[filmscanners] RE: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Tony, Ah! ...a breath of fresh air! Regards George -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] O All fair comment. Now, has anyone done any scanning lately? :-) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Just to be clear, I did not apply a stereotype to a nation, or 'all' of anyone, anywhere. I did apply a theory of cultural bent toward some, based upon my experience to date. I did not say "all brits I have dealt with did... something". I did say that almost exclusively the people who have been rudest to me have been Brits. There is a difference. From "scanning" through my emails and postings and the responses (see, I have been doing some scanning ;-)) that situation seems to have held true. I'm not suggesting others aren't just as disapproving of me or my posts, just that they didn't express it in such vitriolic terms or at all. ;-) Speaking of stereotypes, ironically, I know that some of the people who wrote those messages to me did so, in part at least, due to my germanic last name, complete with referring to me as Herr Entlich. OK, I'm done on this subject, also. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I will say but one thing one this. For context, I am an American who >lived in London for 5 years. > >I think it is a mistake, and quite unfair, to apply a behavioural >stereotype to everyone of a particular Nation. All the British are not >one way, and all the Americans are not another way. There is tremendous >diversity of behavior and attitudes across both populations. Certainly, >different cultures have different modes of socially acceptable behavior >- and on average (if you will), communication styles in England (not >necessarily applying to Scotland, Wales or Ireland) tend to be more >indirect (this is well documented in cultural/sociological research). >That said, the offending statement had nothing to do with that. (it was >quite opposite from, really). Being familiar with both cultures, I find >nothing about it as being commonly acceptable behaviour in either >culture. It was rude and insulting, and obviously burst out from some >bottled-up, mounting frustration. It was entirely a personal reaction >(over-reaction, really) of the poster, and one that seemed to come of of >nowhere with no recent context (at least to me). It had nothing to do >with being British -- certainly nothing to do with any notion of >National elitism, and the reaction had nothing to do with being >American. I think we are much to quick to assign negative behaviours >that we experience as being characteristic or a particular nationality >or ethnicity. Rather than trying to couch this in National or cultural >terms, we should be counseling the offending poster in anger management. > > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Well said: spot-on. John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I will say but one thing one this. For context, I am an American who > lived in London for 5 years. > > I think it is a mistake, and quite unfair, to apply a behavioural > stereotype to everyone of a particular Nation. All the British are not > one way, and all the Americans are not another way. There is tremendous > diversity of behavior and attitudes across both populations. Certainly, > different cultures have different modes of socially acceptable behavior > - and on average (if you will), communication styles in England (not > necessarily applying to Scotland, Wales or Ireland) tend to be more > indirect (this is well documented in cultural/sociological research). > That said, the offending statement had nothing to do with that. (it was > quite opposite from, really). Being familiar with both cultures, I find > nothing about it as being commonly acceptable behaviour in either > culture. It was rude and insulting, and obviously burst out from some > bottled-up, mounting frustration. It was entirely a personal reaction > (over-reaction, really) of the poster, and one that seemed to come of of > nowhere with no recent context (at least to me). It had nothing to do > with being British -- certainly nothing to do with any notion of > National elitism, and the reaction had nothing to do with being > American. I think we are much to quick to assign negative behaviours > that we experience as being characteristic or a particular nationality > or ethnicity. Rather than trying to couch this in National or cultural > terms, we should be counseling the offending poster in anger management. > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
On 17/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think we are much to quick to assign negative behaviours > that we experience as being characteristic or a particular nationality > or ethnicity. Rather than trying to couch this in National or > cultural > terms, we should be counseling the offending poster in anger > management. All fair comment. Now, has anyone done any scanning lately? :-) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
I will say but one thing one this. For context, I am an American who lived in London for 5 years. I think it is a mistake, and quite unfair, to apply a behavioural stereotype to everyone of a particular Nation. All the British are not one way, and all the Americans are not another way. There is tremendous diversity of behavior and attitudes across both populations. Certainly, different cultures have different modes of socially acceptable behavior - and on average (if you will), communication styles in England (not necessarily applying to Scotland, Wales or Ireland) tend to be more indirect (this is well documented in cultural/sociological research). That said, the offending statement had nothing to do with that. (it was quite opposite from, really). Being familiar with both cultures, I find nothing about it as being commonly acceptable behaviour in either culture. It was rude and insulting, and obviously burst out from some bottled-up, mounting frustration. It was entirely a personal reaction (over-reaction, really) of the poster, and one that seemed to come of of nowhere with no recent context (at least to me). It had nothing to do with being British -- certainly nothing to do with any notion of National elitism, and the reaction had nothing to do with being American. I think we are much to quick to assign negative behaviours that we experience as being characteristic or a particular nationality or ethnicity. Rather than trying to couch this in National or cultural terms, we should be counseling the offending poster in anger management. Arthur Entlich wrote: > Before moving on, and to further belabour this point (note both the "u" > in belabour and in my earlier posting with the word behaviour - I don't > use those spellings, but I figured George Harrison might) I do believe > Tony has hit the nail on the head, in terms of this being a cultural > issue, but it is more complex than it may appear on the surface. > > I am a dual citizen (US and Canadian) having lived first in the US and > then in Canada, about half of my life each. I was always under the > impression that English people were very "proper", especially with their > use of language and in personal interaction. Well, that illusion got > blown away the first time I traveled to London. I was absolutely shocked > by the rude and profane mouths I encountered, and some were people in > the service industry dealing with clients or complete strangers! I am > on many newsgroups and lists and am quite active in some of them, and > almost without exception, the people who are most aggressively hostile > toward me and make the meanest, rudest and most profane comments are > Brits, almost without exception. > > I would probably agree that some of it is just cultural use of the > language, which almost seems to be overcompensation for that previous > assumption by your ex-colonies (the US and Canada for two, plus many > others) of that prim and proper manner of Brits. I think part of this > might actually be because the Brits who visited and settle in the > colonies during early periods tended to be upper crusters (diplomats, > ambassadors, priests, government agents, high echelon military, etc) who > were "well bred" and did speak an upper class language. > > Having said that, however, I do believe that some of the current > "cultural" differences are based upon an elitism which still remains > within Brit culture, which allows some people to feel they have the > right, due to falsely presumed superiority of thought and ability, to be > disrespectful and belittling of others. > > Let me just say to that, that those of us who now occupy the lands which > were once colonies aren't all a bunch of "boobs", in fact, some of us > aren't even of British stock! And we do not need to be "redressed" by > the previous masters of the lands we now live within, anymore than we > need to teach our first peoples how to fish better. > > So, to Brits who feel the need or right to put us "in our place", know > that the children have developed their own lives and value systems, > whether you approve or not. > > Present company excepted, of course... > > Art > > Tony Sleep wrote: > > >> On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: >> >> >> >>> I won't quote it, but George's comment was as clear as the nose on my >>> face. It was hostile, very directed, and IMHO, very inappropriate. >>> >>> >>> >> On a hunch, I just checked, and George is a Brit, posting from a >> BTinternet address. There is actually a cultural collision here in style >> of expression. Americans are, IME, extremely polite (perhaps because you >> never know who is carrying a concealed handgun:) and do have a certain >> formality to their writing style. You see this not only on lists but >> across US publishing, serious newspapers maintain a formality of style >> that has largely disappeared in UK after the London 'Times' began using >> photos on the front page about 30 years ago. To Brits, US prose
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Before moving on, and to further belabour this point (note both the "u" in belabour and in my earlier posting with the word behaviour - I don't use those spellings, but I figured George Harrison might) I do believe Tony has hit the nail on the head, in terms of this being a cultural issue, but it is more complex than it may appear on the surface. I am a dual citizen (US and Canadian) having lived first in the US and then in Canada, about half of my life each. I was always under the impression that English people were very "proper", especially with their use of language and in personal interaction. Well, that illusion got blown away the first time I traveled to London. I was absolutely shocked by the rude and profane mouths I encountered, and some were people in the service industry dealing with clients or complete strangers! I am on many newsgroups and lists and am quite active in some of them, and almost without exception, the people who are most aggressively hostile toward me and make the meanest, rudest and most profane comments are Brits, almost without exception. I would probably agree that some of it is just cultural use of the language, which almost seems to be overcompensation for that previous assumption by your ex-colonies (the US and Canada for two, plus many others) of that prim and proper manner of Brits. I think part of this might actually be because the Brits who visited and settle in the colonies during early periods tended to be upper crusters (diplomats, ambassadors, priests, government agents, high echelon military, etc) who were "well bred" and did speak an upper class language. Having said that, however, I do believe that some of the current "cultural" differences are based upon an elitism which still remains within Brit culture, which allows some people to feel they have the right, due to falsely presumed superiority of thought and ability, to be disrespectful and belittling of others. Let me just say to that, that those of us who now occupy the lands which were once colonies aren't all a bunch of "boobs", in fact, some of us aren't even of British stock! And we do not need to be "redressed" by the previous masters of the lands we now live within, anymore than we need to teach our first peoples how to fish better. So, to Brits who feel the need or right to put us "in our place", know that the children have developed their own lives and value systems, whether you approve or not. Present company excepted, of course... Art Tony Sleep wrote: >On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >>I won't quote it, but George's comment was as clear as the nose on my >>face. It was hostile, very directed, and IMHO, very inappropriate. >> >> > >On a hunch, I just checked, and George is a Brit, posting from a >BTinternet address. There is actually a cultural collision here in style >of expression. Americans are, IME, extremely polite (perhaps because you >never know who is carrying a concealed handgun:) and do have a certain >formality to their writing style. You see this not only on lists but >across US publishing, serious newspapers maintain a formality of style >that has largely disappeared in UK after the London 'Times' began using >photos on the front page about 30 years ago. To Brits, US prose often >seems turgid and verbose. I guess UK expression must often seem uncouth >and intrusively direct. > >I think maybe that accounts for the different perceptions here. To my mind >George's expression was tetchy and direct but not intended to cause >offence, just to make a frustrated point - which I took to anyway be about >quoting. However for Art in Canada and Laurie in USA, it seems to have >crossed a line. > >Not making excuses, but hoping we can understand and move on. >-- >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://tonysleep.co.uk > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 John Sykes wrote: > We generally prefer a stab at humour to make a point and avoid > direct insults. Agreed, but did you see GH's comment as offensive? If I'd been on the receiving end I'd have taken it as a reference to the scads of inadvertently quoted text. PgDn to see just how much there was. Anyhow, I've been subjected to far worse (c/o Brits and Australians this week), and generally take the view that deliberate insults say more about the insulter than the insulted. It's only email yatter. > PS trimming: in Outlook (as here in Thunderbird) you just select the > unwanted text and press delete True, but that extra step is easily overlooked. In T'bird you can just highlight the bit you want quoted and press Ctrl/5 for Quote in Reply (or RMB option) or Ctrl/6 for Quote in Reply to All (ditto), and they get copied into a reply email with no trimming necessary. I've not found a way to do this in OE. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In > the current case, the reminder reached me after I had sent the > offending > post which appeared later than the message from you. I thought that may well be the case. No problem. Most email clients don't handle trimming all that well anyway. The ideal is that they only quote any text highlighted in the original, not the whole lot. Thunderbird manages this (Ctrl/5) as did the Ameol email client I used previously. I never found a way with Outlook Express except to trim afterwards and that is an extra deliberate step that is easily overlooked, and is one reason I avoided using it. As for Outlook, I don't know. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: > I won't quote it, but George's comment was as clear as the nose on my > face. It was hostile, very directed, and IMHO, very inappropriate. On a hunch, I just checked, and George is a Brit, posting from a BTinternet address. There is actually a cultural collision here in style of expression. Americans are, IME, extremely polite (perhaps because you never know who is carrying a concealed handgun:) and do have a certain formality to their writing style. You see this not only on lists but across US publishing, serious newspapers maintain a formality of style that has largely disappeared in UK after the London 'Times' began using photos on the front page about 30 years ago. To Brits, US prose often seems turgid and verbose. I guess UK expression must often seem uncouth and intrusively direct. I think maybe that accounts for the different perceptions here. To my mind George's expression was tetchy and direct but not intended to cause offence, just to make a frustrated point - which I took to anyway be about quoting. However for Art in Canada and Laurie in USA, it seems to have crossed a line. Not making excuses, but hoping we can understand and move on. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Tony Sleep wrote: > Please everybody DO TAKE CARE TO TRIM POSTS. Art has a point that members > of the list can skip messages, but that is not true for 568 members of > this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs > traffic concatenated into one large message. That becomes quite impossible > to read and grows exponentially as a result of repeat unselective quoting. > I won't even mention the needlessly slow distribution, wasted bandwidth > and the server brought to its knees ;) Email is clearer when it emulates a conversation. A helpful article: http://email.about.com/cs/netiquettetips/qt/et090402.htm How Much to Quote and Where to Reply "When you reply to an email message, you should include that message, but only as much as is necessary to establish the context. Your reply should be below the quoted text, not above it. If there is more than one point you reply to, your repartees should follow the original text you refer to directly. Don't be shy to cut and reformat the quoted text (except where the original formatting is essential, of course)." -- Cary Enoch Reinstein... aka enochsvision, Enoch's Vision Inc. Photography, poetry http://www.enochsvision.com/ Blog http://enochsvision.wordpress.com/ Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. ~Joseph Campbell Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Tony, I do agree that we should trim posts of older postings; but I also suggest that some of us participate in many lists and are faced with responding to more than 100 posts a day which can result in the rush to complete our responses we may forget to trim the posts. A little reminder like you gave every now and then when it gets bad is all that is necessary usually. In the current case, the reminder reached me after I had sent the offending post which appeared later than the message from you. I am sorry but I read his complaint as being about my writing style, since not trimming older posts from a current post is not a matter of verbosity which is what he was complaining about. As for the digest and its limitations, I think it is a matter of compromises. To get the digest, subscribers give up the ability to delete individual posts in exchange for receiving all the messages in one large posting. I would think that if the size of the single posting that the digest generates becomes too much of a burden, they could always switch to individual emails. Why should those of us who are not signed up to receive digest posts change in order to accommodate digest users so as to make things convenient for them at our expense rather than digest users switching to individual emails? I have to wonder what would happen to their convenience or with respect to the other factors you have mentioned if traffic became really heavy with long involved posts of new information rather than previously posted untrimmed messages and/or when a large number of the posts on such a digest happen to be of little interest and consequence to the particular individual digest subscriber. At any rate, I will attempt to remember to trim my posts of old messages. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck > > Personally I read George's complaint as being about untrimmed posting, > not on Laurie's writing style as such. > > Art has a point that members of the list can skip messages, but that is not true for 568 members of > this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs traffic concatenated into one > large message. That becomes quite impossible to read and grows exponentially as a result of repeat unselective > quoting. I won't even mention the needlessly slow distribution, wasted bandwidth > and the server brought to its knees ;) > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
On 16/02/2008 Arthur Entlich wrote: > Those are all things you > have control over, rather than asking people to change their behaviour > on your behalf. Personally I read George's complaint as being about untrimmed posting, not on Laurie's writing style as such. Please everybody DO TAKE CARE TO TRIM POSTS. Art has a point that members of the list can skip messages, but that is not true for 568 members of this list who are on a daily digest and receive the preceding 24hrs traffic concatenated into one large message. That becomes quite impossible to read and grows exponentially as a result of repeat unselective quoting. I won't even mention the needlessly slow distribution, wasted bandwidth and the server brought to its knees ;) -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: was: RE: SS4000 & ...now: mean people suck
Although I agree posts should be trimmed, for people who regularly answer queries, sometime it is just forgotten by the time we hit 'send'. I certainly have been guilty of it. What is really inexcusable, however, is your tone and the personal attack. This list has been basically inactive for months and it was reinitiated by a few people taking an interest in some on topic conversation. This group, unlike many, tends to be both civil and mature, and forgiving of writing styles and grammatical errors, and I would hate to think it has sunk to the level of your posting. You can unsubscribe, filter for specific individuals, delete, or just develop some personal civility or tolerance. Those are all things you have control over, rather than asking people to change their behaviour on your behalf. Any would be an improvement over what you did below. Art PS: Your "namesake" seemed to be a pretty forgiving individual, maybe you could listen to some of his music and relax. George Harrison wrote: > Laurie > >In the name of god will you PLEASE trim your posts - your lazy verbosity is >offensive. > >George Harrison > > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
