Re: Question for everyone
At 12:28 08-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I'd hate to make Dan a liar so yes, Dan is correct.Lately, when I have felt exchanges start to become unpleasant, I have taken them off- list. Either that, or I just ignore the personal attacks So, what about all those questions that you have been asked recently and have consistently refused to answer? What about all those requests to back your claims you have consistently ignored? Do you consider those unpleasant or perhaps even personal attacks as well? There must be a reason for your refusal to respond to those questions and requests, but I cannot figure out what other reason than I refuse to admit to being wrong there could be. Jeroen Unanswered questions van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 03:43 PM 10/29/02, Dan Minette wrote: I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin No! Please, no! --Ronn! :) And Students Say Listening To Me Lecture For Four Hours Is Bad Maru I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 02:29 PM 10/29/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN I don't know about Dan's computer, but on this machine neither the mail program nor the program which syncs the system clock with the National Bureau of Standards atomic clock is a M$ product . . . ;-) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 08:12 AM 10/31/02, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone Dan Minette wrote: Of course, all this is strictly imho. Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Okay, I'll bite... P - Personal? In Many People's Humber Opinion. Humber? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 18:41 30-10-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list as a whole -- and not exactly a positive effect... Only when they are reacted to. If you ignore them (and one should if one is wise) they have almost zero effect on anything beyond the attackers karma. OTOH, if someone decides to stop posting (in a specific thread, or altogether) because of personal attacks against him/her, it will send a message to the attacker that personal attacks are in fact effective weapons for silencing people one disagrees with. If the attacker does not get criticised by others for his behaviour (let alone *punished* for it), it also sends a message to the attacker that launching personal attacks is acceptable behaviour. I do not think we should be sending such messages. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away has never been a good approach. Jeroen Flamethrower ready, sir! van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 18:41 30-10-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list as a whole -- and not exactly a positive effect... Only when they are reacted to. If you ignore them (and one should if one is wise) they have almost zero effect on anything beyond the attackers karma. OTOH, if someone decides to stop posting (in a specific thread, or altogether) because of personal attacks against him/her, it will send a message to the attacker that personal attacks are in fact effective weapons for silencing people one disagrees with. If the attacker does not get criticised by others for his behaviour (let alone *punished* for it), it also sends a message to the attacker that launching personal attacks is acceptable behaviour. Actually, if X responds to the message, but ignores the personal attack part, that gives the message that the personal attack part isn't going to bother X, and some people will be less likely to make personal attacks against X. And the perception of most people will be that X is being quite reasonable, and the person making the personal attack isn't, and the general sympathy will be in X's favor, and if it looks like it's necessary to defend either X or the attacker, people will be more likely to come down on the side of X. And merely dropping out of a thread might have the results you indicate, but if X drops out of the thread after posting, I choose not to debate someone using these tactics, it sends a message that the attacker's behavior has been noted and condemned. If the attacker then turns attention to someone else, and the same sort of message is sent as a reason for *that* person not responding to the attacker, the message is strengthened. It's not so much *what* is done (dropping out of the thread, or at least that part of it) but *how* it is done (a short, reasoned post explaining *why* X is no longer going to respond to that attacker). If enough people stop responding to the attacker, but continue to debate among each other, the *general* tone of things will likely improve greatly. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone Dan Minette wrote: Of course, all this is strictly imho. Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Okay, I'll bite... P - Personal? In Many People's Humber Opinion. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
In a message dated 10/31/02 7:07:57 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Okay, I'll bite... P - Personal? In Many People's Humber Opinion. Not for this one, but there's also: IMHOTEPT In my honest opinion, this email percolates trash. Just in case you really want to be argumentative through obscurity. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 07:34 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, you wrote: Dan Minette wrote: I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin I'm sure we'll all be L8ted when we get that one Doug Sprinting for cover. Can we start a poll on how long it will take for him to write it, when we'll get it? I pick Nov 2nd 3:40pm pst for the send date. Kevin T. Wait there's more! No there isn't. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone At 06:49 30-10-2002 +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list as a whole -- and not exactly a positive effect... Only when they are reacted to. If you ignore them (and one should if one is wise) they have almost zero effect on anything beyond the attackers karma. xponent Pax Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list as a whole -- and not exactly a positive effect... I'll disagree here again. :) The personal attacks, in and by themselves, do nothing more than cause a momentary unpleasantness. The effect on the list is determined by how the list reacts to these attacks. I recently was called some names by a listee. That was one event. In response, a lot of nice folks here spoke up in my defense. That's another event. And I think that the negative effects of the former were more than made up for by the positive effects of the latter. Of course, all this is strictly imho. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone J. van Baardwijk wrote: As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list as a whole -- and not exactly a positive effect... I'll disagree here again. :) The personal attacks, in and by themselves, do nothing more than cause a momentary unpleasantness. The effect on the list is determined by how the list reacts to these attacks. I recently was called some names by a listee. That was one event. In response, a lot of nice folks here spoke up in my defense. That's another event. And I think that the negative effects of the former were more than made up for by the positive effects of the latter. Of course, all this is strictly imho. Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
Dan Minette wrote: Of course, all this is strictly imho. Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Okay, I'll bite... P - Personal? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: The only good Giorgis is a silent Giorgis Wrong! We as a list extend the same curtesy to you as we do to John. We tolerate everybodies opinion, even if we think it is far off. We are not into shutting anybody up even if some people would like to do so very much. So even though the argument is getting very tired you are welcome to express your opinion over and over and over. just as is John. Only this, I think that John isn't one of the nicest and most rational people around, but I'm sure that is only his on-line personallity. I got this impression from some rather heated and really very unpleasant personal e-mail exchanges ( that I really don't like to remember) with him somewhere far in the past. Sonja IAAMOAC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 21:00 28-10-2002 -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: I am not suggesting we do that to Giorgis's posts. I am trying to get the message across that he should clean up his act and stop misbehaving on this list. Wouldn't a dinging system be a step in accomplishing that? If his (or anyone's) behavior aggravated enough people, the dings would add up, and maybe the person in question would get the message that his behavior is not in keeping with IAAMOAC? With some people, yes -- but not with Giorgis. Over the years, he has been talked to by several people about his behaviour, but he has never shown any signs of improvement. So, why should anyone believe that the dinging system will suddenly get him to accept that he has been misbehaving, and get him to shape up? Jeroen The only good Giorgis is a silent Giorgis van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Moderation on a list means that when someone sends a message, that message is first read by a moderator, who will then decide whether or not that message will be sent on to the actual list. So, dinging is not moderation according to your definition. Why did you call it moderation, then? First word that came to mind, probably. Sounds like an awful lot of work for something that is not really useful, not really complies with IAAMOAC, and goes against David Brin's wish that this list be unmoderated. Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN Jeroen Question everything -- especially Micro$oft van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: So, dinging is not moderation according to your definition. Why did you call it moderation, then? First word that came to mind, probably. Fair enough, many of us are a bit imprecise with word choices when we post quickly. From what I understand now, while we may not agree as to the advisiability of a dinging system, a list with dinging is not a moderated list. Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com] I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! Jean-Louis No, really, I'm curious. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation I am not questioning the reliability of your data or your observation skills; I merely do not put overwhelming trust in the operating system used on the computer on which you store your data. :-) with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. Hey, are you threatening me? :-) You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Jeroen Prove me wrong -- if you dare van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [mailto:jean-louis.couturier;ixiasoft.com] De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com] I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! Oh no! Run for the hills! grin - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? If one is going to bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation, then there will be a certainty of decreased observation based upon the reliability of the brandy being served during the observation. (An add hic observation.) William Taylor - (Ducking out of the way.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:j.vanbaardwijk;chello.nl] I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. Hey, are you threatening me? :-) Yes, but is it an American or a European swallow ... er ... threat? ;-) - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation I am not questioning the reliability of your data or your observation skills; I merely do not put overwhelming trust in the operating system used on the computer on which you store your data. :-) But, it corresponds to my analog clock. It is true that there is an error bar on the observation, but the error bar is a quantity that has been verified by numerous other measurements. So, I admit that it could have been written as early as 1:00 AM or as late as 6:30 AM. But, that does not change the substance of my claim. The substance of my claim could only be laid at Microsoft's doorstep that Gates or one of his flunkies actually wrote that post. with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. Hey, are you threatening me? :-) Yea, and I'll insult you too. Yo mamma sews socks that smell. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Well, I've got books on the philosophy of science and a scanner. Can anyone say extensive quotes? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 17:02 29-10-2002 -0500, William Taylor wrote: L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? By travelling through time, of course. Jeroen Simple question, simple answer van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? Heh heh heh. L8 in this case means significantly longer than L3, which is the tag for longish messages. (There's a thread which includes L3er in the subject line, meaning longer than L3.) But I very much like your question. :) If one is going to bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation, then there will be a certainty of decreased observation based upon the reliability of the brandy being served during the observation. Brandy? Where? Oh, never mind, I prefer port, anyway. (An add hic observation.) William Taylor - (Ducking out of the way.) Duck? DUCK? Are you sure you're not a witch? ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com] I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! Jean-Louis No, really, I'm curious. Oh, boy, now I'm dreading the post that Dan is sure to craft. ;) Julia who read *every* *single* L3+ post from Dan on the subject so far, and who will force herself to read this one, if it is posted, and isn't sure if that's a good sign or not ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Well, I've got books on the philosophy of science and a scanner. Can anyone say extensive quotes? N! Not the scanner! IIGH! ( ;) ) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? By using time reversal, of course. Actually, backwards signals in time are required in one of the more prominant realistic interpretations of QM. Heh heh heh. L8 in this case means significantly longer than L3, which is the tag for longish messages. (There's a thread which includes L3er in the subject line, meaning longer than L3.) But I very much like your question. :) If one is going to bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation, then there will be a certainty of decreased observation based upon the reliability of the brandy being served during the observation. Brandy? Where? Oh, never mind, I prefer port, anyway. Then the recent weather we've been having would have offered you many excuses: any port in a storm. That 8 in 3 hours was a good rain. Duck? DUCK? Are you sure you're not a witch? ;) Ducks liked it too. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone Julia who read *every* *single* L3+ post from Dan on the subject so far, and who will force herself to read this one, if it is posted, and isn't sure if that's a good sign or not It sounds as though you consider my posts the cod liver oil of mailing lists. Good for you but, eww Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 16:15 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. Hey, are you threatening me? :-) Yea, and I'll insult you too. Yo mamma sews socks that smell. Then either Heaven or Hell (or perhaps Purgatory) must be a rather smelly place by now. GRIN You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Well, I've got books on the philosophy of science and a scanner. Can anyone say extensive quotes? Dan, I said: *write* such a post, not *scan, copy and paste* such a post. Jeroen You're not getting away with it *that* easy van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone Then either Heaven or Hell (or perhaps Purgatory) must be a rather smelly place by now. GRIN Well, actually, it was a devilish quote. Since you have the archives, do you remember the reference quoted in Brin-L :-) You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Well, I've got books on the philosophy of science and a scanner. Can anyone say extensive quotes? Dan, I said: *write* such a post, not *scan, copy and paste* such a post. Let me 'splane something to you. When it is just scanned copied and pasted, its plagiarism. When there are footnotes and some text around it, its well researched analysis. I didn't go to school 23 years with them learning me nutting. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
--- Dan Minette wrote: [Julia and Jean-Louis and William wrote:] L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? By using time reversal, of course. Actually, backwards signals in time are required in one of the more prominant realistic interpretations of QM. So *that's* what is occuring in the bowels of my computer?! I see... Julia wonders if William is a witch (well, I suppose he'd really be a warlock), and he _has_ been chanting on-line. Are you suggesting that foul play is afoot? That our Muggle computers have had their guts goosed by a rogue necromancer harnessing the power of Cthulu?! (sp) Thanks for the explanation. :) Jest Following The Thread Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone --- Dan Minette wrote: [Julia and Jean-Louis and William wrote:] L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? By using time reversal, of course. Actually, backwards signals in time are required in one of the more prominant realistic interpretations of QM. So *that's* what is occuring in the bowels of my computer?! I see... Julia wonders if William is a witch (well, I suppose he'd really be a warlock), and he _has_ been chanting on-line. Are you suggesting that foul play is afoot? No, on principal, I'm arguing that the answer is uncertain. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
In a message dated 10/29/2002 3:51:39 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: if William is a witch (well, I suppose he'd really be a warlock), and he _has_ been chanting on-line. Ohwa Tagoo Thialand. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Dan wrote: I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Sounds like fun. When can we expect this post? I need to know so I can make sure there's enough empty space in my inbox so it doesn't bounce. Just for reference, Hotmail has a 2 MB limit... :-) Reggie Bautista _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
From: Ritu Ko [mailto:ritu;theculture.org] Giorgis habitually uses personal attacks as a means to win a discussion; I am shocked to see that you think of that as something that is not such a big problem. Are you usually so easily shocked? As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Remember the brilliant way Rito dealt with a recent and much nastier attack upon her. I've saved that post for future reference (in case I'm ever in the mood to respond to someone who has flamed me)... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-bounces;mccmedia.com]On Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk ... With some people, yes -- but not with Giorgis. Over the years, he has been talked to by several people about his behaviour, but he has never shown any signs of improvement. So, why should anyone believe that the dinging system will suddenly get him to accept that he has been misbehaving, and get him to shape up? I suppose it's because we're eternal optimists. Well, no, actually. IMO, the purpose of any sort of governance is not behavior modification, but to create appropriate consequences for anti-social behavior. Those may seem to be the same thing, but done well, they're not. I must say, though, that I am terribly tempted to propose a deal in which all parties would abandon any attempts to change others' behavior around here. But I'm not at all confident that we really know how to see and act upon such boundaries. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote: Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre fixation on John. No, I am suffering from a highly developed sense of wrong and right -- a mental condition that very few people seem to have. I'd suggest you either (a) write him an impassioned letter why you can't live without him in your life or (b) shut up about it. Ahem, cannot live without him in my life? Quite frankly, I think both my life *and* this list would benefit greatly from Giorgis's disappearance from this community. I'm hoping for (b), since John's made it quite clear that he doesn't swing your way Giorgis is not going to swing anyone's way but his own -- as is proven by the fact that he has been talked to about his misbehaviour repeatedly over the years, but still displays the same questionable behaviour. Jeroen Not that anyone cares what *I* think van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:47 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote: Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre fixation on John. No, I am suffering from a highly developed sense of wrong and right -- a mental condition that very few people seem to have. Most folks with a highly developed sense of right and wrong that I know focus on their own misdeeds, not the misdeeds of others. To accuse me of having a questionable moral compass because I find it easy to debate with John would be insulting, were it not so foolish. Before you say, friend, let me take the splinter out of your eye, be sure to take the log out of your own. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Question for everyone
Jeroen wrote: At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote: Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre fixation on John. No, I am suffering from a highly developed sense of wrong and right -- a mental condition that very few people seem to have. * I'd say instead you're suffering from a completely wrong-headed sense of proportion. It's interesting that you're using such strong terminology to proclaim your status as a victim. ** I'd suggest you either (a) write him an impassioned letter why you can't live without him in your life or (b) shut up about it. Ahem, cannot live without him in my life? Quite frankly, I think both my life *and* this list would benefit greatly from Giorgis's disappearance from this community. ** Funny, some people might say the same about you... ** I'm hoping for (b), since John's made it quite clear that he doesn't swing your way Giorgis is not going to swing anyone's way but his own -- as is proven by the fact that he has been talked to about his misbehaviour repeatedly over the years, but still displays the same questionable behaviour. * John has made as many positive contributions to this list as anyone else over the years. While many of us have had our differences with him (shout out to John re: the Clinton Impeachmenat debacle!), everyone else is able to let things drop when the discussion gets below the level of polite discourse. Your constant harping on flaws that no one else either notices or cares about is a good indication to me that you've somehow fixated on John in an unhealthy fashion. ** Jeroen Not that anyone cares what *I* think van Baardwijk ** Apparently, we don't. Maybe you should just quit worrying about John and worry instead about Jeroen? That advice seems to work fine when I'm talking to my 2 year old - surely you're mature enough to understand what I'm saying. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] One day, I'm going to drop a bomb on this city. A contraceptive bomb. - Spider Jerusalem, Lust for Life __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: If you do not want all this to happen again in the future, then you will have to convince the person causing it in the first place (Giorgis) to start behaving in such a way that all this will not happen again. I don't understand. Why should anyone *have* to convince JDG of anything? Because if you (plural) do not convince him that his behaviour is in dire need of improvement, you (plural) will have to put up with his arrogance and his personal attacks (among other things) over and over again. But surely if the latter doesn't seem like such a big problem, then the 'direness' of the former disappears and we can all just relax and talk of something else. Ritu GCU Dontcha Think So ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/28/2002 7:33:36 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: and we can all just relax and talk of something else. Of Sousa and slips and ceiling wax, and cribbages and Kling's. And why dry ice is boiling hot, and whether yaks have wings. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 18:36 26-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: Excuse me? Giorgis has, among other things, repeatedly refused to answer questions, has repeatedly refused to back his claims, and has repeatedly turned to personal attacks to try and silence people who disagree with him. In my book, such behaviour does not qualify as merely small human errors, errors in judgement, and general silliness. To me, it definitely qualifies as disruptive behaviour. No one seems to care but you. If that is true, then I might just as well restore the previous content of the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite accurate -- you know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal attacks are completely accepted and tolerated behaviour here. But you really would not want that, now would you? Let the listowners handle misbehaviors. I would love to, but unfortunately the various listowners this list has had (except me) do not seem to recognise Giorgis's behaviour as being disruptive misbehaviour. And that should tell you something. That Johns behavior is not as bad as you seem to think. OK, then I am apparently the only one here who thinks that intolerance and personal attacks should NOT be acceptable behaviour. Hold on a second while I update Brin-L.com... But hey, I am confident that someday you will come to agree with me -- because one day, sooner or later (could be tomorrow, could be next month, could be next year), *you* will say something that Giorgis does not like to hear and then *you* will become the next victim of his intolerance and his personal attacks. The frequence of my criticism happens to equal the frequency with which Giorgis shows his usual questionable behaviour. So, essentially, if you want things to improve you will have to get him to shape up. That sounds distinctly like a threat! What is threatening about that? I do not see anything in my statement that could be considered a threat. Really, all I am saying is that Giorgis is the cause of all this list disruption, and therefore you will have to convince him to improve his behaviour in such a way that such disruption will not reoccur. John is in no way responsible for your actions. In a way, he is. My responses are triggered by *his* misbehaviour; if he does not misbehave, I do not criticise his behaviour. If you claim that you will continue your tirade until John does what you want, you are holding the list hostage. And for that I would ask for your expulsion from the list. Not the outcome I would prefer. Oh, now I get it! How stupid of me to forget -- as an American, you are of course using the *American* definition of threat! (Which, as we all know, includes a hell of a lot more than the European definition.) Note that I used the word reoccur, which indicates that it could happen again. If I had meant I will continue my criticism, I would have used the word continue instead of the word reoccur. If you do not want all this to happen again in the future, then you will have to convince the person causing it in the first place (Giorgis) to start behaving in such a way that all this will not happen again. You bring shame upon this list. You know, I have been thinking the exact same thing about a certain other member of this list -- his initials are JDG. That you consistantly blame someone else for your behavior is a sign of irresponsibility. Excuse me? *I* am trying to improve this list by trying to get a major disturbing factor (Giorgis) to clean up his act, and then you call *me* irresponsible? I think that irresponsible better describes those who think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis wreaking havoc on this list over and over again, merely because he cannot accept that people do not share his narrow-minded, black-and-white worldview. You can (in your own mind) discount the opinions of others, and everything is quite alright as long as you treat those same people with respect. You are not required to like anyone, just treat them decently. That is what I start out with: treating people the way I want them to treat me. However, with some people such an attitude is just not going to work; to get through to people like Giorgis, you need to lower yourself to his level. Jeroen Who needs him anyway van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: No one seems to care but you. If that is true, then I might just as well restore the previous content of the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite accurate -- you know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal attacks are completely accepted and tolerated behaviour here. But you really would not want that, now would you? Threat. OK, then I am apparently the only one here who thinks that intolerance and personal attacks should NOT be acceptable behaviour. Hold on a second while I update Brin-L.com... Again. John is in no way responsible for your actions. In a way, he is. My responses are triggered by *his* misbehaviour; if he does not misbehave, I do not criticise his behaviour. Bit like responses to your exemplary behaviour? Excuse me? *I* am trying to improve this list by trying to get a major disturbing factor (Giorgis) to clean up his act, and then you call *me* irresponsible? I think that irresponsible better describes those who think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis wreaking havoc on this list over and over again, merely because he cannot accept that people do not share his narrow-minded, black-and-white worldview. I only see *you* wreaking havoc many times a day. John has long since not bothered to take any notice of your tedious provocations. That is what I start out with: treating people the way I want them to treat me. However, with some people such an attitude is just not going to work; to get through to people like Jeroen, you need to lower yourself to his level. As I just have. Jeroen Who needs him anyway van Baardwijk Good question, when you are in this defensive negative mode. Clean up your act. Concentrate you energies on constructive discussions about your views. Ray. PS: You can have the last word on this too, if you like. However, you would be far better thought of if you didn't bother replying to this post. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 22:20 27-10-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote: No one seems to care but you. If that is true, then I might just as well restore the previous content of the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite accurate -- you know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal attacks are completely accepted and tolerated behaviour here. But you really would not want that, now would you? Threat. Only in the oversensitive American definition of the word. OK, then I am apparently the only one here who thinks that intolerance and personal attacks should NOT be acceptable behaviour. Hold on a second while I update Brin-L.com... Again. Again, only in the oversensitive American definition of the word. Excuse me? *I* am trying to improve this list by trying to get a major disturbing factor (Giorgis) to clean up his act, and then you call *me* irresponsible? I think that irresponsible better describes those who think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis wreaking havoc on this list over and over again, merely because he cannot accept that people do not share his narrow-minded, black-and-white worldview. I only see *you* wreaking havoc many times a day. John has long since not bothered to take any notice of your tedious provocations. Giorgis has never been bothered by criticism of his misbehaviour, period -- as is proven by the fact that he has been talked to about it repeatedly over the years, but still displays the same questionable behaviour. PS: You can have the last word on this too, if you like. However, you would be far better thought of if you didn't bother replying to this post. Even that is questionable now, given that people seem to believe that Giorgis's gross misbehaviour here over the years is not a problem at all, but at the same time seem to have a major problem with seeing that misbehaviour criticised. But hey, maybe I should try a different approach -- rather than *criticising* Giorgis's misbehaviour, I should *copy* it for a while, and then see what happens. Somehow, I get this idea that refusing to answer questions, refusing to back claims with proof, and turning to personal attacks, will then suddenly generate a lot of criticism from the people who see nothing wrong with Giorgis's misbehaviour... Jeroen Now there's a thought van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Jeroen whined: At 22:20 27-10-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote: PS: You can have the last word on this too, if you like. However, you would be far better thought of if you didn't bother replying to this post. Even that is questionable now, given that people seem to believe that Giorgis's gross misbehaviour here over the years is not a problem at all, but at the same time seem to have a major problem with seeing that misbehaviour criticised. But hey, maybe I should try a different approach -- rather than *criticising* Giorgis's misbehaviour, I should *copy* it for a while, and then see what happens. Somehow, I get this idea that refusing to answer questions, refusing to back claims with proof, and turning to personal attacks, will then suddenly generate a lot of criticism from the people who see nothing wrong with Giorgis's misbehaviour... Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre fixation on John. I'd suggest you either (a) write him an impassioned letter, explaining why you can't live without him in your life or (b) shut up about it. I'm hoping for (b), since John's made it quite clear that he doesn't swing your way (and to be honest, I can't blame him on that point). Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: No one seems to care but you. If that is true, then I might just as well restore the previous content of the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite accurate -- you know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal attacks are completely accepted and tolerated behaviour here. But you really would not want that, now would you? You mean Rob's stated preference would actually have a bearing this particular decision of yours? Strange, it doesn't seem to affect the rest of your decisions. But hey, I am confident that someday you will come to agree with me -- because one day, sooner or later (could be tomorrow, could be next month, could be next year), *you* will say something that Giorgis does not like to hear and then *you* will become the next victim of his intolerance and his personal attacks. So? The world is full of intolerant people and enough number of them seem to delight in launching personal attacks. What I or you can change is our response to their attacks, not their nature or beliefs. In a way, he is. My responses are triggered by *his* misbehaviour; if he does not misbehave, I do not criticise his behaviour. I do believe that you are abrogating the responsibility for your own actions here. Whether you criticise JDG or not is your choie, that you continue doing so on-list *after* repeated requests to the contrary is also your choice. You can't blame either of these personal choices on JDG. If you claim that you will continue your tirade until John does what you want, you are holding the list hostage. And for that I would ask for your expulsion from the list. Not the outcome I would prefer. Oh, now I get it! How stupid of me to forget -- as an American, you are of course using the *American* definition of threat! (Which, as we all know, includes a hell of a lot more than the European definition.) I don't know the difference between the American and the European definitions of 'threat'. Could you kindly enlighten me? If you do not want all this to happen again in the future, then you will have to convince the person causing it in the first place (Giorgis) to start behaving in such a way that all this will not happen again. I don't understand. Why should anyone *have* to convince JDG of anything? The way it appears to me, JDG doesn't listen to you and you don't listen to anyone else. You do seem to listen a lot to JDG though. Until the two of you sort out your personal dynamics, the rest of us seem doomed to tolerate this argument over and over again. I think that irresponsible better describes those who think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis wreaking havoc on this list over and over again, merely because he cannot accept that people do not share his narrow-minded, black-and-white worldview. I think our perspectives would differ here - y'see, there's no point trying to talk to certain people on certain issues. For instance, doesn't seem much point talking to you on this issues...but feel free to pleasantly surprise me by proving me wrong. :) That is what I start out with: treating people the way I want them to treat me. However, with some people such an attitude is just not going to work; to get through to people like Giorgis, you need to lower yourself to his level. Well, do so if you choose to but then, don't wonder why others perceive your actions in a different light. Ritu GCU Don Quixote ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Excuse me? *I* am trying to improve this list by trying to get a major disturbing factor (Giorgis) to clean up his act, and then you call *me* irresponsible? I think that irresponsible better describes those who think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis wreaking havoc on this list over and over again, merely because he cannot accept that people do not share his narrow-minded, black-and- white worldview. Wreaking havoc? Twenty six-year-olds running rampant in your house wreak havoc. (Trust me on this one. 0_o) One stubborn, occasionally obnoxious poster who sometimes digs in his heels and buys into his own dogma regardless of others' arguments doesn't wreak havoc. BTW, you say you don't want a moderated list when we discuss dinging, but you appear fairly willing to moderate John's behavior. Wherein lies the difference here? Just curious. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The last word (was Re: Question for everyone)
William Taylor wrote: PS: You can have the last word on this too ZZZ That would be the last word, if it was a word. According to Mr. Webster, it is! :) ZZZ or zzz (used to represent a person snoring) If you don't like that one, there's Z-zero particle: the electrically neutral type of intermediate vector boson (whatever the heck that means) Or zymurgy: the branch of applied chemistry dealing with fermentation, as in winemaking or brewing. I like the last one the best, but then again, I like beer, so there you go. ;-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The last word (was Re: Question for everyone)
Jim Sharkey wrote: William Taylor wrote: PS: You can have the last word on this too ZZZ That would be the last word, if it was a word. According to Mr. Webster, it is! :) ZZZ or zzz (used to represent a person snoring) If you don't like that one, there's Z-zero particle: the electrically neutral type of intermediate vector boson (whatever the heck that means) Or zymurgy: the branch of applied chemistry dealing with fermentation, as in winemaking or brewing. I like the last one the best, but then again, I like beer, so there you go. ;-) Mmmm, beer. With chocolate-chip cookies! :) (OK, maybe not -- those'll take a little while to prepare; maybe just settle for chocolate with the beer) Julia looking forward to watching football with the entire household in less than an hour ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 12:31 26-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have a *functioning* short-term memory... No...It means that most people on this list forgive small human errors, errors of judgement, and general silliness, while they take notice of intentional attempts to disrupt the list and/or force people to have a particular opinion. Excuse me? Giorgis has, among other things, repeatedly refused to answer questions, has repeatedly refused to back his claims, and has repeatedly turned to personal attacks to try and silence people who disagree with him. In my book, such behaviour does not qualify as merely small human errors, errors in judgement, and general silliness. To me, it definitely qualifies as disruptive behaviour. Maybe you havent noticed but you are talking about John and everyone else is talking about you. Actually, I have noticed, and I must say I find it quite disturbing that people are a lot more eager to criticise the person who points out misbehaviour, than criticising the person who is displaying that misbehaviour. Conversations like this do not work well. Guess I will just have to shut up then, and accept that I was, am, and probably always will be, the only person on this list who realises that Giorgis' gross misbehaviour is undesirable behaviour and disruptive to this list. Your childish and churlish behavior is far worse than anything you have accused John of. So, criticising someone for is misbehaviour is worse than the misbehaviour itself? Not at all. But the incessant ranting about it is worse. Early on you might have had some justification, but now it looks like a bad habit or an addiction. It appears you want to modify his behavior into leaving the list. I do not want him to leave the list, I want him to get off his high horse and become a civilised, mature person with whom one can have a discussion *without* seeing questions deliberately remaining unanswered, *without* claims deliberately remaining unproven, and *without* running the risk of becoming yet another target for his personal attacks. Let me repeat this: You can only control your own behavior, and it is the only behavior you are responsible for. True, but that does not mean I cannot point it out when others misbehave, and that I cannot try to get those others to improve their behaviour. Let the listowners handle misbehaviors. I would love to, but unfortunately the various listowners this list has had (except me) do not seem to recognise Giorgis's behaviour as being disruptive misbehaviour. The frequence of my criticism happens to equal the frequency with which Giorgis shows his usual questionable behaviour. So, essentially, if you want things to improve you will have to get him to shape up. That sounds distinctly like a threat! What is threatening about that? I do not see anything in my statement that could be considered a threat. Really, all I am saying is that Giorgis is the cause of all this list disruption, and therefore you will have to convince him to improve his behaviour in such a way that such disruption will not reoccur. I like you Jeroen, but there is a limit to tolerance. There is also a limit to my tolerance, but apparently I am not supposed to speak up when someone crosses that line. :-( You bring shame upon this list. You know, I have been thinking the exact same thing about a certain other member of this list -- his initials are JDG. What poor judgement? Have I been having the wrong impressions about Giorgis? I think so. Then what impression *should* I have gotten from his repeated refusals to answer questions and back his claims? What impression *should* I have gotten from his personal attacks against various listmembers over the years? Can you answer those questions for me? It seems to me that you take these things far too personally. I think that both you and John have good intentions, Then what are the good intentions behind refusing to answer questions and refusing to back claims? What are the good intentions behind launching personal attacks against other listmembers? Can you answer those questions for me? Jeroen How long till Hell freezes over? van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 12:31 26-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have a *functioning* short-term memory... No...It means that most people on this list forgive small human errors, errors of judgement, and general silliness, while they take notice of intentional attempts to disrupt the list and/or force people to have a particular opinion. Excuse me? Giorgis has, among other things, repeatedly refused to answer questions, has repeatedly refused to back his claims, and has repeatedly turned to personal attacks to try and silence people who disagree with him. In my book, such behaviour does not qualify as merely small human errors, errors in judgement, and general silliness. To me, it definitely qualifies as disruptive behaviour. No one seems to care but you. You should give it up. Maybe you havent noticed but you are talking about John and everyone else is talking about you. Actually, I have noticed, and I must say I find it quite disturbing that people are a lot more eager to criticise the person who points out misbehaviour, than criticising the person who is displaying that misbehaviour. No, they are criticising someone who is disrupting the list over a personal vendetta. Give it up. Conversations like this do not work well. Guess I will just have to shut up then, and accept that I was, am, and probably always will be, the only person on this list who realises that Giorgis' gross misbehaviour is undesirable behaviour and disruptive to this list. Thats what you are being asked to do. Go for it dude! Your childish and churlish behavior is far worse than anything you have accused John of. So, criticising someone for is misbehaviour is worse than the misbehaviour itself? Not at all. But the incessant ranting about it is worse. Early on you might have had some justification, but now it looks like a bad habit or an addiction. It appears you want to modify his behavior into leaving the list. I do not want him to leave the list, I want him to get off his high horse and become a civilised, mature person with whom one can have a discussion *without* seeing questions deliberately remaining unanswered, *without* claims deliberately remaining unproven, and *without* running the risk of becoming yet another target for his personal attacks. If you realise it is not likely to happen: Give it up. Let me repeat this: You can only control your own behavior, and it is the only behavior you are responsible for. True, but that does not mean I cannot point it out when others misbehave, and that I cannot try to get those others to improve their behaviour. Absolutely true. But there is a point beyond which such attempts are no longer seen as being moral and helpfull, but instead become irritating and unwanted. You passed that signpost long ago unfortunately and have long since begun to look like a nuisance. I honestly believe you have more self respect than to let yourself be viewed as a nuisance to the list when you have worked so hard on Brin-L.com. On one hand you are a great credit to the list, on the other you have been a pain for most of us. I for one, would much prefer knowing you as a credit to our group and paying you the respect you deserve for being one. This unending quarrel with John really gets in the way of that and makes you look bad. You are a much better person than that and should not lower yourself to the level of petty bickering. Let the listowners handle misbehaviors. I would love to, but unfortunately the various listowners this list has had (except me) do not seem to recognise Giorgis's behaviour as being disruptive misbehaviour. And that should tell you something. That Johns behavior is not as bad as you seem to think. The frequence of my criticism happens to equal the frequency with which Giorgis shows his usual questionable behaviour. So, essentially, if you want things to improve you will have to get him to shape up. That sounds distinctly like a threat! What is threatening about that? I do not see anything in my statement that could be considered a threat. Really, all I am saying is that Giorgis is the cause of all this list disruption, and therefore you will have to convince him to improve his behaviour in such a way that such disruption will not reoccur. John is in no way responsible for your actions. If you claim that you will continue your tirade until John does what you want, you are holding the list hostage. And for that I would ask for your expulsion from the list. Not the outcome I would prefer. I like you Jeroen, but there is a limit to tolerance. There is also a limit to my tolerance, but apparently I am not supposed to speak up when someone
Re: Question for everyone
At 09:43 AM 10/25/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 21:21 24-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: The eventual accomplishment would be John Giorgis cleaning up his act and starting to behave like a civilised adult. Whatever it was that John did (long forgotten by almost everyone by now) That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have a *functioning* short-term memory... Or there could be another reason: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:34) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 21:21 24-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: The eventual accomplishment would be John Giorgis cleaning up his act and starting to behave like a civilised adult. Whatever it was that John did (long forgotten by almost everyone by now) That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have a *functioning* short-term memory... it certainly didnt call for the endless fits spits and pity parties the list is subjected to...by you. Well, if Giorgis would actually behave like a decent, civilised person, there would be no reason for me to criticise his behaviour. But unfortunately... And you have not even seen all of it; you should read the bullshit I have received off-list from him over the years. Believe me, arrogant stuff like What part of stripping Brin from subject headers didn't you understand? is pretty much the least aggressive of his off-list posts. (That line was the subject header of an otherwise empty post, received a few days ago after I had forgotten to remove the word Brin from the subject header of one of my posts). Your childish and churlish behavior is far worse than anything you have accused John of. So, criticising someone for is misbehaviour is worse than the misbehaviour itself? After about 2 years of this you should have some clue as to how unreasonable your bitching is and how completely unrealistic your expectations are. I think my bitching (more correctly: my criticism) is quite reasonable. But as for my expectations, you are right: it is completely unrealistic to expect that Giorgis will ever improve his attitude, get down from his high horse and start behaving like an intelligent, mature and civilised person. I am interested in hearing diverse opinions, even those that I find antagonistic to my worldview, so I can appreciate what you bring to political discussions. But when you go off on John with such zeal, with unasked for frequency, The frequence of my criticism happens to equal the frequency with which Giorgis shows his usual questionable behaviour. So, essentially, if you want things to improve you will have to get him to shape up. and unfortunate poor judgement, What poor judgement? Have I been having the wrong impressions about Giorgis? He regularly shows arrogance, refuses to answer questions, refuses to back his claims, tends to launch personal attacks, etcetera. Should I have considered all that to be *acceptable*, perhaps even *desirable* behaviour, rather than considering it unwanted behaviour? Jeroen How long till Hell freezes over? van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have a *functioning* short-term memory... after I had forgotten to remove the word Brin from the subject header of one of my posts). ;-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 16:19 23-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote: The way it was phrased left that impression in my mind, and suggested a series of thoughts which were, oh, let's say unflattering, that the rest of the list should feel guilty for not doing exactly what you thought they should, and so on, it gets worse from there. What positive thing were you trying to accomplish by saying that? I certainly can't think of any. The initial accomplishment would be people pointing out to John Giorgis that his behaviour, oh, let's put it nicely, leaves something to be desired? The eventual accomplishment would be John Giorgis cleaning up his act and starting to behave like a civilised adult. Jeroen How long till Hell freezes over? van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 16:19 23-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote: The way it was phrased left that impression in my mind, and suggested a series of thoughts which were, oh, let's say unflattering, that the rest of the list should feel guilty for not doing exactly what you thought they should, and so on, it gets worse from there. What positive thing were you trying to accomplish by saying that? I certainly can't think of any. The initial accomplishment would be people pointing out to John Giorgis that his behaviour, oh, let's put it nicely, leaves something to be desired? The eventual accomplishment would be John Giorgis cleaning up his act and starting to behave like a civilised adult. Whatever it was that John did (long forgotten by almost everyone by now) it certainly didnt call for the endless fits spits and pity parties the list is subjected to...by you. Your childish and churlish behavior is far worse than anything you have accused John of. After about 2 years of this you should have some clue as to how unreasonable your bitching is and how completely unrealistic your expectations are. I am interested in hearing diverse opinions, even those that I find antagonistic to my worldview, so I can appreciate what you bring to political discussions. But when you go off on John with such zeal, with unasked for frequency, and unfortunate poor judgement, it makes it hard to take you very seriously during other discussions. You cause your views to be discounted. As far as I am concerned you can hate anyone you want as long as I dont have to hear about it very often. xponent Sigh Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 15:21 22-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote: Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his behaviour? Why do you think that is? First off, that implies that nobody's said anything about this thread, which is very untrue. That is not what it is saying (or implying). It is an observation that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his behaviour. I know that others have commented on the thread, but their comments did not include criticism of JDG's behaviour. Jeroen Casual observations van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 15:21 22-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote: Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his behaviour? Why do you think that is? First off, that implies that nobody's said anything about this thread, which is very untrue. That is not what it is saying (or implying). It is an observation that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his behaviour. I know that others have commented on the thread, but their comments did not include criticism of JDG's behaviour. Jeroen Casual observations van Baardwijk The way it was phrased left that impression in my mind, and suggested a series of thoughts which were, oh, let's say unflattering, that the rest of the list should feel guilty for not doing exactly what you thought they should, and so on, it gets worse from there. What positive thing were you trying to accomplish by saying that? I certainly can't think of any. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 04:12 PM 10/22/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 19:46 21-10-2002 -0500, Adam Lipscomb wrote: There's a colloquialism that comes to mind: Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Great -- that means that insanity is what pays the bills and puts food on my table. Troubleshooting is part of my job. The problems I encounter are usually related to M$ Windows; I can assure you from personal experience that doing the exact same thing over and over again to fix a problem actually does quite often produce different results. :-) You got that right. I think M$ installs a sound-responsive module in Windows (that analyzes vibrations in general, thus not requiring a working microphone, sound card, etc.) that allows it to measure the frequency and intensity of swear words used by the person attempting to do the work on the computer, and it varies its responses in such a way as to maximize said frequency and intensity . . . Question: What do God and M$ Windows have in common? Answer : They both work in mysterious ways. God, however, at least makes sense. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 19:46 21-10-2002 -0500, Adam Lipscomb wrote: There's a colloquialism that comes to mind: Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Great -- that means that insanity is what pays the bills and puts food on my table. Troubleshooting is part of my job. The problems I encounter are usually related to M$ Windows; I can assure you from personal experience that doing the exact same thing over and over again to fix a problem actually does quite often produce different results. :-) Question: What do God and M$ Windows have in common? Answer : They both work in mysterious ways. :-) Jeroen It's a dirty job but someone has to do it van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his behaviour? Why do you think that is? First off, that implies that nobody's said anything about this thread, which is very untrue. As far as answering that question, a good reason is: we don't have anything to add to what's already been said, on either side. So far, it's stayed fairly civil and hasn't needed intervention yet. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Jeroen wrote: Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list, but one poster replies off-list because he apparently lacks the courage to reply on-list to on-list messages -- almost certainly because an on-list reply is likely to generate criticism of said poster's behaviour? Yes. This is a general rule. Private messages, no matter how offensive ou ridiculous, should be kept private. Then what is your opinion about people who, like JDG, make claims but refuse to answer questions, and refuse to back their claims when asked to do so? It's his right Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone No, but given his behaviour it would not be a bad idea for him to start looking for such advice. Sigh, let me put this bluntly, since you tend to ignore things that are subtle. I realize that this is a YMMV issue, but personally, I will rejoice if and when you raise your on list behavior to the level of JDGs. Dan M. Further, any suggestion that he's looking to *you* for such counsel? No, but that does not mean I cannot offer to help him. Of course, he is free to not accept my offer; I am sure there are enough people in his area of the US who are qualified to offer him professional help in his quest to improve himself. Jeroen Just trying to help van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
At 09:10 21-10-2002 +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: So, why do I still believe we *can* move that mountain? Must be because of my eternal optimism. Optimism is well and good, but the mountain has to *want* to move before it can be moved. I am an optimist myself, but I am beginning to realise that yours won't budge. :) Maybe if we blast it to bits first... EVIL GRIN Jeroen KABOOM! van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 14:35 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: No, but given his behaviour it would not be a bad idea for him to start looking for such advice. Sigh, let me put this bluntly, since you tend to ignore things that are subtle. I realize that this is a YMMV issue, but personally, I will rejoice if and when you raise your on list behavior to the level of JDGs. That will never happen. I will never reach Giorgis's level of behaviour. There is no way I could ever sink that low. Or would you argue that... - asking questions - asking to back claims with proof - criticising someone for refusing to answer questions - criticising someone for refusing to back claims with proof - criticising someone for backing out of a discussion to prevent being held accountable for his/her own writings - criticising someone for launching full-blown personal attacks to silence opponents - criticising someone for maintaining an air of moral and intellectual superiority over pretty much the whole world ...is inferior behaviour compared to... - refusing to answer questions - refusing to back claims with proof - whining when someone criticises you for not answering questions - whining when someone criticises you for not backing your claims - backing out of a discussion to prevent being held accountable for one's own writings - resorting to full-blown personal attacks to silence opponents - maintaining an air of moral and intellectual superiority over pretty much the whole world. I realise this is a YKMMV issue, but personally, I will rejoice if and when Giorgis raises his on-list behaviour to the status of mature behaviour. But quite frankly, I do not believe it will happen. Jeroen Don't plan any celebrations yet van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Question for everyone
Jeroen wrote: Looks like you, just like Giorgis, are not really reading my posts. As I said earlier: Worse yet, you have now turned the statement into a factually incorrect one. People like JDG can behave like huge assholes while receiving little or no criticism for it, but I get criticised from all sides as soon as I speak up against such behaviour. ** I'll point out that the same criticisms you level against John can be applied to you. This has been brought up before, and you've not changed your behavior one bit. What makes you think John will change his behavior? * Worse yet, you have now turned the statement into a factually incorrect one. People like JDG can behave like huge assholes while receiving little or no criticism for it, but I get criticised from all sides as soon as I speak up against such behaviour. Maybe it's because you speak up against it like you're some kind of, what's the term? Oh, yes - huge asshole. I speak up against it -- period. Which is more than I can say from most people on this list. * As Rob has pointed out, you are not the sole target of criticism on this list. I can understand that you might get some perverse thrill out of fueling a martyr complex, but the facts just don't back up your claims of unjust persecution. ** If anyone behaves like a huge asshole on this list, it is Giorgis. ** He's not the only one guilty of that on this list, and you might think upon the Bible verse Luke 4:23: And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. While I know you may not care for arguments in a religious framework, I'll suggest that the gist of that verse: Physician, heal thyself. John's, or anyone else's behavior, does not excuse your own. John's made it clear that he's not bothering with your passive-aggressive whining about his EU statement onlist any more - he's dropped it. Of course he has dropped it; it is his standard tactic when he realises he has lost, so that certainly did not come as a surprise. The only alternative he had was to admit he was wrong -- and we all know that *that* will not happen. *** Physician, heal thyself. *** Why can't you every once in a blue moon sit down, relax, and have a nice cup of shut the fuck up? There was a typo in the above statement; I have taken the liberty of fixing it. *** Well, I thank you kindly. Now, since the statement is hopefully more clear to you, why not apply it to your life? I'm only trying to help you become a better person, mind you. *** Very kind of you, but if you want to help someone become a better person, go help Giorgis -- unlike me, he needs it. Desperately. *** Physician, heal thyself. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Question for everyone
At 14:07 21-10-2002 -0700, Adam Lipscomb wrote: What makes you think John will change his behavior? There is absolutely NOTHING that makes me think he will change his behaviour (at least, not change it in a *positive* way). As I have said before, hell will freeze over before *that* will happen. Jeroen Prove me wrong van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Question for everyone
Jeroen wrote: At 14:07 21-10-2002 -0700, Adam Lipscomb wrote: What makes you think John will change his behavior? There is absolutely NOTHING that makes me think he will change his behaviour (at least, not change it in a *positive* way). As I have said before, hell will freeze over before *that* will happen. ** So, to paraphrase and extrapolate, you're not actually engaging in this discussion with the intent of changing John's behavior? If that is the case, may I respectfully ask why you're doing it? If it is not the case, could you please give me a simple explanation of your motives? Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] One day, I'm going to drop a bomb on this city. A contraceptive bomb. - Spider Jerusalem, Lust for Life __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Jeroen wrote: At 15:06 21-10-2002 -0700, Adam Lipscomb wrote: So, to paraphrase and extrapolate, you're not actually engaging in this discussion with the intent of changing John's behavior? If that is the case, may I respectfully ask why you're doing it? If it is not the case, could you please give me a simple explanation of your motives? While I do not believe he will change his behaviour, I still try to get him to shape up. I do not really believe it will help, but who knows, maybe he will surprise us all and change his behaviour. So, with no expectation of a change in John's behavior, which you describe as, like a huge asshole, you're going to keep doing the exact same thing over and over again, something that's never worked to modify John's behavior into a mold you prefer, and which didn't work with Erik. There's a colloquialism that comes to mind: Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. I'm not making a diagnosis, here - I don't think you're insane, I just think you're acting a little bit like a jerk. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Adam wrote: There's a colloquialism that comes to mind: Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Some would say this definition works for troubleshooting as well :-) Reggie Bautista -- who troubleshoots for a living... _ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Reggie wrote: Adam wrote: There's a colloquialism that comes to mind: Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Some would say this definition works for troubleshooting as well :-) Reggie Bautista -- who troubleshoots for a living... Been there, done that. And I get to do it with telecom companies. Yeesh. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Question for everyone
At 04:07 PM 10/21/02, Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: He's not the only one guilty of that on this list, and you might think upon the Bible verse Luke 4:23: And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. While I know you may not care for arguments in a religious framework, I'll suggest that the gist of that verse: Physician, heal thyself. Blessed are those proponents of an issue who stop running when they reach the ground. (Matthew 5:49 New Millennium Translation) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: How can I ever reach a better understanding of his views, if he keeps refusing to clarify his position? It makes having discussions with him a total waste of time, effort and bandwidth. Then why do you bother? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: You mean, that same Brin who left Brin-L after a major on-list battle that got started when JDG attacked our good doctor on the Startide Rising List? Excuse me? When did JDG attack our good doctor on the Startide list? I've gone over all those posts, and anything JDG posted was extremely mild in comparison to posts by some others. Please provide me with the date timestamp of the post or posts in question off-list, or retract your statement publicly. Thanks in advance. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 00:22 21-10-2002 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his behaviour? Why do you think that is? Because people here see nothing wrong with his behaviour, or because they know that criticising him is useless since hell will freeze over before JDG will improve his behaviour? I bet it is the latter. Are you sure about the initials? I think the J is correct, but I'm not sure about the other two. Yes. 100% sure. No doubt whatsoever. So, you believe there is nothing wrong about John D. Giorgis's practices of refusing to answer critical questions, refusing to admit he is wrong, insulting people, and on various occassions even turning to full-blown personal attacks when he cannot win an argument? Jeroen No Doubt van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: It's not that we're pretending that the mountain (others's difficult behavior) isn't there, as you suggest. So, I am not suggesting that people are pretending that the mountain does not exist; I am suggesting that people are not going to try to move the mountain because they realise it is an impossible task. Or maybe people here actually *realise* that it is not their mountain to movethat there are other pathways that are more convenient to follow. But then, these people, like me, probably never bought that old rationale for climbing a mountain - 'because it's there'. So, why do I still believe we *can* move that mountain? Must be because of my eternal optimism. Optimism is well and good, but the mountain has to *want* to move before it can be moved. I am an optimist myself, but I am beginning to realise that yours won't budge. :) Ritu GCU Rational Optimism ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: Re: brin: war Once again, taking things back on-line, where it belongs. I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the explict permission of the sender. Do other folks remember differently? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:01:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the explict permission of the sender. I think the best comparison is a conversation. If you had a one-on-one conversation with the person, would you feel comfortable with repeating that person's words to a group of people in a public place? My answer to that would be: it depends. As does the answer to your email question. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 10:01 19-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Once again, taking things back on-line, where it belongs. I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the explict permission of the sender. I think it depends on the contents. If the off-list message contains information that can reasonably be considered private, then it should not be made public without the permission of the sender. If, however, the message is an off-list response to an on-list message and does not contain anything that can reasonably be considered private, then I see nothing wrong with making it public and responding to it on-list. In the case of JDG's off-list messages, the entire content is relevant to the discussion and contains nothing that could cause him or anyone else any harm if it were made public. In this particular case, I have the distinct impression that John is replying off-list because he realises that there is good chance that people will shoot holes in his arguments (but that is not exactly something that has never happened before), and that an on-list reply might generate criticism about his refusal to answer questions and about his refusal to back his claims. Jeroen Get your facts straight van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:01:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the explict permission of the sender. I think the best comparison is a conversation. If you had a one-on-one conversation with the person, would you feel comfortable with repeating that person's words to a group of people in a public place? My answer to that would be: it depends. As does the answer to your email question. As a general rule, I believe that private conversations should be kept private, unless consent has been given by all parties to make it more public. I think it's rather rude to drag an off-list exchange onto a list without the permission of all parties involved. However, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as repeating in an official meeting something that employee X said about employee Y in a non-work social setting, just for comparison. But in both cases, people may start losing respect for the person doing the unauthorized relaying. It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list until such time as all parties involved agree it should go back on-list. If there is a disagreement in progress, the person dragging it all back into public view mid-discussion comes off as a jerk that day, IMO. If someone does this once a year at most, it's not so bad, but repeated instances lower *my* opinion of the person who makes a habit of it. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 10:42 19-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: I think it's rather rude to drag an off-list exchange onto a list without the permission of all parties involved. It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list until such time as all parties involved agree it should go back on-list. Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list, but one poster replies off-list because he apparently lacks the courage to reply on-list to on-list messages -- almost certainly because an on-list reply is likely to generate criticism of said poster's behaviour? If there is a disagreement in progress, the person dragging it all back into public view mid-discussion comes off as a jerk that day, IMO. If someone does this once a year at most, it's not so bad, but repeated instances lower *my* opinion of the person who makes a habit of it. Then what is your opinion about people who, like JDG, make claims but refuse to answer questions, and refuse to back their claims when asked to do so? Jeroen Curious minds want to know van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for everyone
Dan Minette wrote: I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the explict permission of the sender. Well, personally, I feel that anything written by me to an individual [as opposed to a public forum] ought to be kept private. If anyone wishes to make it public, I expect to be informed *before* it goes public. And I extend the same courtesy back to the rest of the world. It really doesn't matter if the contents of my mail are 'personal' or just general conversation. I expect the same consideration to be shown to me that I extend to others. Ritu GCU And I Am Unanimous In That ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
At 11:35 19-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list until such time as all parties involved agree it should go back on-list. Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list, but one poster replies off-list because he apparently lacks the courage to reply on-list to on-list messages -- almost certainly because an on-list reply is likely to generate criticism of said poster's behaviour? Is that why he's doing it? I cannot look inside JDG's head, so I cannot say with 100% certainty that lack of courage is the reason why he replied off-list to on-list posts. It does however seem to be the reason; I have tried and failed to think of any other reason that sounded at least a bit acceptable. Jeroen Get your facts straight van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 11:35 19-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list until such time as all parties involved agree it should go back on-list. Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list, but one poster replies off-list because he apparently lacks the courage to reply on-list to on-list messages -- almost certainly because an on-list reply is likely to generate criticism of said poster's behaviour? Is that why he's doing it? I cannot look inside JDG's head, so I cannot say with 100% certainty that lack of courage is the reason why he replied off-list to on-list posts. It does however seem to be the reason; I have tried and failed to think of any other reason that sounded at least a bit acceptable. Have you asked him? If not, is this one of those questions you think he won't answer and are pre-emptively *not* asking him? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
