Hi,
> Frankly if someone annoys me i generally tell them, whether at the
> office, at a conference, on a mailing list, at the pub, wherever. If
> they annoy me *enough* I might be reduced to telling them so rudely (ie
> flame them). I try not to, it doesn't make for good relationships, but
> then again I might not want an ongoing relationship with someone who i
> regard as a total plonker.
Exactly. You are totally correct. - We all do the same.
We tell them at the office, pub, conference etc. 
But, we tell them privately.


> In short I will call an idiot an idiot if they are patently, repeatedly
> and annoyingly an idiot. i frequently tell clients who fail to take my
> advice and come unstuck that they are silly. 
Certainly. It is a nice feeling, being able to tell someone,
"look at the facts.... Yes, I think that was a silly thing for you to do". 
How do you tell them that ? Privately, in the office. 
You do not shout it out, so the secretaries and everyone else can hear.

Conclusion:::
public flaming on an email list is unacceptable.




Derek.

==============================================================================
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Nick Rout wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:27:00 +1300 (NZDT)
> Derek Smithies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Nick,
> > > I dispute that, I think people get flamed (on this list anyway) when
> > > they are rude or behave inappropriately. We get many newbie questions
> > > and as long as they make a reasonable effort to be polite and to modify
> > > their behaviour when people point out how things could be done better,
> > > they usually have little problems. 
> > 
> > On this list, people don't get flamed. Yes, we do have flaming exceptions.  
> > However, from reading my initial email on this topic, and examining ones
> > behaviour with a)company paper, b)at a conference, c)at a fix up night, it
> > should be obvious that it is never never never acceptable to flame. Maybe
> > you can explain why it is acceptable to flame the irritating person.
> 
> I can only speak for myself and everyone is different, so these are my
> own thoughts, and not a rule for general societal behaviour.
> 
> Frankly if someone annoys me i generally tell them, whether at the
> office, at a conference, on a mailing list, at the pub, wherever. If
> they annoy me *enough* I might be reduced to telling them so rudely (ie
> flame them). I try not to, it doesn't make for good relationships, but
> then again I might not want an ongoing relationship with someone who i
> regard as a total plonker.
> 
> generally though people have to provoke me pretty determinedly in order
> for me to flame them, either in person or online. I like to give people
> the benefit of the doubt and, in the online context, to show them that
> there is a right way and a wrong way [1] to deal with technical problems. 
> 
> Part way through typing this I see derek's latest post with the
> mechanic's analogy. to take the analogy further, if you fail to take the
> mechanic's advise, then its rude to come back and ask the same question
> over and over again, and to accuse the mechanic of being part of a
> conspiracy to convert everyone back to horses and carts, and to abuse
> the mechanic because the car is now inoperable as a result of you
> fiddling with it yourself. 
> 
> In short I will call an idiot an idiot if they are patently, repeatedly
> and annoyingly an idiot. i frequently tell clients who fail to take my
> advice and come unstuck that they are silly. 
> 
> Of course for me and the mechanic, the clients who do not take advice
> are a great source of further work, because someone has to undo the
> customer's idiocy :-) There is therefore a lower annoyance factor. On a
> free mailing list you don't get any benefit from an obvious and repeated
> idiot, and therefore the annoyance factor is higher.
> 
> In short, and as a secondary summary, rudeness/flaming is probably never
> appropriate, but we do not live in an ideal world, so patience can and
> sometimes does wear thin.
> 
> [1] perhaps a "right' spectrum of behaviour and a "wrong" spectrum of
> behaviour, where the spectra intermingle in the middle, ie there is a
> grey area in the middle where the behaviour is acceptable to some and
> not to others. I'm not at the point where i regard myself as some final
> arbiter of taste.
> 
> PS i am not sure if which group we are putting top posters in today :-)
> 
> (please note the smiley in that last sentence!)
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Derek Smithies Ph.D.                           This PC runs pine on linux for 
email
IndraNet Technologies Ltd.                     If you find a virus apparently 
from me, it has
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                    forged  the e-mail headers on 
someone else's machine
ph +64 3 365 6485                              Please do not notify me when 
(apparently) receiving a
Web: http://www.indranet-technologies.com/     windows virus from me......

Reply via email to