But maybe that's too harsh, too. There's also the more serious matter of non-participation of other folks in the discussion. If there were more people engaging in a productive discussion, then snide remarks and passive digressive aggression would be water off the back of a duck.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote: > No, not LITERALLY true. But I would say that certain unnamed subscribers > discourage the discussion, whether intentionally or not, by snide remarks, > dismissive rhetorical questions, tendentious misrepresentations of others' > stated positions, etc. I'm sure this happens on other topics as well. I'm > just more attentive to when it happens on this particular topic. > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Yes. >> > >> > That's why I suggest that pen-l disucss cutting working hours as an >> entrance into open conflict toward an understanding about what'sgoing on./ >> But Devine and Proyect and Henwood forbid such a discussion. >> >> this is not true. >> >> -- >> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own >> way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- > Sandwichman > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
