Murray Altheim wrote: (01)
> I'm not sure where anyone has on this list has the position
> of being judge of anyone else's style, but seems I've somehow
> become the whipping boy for poor style (I won't repeat some
> of the things that have been said about me in the few short
> weeks I've been on this list). I should probably say that at
> no point in *any* of these discussions have I been angry,
> though I must say I'm starting to feel pretty frustrated in
> that I have no sense at this point of being able to write
> anything here without somebody finding fault with either what
> I write or its tone, and my interest in further participation
> here is rapidly waning. (02)
Murray, (03)
I must say that I find your razor sharp intelligence to be stimulating
rather
than threatening. I'm sorry for the "thin skinness" which seems to keep
manifesting
itself here. I can see why you'd be frustrated; but the problem is not
yours. (04)
Gary (05)
> Eric Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Murray Altheim wrote:
>>
>>> Albert Selvin wrote:
>>>
>>>> A belated reply to Murray's post below (excerpted).
>>>>
>>>> I acknowledge that I will miss things of value by deleting without
>>>> reading. By the way, I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on
>>>> particular threads; I just chose some recent examples.
>>>
>>>
>>> Al,
>>>
>>> Nothing you said was taken as an aspersion, at least by me.
>>
>>
>> Ah, good. The issue, it seems, was not one of intention.
>> There is still the matter of style.
>
>
> Eric,
>
> Given your last message and the prior one seem directed at
> me, I might point out that at no point did I berate anyone
> for either choosing to ignore "chatter" or for choosing
> HTML email. I merely pointed out that one might miss something
> (in the same way that you miss the contents of books you don't
> read), and, that I did not want to be forced to use HTML email
> myself, which as you say above, nobody should be forced to
> justify their particular working style to anyone else. I was
> saying in essense the same thing as you did:
> >
> > I am astonished that anyone could berate you for using
> > whatever working style you have chosen to adopt. There
> > should be no need whatever for you to justify yourself.
> > The procedures you use are the ones you have found to
> > work for you, just as the email clients others use are
> > the ones they have found to work for them.
>
> The only thing I wrote to Bill that could have "smacked" of
> being an "ad hominem attack" (I said I found something he
> said was "rather offensive") came after a very long paragraph
> which I thought put the remark in its perspective. And that
> first paragraph wasn't directed at Bill, it was a series of
> general comments not directed at anyone in particular. If
> you read what I wrote to Al again, you'll find nothing that
> could be remotely characterized as an ad hominem, so his
> comments about not casting aspersions was him merely being
> polite (so far as I can understand), not him apologizing
> to me (which is what you seem to imply).
>
>> As my martial arts master used to tell me, you may not have
>> intended to harm, but you (we, me, us) are still responsible
>> for it. Also: You hit with a fist, it lasts a weak. You hit
>> with your words, it can last a lifetime.
>
>
> If you'd like, I can try to find some quote from my martial
> arts instructor, since these are taken as having some measure
> of authority. Here's one:
>
> "Be neither tense nor limp."
> -- Tri Thong Dang
>
>> Funny how such lessons stick with you...
>
>
> Agreed, but I still end up with a lot of tension in my
> shoulders...
>
> My comments on accessibility stand as they are, and I did not
> assume the worst of Al's or Bill's intentions, indeed, I would
> say that your comments seem to assume the worst of mine. If my
> tone seems overly antagonistic to you, that's a characteriza-
> tion that you've made about email messages I've written, not
> necessarily about my feelings on any subject. I did not for a
> moment think (for example) that Bill was necessarily being
> deliberately derogatory, insensitive, or anything else: he was
> just being funny. I do have a sense of humour. Saying that you
> find someone's comments offensive does not imply (to me) that
> they meant them as such, nor is it (to me) an ad hominem attack,
> nor (to me) does it require or in any way suggest the necessity
> of an apology.
>
> I'm not sure where anyone has on this list has the position
> of being judge of anyone else's style, but seems I've somehow
> become the whipping boy for poor style (I won't repeat some
> of the things that have been said about me in the few short
> weeks I've been on this list). I should probably say that at
> no point in *any* of these discussions have I been angry,
> though I must say I'm starting to feel pretty frustrated in
> that I have no sense at this point of being able to write
> anything here without somebody finding fault with either what
> I write or its tone, and my interest in further participation
> here is rapidly waning.
>
> Murray
>
> ......................................................................
> Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
> Knowledge Media Institute
> The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
>
> "Somebody is going to dominate space. When they do,
> just like when the British dominated the naval part
> of our globe, established their empire, just like the
> United States has dominated the air superiority,
> ultimately, whoever is able to dominate space will be
> able to control the destiny of the entire Earth."
> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1232864&l=14817
>
>
>http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/040115.HTM#2
>
>
> (06)
--
This message is archived at: (07)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=400F3F0E.8040309@rcn.com (08)
|