| |
In lugnet.people, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.people, Benjamin Medinets writes:
> > In lugnet.people, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > I think there's
> > > > a real problem when Tim's post gets 8 spotlights, and an awesome MOC has
> > > > a hard time getting 4.
> > >
> > > People who spotlight messages should think carefully about the type of posts
> > > they think are appropriate for the LUGNET shop window: ie "Top Stories" on
> > > www.lugnet.com
> > >
> > > Although Tim is well meaning, I really doubt his melodramatics belong there.
> > >
> > > Scott A
> >
> > Ummmh...Scott...we know already...subject matter should be already closed...
> > thanks...don't open another can of worms...
>
>
> Benjamin,
> All I am doing is stating my view. You may/may not like my view, but I'm
> sure you will agree that I'm entitled to it. I suppose the alternative would
> be for admins to highlight threads as "closed"?
>
> FUT: lugnet.off-topic.debate
>
> Scott A
>
> =+=
> Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
> http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
>
> "A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
> man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
> Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
> =+=
There have been issues in LUGNET, and there have been long, drawn out
threads to help resolve these issues, and there has even been some 'flame
wars' 'n such, but what I continue to notice, time and time again, is that
much comes from the 'tone' of a post. There are ways of getting one's point
across without being offensive, just by rethinking the word choice.
Tone is really difficult to convey in a text post, but word choice is a good
start. Intentionally goading someone does not help the situation.
Unintentionally goading someone won't help either, btw.
For example,
Quoteth Scott
"
> > > Although Tim is well meaning, I really doubt his melodramatics belong there.
"
...doubt his melodramatics...
Think about this wording. Would someone find this offensive and start yet
another long thread that just gets the ire up in more people?
I think it would, for when I read it, my ire got up for Tim's sake. Had the
post been directed at me, I would have been equally upset. Being a thick
skinned individual, however, I took the time to have a moment of 'sober
second thought' and said to myself perhaps Scott just misspoke, and was just
saying that perhaps the post shouldn't have been put on the front page of
LUGNET for any reason other than it really doesn't relate to LUGNET in
general, and *not* that Tim was being a whiny, over-emotional,
not-capable-of-handling-critism guy.
'Cause that's how someone could read that post.
Scotts opinion on not having this thread highlighted on front page - good,
picking on why Tim left - bad! (my best George W Sr. impression)
For, if you really understood Tims original post, it was concerning posts
much akin to this one that caused him to go on his sabatical in the first place.
So regardless of whether you meant to offend or not, your wording came
across as offensive. As we know in the tech support industry, in the final
analysis, truth is important, but what is more important is how it is perceived.
'I didn't mean it that way'
Well, that's how they perceived it. Thats how things escalate. That's how
we get huge posting frenzy's on what would have been otherwise a small note
in the world of LUGNET.
If you did mean it that way, i.e. you really think that Tim shouldn't air
his "melodramatics" in LUGNET, then all you did was add fuel to the fire.
For me, being compassionate and understanding is the better part of valour,
but if you can't take the high road on these issues, then please don't post
at all, for it's just flaming and causes a ruckus.
Dave Scenario:
Person Number 1: "Well, here comes another dumb Dave scenario"
Person #2 (who may, or may not be named Dave): "Well then why do I bother
in the first place?"
Person #1: "You won't get far with that kind of attitude, mister!"
The following is a complete tangent, tho it relates (and I won't connect the
dots for you)
We had a tree in our back yard. It started with me just avoiding a sapling
with the lawn mower, and after a few years this tree was about 15-20 feet
tall. It was a wonderful shade tree, which I sat under many times, reading
some sci-fi book.
My dad took it into his head that the tree needed trimming. Not just a
light trim but he cut the tree right back almost to the trunk--all that was
left were these little 1 foot branches stemming out.
The next season, the tree grew back, tho not quite as big and shady as before.
Few autumns go by, and each one my dad cut that tree back, and each spring
the tree tried to grow back.
I think eventually, tho, the tree gave up, for it just stopped trying to
grow, and dad cut it down.
'Melodramatics' is a word that cuts, it does not heal. It does not edify or
cause people to reevaluate their stance. It builds walls higher, into
insurmaountable obstacles, which then causes people to take sabaticals, or
completely removes them, for why try to get around the wall when you're
going to get cut down anyway?
I wouldn't do it.
Anyway, my humble ramblings.
Dave
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: On Hiatus
|
| I’m afraid I did not misspeak. Personally, I thought Tim’s post was self-indulgent{1}. I chose the term “melodramatics”, as I thought it was relatively innocuous. I suppose I’ll have to be even more careful in the future! Scott A {1} That's just my (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: On Hiatus
|
| (...) For the record, just in case I was being a little obtuse, I concur with Scott, et al. that they are entitled to their opinion that mayhaps Tims Hiatus shouldn't have been listed in the Top Stories. Tho, when you look at it, if Suz took a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
