Subject:
|
Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:35:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
267 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Some good discussion but nobody answered this question the way I expected,
>
> Aint diversity wonderful? 8?)
Sure. Let me clarify the above. If we consider a spectrum of discourse from
perfectly normal well intentioned fact and issue centric debate at one end,
on through somewhat worse all the way to vitriolic insult orient fact free
flamage at the other end. Consider that spectrum. I think "take it to email"
as a useful (and, therefore reasonable) approach works for exchanges
somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. For ones that are at the first end
(AOK) it's not needed. For ones at the other end it's not effective, and
therefore not reasonable.
So.
OK - border area 1 - email a good approach - border area 2 - out of control war
I was expecting discussion of border area 2 but everyone who responded
discussed border area 1. Nothing WRONG with that, good viewpoints and all,
etc. I was insufficiently clear with the first post because what I am much
more interested in is border area 2... that is the area where email breaks
down not because it's not needed but because the discussion is too far from
the norm for it to do any good.
Helps?
> > perhaps because I was a bit too subtle in trying hard to disengage from a
> > particular situation (and Tim, you get marked down because you didn't stay
> > general... :-) )
>
> Are you disappointed because you didn't get the answer you expected? Or just
> surprised?
Neither. See above. More frustrated with myself for not being sufficently clear.
> > > When is this not an appropriate thing to do? Can you, the advocates of that
> > > course of action, come up with examples of when it isn't? Why isn't it in
> > > those cases? (or, alternatively, are you saying that "taking it to email" is
> > > ALWAYS the correct course no matter how bad the social transgression or how
> > > one sided it might be?)
> >
> > I expected someone to answer "when it is obvious that taking it to email is
> > not going to do any good either" and the example I had in mind was the
> > massive disruptiveness of our spoofer.
> >
> > ROSCO, you said "always".
>
> Um, careful with the out-of-context quotes, Larry. I said "always a reasonable
> course of action". I then went on to point out that it's not always the right
> course of action, the obvious example being when a discussion is taken to
> email, and the participants don't get anything further positive from it.
Sorry if you thought that was out of context, it wasn't intended to be. Let
me try again. When is an action that is not the right course, and which is
known to not be right in advance, a reasonable course?
Answer that to see why I thought shorthanding "always a reasonable" to
"always" was equivalent. That is, I don't think it's always reasonable.
<snip>
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
14 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
|
|
|
|
