On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 09:16:02PM -0600, C. B. Schofield wrote
(in reply to Keith Rollin's question about about his use of "anonymity"):
> I was referring to the fact that it's not uncommon for people to use
> confrontational language and be less charitable in email than they would be
> in person.
I guess an example of confrontational non-charitable language in email
might be
Why do people feel the need to posture like this? ...because it's
easy to do so in anonymity? ...because it's fun to be flame-bait?
but I digress...
("fun to be [flamed]"? You're pretty much accusing me of being a troll.
Well, congratulations! That's a new one! Noone's called me that before.)
> John asked me the same question, and when I gave him the same answer, his
> one-word reply was "Bullshit!", which perhaps illustrates the point I was
> trying to make.
Keith, having met me face to face on a number of occasions :-), will
be able to tell you that if I think you're spouting dangerously or
offensively wrong claptrap, I might well respond colourfully in person
too. So I don't think that illustrates your point at all!
Now that we're posting private email, I'll note that my one-word
response (which did not have an exclamation mark) was in fact to this
allegation of yours:
>>> Why do people feel the need to posture like this? ...because it's
>>> easy to do so in anonymity? ...because it's fun to be flame-bait?
>>
>> Because Joe espouses what I consider to be a common misconception
>> here, one that I think would be interesting to talk about.
>
> Yes, it may be an interesting topic, but you're setting the tone and
> bias of the discussion by being belligerent.
And that is indeed bullshit. You're telling me I'm being deliberately
belligerent. I happen to know that's not true. And I'm the only person
in a position to determine that -- in particular, anyone who only has my
words written in this rather bland email environment, free as it is of
contextual clues, nuance, and body language cues, certainly isn't in
such a position.
Note the difference if you had written
Yes, it may be an interesting topic, but, to me, you're coming
across as belligerent -- and IMHO that's setting the tone and
bias of the discussion in an unfortunate way.
or even if you had just used the word "appearing" or even "acting"
instead of "being".
Now, instead of making an accusation about my motivations that I know is
false, you're describing an effect of my actions that for all I know may
well be happening. Guess which one I'm more likely to listen to?
Sheesh. The net-cop wannabes of today! Why won't they use a little
pop. psychology?
John "and that's all I have to say about that :-)"
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
