Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:08:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> > David Koudys writes:
> > > This is where I will reiterate the thick skinness needed for
> > > the situation. Bram last post didn't post more sales or
> > > whatever, he just replied to Larry's post in a 'banter-like' fashion.
> > >
> > > I can't speak for Bram, but I don't think he has a problem
> > > with 'gentle guidance' At least, that's the way it appears to me.
> >
> > Thanks, Dave.
> > --Bram
>
> Be careful, as TC would say: "If I'm doing my duty and respectfully guide
> someone on something they post, and THEY or THEIR COHORTS cause a ruckus, oh
> well. That's THEIR problem (and that problem will be corrected too). There
> should be little room for that."
Yes, there should be little room for ruckusii (that's latin for more than
one ruckus).
> The specifics of the “incident” aside. I think that policing with respect is
> something curators should be positively encouraged to do.
But this is the point: this incident aside, I support, encourage and
wholeheartedly embrace policing (see rant before about community policing).
My appreciation for community policing cannot be disputed.
The specifics of this situation, tho, is what's important here, for that is
what I replied to. We can make general blanket statements like 'if
hypothetical so-'n-so was doing this in such-'n-such group, then his or her
hands should be slapped'. It's a general guideline and I approve of general
guidelines for then we all know where the boundaries are.
However, specifically, When it was pointed out quite nicely and politely by
Larry (policing with respect) that Bram may have stepped across the line,
and Bram wrote an equally respectful, albeit banter-ish response, and
immediately this incident gets upgraded to the .admin.general group 'cause
Larry didn't think Bram was getting the point, is the *important* specifics
in this matter.
It's like (here comes another Dave scenario)
Person 1 - "Hey, I think you did something wrong, mayhaps you should rethink
this..."
Person 2 - "Well thanks for pointing that out--wasn't that a funny thing I did."
(up to now it's just a polite discussion)
Person 1 - "Mom!!! He's not listening to me when I tell him he's doing
something wrong!!!"
<Stunned silence from person 2, not realizing it could escalate this fast>
That's the specifics. And this is what we have to avoid. I also could
point out that, again, imho, the situation shouldn't have been brought up at
all for I believe the post was legit to begin with.
> Scott A
>
> >
> >
> > Bram Lambrecht
> > bram@cwru.edu
> > www.bldesign.org
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Be careful, as TC would say: "If I'm doing my duty and respectfully guide someone on something they post, and THEY or THEIR COHORTS cause a ruckus, oh well. That's THEIR problem (and that problem will be corrected too). There should be little (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
