lets see?
On 21/01/2005, at 3:55 PM, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Ben de Luca wrote:
On 21/01/2005, at 2:39 PM, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote:Does this list-service tolerate 'public ridicule' to a reasonable comment ?
Depends on how you define your "reasonable comment".
I think this is a reference to my email that answered the question jeff
asked me? If I was unreasonable in that email can you please explain
what was unreasonable?
I think that posting for sale ads on the main SLUG list is unreasonable. I
think that replying to those for sale ads with suggestions that the seller
is out of their mind is also unreasonable. Those I can live with, because
they're drops in the river compared to the "my browser doesn't work on my
banks website" that we see so frequently.
I think that your email that "answered the question" that Jeff asked you was
unreasonable because your comment was subjective opinion, and carried no
supporting evidence.
Let's look at it:
"Yes its interesting hardware but computers are worthless 2nd hand."
With that statement in mind I presume you find the efforts of organisations
such as Computerbank totally useless, or even nonexistent.
This was a summation of the arguments of the first 2 lines. What might have been more correct is
"Yes its interesting hardware but computers are of very little financial value 2nd hand."
Given that we were talking about money I don't see the real need to explicitly state financial, its implied by the context of the statement.
Now is worthless the same as little? So stealing the most argument supporting definition from dictionary.com
worthless
adj : lacking in excellence or value; "a worthless idler" [ant: valuable]
It would seem to say the same thing.
Then you go on to say:
"But really I guess its worth what people will pay, As much as might of
wanted it, I wont pay $2500 though."
Now earlier I picked on you for your terrible grammar, and I'm sorry,
because it's clear what you meant. However you're acknowledging that a 2nd
hand computer has value, which goes in direct contradiction with what you
said before.
So if using this line one might be able to interpret the worthless, part for what I really meant it to mean? This is a mailing list, rather an informal medium, I dont think asking you to consider the overall context is to great an ask.
So if Jeff then decides to reply with public ridicule because you're not
being self consistent, then I believe his motives are correct, even if his
methods are unpopular.
When you go to the slug site you might read this
"Be nice, there is no need to be rude. Avoid expressions that may be interpreted as aggressive towards other list participants, even if the subject being treated is particularly relevant to you and/or controversial."
I would consider public ridicule to be "rude", possibly this suggestion should be changed so that its quite fine to be rude if you discover poor grammar or logical inconstancies in some else mail.
Though I would suggest that there were no logical inconstancies in my email, only miss interpretations from some one looking to find a problem (though I asked you to look).
bd
So no, I don't think your comment was reasonable. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
