On November 20, 2003 at 8:50PM -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: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have > > > > > > replied that self-control is apparently beyond their > > > > > > mein, I'll remind them that consequences for actions > > > > > > are also their responsibility. Including finding > > > > > > themselves ignored by those who value s over n. > > > > > > > while some of us may have got carried away on the exuberance > > of our collective velocity, where colin requested that the > > thread be closed, i think that there were only one or two > > respondents who failed to respect that request. karsten's > > manner, on the other hand, comes across as an order, > > I'd individually contacted most (all I could find) participants > of the thread, after it had persisted for several days. Contacting the "participants" individually was wrong insofar as the "off-topicality" was the product of all the amusing, analytic, angry, perhaps even anarchistic posts of list members who, I'm sure, didn't plan on wreaking "collective" havoc. Saying "participants" makes it sound as if there was a conspiracy of some sort. > Most of these either didn't respond (but ceased posting to the > thread) or replied apologetically. I suspect most of them were responding to Colin Watson's public request. > Several disputed the basis of my request. Which is: > > - List charter: "Help and discussion among users of Debian". > - Code of conduct: "" Speaking for myself, I disputed the means you employed, a direct email written with a curtness that sounded condescending (even if it wasn't). Colin's approach was better, even if the language was more brutal, "shouting" at the "mob" to stop. Think of it this way. When you emailed me, I'd thought I was being singled out. Nowhere in your first email did you mention that you contacted others. OTOH Colin's post managed to spread the "blame" so that nobody felt directly responsible for causing the "riot." > > and, as such, is damn near guaranteed to raise the ire of > > anyone with a brain. particularly, comments such as the > > anarchist reference above are totally unwarranted > > Several of the individuals who chose to dispute (at length) my > request with me made specific reference to anarchist > principles. > > I'd recommend you speak of what you know. In this case, you > are beyond your depth. This is what I do know. You emailed me the very day (given some allowance for the off-line time zone difference) I made two off-topic posts. I assumed you thought those two posts of mine were "excessive" and so thought you were "being" hypocritcal for having participated in other off-topic threads in the past. In a later email you claimed that you immediately took off-topic discussions off-list when requested. So would I, if requested. But your first email was more like a gag order: "Could you please restrict your d-u postings to on-topic subjects?" Am I being too harsh on that one sentence? Yes. Because that was the entire contents of your first email. You probably would have gotten a better response if the request came with an explanation about list etiquette and how world politics isn't really the subject of Debian User. Yes, people do have to be reminded from time to time not to cross when the light is red or not to smoke in a no-smoking area. Your explanation came later, when anger had taken possession of my keyboard. [...] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
