|
|
Preempting debate
Kotliar (viomar@ATHENS.NET)
Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:10:31 -0400
by a request for the flamee not to post a response to the list because
:"they are not interested in further communication". First if they were
not interested in communication they shouldn't have responded to the
earlier post. Mailing lists are designed for dialogue, they are not about
scoring points. If a posting is scurillous, it is not worthy of dialogue
and it should be given the attention it deserves, none. If however is
merely presenting an opinion contrary to one's own (as deeply held as they
may be), then one should respond with (the rest of the list audience in
mind) with logic demonstrating why your opinion is correct and the other
position if faulty. No statements about the poster are necessary (even if
they are true). They are also contrary to a recent statement from the
listowner on the parameters of list discourse (which so far seems to have
been ignored by some individuals).
I am not singling out one individual because there are more than
one offender. If a discussion of electronic ettiquette can be tied into
anthropological discussions about Internet culture, so much the better.
But in responding to this discussion I plead with you not engage in bashing
any particular individuals on the list (including me). Peace accords only
begin when such accounts of past wrongs are set aside for considerations of
the future. How about an anthro-l peace treaty. I welcome cordial
responses (even those that disagree). I will ignore all non-cordial
responses.
Jay Kotliar
mayajay@athens.net
*********************************************************
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well
as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets
and to steel bread.
-Anatole France, Crainquebille.
*********************************************************
|