| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Adam Howard writes:
> Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:37B5A8FA.53861CF3@voyager.net...
> > Todd Lehman wrote:
> > >
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > [...] but neither is he firable in the work sense. [...]
> > >
> > > For sociological reasons, yes?
Absolutely. It goes on frequently in the world.
> This is the type of thing I've been worried about. Is this doing more harm
> or good.
Ideally, it should be for the good of both. Hurting another's feelings isn't
the issue (though it happens), and it never should be when there are things to
be gained by both sides in a dispute. The best thing is that both sides
positively benefit from the decision in the long term, which is something I
firmly believe that can happen here.
> I am a relatively new part author (1 year of experience). I'm working on a
> part right now (the crossbow) that I have mindboggling questions about, but
> I am holding off because I hate the idea of fitting into Jonathan's mold of
> a new part author. To this end I've been killing myself for the past 2
> weeks trying to figure out why most of my line/plane intersect equations
> work and 4 don't AAGHHH! And I've been afraid to post any 'annoying'
> questions because look how Jonathan's posts have been taken. In my mind all
> of this has turned our wonderful nurturing group into a be-on-guard and
> watch your posts group.
While watching your posts extra extra carefully is a good idea ATM, I think
you might be carrying your hesitancy a bit far. The group is currently
inflamed, so any new problem of a similar nature will only add to the flames.
But here's the catch: you could probably ask all the same parts-related
questions JW did but if you did it nicely and respectfully (because everyone
involved in the project is doing it for FREE) it would more than likely be
okay.
> We're talking about ostracizing someone.
We are not talking about ostracizing anyone, only possible prohibition from
the cad.* group of newsgroups.
> How many people here have felt
> ostracized by one group or another? Haven't we all?
Yes, I've felt ostracized, but doing something that led to it versus just
feeling it are two different things. Building with Lego bricks doesn't exactly
endear me to everyone on the planet.
> Now it seems lugnet is going to be that way too.
One person out of hundreds? Hogwash. I feel more ostracized on RTL than I do
here. (You want to feel really ostracized? Run for president of the USA under
the communist party ticket :-)
> True he's posted rude and annoying messages in the past, that's just his
> nature and he may not intend them that way. He has a big red target painted
> on him and I feel bad thinking that his feelings are really being hurt by
> all these discussions- yes, I'm being sappy, that's just my emotional state
> right now. And yes, he may deserve all this, but why should everyone else
> stoop to this level of rudeness?
Part one of communicating is making sure you accurately say all you mean to
say.
Part two of communicating is attempting to make sure the other understands
exactly all you said. While this is more difficult and sometimes not
achievable, everyone recognizes honest attempts mixed with courtesy no matter
how badly garbled the message. The lack of honest attempts at improving
communication and courtesy are the biggest issues here, which only accentuated
the bad LDraw parts.
It may be his nature to be rude, but it's my choice to include or to not
include rude people in certain things such as my lego hobby. And rude people
can either go on being rude, or they can take a hint (or an anvil on the head)
and change.
It is good to recall that many folks here have only printed words to go on
while interacting with others (though some folks here do communicate with each
other via voice and RL). Should those printed words introduce or imply
antisocial behavior or elements in a setting not geared for it, then part two
is in violation. And note that part one and two depend on the first person to
make sure a thought is communicated correctly.
By many definitions, I've been rude to John Neal on a number of occasions in
lugnet.off-topic.fun. This was easily identifiable by John as joking (at least
he did me the courtesy of interpreting my remarks as such), and even to others
who joined in on the fun. Also in the past, I've even irked Mike Stanley once
or twice (he probly doesn't remember and it's water waaay past the bridge). I
haven't met either one of these guys in person and only have contact with them
via Lugnet or email. But the difference in the situations between John and
Mike is that the .fun group did perceive my rude messages as lame attempts at
humor at John's expense (part one and two were successfully carried out),
while Mike tore me up because I failed to carry out part one successfully
thinking me to be rude (among other things). But when I apologized and began
to clean up my act and get with it, Mike softened up a bit(1). Both of these
guys I more (or less ;-) highly regard.
N.B. Two things here: 1) I posted to an appropriate forum using correct
protocols and, 2) I adjusted my protocols and methods to help attain better
communication.
In this medium, the use of "netiquette" is a *must*. Also, the use of a smiley
;-) or a winky ;-) to denote an attempt at humor can go a *long* way in
diffusing a firebomb of a remark, as possibly demonstrated above.
As someone who is used to receiving mail from my audience on the radio, I can
often tell the tone of an unopened letter by any handwriting on the envelope
and the kind of stamp used. And if a package sent happens to be ticking!
-Tom McD.
when replying, actually spamcake killed the dinosaurs.
(1) JW should do so well.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Well, yes and no, right? * Yes in the sense that "ostracism" means (1) "a method of temporary banishment by popular vote without trial or special accusation practiced in ancient Greece" and (2) "exclusion by general consent from common (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) About these voting options, the votes for a more severe restriction should carry over to a less severe restriction if that particular restriction recieves the 2/3 majority votes. For example: 25% vote for removal from lugnet.* 50% vote for (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37B5A8FA.53861C...ger.net... (...) This is the type of thing I've been worried about. Is this doing more harm or good. I am a relatively new part author (1 year of experience). I'm working on a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
