| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Mike Stanley writes:
> And yes, there is _little_ distinction between calling someone a
> moron and saying they strike you as a moron. If I said you struck
> me as a jackass would that offend you less than if I called you a
> jackass? Phrases like "came across as" "strikes me as" "seems like"
> etc are all phrases that people employ to, on the surface at least,
> remove themselves from the active nature of what they're saying.
A clearer distinction can be drawn by saying "you are
acting like a such and such" as opposed to saying "you
*are* a such and such." Similar to the difference between
"you are lying" and "you are a liar." By criticizing
someone's action or behavior rather than their character
or intelligence, you can often avoid riling them up while
still getting your point across.
If I'd been writing Rob's post (and I strongly agree with
several of the sentiments he's expressed), I would have said
that that Tom's post, with its shouting (caps) and use of
almost-obscenities ("frigging") was unreasoningly belicose or
belligerant or agitated, rather than say that the author
struck me as a moron. (He doesn't, but I think that
his post would have been better served with a big dose
of chilling out.) I'd practice that bit of circumspection
even if the author DID strike me as a moron, just because I'd
want to avoid having my larger points derailed by an argument
about that one point.
What I see as Rob's primary point was this:
"The wealth of online matereial which is, in fact, copyrighted material and
the intellectual property of LEGO is just INCREDIBLE. We have access to
SCANS OF SETS WE DID NOT BUY. HUNDREDS OF THEM, and LEGO has not sent an
army of lawyers to remove them." [paraphrase -- so why threaten
that by pushing the envelope?]
Your response was (in part) this:
"But if TLC stomped brickshelf out of existence today it
wouldn't really *hurt* me. Inconvenience me from time to time,
perhaps, but not much."
I would see it as a crushing blow, myself. Even though I
almost never go look at the scans, I take great comfort in knowing
that they are there -- that if I lose instructions, I can regenerate
them without begging someone to make me copies. Or knowing that
if I want to call LEGO consumer affairs from work and reference
a particular instruction set, I can do so without actually
fussing with transporting the instructions to work to do so.
And I take comfort in knowing that LEGO hasn't seen fit
to decimate it yet. It's about the most sensible, respectful
things I've seen them *do* with regards to the net AFOL
community (other than Brad's recent delurk)(if you consider
inaction an action ... and in this case, I do). It would
completely dispirit me if the brickshelf collection got
whacked. It would stun me and dispirit me the way that the
legal sacking of the "lego wars" websites did, *even though*
I didn't fault LEGO for worrying about dilution of their
trademark name. It still felt like a crushing blow, to see
something fun and useful squelched for legal reasons.
I'd hate for LEGO to become more draconian in enforcing their
copyright protections. I agree with the sentiment that
we already have it good in that respect, and I've been
biting my nails as challenges and arguments about catalog
(and set) scans were thrown about.
By the way, it's "sycophant" (without the p at the beginning)
... and I find that term (and "suck-up" about as offensive as
you find the phrase "moron." I suggest that what you see
as sycophancy, the people you see as sycophants would
see as enlightened self-interest. We have a lot to gain
if LEGO begins to treat us in a certain way. When (some)
people feel that possibility being threatened, they may
respond passionately. Just as when other people find
their sensibilities being offended over this or that
quasilegal debate, they may respond passionately.
I don't personally mind giving up a free freedoms - refraining
from posting scans of this year's dealer catalogs, or
refraining from posting links to certain images on LEGO's
website - if I thought that giving up those freedoms
granted us more breathing room or respect from LEGO
in other respects. And now that Brad's made it clear what
LEGO's position on that is, I plan on abiding by that in
my public activities.
And I don't mind refraining from certain activities in
order to make Todd happy (although that's not really the
point), because I know how fervantly Todd wants to have LEGO
support the AFOL community, how badly he wants that, what a favor
he's done by laying the groundwork for this wonderful village on
the net. I'm amazed that his and our collective efforts are
finally bearing some fruit in terms of LEGO offering us services
and interaction, and I'm eager to see that relationship thrive to
our mutual benefit.
That doesn't mean I plan on giving LEGO or Todd a free ticket
in terms of escaping constructive criticism from me. I am not
a sycophant. But I'm not unhappy with anything right now.
I am *quite pleased* with how things have gone in the last
month, in terms of the big picture (someone at LEGO taking it
as their mandate to interact with us).
I'm not unhappy with the critics, either, at this
point (other than still being furious at the little
**** who impersonated him on RTL). I do hope that
Brad understands that, on the net, a lot of sparks can
fly over very minor issues. It's the nature of the
medium. I hope that he's experienced the nature of
electronic communities before. These are very volatile places.
I hope he's not beleagured or overwhelmed or turned off by
the flare-up of controversy that his arrival has helped
engender. Brad, it's just the nature of the beast.
All things considered, this is going very well. Any time a
representative of a company delurks in a forum dedicated
to that company, there is conflict. People with pent-up
resentments (not meant pejoratively) will exercise those
resentments, and the representative of a company becomes
a target for ire. And many people don't understand that
the ego-amplification that is offered by the comfort of
posting from behind an electronic screen lets and encourages
people to say things that they would not dream of saying to
a person's face.
Many, many times in the history of the net, people have
joined newsgroups that were created to discuss that particular
artist or celebrity, only to be driven away by people who
weren't willing to treat them with respect they wanted
to be offered. It simply became too emotionally costly
for them, and they withdrew. Many really cool newsgroups
have been badly damaged by the withdrawal of the celebrity
being discussed. Whenever you get the chance to correspond
with an author or musician or whatever, it's a valuable
thing, a golden opportunity, and so often those golden
opportunities are tarnished or shattered by conflict.
I think we're pretty much agreed that we don't want that
to happen, and I hope that the current grace and welcome
and respect being extended to Brad continues to be the
norm.
So far, I think we're doing pretty good! All that pent-up
anger that many AFOLs have felt isn't being dumped personally
on Brad's lap. Thank God (and the reasonable affable nature
of the contributors) for that.
Blathering concluded -- I'll just end the sermon by asking
for a favor: please, folk, be excellent to Brad, to
Todd, and to one another. Temper your anger and frustration
with as much civility as you can humanly muster.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Yeah, but it's all the same. :) When I feel the urge to call someone a jackass I don't normally disguise it in roundabout phrasing designed to keep him from wanting to punch me in the face. (...) And you would have won vocab bonus points for (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) I know it was you, and I certainly didn't try to imply it was Todd saying that, although Todd said some thing that got me riled yesterday. And yes, there is _little_ distinction between calling someone a moron and saying they strike you as a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
72 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
|
|
|
|
