On November 21, 2003 at 7:27PM +0800, "David Palmer." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:24:16 +0000 > ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:50:09 -0800 > > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +0000, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800 > > > > csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, > > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, > > > > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > > > > Karsten and Colin are two completely different individuals, their > approach to a situation is therefore also going to be individually > different. This goes without saying. We're not clones. > If we have individuals here who feel a requirement to totally > usurp the situation for their own personal needs, then > obviously they are in the wrong place. I don't think there were individuals who wanted to usurp the list. Their "usurpation" was a product of their combined postings. It's like a riot that gets started because two bar patrons bumped into each other, started hitting, and because they were fighting in a crowded room, started hitting others, who started hitting back. > With two individuals in a situation, one personality does not > predominate, there is an interaction involved. One factor is > Karstens' manner, but the other is your perception of it. The > vocal personalities involved at the moment, have a completely > different reaction to Karsten than I do. I don't mind a bit of > straight talk. As far as I'm concerned there isn't enough of it > in the world, and considering that there were more than 'one > and a half' personalities still involved in the situation after > Colins' request for 'moderation', perhaps there is a place for > a manner that has the ability to cut through in situations of > persistent idiocy. Then the mass-emailing shouldn't have been used. The private emails should have been sent to the recalcitrant individuals. Even in such case, the emails should have phrased with a bit more care. I don't mind straight talk when it comes to "talk". Unfortunately you can't convey the nuances of speech in a one-sentence email, especially in a list that isn't limited to native speakers of the language. (This after isn't debian-user-us or debian-user-uk. Maybe it's really time for another poster's debian-user-world suggestion.) > I'm not saying that the thread didn't have some excellent > material, I'm saying that it had deteriorated, as I have said > in a previous post, into a load of drivel. Agreed. > I got an email from Karsten, not the first one I've received > from him either, but I didn't feel challenged by it. I woke up, > wandered out, half asleep, clicked on send/receive, and > Karstens' fist leapt out of the screen and smashed me in the > face. It woke me up, set me up for the day. It smashed into me as well. Guess what? It had a different effect on me. To paraprhase your opening paragraph, our reactions to the situation became individually different. Which is why I insist the direct email was wrong. It was not written with concern for those who might take it the wrong way. A private email to an individual has greater power than a public posting. And, to borrow the words of the great Spiderman, with greater power comes greater responsibility. > This world is full of different kinds of people, that's one of > the many interesting aspects of it. Leave Karsten alone. He's > got his own kind of value. I just wish he'd take into account the values of people from cultures where straight talk isn't necessarily the most effective form of communication. > Don't worry Karsten, you've got back-up. I'm sure there's no plot to get Karsten. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
