This was apparently meant for the list (see the introductory line) rather
than for private email. I am therefore forwarding it for the author.
Rick
====================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Cabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 08:55
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An argument in favor of changing the reply function
Rick Adams, in a tightly-reasoned, totally coherent, and collegial
message,
wrote:
> I've raised the issue of a return of the reply function to a
> reply-to-list status more than once. Recently, however, another
excellent
> reason for this return to the traditional approach has been demonstrated
> to me.
>
> For the last few days I've been receiving unwanted and offensive
messages
> from a list member, Patrick Cabe, who took offense to my response to
Paul
> Leiberton's list post, which stated:
>
> ========================================================
> Paul Leiberton wrote:
>
> > I am tired of reading what appears to be an incessant
> > barage of emails directed against one person. I did not
> > think that this was the purpose of this forum. Grow up
> > and stop this immature behavior. I fail to see how
> > this behavior represents an intellectual exchange.
>
>
> Does YOUR message do so?
>
> Or is it simply a dictatorial and rude response to
> message traffic you personally don't care for?
>
> Telling your peers to "Grow up and stop this immature
> behavior" isn't exactly reasonable behavior either.
>
> Rick
>
> ========================================================
>
> According to Pat Cabe (who, despite repeated requests from myself,
> refuses to stop sending me private email concerning this subject), this
> message should have been sent privately. His justification for that
> statement?
>
> > It seems to me that the default reply address on those messages
> > is to the individual, not to the list.
>
> In other words, because the default reply-to address is the individual,
> he feels justified in stating replies to public posts should go there!
>
> Bill, it's time to change the settings back. You have been publicly
> ignoring the many requests of users who have been with this list for
many
> years that you do so--and this is the kind of response we get as a
result.
> The experiment did not work--admit it as you would any other failed
> research or at least show us enough respect to publicly state that our
> wishes aren't important to you and you will run the list as you see fit.
>
> I have told Pat Cabe that I do NOT wish to receive personal email from
> him concerning list communications, and I have repeated this message in
> more than one post with absolutely no success. I am now informing him
> PUBLICLY that any email I receive from him will be assumed to have been
> intended for the list and will be forwarded to TIPS immediately. I have
no
> idea why he has started a rude and offensive personal vendetta against
me,
> unless it is because I refuse to capitulate to his demands that my posts
> meet HIS requirements, but the private aspects of it end now!
>
> Rick
To paraphrase the cartoon character, Shoe: "If you want freedom of speech,
you
have to put up with dumbness of speech." And tolerate quotes out of
context, I
suppose. And from anyone at all in the arena, no matter what their
internal
agendas or quixotic peculiarities.
Golly, Rick, I'm certainly put off by your "line in the sand" here. Thank
you for sharing your thoughts with the entire list. Check with your
counselor
about these paranoid tendencies, why don't you?
Pat Cabe
**************************************************
Patrick Cabe, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
One University Drive
Pembroke, NC 28372-1510
(910) 521-6630
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
