Continued from Friday (some snippage), and folding in a response to Julia re: point 3)-
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even > when it's clear > > that they don't understand your "sarcasm." > > There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone > once said. They'll get it eventually. Intelligence and perspective have little relation, in my experience. If it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as insulting, why not change tack and use a different approach? (as you _have_ done, on occasion) I deliberately wrote "sarcasm" as a euphemism for 'vicious personal attacks' -- your non-personal humor and irony, OTOH, is funny and welcomed. > > 2a) This confuses people who might like to > consider you a friend, and > > contrasts with your efforts to be helpful, frex in > answering technical > > questions, or genuinely funny, as in "amorphous > blobs." > > Good! There's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity > and contrast. Interesting perspective...and dynamic differences of opinion are, I agree, a good thing. However, "ambiguity" WRT friendliness is a curious attribute to wish to project; this reflects on a discussion last year IIRC about whether this list is a type of community, or merely a forum for discussion. I don't think we reached a concensus on that. > > 3) You will not allow people to 'back off' from a > dispute, but instead > > try to re-engage the 'hapless victim' in an > escalating war of words - > > which you seem to want to win quite badly. > > Do tell how I forced someone to send an email to > Brin-L. Also, how does one "win"? "Force" - of course not; that's silly. But taunt in a way that the reader is likely to flare back? Oh, yes. A personal example: you recently wrote something derogatory about my attributes as a physician. That is the type of remark designed to provoke a sharp response. I chose not to respond at all, but I did *not* appreciate the cut. <grin> Well, as to the latter, I believe you asked "who won?" WRT a disagreement we had, when I said I was out of that thread b/c it wasn't fun anymore... <serious> "Getting the last word" is one way to 'win' an argument or disagreement. [*I* of course never try to get in the last word. <duck lightning!!> ;)] > > 3a) This leads to a cessation of attempts to > communicate on the part > > of the 'hv' <cocks head to listen for the "good > riddance!"> > > So, now I am both forcing people to send emails and > simultaneously > leading them to stop sending emails? Are you > studying to be the White > Queen? Maybe, just maybe, some people are smarter > than you give them > credit for, and rather than me somehow controlling > (and not controlling) > them, my posts might occasionally provide some > people something to think about. <very serious> You tend to "go for the jugular," and that frequently either provokes defensive responses or withdrawal. As if you weren't well aware of that. <grin> Whaddaya mean, "studying"?!? I stated at the bottom of my post "your contributions to List discussions are varied and insightful," which covers that last sentence. > > 3b) Escalation in the form of personal attacks is > your particular > > forte, when you appear to wish to humiliate 'the > enemy.' Graciousness > > in 'winning' apparently is superfluous. > > It seems to me that seeing malice in vigorous > discussion is your forte. Your definition of "vigorous discussion" includes personal insults? > I write about what I think is important, and > argue against things > that I don't think are correct. I expect a high > standard from people who > post on serious topics here, and when I don't see > that, I will point it > out directly or indirectly. The only "winning" I can > think of is when > the discussion is interesting and insightful, or on > factual matters, > when a mistake is corrected. See above re: 'win,' and also on what I said WRT your contributions to the list. I'm not asking that you stop correcting mistakes you see - just not with personally insulting remarks. > > But your on-line bullying is excessive, > > Then we'll just have to disagree, because I cannot > be persuaded that > writing emails with no direct life consequences or > threats is bullying, > let alone excessive. If someone becomes terribly > upset from reading an > email on an email list, well, then maybe they need > to chill out. It is > just an email list, for goodness sake. If it is > affecting your life, > your job, your family, or your emotional health then > it might be a good idea to reorder your priorities. If someone doesn't join or continue in a discussion because they're unwilling to face your acidity, that is a loss to the list. You have politely corrected people in the past, and that enhances the list - why not use that more instructional mode? I agree that it's too easy to get worked up over a list - but for those who consider it a *community* instead, they want to feel welcome, and may invest a lot of time and effort in participating. In Chat once we had a brief discussion about regional differences in communication style - that might be worthy of a separate post. <grin> When I get some time! Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
