The question is. "Is Cari having a rational conversation with other posters or is it soapboxing?"
Let's see: On 04/07/2015 04:59 PM, Cari Machet wrote: > i decided no to really read this after you stated i was blowing my own > horn - you dont know me at all i didnt come to the table saying i > worked at this or that place and i know blah blah i didnt even want to > say i have worked at all the places mostly because it might come > across as arrogant but i have worked in all the places i stated and i > can actually prove that so ... and someone was point blank questioning > wether i am even a journo so... i think you need to take the personal > attack thing down a notch this argument isnt about me and thats > another reason i didnt want to say where i have worked but frankly > anyone that is bringing up what i bring up would have to know > something ...maybe ya think? > > here is a graph for you to analyse your debate functionality which i > think is incredibly low > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Zenaan Harkness <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 4/8/15, Cari Machet <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > oh great another person that thinks they know everything because > they > > punched some letters into a search engine > > Look (at least some of) the folks around here have a second brain > cell, some even have third. > > > i worked at indymedia in new york city democracy now and pbs > > wnet in the > > field in the middle east so... and other weird journo > watchdoggie things on > > immi in iceland and on documentaries but besides that i am an > activist and > > but also cover that in different places > > You say you are a journalist, you say you are an activist, you say you > worked in the middle east, you say all sorts of things. > > To me (TM) you're blowing your trumpet excessively. Once is ok, but to > keep blowing your own trumpet, over and over again - as in, repeatedly > - you know, more than once, carries implications; the exact > implications will vary by listener and are likely -not- what you want > arising within your reader's' minds. > > You also keep 'pushing' your journalistic 'cred' rather than spend > that small effort to push the SHIFT key to capitalise your sentences > and names - that's disrespectful or at least lazy. Some of us make the > effort for you, yet you fail to return that courtesy. And a bloody > small courtesy it is four a journalist. > > > > frankly i have no clue why you are making such a big deal > > out of all of this > > Ah ... who's making the big deal? Hmm... > > Listen I don't hold anything against you, I don't know you and I've > been assuming ever since I first saw your emails on this list that you > are posting with a fake name. I do know it's hard to see oneself - in > the hindsight of reading my own emails after the fact I have > embarrassed myself too many times, so I empathise with your plight. > > > > - maybe ask yourself ... you take cheap base shots at people that > > are boring and have no place in advanced thinking debate > > Pottle, meet ket :/ > > Given your loud self proclamations I suggest raising -your- tone. I > would appreciate that. > > Secondly consider letting your work do the speaking for you. We have > these little things called hyperlinks, which look somewhat like this: > http://my.domain/some-intro-page.html > - such a link in your email footer would allow those who would bother > to verify about you for themselves without your dismal trumpet > practice getting in the way. That's a win win, especially for you. > > Thirdly show a little respect to the people you write about (in email) > and press the SHIFT key at the same time as you type the first letter > of each name you type. > > Fourthly if your intention is to demonstrate consideration to your > readers then also press that SHIFT key simultaneously to pressing the > first letter of the first word of each sentence (these are usually the > ones coming after a period). > > Fifthly raise your own tone; those with that second or third brain > cell I spoke of can see black kettles for what they are - screeching > about that from the stove top is not becoming for a so called > 'journalist'. Not in the slightest. Did I mention anything about > dignity? Well it's about your own behaviour not what others say. > Problem with said screeching is sometimes 'you' mistake a beautiful > silver carafe temporarily placed on the stove next to you, for a nasty > black kettle; others see the silver carafe and cover their ears from > the "BLACK KETTLE! BLACK KETTLE!" screeching; you start looking > distinctly pot like and rather black. > > By the way that's not a good look - I can vouch for this from painful > first hand experience :P > > A single rule for self which may work for you (or not, I dunno) is > 'assume good intent'. When someone challenges self, perhaps self needs > a challenge. When someone calls self a black kettle perhaps a little > polishing of self is needed, a rib extraction, that sort of thing. And > if your assumption is wrong and bad intent is coming atcha, then at > least you've taken that polishing your act opportunity and look a > little shinier to onlookers. > > THAT's what some call a win win situation :D > > Good luck fellow human, > Zenaan > > > > > -- > Cari Machet > NYC 646-436-7795 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > AIM carismachet > Syria +963-099 277 3243 > Amman +962 077 636 9407 > Berlin +49 152 11779219 > Reykjavik +354 894 8650 > Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> > > 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 > > Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the > addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this > information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email > without > permission is strictly prohibited. > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
