
>It *is* generally recommended that you take personal disputes to
>private email so as not to sour the tone of a public group.
Taking an hypothetical situation here, how do you feel about the case
where a poster is acting fairly reasonably on a group, and being nasty in
emails to the same person or people?
Is a paraphrase acceptable to show up the different attitudes?
--
Andy Brown
"We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?"
- Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291201 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 11:13 |
|
jester wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:43:38 +0000 (UTC), Gideon
> <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>It *is* generally recommended that you take personal disputes to
>>private email so as not to sour the tone of a public group.
>
> Taking an hypothetical situation here, how do you feel about the
> case where a poster is acting fairly reasonably on a group, and
> being nasty in emails to the same person or people?
> Is a paraphrase acceptable to show up the different attitudes?
If and only if there are truly exceptional circumstances, IMO.
If someone objects to you as a person, there's really not a lot you
can do about it; some people just don't get on.
If their objection to you is not damaging to the group as a whole,
well, really, it's still just a personal matter.
If someone objects to you and makes it a public issue (e.g. by
arguing that it damages the tone of the group; or by making attacks
on you in public), *then* the feud becomes a public matter.
If there are real and immediate threats to life, limb, job and/or
family, then I think you /might/ be justified in outing the private
nastygrams of a publicly reasonable person.
Short of that, no, I don't think so; if they're reasonable in
public, then their difference with you is probably not damaging to
the group as a whole.
If it's really nasty, you'd probably be better off appealing to
their ISP, rather than the group.
cheers,
Gideon.
--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Quoting private emails [message #291222 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 13:24 |
|
Anastasia wrote:
> The Con is beginning to look like surgery without anesthetic.
I've never known anyone carry an on-group grievance into an afp or
Discworld event. I should imagine that most of the people at the Con
will be more concerned with the events there, or with catching up with
people they haven't seen for a while, to be concerned with arguing with
someone they disagreed with online.
Apart from which, there are a number of people who would miss you if
you weren't there, and who have been looking forward to meeting you.
(I'm also looking forward to meeting Ssirienna at last, and Torak, and
at least one or two of my LJ friends who are coming)
> I trust that you, Gideon, would have no problem with me saying that online
> happenings can cause real problems for people. Well, it's hit that point for
> me. Trying to follow the various factions (some of them overlapping) is
> using up my headspace. Reading arguments back and forth, whether having to
> do with me personally or a phenomenon of which I am merely the latest
> symbol, is depressing and painful. Sure, don't read if you don't want to ( I
> refer to myself) but I'm invested in the group.
My advice to you[1] at this point would be to killfile all of the
threads concerned. Get rid of the lot, and go and read something
totally unconnected for a while. I don't imagine anything's really
going to get solved in the threads concerned - they're just going to
keep going until the people involved get tired of them.
Regarding afp taking a toll on your life - don't let it. Yes, I know
that's easier said than done, but real life is important. AFP,
compared to that, is not. This business will blow over soon enough.
[1] Same advice goes to Elfin, Leo, and others concerned.
CCA
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291253 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 14:36 |
|
Gideon Hallett diogenes [at] freeuk.com wrote in <e7qsra$2ur3$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>:
> jester wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:43:38 +0000 (UTC), Gideon
> > <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >>It *is* generally recommended that you take personal disputes to
> >>private email so as not to sour the tone of a public group.
> >
> > Taking an hypothetical situation here, how do you feel about the
> > case where a poster is acting fairly reasonably on a group, and
> > being nasty in emails to the same person or people?
> > Is a paraphrase acceptable to show up the different attitudes?
>
> If and only if there are truly exceptional circumstances, IMO.
>
> If someone objects to you as a person, there's really not a lot you
> can do about it; some people just don't get on.
>
> If their objection to you is not damaging to the group as a whole,
> well, really, it's still just a personal matter.
>
> If someone objects to you and makes it a public issue (e.g. by
> arguing that it damages the tone of the group; or by making attacks
> on you in public), *then* the feud becomes a public matter.
>
> If there are real and immediate threats to life, limb, job and/or
> family, then I think you /might/ be justified in outing the private
> nastygrams of a publicly reasonable person.
>
> Short of that, no, I don't think so; if they're reasonable in
> public, then their difference with you is probably not damaging to
> the group as a whole.
>
> If it's really nasty, you'd probably be better off appealing to
> their ISP, rather than the group.
>
I'm inclined to agree. This is why.
If somebody is behaving differently in private and in public then there
are three possibilities. All of which are best dealt with by simply
ignoring their private behaviour as far as possible.
Firstly it may just be a misunderstanding. If that's the case there's no
real harm done by simply avoiding them if the misunderstanding can't be
cleared up in private.
Then it may be that there is something about the way this particular
personal interaction works that leads inevitably to antipathy. In which
case again the best thing is to simply walk away and avoid that particular
person. It's nobody's fault, sometimes two people simply don't get along.
Finally it may be that they have two sides to their character and are
always much less pleasant in private. In that case the chances are that
most people have much the same experience, effectively their public mask
is pretty much seen for what it is anyway. Again the best thing is just to
back away and avoid them so far as possible.
All of which holds true offline as well as online, but is much easier on
Usenet then when one physically has to share the same space with that
person.
You don't need to know which is the case since the best response is always
the same.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291278 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 16:31 |
|
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt <news [at] brumble.net> wrote:
>
> I've just returned after several years of giving the whole thing a
> wide berth. Did I miss it? Not for longer than a few days, if at all.
>
> Why did I return? Mainly to see how old friends are doing, but also
> out of a morbid pleasure of seeing that nothing really changes on
> usenet. And to test my resilience.
I suddenly saw a handful of old regulars who haven't posted in months or
years suddenly appear within a couple of days of each other, and my guess
was that someone had sent out an email, because of the bitter posts being
exchanged.
Out of curiosity, this wasn't the case?
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291279 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 16:37 |
|
Gideon Hallett <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> If there are real and immediate threats to life, limb, job and/or
> family, then I think you /might/ be justified in outing the private
> nastygrams of a publicly reasonable person.
Taking the information public and thus forming a lynch mob does not seem
like a smart thing to do IMO.
> If it's really nasty, you'd probably be better off appealing to
> their ISP, rather than the group.
No, if there are "real and immediate threats" to life or limb you need to go
to the *police*.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291286 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 17:04 |
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:07:12 GMT, "Anastasia"
<house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I don't find it at all easy to leave, especially since I *am* concerned with
>the group as an organism. If I wasn't, I wouldn't spend my hours thinking
>about how to best deal with afp--I'd soend them on my reading list, and the
>writing that's due in a few days, that *will* have real-world consequences
>if I don't finish. I'm aware that simply ~poof~ disappearing can do more
>harm than good, so I've been reluctant to just disappear; if you become a
>part of a group, then your sudden departure, especially under tension, can
>have unintended and unforseen consequences. I've been trying to ride it out
>and not just walk away and leave a mess for others to take care of. I care
>about what's going on here, enough that it's taking a serious toll on other
>parts of my life.
>
Personally I'd find it a shame if you left, as I enjoy your posts.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291312 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 18:43 |
|
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt wrote:
> Seriously: if this begins to take a toll on the rest of your life,
> take a break, however short, and then start again if you still want
> to.
I think I must. But you seem a nice fellow, and I'd be sorry not to catch a
few of your posts. This one was nice, for instance.
> I've just returned after several years of giving the whole thing a
> wide berth. Did I miss it? Not for longer than a few days, if at
> all.
The problem here--sad, but true--is that at the moment I have NO friends to
do anything with. I go to work two nights a week at a time of day when
campus is all but deserted. I live alone and haven't been out on a social
evening in months.
I've been frankly desperate for company, and this is where I have found it.
However, reading for exams this fall would have destryoed any social life I
had, if I had one, so it amounts to the same thing.
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291323 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 19:14 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in
news:e7rfg1$vpp$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com:
> Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt <news [at] brumble.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've just returned after several years of giving the whole
>> thing a wide berth. Did I miss it? Not for longer than a few
>> days, if at all.
>>
>> Why did I return? Mainly to see how old friends are doing,
>> but also out of a morbid pleasure of seeing that nothing
>> really changes on usenet. And to test my resilience.
>
> I suddenly saw a handful of old regulars who haven't posted in
> months or years suddenly appear within a couple of days of
> each other, and my guess was that someone had sent out an
> email, because of the bitter posts being exchanged.
Really? That's fascinating, Arthur.
I hardly posted at all between the beginning of 2005 and this
month; life being what it was (and WoW being highly addictive), I
simply went and lurked for a while; I scanned through AFP from time
to time and looked to see if anything particularly noteworthy was
happening.
And there are, I think, an entire bunch of old-timers who still
arise from R'lyeh occasionally to scar the minds of the timid and
impressionable.
If they see something that looks important to the group, well, I
wouldn't be surprised if did they emerge from the watery depths.
> Out of curiosity, this wasn't the case?
Out of interest, can you say who was a lurker who happened to be
passing through AFP and decided to post - and who is a mindless
drone under the control of the faceless and sinister Cabal?
cheers,
Gideon.
*FNORD*Could all those under the sway of the Cabal's orbital mind
control lasers please cluck like a chicken?*FNORD*
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291327 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 19:26 |
|
In article <MPG.1f0b3673b2dabff6989d79 [at] cenote.gkhs.net>,
eric [at] ericjarvis.co.uk says...
> Firstly it may just be a misunderstanding. If that's the case there's no
> real harm done by simply avoiding them if the misunderstanding can't be
> cleared up in private.
>
> Then it may be that there is something about the way this particular
> personal interaction works that leads inevitably to antipathy. In which
> case again the best thing is to simply walk away and avoid that particular
> person. It's nobody's fault, sometimes two people simply don't get along.
>
> Finally it may be that they have two sides to their character and are
> always much less pleasant in private. In that case the chances are that
> most people have much the same experience, effectively their public mask
> is pretty much seen for what it is anyway. Again the best thing is just to
> back away and avoid them so far as possible.
Fourthly, they may be being deliberately manipulative. In which case, is
the right thing to ignore such manipulation and leave others to fall
into the same trap?
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291329 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 19:42 |
|
In article <pan.2006.06.27.07.10.18.511570 [at] brumble.net>, Thorsten
Ruffle-Brandt news [at] brumble.net wibbled...
[Snip]
> Hey ho, that was my little morning rant.
Call that a Rant! That was a mere murmer - didn't even rate a 0.5 on the
rant-o-meter (where a slight tutt is towards the zero end and the full
blown mother-inna-tizz gets to about half way up the scale). That was a
rant worthy of alt.cuddle while the rant was on tranquilisers... in the
grand scale of rants throughout history I reckon that one was like a
fart in a gale <g>
Suzi
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291330 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 19:42 |
|
In article <Xns97EFB93D5A15Adiogenesfreeukcom [at] 131.155.141.97>, Gideon
diogenes [at] freeuk.com wibbled...
[Snip]
> *FNORD*Could all those under the sway of the Cabal's orbital mind
> control lasers please cluck like a chicken?*FNORD*
As if the Cabal would be stupid enough to allow those under its sway to
follow orders from someone out in the open on a newsgroup... honestly!
Suzi
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291332 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 19:44 |
|
Gideon wrote:
> If they see something that looks important to the group, well, I
> wouldn't be surprised if did they emerge from the watery depths.
This is as good a place as any to stick this, since I was about to start a
thread called "posting frequency."
There have been several debates going on, which have seemed to bob and weave
and merge. Efforts at damage control on one axis have made things worse on
another axis, etc.
Here are some facts, which might apply to others besides me:
I have been under some misapprehensions. I think I'm clueful about the
social history of afp, but I didn't know jack about what Karen had to do
For example: re the debate about tags, formatting, snipping, and other
mechanics of posting, my response was to make more posts where I tried to
set a good example in all of those things. This coincided with my effort
along the fluff/substance axis, where my response was no make no jokes, but
start half a dozen threads I thought might spark serious discussion of
worthwhile subjects, and respond to them whenever possible, to fan the
flame.
Clearly, that strategy increased my posting volume considerably, and I was
already prolific. I had no idea this was a problem. I thought the goddamn
spiders and whips were the problem. And with respect to some of the backlash
about te goddamn spiders and whips, I did feel obliged to defend myself.
Along another axis is the one where input can be seen as mobbing, yet lack
of input is "well, why didn't you say something?" I refer to the FAQ issue.
For a while, it was hard to see exactly what was going on in that one. But
in light of recent comments, I find the suggestion that being a tad
intimidated is odd . . . odd. The outcome was a little JFK--I'm sorry it
happened, but the facts may not be crystal clear to me, because I've had my
hands full. I speak just for myself, but there was some chaos, IMO. So, keep
quiet, or try to help? Sometimes hard to tell which is correct
There are others, but I trust my point is clear: what is a protective or
healing measure for one problem can exacerbate another problem. The armor
that protects you from arrows will drown you in a river.
Although my very thesis here makes it obvious that others may not have known
what was hapening *either*, I have to say I wish that some of the objections
etc. had been raised before the objectors got their knickers into a DEFCON 1
twist.
And just because I haven't seen it mentioned before, it has occurred to me
that one of the attractive things about afp is the sometimes presence of the
author in question. The M threads, the vitriol, and the goddamn spiders and
whips can't possibly be of interest to him--he's a busy guy. The volume has
got to be an issue if we (am I safe in using "we" here?) want Mr. Pratchett
to hang around with us.
I'm certainly going to try to amend my own behavior, now that the issues are
somewhat clearer.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Rant-o-meter (was quoting private emails) [message #291345 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 20:08 |
|
"Suzi" <spamtrap [at] lovegoddess.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f0b7ced7ac69ccd989a27 [at] 192.168.0.3...
> In article <pan.2006.06.27.07.10.18.511570 [at] brumble.net>, Thorsten
> Ruffle-Brandt news [at] brumble.net wibbled...
>
> [Snip]
>> Hey ho, that was my little morning rant.
>
> Call that a Rant! That was a mere murmer - didn't even rate a 0.5 on the
> rant-o-meter (where a slight tutt is towards the zero end and the full
> blown mother-inna-tizz gets to about half way up the scale). That was a
> rant worthy of alt.cuddle while the rant was on tranquilisers... in the
> grand scale of rants throughout history I reckon that one was like a
> fart in a gale <g>
Whereas my rant at home this evening (and yesterday for that matter) was
definitely at least mother-inna-tizz-going-ballistic. Possibly the highest
I've ever achieved on the rant-o-meter. Perhaps I should've written it all
down in email and then binned it.
- MEG
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291359 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 20:36 |
|
Gideon <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in
> news:e7rfg1$vpp$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com:
>
>> Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt <news [at] brumble.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've just returned after several years of giving the whole
>>> thing a wide berth. Did I miss it? Not for longer than a few
>>> days, if at all.
>>>
>>> Why did I return? Mainly to see how old friends are doing,
>>> but also out of a morbid pleasure of seeing that nothing
>>> really changes on usenet. And to test my resilience.
>>
>> I suddenly saw a handful of old regulars who haven't posted in
>> months or years suddenly appear within a couple of days of
>> each other, and my guess was that someone had sent out an
>> email, because of the bitter posts being exchanged.
>
> Really? That's fascinating, Arthur.
Indeed. As statistics go, at least.
> I hardly posted at all between the beginning of 2005 and this
> month; life being what it was (and WoW being highly addictive), I
> simply went and lurked for a while; I scanned through AFP from time
> to time and looked to see if anything particularly noteworthy was
> happening.
Don't inflate yourself too much there; you were not one of those I noticed
arriving all at the same time.
> And there are, I think, an entire bunch of old-timers who still
> arise from R'lyeh occasionally to scar the minds of the timid and
> impressionable.
Most certainly. It's multiple "occasional" occurences /coinciding/ that
sticks out like a spike on a bell curve. That doesn't mean that it
/doesn't/ have normal causes, but that it's worth looking at.
>> Out of curiosity, this wasn't the case?
>
> Out of interest, can you say who was a lurker who happened to be
> passing through AFP and decided to post
No, I can't, thus the *question*.
> - and who is a mindless
> drone under the control of the faceless and sinister Cabal?
Those are /your/ words. *I* don't believe in a cabal, just individual
has-beens.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M].Quoting private emails [message #291366 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 20:10 |
|
Alec Cawley alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote in
<MPG.1f0b7aa46df819cb989d24 [at] news.individual.net>:
> In article <MPG.1f0b3673b2dabff6989d79 [at] cenote.gkhs.net>,
> eric [at] ericjarvis.co.uk says...
>
> > Firstly it may just be a misunderstanding. If that's the case there's no
> > real harm done by simply avoiding them if the misunderstanding can't be
> > cleared up in private.
> >
> > Then it may be that there is something about the way this particular
> > personal interaction works that leads inevitably to antipathy. In which
> > case again the best thing is to simply walk away and avoid that particular
> > person. It's nobody's fault, sometimes two people simply don't get along.
> >
> > Finally it may be that they have two sides to their character and are
> > always much less pleasant in private. In that case the chances are that
> > most people have much the same experience, effectively their public mask
> > is pretty much seen for what it is anyway. Again the best thing is just to
> > back away and avoid them so far as possible.
>
> Fourthly, they may be being deliberately manipulative. In which case, is
> the right thing to ignore such manipulation and leave others to fall
> into the same trap?
>
Unless you have somehow got concrete proof that they are being
manipulative then yes, and I mean solid proof and not just a suspicion. IF
you think somebody else is being harmfully manipulated then an off group
warning explaining your suspicion might conceivably be appropriate, but by
and large when dealing with adults they aren't all that easy to manipulate
when they don't want to be manipulated. When they do then intervening
directly is unlikely to help.
There are things one can know for certain and there are things that can
become a certainty through circumstantial evidence without ever actually
being proven. I think it's important to keep the two distinct. It's too
easy to misunderstand what human beings are doing. They are complicated
critters and often don't actually know what they themselves are doing.
I've encountered several people who connive in the background to shaft
others in the back. Not all of them whilst involved in politics, in fact
the nastiest examples were both welfare workers. Causing any sort of fuss
is playing into their hands. If it's in the open they can capitalise on
it. The most effective thing I've found is to ignore them and try to
ensure that other people are protected from them by getting those people
to protect themselves from a generalised possibility rather than a
specific person. In the case of the two most poisonous examples I also
collected evidence until I had something concrete and then shared it with
appropriate people (one sacked and one lost his budget).
Direct confrontation only leads to a mess. A mess favour people who prefer
to be destructive rather than those who try to be constructive. By and
large making a mess does not make things better.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291369 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:21 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in
news:e7rtrl$33q$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com:
> Gideon <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
>> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote in
>> news:e7rfg1$vpp$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com:
>>
>>> Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt <news [at] brumble.net> wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
>
> Those are /your/ words. *I* don't believe in a cabal, just
> individual has-beens.
"This is a party political broadcast on behalf of the Arthur
Haganist Party..."
*stomp**stomp**stomp**stomp**stomp**crash*
*stomp* *crash* *stomp*
*thud* *stomp*
*tinkle*
"Arthur says _NO_!!"
cheers,
Gideon.
(I think there's a bowler hat over there with your name on it.)
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291387 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:53 |
|
on 27/06/2006 19:36 Arthur Hagen said the following:
<snip>
> *I* don't believe in a cabal, just individual
> has-beens.
Well, I've met a couple of the 'old-timers' you refer to and I can
assure you that they are very much 'is' as in the present rather than
the past tense. Although the term 'has been' could be used in reference
to T (who I stil mentally refer to as 'Doc') in the context of wondering
what he 'has been' doing...
....OTOH, that's the kind of discussion that's likely to trip all sorts
of child-friendly filters. ;-)
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] When I was a young usenetter... (was.Quoting private emails) [message #291392 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 21:35 |
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:42:22 +0100, Suzi <spamtrap [at] lovegoddess.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.06.27.07.10.18.511570 [at] brumble.net>, Thorsten
> Ruffle-Brandt news [at] brumble.net wibbled...
>
> [Snip]
>> Hey ho, that was my little morning rant.
>
> Call that a Rant! That was a mere murmer - didn't even rate a 0.5 on the
> rant-o-meter (where a slight tutt is towards the zero end and the
In my day a rant was a proper rant and wouldn't be considered a rant
unless it left crippled corpses all over the planet and a ground zero
of scorched earth and body parts and flames... oh we destroyed whole
civilisations with our flames.
1/10, try harder we'll give points for style and creative body count
(tribble[1] points for giving the impression of multiple bodies from a
single corpse).
Mark
[1] A tyop but I like it.
--
The Flying Hamster <hamster [at] korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
We're all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars (O Wilde)
|
|
|
| Re: [I].Posting frequency (was Quoting private emails) [message #291437 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 22:46 |
|
in article _7eog.13455$o4.1683 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, Anastasia
at house_damodred [at] yahoo.com wrote on 27/06/2006 10:44 AM:
> Gideon wrote:
>
>> If they see something that looks important to the group, well, I
>> wouldn't be surprised if did they emerge from the watery depths.
>
> This is as good a place as any to stick this, since I was about to start a
> thread called "posting frequency."
>
> There have been several debates going on, which have seemed to bob and weave
> and merge. Efforts at damage control on one axis have made things worse on
> another axis, etc.
>
> Here are some facts, which might apply to others besides me:
>
> I have been under some misapprehensions. I think I'm clueful about the
> social history of afp, but I didn't know jack about what Karen had to do
Nor did I - I think quite a lot of us were unaware of that. I don't quite
see *why* she had to do all that work, though I do realise that she was
acting out of pure altruism, not for any kind of personal gain. If
maintaining the FAQ required her to read every last word of every last post,
however trivial or infuriating, then it's amazing that she did it for as
long as she did and not at all surprising that she doesn't want to do it any
more.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M].I have no friends and I must post [message #291449 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 22:46 |
|
"Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> writes:
> The problem here--sad, but true--is that at the moment I have
> NO friends to do anything with. I go to work two nights a week
> at a time of day when campus is all but deserted. I live alone
> and haven't been out on a social evening in months.
>
> I've been frankly desperate for company, and this is where I
> have found it.
As I said not too long ago: most people use afp to enhance their
life, but some use it as a substitute for one, and *that's not
healthy*.
You're by no means the first one this has happened to, but
ultimately the only real solution is to rebuild your actual life,
possibly *with the help of afp*, but not by making afp your sole
source of interaction with humanity. That is not good for you,
and not good for the newsgroup either.
In this, and this instance only I am in complete agreement with
the "don't mistake a newsgroup for reality" crowd.
--
Leo Breebaart <leo [at] lspace.org>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:55:21 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09941 Sekunden |
