David Toccafondi wrote: >No, I agree. It's incredibly rude. rude? yep.
which is a shame, because I honestly believe al -- and others -- have valuable things to say, awful as they might be to hear, and that in this case the real question he was raising (namely, how some neighbors can expect to draw empathy for finding themselves living near nuisances while others cannot) was obscured by his hasty rush to a punchline and the ensuing booing and floorstomping. meanwhile the question remains -- if anything, the responses have made it more acute. but if you were to ask me if being polite is the answer, I'd say 'not necessarily.' the more canned, prepared kinds of communications we often receive have their own way of obscuring the message, and can have a mean-spiritedness that's more subtle because their correctness pre-empts genuine gut responses, never offers apologies. there's definitely a middle ground somewhere (and we should try to reach that) but until then I think I prefer the more free-wheeling, give-and-take dynamic of communicating, despite its pitfalls and pratfalls (and my sore noggin). but that's just me. one's politeness isn't how I ultimately measure one's integrity, though I agree it's a good start. ok, later... ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
