[plug] flaming on the mailing list - was Re: [plug] iinet and email addresses

[Len Bird]

Having been the recipient of more than a little of the kind of abuse that Leon refers
to I have read his contribution with interest, and wholly concur with his comments.

Beyond this I take the view that in that the list is presumably for the purpose of
advancing the acceptance of Linux in its various formats, much of what lands up on
the list has nothing whatsoever to do with this.  Meanwhile Bill Gates and his many
admirerers can split their sides with mirth.

Finally, abusive and irrelevant material can only cause embarassment to the majority
of newbies (like myself) who would be more comfortable with the list if they could be
sure of a civil response.  Lastly I do apologise for taking up this space to express
a view that has nothing to do with Linux,.

Regards to all,

Len Bird

Leon Brooks wrote:

> Gentlemen! Please! (-:
>
> Neil Hunt wrote:
> > Actually I've been on and off this mailing list for 2 years now.
>
> And numerous other fora.
>
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:45:26PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> >> What kind of scum are you?
>
> Before you ask an emotive question of another, ask it of yourself and
> see how you feel. How would you react if someone asked _you_ this
> question? Then choose a better question.
>
> >> Unfortunately, smartlist appears to accept anyone, and is not particular about
> >> what kind of person it accepts...
>
> True. Think about it.
>
> *** THE MAIN POINT ***
>
> On many networks, lists and news groups, both of you would be ejected
> for being rude. This mailing list, hoever, runs on toleration. I thank
> God that I don't moderate it, and am pleased that it suffers no general
> moderation.
>
> Brett, I seem to remember a few meetings ago hearing you call for
> moderated list. Any sensible moderator would ban you pretty quickly for
> that "what kind of scum" question. Were you asking for a moderator only
> for other peoples' messages, and not yours?
>
> Also, many lists and groups of which I have been a part (Fido LTUAE
> springs to mind) would chuck you off permanently for being TOO EASILY
> ANNOYED. What this means is that you take umbrage and cause a flamewar
> at any perceived slight, be it real or imagined, and the social fallout
> which results is not welcome on that channel. On any channel. You
> complain of being slighted but seem instantly ready to slight others. Do
> you regard that situation as fair?
>
> How well would two Brett Busbys with differing points of view work
> together on a list? Call it an unproven opinion, because it is just
> that, but I predict that in such a situation each would toast the other
> soundly and one or both Bretts would pull up stakes in a huff because
> their "rights weren't being protected" or something like that.
>
> You can flame away at me because I have crocodile hide, but you can't
> call me "the committee" because I'm not on it, and you can't call me
> "the whole list" because I'm not. Any blame you attach to this message
> attaches to me alone. However, I think a private ballot (straw poll)
> would show the majority of those on this list who have an opinion would
> agree that what I have said here is truth. Sadly, I believe that the
> same poll could be run on several lists and in several places with
> similar results. Could they _all_ be wrong, and Brett right?
>
> You might think of questions like these as rude, but not only has your
> abuse and railing been almost entirely in public, but it seems clear to
> me that you haven't faced such questions and dealt with them positively
> yet. Sooner or later, I think, you will have to face these questions or
> some very like them and come up with positive answers.
>
> By "positive answers" I don't mean leaving the list and denying that
> there is a problem, and I don't mean flaming everyone who doesn't agree
> completely with you on every point. I'm thinking more in terms of
> reading every message before you send it, and thinking about how someone
> who doesn't know you, doesn't know what you're thinking, would read it -
> and how you would read it if you received it addressed to you. If you're
> still not sure, pick someone whom you trust, but who is distant enough
> from you to be reasonably impartial, and ask them to vet the message for
> you. Sure, there's a delay, but it won't kill you.
>
> You might also start wondering why you get angry so easily - go looking
> both for an INTERNAL cause and for effective ways of getting control of
> your life back. I'm sure it impacts more in your life than just mailing
> lists. There are answers, and they can give you some real power in your
> life.
>
> Grover, you should be regarding Brett as bait, carefully laying aside
> the flamethrower, and playing at a higher level. Are you still clear for
> Tuesday night?
>
> --
> Dogs have masters. Cats have staff.