Subject:
|
Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:27:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2416 times
|
| |
|
|
Lindsay,
I think we are talking semantics here, and I can mostly be blamed for the
confusion due to my less than accademic-standard grasp of the written and
spoken word.
> Respect as an abstraction isn't variable for me; what I respect about another
> is. Note that Todd himself hasn't fallen back on that "because I said so"
> argument--and when we had the leaked-scans issue, he was very quick to give
> reasoning and seemed very reticent to fall back on that authority. In part, I
> respect Todd's authority precisely because I have a great deal of faith
> (scratch that--not faith, but *proof*) that it's founded on something
> reasonable and not caprice.
True, and that is one of the reasons why I accord him with a great deal of
respect. What you are refering to, I think, is a level of respect. Everyone is
entitled by law and/or common decency a certain level of respect, and I would
never disrespect that entitlement. What I was referring to is a persons
perception of the level of respect they are due versus the level of respect I
accord them. Generally they are on a par, but you get the odd person who
thinks they are a few orders of magnitude above the level you respect them.
The disparity is quite often due to something they have done to affect my
perception, but I would never think that someone doesn't deserve some level of
respect, even if it's just a basic level.
> As a rule, I respect *anyone* until they(2) give me reason not to respect
> them. The nature of that respect may differ--the respect I have for my
> students, for example, is far different than the respect I have for my
> mentor, which is in turn far different than the respect I have for my
> colleagues (and on and on). Sometimes people can lose "respected" status the
> moment they open their mouths, but often I still maintain social decorum
> until I am assured of a basic ineptitude in the other person.
And here's the confusion. I'm substituting "respect" for "social decorum",
even though the two may not necessarily be interchangeable. I must admit,
however, that I approach people from a different aspect than perhaps you or
Eric do - put it down to my particular professional experience. Whilst I would
never ever show disrespect or lack of social decorum to anyone (jump up a
couple of thread lines under this original post and see the discussion I'm
having with Christopher Weeks), everyone starts off on an even keel with me.
It's a "respectful" even keel, I must admit, and people can go up or down, but
my respect is tinged with a bit of waryness.
> When we believe that people aren't deserving of respect from the beginning,
> we open ourselves up to all sorts of unsavory things and tragic
> misunderstandings.
Case in point about the misunderstanding, and point taken.
> Always best to err on the side of caution and civility, I say--offend one too
> many people in my field and you're done, and while I don't know your
> occupation, Peter, I can assure you that academics are probably far more
> sensitive. Henry Kissinger said something on the order of it being that way
> because the stakes are so very low. ;)
I always do, and it's not that hard to be civil even when the other person
isn't.
I'm a civil engineer (no, that's not a pun, I really am), and we are by
default (but not 100%) fairly tolerant of other peoples lack of respect on
pretty much any level. Not saying we don't all have one or two hobby-horses.
My name is one of mine. Spell it with an "o" (as in Calloway) and I'll scratch
your eyes out!! ;-)
> Of course, I'm assuming a definition of "respect" that includes simple things
> like "respecting people's basic human rights," which I doubt you'd disagree
> with. That is also a predicate of assumed respect for others, even if you
> weren't quite thinking of that.
Correct. Semantics. I hope I've clarrified my initial post on this matter. I'm
not a "guilty until proven innocent" person, and I believe and practice that
everyone is entitled to a basic level of respect and/or civility. It's just
that if people believe that they or someone else deserves more than that, they
have to prove it. Sorry if this upsets people, but like I said, I've come
across too many "professionals" who must have got their qualifications when
Cornflakes were handing them out in cereal boxes that year.
Errr... I'll leave it at that for the moment as I've lost my train of thought.
I need sleep. Pity I'm at work! Feel free to continue as I love a good
discussion.
> best regards,
>
> Lindsay
>
> (1) Obvious exception: Hitting your head on the corner of a cupboard--but
> follow it up with the proper obeisances. ;)
>
> (2) The Royal they, or the plebeian they, or some kind of they that just
> highlights why we need a third-person singluar neuter pronoun just like we
> need a second-person collective one.
>
> ---
>
> Lindsay Frederick Braun (Mr)
> Department of History
> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| Hello, (...) Respect as an abstraction isn't variable for me; what I respect about another is. Note that Todd himself hasn't fallen back on that "because I said so" argument--and when we had the leaked-scans issue, he was very quick to give (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
