Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
- Original Message - From: Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:58 AM Subject: RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with try. Try means to do something but not necessarily expect complete success. Try this can certainly be an order. True. I guess it is a matter of perspective. Without obvious vocal and facial clues, I tend to interpret any sentence beginning with 'try' as a suggestion. So what made you interpret Ronn's statement as more of an order than a point/suggestion? Especially when Try can be equally viewed as a request. xponent Try Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:56:20PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: I naturally (and erroneously) assumed that everyone on this list would be technologically literate enough to realise that by written notes I would naturally mean using a digital assistant of some kind. (A computer may not be ideal, it's a bit of a nuisance to lug around.) No, a digital assistant IS a computer, but most of them don't have keyboards that are good for touch typing. Written notes are slow. Typed notes are faster. No need to lug a computer around -- mine is on the internet and can be accessed from almost any other computer on the internet. Since we were discussing making notes of emails, it is logical to assume a computer would be nearby when the notes are needed. PS Erik: What do you do to your posts so that when I reply, the quoted message is automatically truncated at the end of your comments? I could tell you, but then I'd have to...uh, that's classified, too. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:36PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: If you have memory problems, one technique you might find useful is to make written notes. No, written notes are slow and not easily searchable. Digital notes stored on a computer are far superior. Sorry for not being clearer. I didn't mean to give the impression that I meant the old-fashioned notes using pencil and paper. My bad. I naturally (and erroneously) assumed that everyone on this list would be technologically literate enough to realise that by written notes I would naturally mean using a digital assistant of some kind. (A computer may not be ideal, it's a bit of a nuisance to lug around.) Regards, Ray. PS Erik: What do you do to your posts so that when I reply, the quoted message is automatically truncated at the end of your comments? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobing from side to sidemaru Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I saw a post of yours that had anything worthwile. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Tung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobbing from side to sidemaru Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I saw a post of yours that had anything worthwile. By worthwile I assume you mean worth wile. (you left out a space.) Quite frankly the post for which you only responded to the humor portion above certainly did display skill in outwitting (the Websters on line definition of wile.) But of course you would never respond to something that did, you would have to repost it to do so. [ never mind that, I copied it below] I could ask if you ever respond with anything other than personal insults. Do you ever address the issues, or do you just redirect conversations to unimportant side-effects of the communication process as I did above? Seems I am not the only one who misspells And talk about a lack of courage. You wouldn't dare kill-file me on-list because you know you might miss something that would make you look silly, and you have to respond to everything that might with personal insults and redirection. Sorry, but this is not good debating technique. Because it's annoying, and more importantly it is too easy for others to come back on you with your own technique like this. You talk about worthwhile posts, you can't even spell worthwhile The thing is, I am the one person on this list who is most likely to agree with your stance on communication style, and aggressiveness. Sad really, because you can't seem to let go of your ego-based patterns, and view reality. If you are going to state that content in important and that any aggressiveness viewed by others imposed on your message should not be considered, then you yourself must give the same benefit to those who's communication skills lack precision. You must address the intent and not the medium. After all, that IS what you are asking for. Since you won't communicate with me off list, I am offering to resolve this with in a manner that is mutually apologetic. You agree to address the intent of communication by all, and I will agree to spend some time considering the true intent before hastily responding. Both would benefit the list. And our bickering is defiantly not. Do you have the courage? How about it Erik? Jan - --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Why do you think that is? Good debating technique? A) Debates are activities to be won or lost. - You claim to not care about -winning- or -losing- as long as the information is correct. B) Debates are won or lost not on the correctnes of a position, but on the abilities of the debaters. - You claim to not care about winning or losing as long as the -information is correct-. C) You have contradicted yourself and therefore any arguments made based on the information you have provided are invalid. D) It would appear that even if your ~technique~ is good. It is not sufficient. Jan Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobing from side to sidemaru = _ Jan William Coffey _ = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:36:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobing from side to sidemaru Do you ever post anything worth anything? I can't recall the last time I saw a post of yours that had anything worthwile. If you have memory problems, one technique you might find useful is to make written notes. Regards, Ray. PS: The subject line is particularly apt for this thread, is it not? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Why do you think that is? Good debating technique? A) Debates are activities to be won or lost. - You claim to not care about -winning- or -losing- as long as the information is correct. B) Debates are won or lost not on the correctnes of a position, but on the abilities of the debaters. - You claim to not care about winning or losing as long as the -information is correct-. C) You have contradicted yourself and therefore any arguments made based on the information you have provided are invalid. D) It would appear that even if your ~technique~ is good. It is not sufficient. Jan Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobing from side to sidemaru = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:37:19PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: Especially when Try can be equally viewed as a request. Try shutting up, Rob. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with try. Try means to do something but not necessarily expect complete success. Try this can certainly be an order. True. I guess it is a matter of perspective. Without obvious vocal and facial clues, I tend to interpret any sentence beginning with 'try' as a suggestion. So what made you interpret Ronn's statement as more of an order than a point/suggestion? Ritu GCU Curious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Why do you think that is? Good debating technique? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:53 AM Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:37:19PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: Especially when Try can be equally viewed as a request. Try shutting up, Rob. Sure! Anything for my pal Erik! xponent Working On The Trade For Brendan Now Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:47:01PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: By worthwile I assume you mean worth wile. (you left out a space.) Actually, I left out an h, not a space. I should have written worthwhile. And I see that the answer is, no. And talk about a lack of courage. You wouldn't dare kill-file me on-list because you know you might miss something that would make you look silly, and I stopped reading here. I probably won't read much of what you write from now on, Jan, since it is such a waste of time. I don't killfile anyone (at least not yet), but I do tend to delete many posts from some people without reading them as I scan subject and author lines. Feel free to make me look silly. I would never do that. You do such a good job of it all on your own. Of course you read the rest of that post why else would you claim not to have. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:47:01PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: By worthwile I assume you mean worth wile. (you left out a space.) Actually, I left out an h, not a space. I should have written worthwhile. And I see that the answer is, no. And talk about a lack of courage. You wouldn't dare kill-file me on-list because you know you might miss something that would make you look silly, and I stopped reading here. I probably won't read much of what you write from now on, Jan, since it is such a waste of time. I don't killfile anyone (at least not yet), but I do tend to delete many posts from some people without reading them as I scan subject and author lines. Feel free to make me look silly. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Erik Reuter wrote: Okay, POSITIVE point: Try listening more and arguing less. You might learn something. Nope, I learn more by arguing. By the way, that isn't really a point, it is more of an order. Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:08:11 -0400 On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with try. Try means to do something but not necessarily expect complete success. Try this can certainly be an order. 'Try' means 'to make an attempt at'. I don't think Attempt to listen more and argue less, sounds particularly harsh but it could easily be construed as a command. Erik, I do think it's perfectly possible to debate people without having them regard you as confrontational or difficult, yet from what I can see, that seems to happen a lot to you. Why do you think that is? I've watched many debates you've been involved in over the past year with interest, yet I haven't been able to pin it down. I'm not making an attempt at sarcasm or initiating a personal attack. I'm just genuinely curious about what you think of what I believe is a recurring pattern. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:25:35PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: You know, trying to comunicate with you reminds me an aufull lot of being presented with Lisa. At first is seems quite amazing, but then, a bit annoying, and finaly, simply too predictable to bother. You know, the feeling is mutual. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
At 06:18 PM 8/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:01:25PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: If it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as insulting, why not change tack and use a different approach? Bad question. I won't answer questions like this beginning with why not. That is a cop out. If you want, make your POSITIVE point. Okay, POSITIVE point: Try listening more and arguing less. You might learn something. Even if it's just that you don't know everything. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:07:13PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Okay, POSITIVE point: Try listening more and arguing less. You might learn something. Nope, I learn more by arguing. By the way, that isn't really a point, it is more of an order. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with try. Try means to do something but not necessarily expect complete success. Try this can certainly be an order. Your listening, but not, listening. Why else would you quible about the clasification of a sentence. Does it really change the infomration? Do you asume yourself to be in such a leadership position here that you get to dictate the way subscribers construct their sentences? You know, trying to comunicate with you reminds me an aufull lot of being presented with Lisa. At first is seems quite amazing, but then, a bit annoying, and finaly, simply too predictable to bother. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:40:16PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: I did provide a short explination which you did not respond to. No you did not. You just restated your conclusion with an absurd appeal to general belief. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
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 -
I think this is one of the most important statemts made on this topic.
Whether Yo like it or not, whether it is correct or not Erik you ~are~
comeing off as if you wish to win an argument by andy means necisary.
You have said many times that this is not Ego Driven and that it is others
ego which make it apear that way to them. You may be correct about this, but
in the end it doesn't matter. What does matter is the perception.
Believe me, I would not even be saying anything along this line if I didn't
know this particular trait from both sides. And that is in fact why I suggest
to you that you do in fact respond from Ego at times. Not usualy, but enough
to make even me recognize it. And that (even if I do say so myself :) is
saying quite a lot. { you have so much fun presenting ambiguous logical
systems so I figured you would have fun with this paragraph...second level of
humor intended }
Aditionaly, when youyour claws come outYou tend to shut down
discussions that might have been interesting otherwise. And that has a
greater negative effect. At some level you have to understand that you can
contribute constructivly or destructivly.
In hindsite the thread for which this post is titled was efectivly shut down
by me taking something a bit too seriously and being far to hasty about
comeing to that conclusion. My actions, while intending to be constructive,
actualy were destructive. So I am not acusing you of doing anything others do
not do. However, in some small way, you must also share some of the
responsability for that, (say %10 or so) becouse it was your doing which
created the atmosphere. Even if it was not your intention to do so.
So, take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I know I am cetailny
trying to.
=
_
Jan William Coffey
_
__
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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
I wrote: snip I deliberately wrote sarcasm as a euphemism for 'vicious personal attacks' -- your non-personal humor and irony, OTOH, is funny and welcomed. snip Um, that came off a bit more arrogant than I'd intended! What I meant is that there is a difference between wickedly funny humor and personal attacks, and having fun poked at you is OK but personal attacks aren't. 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
At 12:26 AM 8/2/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: It seems to me that seeing malice in vigorous discussion is your forte. 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. Unfortunately, sometimes you give the impression that the mistake to be corrected is that the other list member in the discussion disagrees with you. Or that the other list member says something on the topic at hand which you personally are not interested in at the moment. In either case, your response seems intended to bully that person into silence. If this is not the impression you mean to give, perhaps a review of your tactics is in order? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: or on factual matters, when a mistake is corrected. Unfortunately, sometimes you give the impression that the mistake to be corrected is that the other list member in the discussion disagrees with you. Which is, in fact, the case, when it is about a factual matter. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) Hmmm? And al this type I had the wrong sort of chip. I just have the one Motarola 68040 on the left shoulder.Maybe it's abut time to upgrade. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: What about Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse.? What about, Acts passively agressive and disingenuously politically correct? That was a very insitefull response erik, but are you not interchanging the consepts of science and art? What about personifies rediculousnes and drags out a thread to a slow and painfull death. oh wait, scratch that. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes pleasantness' for as many as possible (IIRC) is in direct contradiction with your frequently hostile on-list writing No, it is not. I am not a hedonist. I did mention pleasantness in my description, but my viewpoint is more nuanced than you imply here. 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. You know Erik, you had me strangly and firmly on your side with all that talk about passive agressiveness and the like. I was almost taking you seriously. But then. Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in line with passive agressiveness. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:03:06AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in line with passive agressiveness. Explain how they do? I don't see it. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:03:06AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in line with passive agressiveness. Explain how they do? I don't see it. If you don't see how There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone once said. They'll get it eventually. and Good! There's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity and contrast. are not 100% in line with passive agressivenes then I really don't know who to begin to explain it to you. From past experiences I also know that you will pick apart my explination until you have exosted my (or anyone elses) intrest. And then go on believing yourself to be in the right when no one else does. So why don't we just skip to that point now and save ourselves the hassle. let me just say though that purpously being ambiguous for any reason other than humor or flirtation is generaly precieved as a form of PA. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:05:31PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: are not 100% in line with passive agressivenes then I really don't know who to begin to explain it to you. Or, a more likely explanation for your inability to explain it, is that you are wrong. From past experiences I also know that you will pick apart my explination until you have exosted my (or anyone elses) intrest. And then go on believing yourself to be in the right when no one else does. Now THAT sounds passive aggressive to me. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Julia Thompson wrote: Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) By the way, would anyone know where this saying came from and what sort of chip? Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
At 11:21 PM 8/2/2003 +1000, you wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) By the way, would anyone know where this saying came from and what sort of chip? Regards, Ray. http://www.wordwizard.com/clubhouse/founddiscuss.asp?Num=3796 The earliest printed instance of the phrase listed in the Oxford English Dictionary comes from the Long Island Telegraph newspaper in May, 1830. This citation also provides what is probably a good explanation of the origin of the phrase: When two churlish boys were determined to fight, a chip would be placed on the shoulder of one, and the other demanded to knock it off at his peril. (The chip was, in that age of wood stoves, most likely a chip of wood.) Evidently this belligerent ritual of childhood was sufficiently widespread at the time to become a grownup metaphor for combativeness, as it has been ever since. Writing from England - there is a much earlier origin for the phrase chip on your shoulder which arose from a dispute in the 18th century with the carpenters at Chatham dockyard (the yard which built Nelson's flagship Victory). These men commonly carried wood on their shoulders during construction work - carpenters are still often referred to in the UK as chippies. Helping where I can. Took me four tries to google a good response. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actually talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: About the article or the sidetrack? About my new subject line. This sub-thread isn't titled for any existing article. :) I figured we could write our own as a collaborative effort, maybe. And to answer all the questions which I cut, I was *not* thinking about you specifically about any particular one, except maybe the chip on the shoulder, and you are not by *any* means the only one to display such here. Sorry if you took it personally -- I didn't mean for you to do so. I was just taking examples of the most negative and thread-derailing sorts of behavior I could recall in the past couple of years or so. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 5) Improperly taking threads personally. :) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jan wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Ray replied: Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. Or tortilla chips and a nice salsa with some jalapeno peppers, maybe some habanera peppers, a little cayenne pepper... Reggie Bautista Hot Is Good Maru _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? 4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational responses without having read most of the previous responses. Good one. That plus Jean-Louis's suggestion of When reading a post that describes situation similar to one's own, subscriber assumes post is a personal attack makes 5, looks like. Jan's shortened version: Improperly taking threads personally. What about Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse.? Debbi Please Don't Make One Excessive Silliness Maru ;D __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: What about Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse.? What about, Acts passively agressive and disingenuously politically correct? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: What about Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse.? What about, Acts passively agressive and disingenuously politically correct? LOL As opposed to aggressive? Very well. You are assuming that I aimed that at you? You're one - but so am I! At least about the ignorant and deliberately obtuse part -- but no one who reads and understands the Killer B's is stupid. (And now of course I am assuming that your comment is directed at me.) You want it from both barrels? OK. I will depart from my customary 'gentle persuasion,' which apparently you find so objectionable - although I clearly poke fun at myself constantly (*and mean it*). 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even when it's clear that they don't understand your sarcasm. 1a) You frequently step over the line from sarcasm/irony to genuine meanness -- or you truly do not understand how much of a bully your writing makes you appear. 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes pleasantness' for as many as possible (IIRC) is in direct contradiction with your frequently hostile on-list writing (hostility which is not merely *my* perception, as a perusal of the archives of the past two months will confirm). 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. 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. 3a) This leads to a cessation of attempts to communicate on the part of the 'hv' cocks head to listen for the good riddance! - or deflection via excessive silliness (which I of course have resorted to multiple times). 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. 4) Laughing at oneself is IMHO one of the most human attributes - you should try it every now and then. Is that straight-forward enough for you? no smiley Erik, you clearly have many good attributes and your contributions to List discussions are varied and insightful. But your on-line bullying is excessive, unnecessary and, quite frankly, demonstrates either a nasty streak of cruelty or an abysmal understanding of human nature. 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Deborah Harrell wrote: 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. Actually, he *will* let people back off if they choose to just drop it. If he's aggressively trying to pin someone down on a logical answer and that person just stops responding to his posts, he doesn't go after them further. While this may not be the most pleasant resolution, there are more unpleasant resolutions possible, and I give him credit for at least avoiding those. If anyone truly walks away from a disagreement with Erik by not responding, he'll let it go. He'll only fight as long as you put up resistance, and will not bother you for an answer in other ways. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:29:42PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: You are assuming that I aimed that at you? No. I assumed it was aimed at the qualities you described. 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. 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes pleasantness' for as many as possible (IIRC) is in direct contradiction with your frequently hostile on-list writing No, it is not. I am not a hedonist. I did mention pleasantness in my description, but my viewpoint is more nuanced than you imply here. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Darn, I have leave the building now (11pm on Fri!) - I'll reply in full on Monday, but shall clarify this bit: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes pleasantness' for as many as possible (IIRC) is in direct contradiction with your frequently hostile on-list writing No, it is not. I am not a hedonist. I did mention pleasantness in my description, but my viewpoint is more nuanced than you imply here. I didn't mean to imply that you were a hedonist (I'd have said 'promotes pleasure' if I did), as that is obviously not the case; I in fact agree with the idea of a society that enables pleasantness -- of course that doesn't mean _bland_ pleasantness, but rather dynamic and engaging. 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
The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:31:30 +0100 It's not as bad as another list where I am 41359 behind... Yeah, I gave up on one list when I hit 25K unread posts. The only mail folder I have that's anywhere near approaching that sort of unread-ness has a number of different lists filtering into it, so I can console myself that I'm not *that* far behind on any individual list. (Not sure just how bad it is, but I got through all the posts from 2002 in there sometime in April, and just haven't gotten to reading it much since then.) Julia not sure just what the 7 habits were, but it was time for a subject change, and she was trying to be cute ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:08:50 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:31:30 +0100 It's not as bad as another list where I am 41359 behind... Yeah, I gave up on one list when I hit 25K unread posts. The only mail folder I have that's anywhere near approaching that sort of unread-ness has a number of different lists filtering into it, so I can console myself that I'm not *that* far behind on any individual list. I read that as 'approaching that sort of unread mess'. Freudian slip, I guess. (Not sure just how bad it is, but I got through all the posts from 2002 in there sometime in April, and just haven't gotten to reading it much since then.) I keep telling myself I'll get to them eventually but I probably won't. not sure just what the 7 habits were, but it was time for a subject change, and she was trying to be cute It's a great subject header. :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:31:30 +0100 It's not as bad as another list where I am 41359 behind... Yeah, I gave up on one list when I hit 25K unread posts. The only mail folder I have that's anywhere near approaching that sort of unread-ness has a number of different lists filtering into it, so I can console myself that I'm not *that* far behind on any individual list. (Not sure just how bad it is, but I got through all the posts from 2002 in there sometime in April, and just haven't gotten to reading it much since then.) I simply pick threads that I think, from the title, might be interesting. However, A quick check of the threads that I have posted on will show that nearly every one is killed when someone attacks me for misspelling. How Unfortuanate, especialy for those who started the thread in hopes to have a real discussion instead of a flame war centered around one listmemebers -uniqe way of processing- (or even disability if you like). I am unsure how many people are actualy on this list, but given that %20 of the population is like me, (perhaps not to my extream, but still), and even though this list is centered around an author of fiction, an is infact and -E-MAIL- list, I should still not be the only one. I know that dyslexics tend to shy away from e-mail lists, and you can imagine why. If everytime they have anything to say on a list they are confronted with attacks on their ability to spell, then they probably would prefer to simply stop participating. This is also very unfortunate. Well, sorry, I don't give up that easy. At the same time I can get a bit testy. Can you blame me? When I am attacked for spelling and not for content I get the impression, as I am sure many do, that the attacker doesn't like what I have to say, but can find no flaw, or angle for dispute. Or more likely they are unable to read phoneticaly, and so never arive at content. Whatever the reason, it is getting rather annoying, and I am starting to feel like an oppressed minority, so STOP IT! Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? (Of course, that doesn't cover *subscribers* so much as *participants* -- and you don't really participate much if you're 6 months behind, do you?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? At 16:25 2003-07-31 -0500, Julia wrote: Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. Would this habit include When reading a post that describes situation similar to one's own, subscriber assumes post is a personal attack ? Jean-Louis guilty Couturier ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: About the article or the sidetrack? 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. Uh? hmmm? I don't remember doing that, why do you say that? 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. I most certainly never do that. you must be talking to someone else?...bafeled. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. Ok, that shew fits. Yes it seems that I do, but you know, most of us do don't we? (The Human most of us in addition to the Dyslexic most of us). If every time you made a post on this list you were acosted by the spelling police, you might have a chip on your shoulder as well. Wait, let me make it more clear, what if every time -you- made a post, your comments (whether they be agreed with or not) were ignored, and instead someone steped in with some snide dig on your [gender]? Or any other [feature] you posses. Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? (Of course, that doesn't cover *subscribers* so much as *participants* -- and you don't really participate much if you're 6 months behind, do you?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Julia Thompson wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? 4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational responses without having read most of the previous responses. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actually talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? 4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational responses without having read most of the previous responses. Once again I am assuming from the context that you are addressing me specifically. so in response. I am generally not very opinionated, in fact I am very comfortable running through an issue in a state of flux. Making points from all sides, and changing my running meeter of sincerity. I.E. my opinions (like many on this list BTW) don't stay the same from day to day, and seldom fit nicely into the box. Confrontational? hmmm? Likely to be disagreed with maybe, but confrontational holds a connotation that I have that response because I am looking to start a fight, or enjoy argument for argument's sake. And that just isn't the case. Without reading all of the posts Well I sometimes do get behind and try and catch up and jump in the middle of something, but I also generally do read all of the posts up to the point where I am responding. The posts which come afterwords are future posts to the ones that I am responding to, even though they have already been made. If you read the list in linear fashion this could be construed as you say. However, if you read it in thread fashion, then you would see that this it is not the case. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ 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
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: About the article or the sidetrack? About my new subject line. This sub-thread isn't titled for any existing article. :) I figured we could write our own as a collaborative effort, maybe. And to answer all the questions which I cut, I was *not* thinking about you specifically about any particular one, except maybe the chip on the shoulder, and you are not by *any* means the only one to display such here. Sorry if you took it personally -- I didn't mean for you to do so. I was just taking examples of the most negative and thread-derailing sorts of behavior I could recall in the past couple of years or so. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? 4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational responses without having read most of the previous responses. Good one. That plus Jean-Louis's suggestion of When reading a post that describes situation similar to one's own, subscriber assumes post is a personal attack makes 5, looks like. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational responses without having read most of the previous responses. Once again I am assuming from the context that you are addressing me specifically. so in response. You shouldn't assume any such thing. I most certainly did not have you in mind. If you are guilty of the above, I haven't noticed it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
