As a rule, discretion is my middle name, but I fear that if this message
is not answered, my rock may be down at the bottom of the hill again. So
sorry folks. Those who've had enough of this topic (as I have of course),
DELETE NOW!
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
> Lurk mode off
>
> As I would see the situation:
> Terry has never treated people on this list with any
> disrespect. Disagreeing with someone should not be considered disrespect.
> Even pontification is okay by me, it is my choice to accept the advice or
> not.
Michael,
It occurs to me that as a lurker you might not have noticed the disruption
as much as some of us laboring to actually construct this discourse have.
No matter how delicate and even idiosyncratic a thread may be, if it takes
a turn contrary to Terry's dictat, he is liable to bury it. In my book
that actually *is* disrespect, tho it has nothing to do with "manners" or
politesse. You have the "choice" as a bystander to ignore or not, but
it's not so easily ignored when it's your ox (your labor), so to speak,
being gored.
> What nasty, heavy, and snide remarks has Terry made? I have
> personally gotten some of those remarks from some people when this list has
> gone into one of it's (fortunately infrequent) spasm's. But never from
> Terry.
Terry only picks a large target. He's not loaded for lurkers. In fact I
imagine that he would be a very kindly teacher. That is, where the roles
are clear, and competition or dominance is not an issue. But many of us
writing here are not, for better or worse, his students, which brings on a
different mode.
I think in any event, "nasty" may not have been the perfect word, although
comments of the type he has made consistently can certainly *feel* nasty
when you are on the receiving end. I'm surprised again that you seem not
to have noticed the near-mockery or haranguing. Many times when we have
discussed a process or technique he doesn't find necessary or of value,
Terry has burst in with comments like "only if you want to waste your
life."
> And the idea that he is
not "allowed" to remark or answer
> or otherwise comment upon another's postings sounds a lot like....
Michael, we're all here to remark and comment on others' postings, and to
have them comment on ours. If you will re-read my "Modest Request" you
will see that "remark" is to these episodes as Goody Two Shoes is to Vlad
the Impaler.
> This is everyones list, and if anyone doesn't want to listen to
> what Terry has to say, their mailreader probably has a filter to not accept
> his posts. If not maybe they should get one that does.
The problem with such a filter as you (blithely?) suggest would be that it
would not only destroy any coherence of discussion, as we'd all be reading
different mail, it would in any event not work. How would we install a
filter to filter out people *replying* to those messages?
As for just ignoring them, which some folks quite sympathetic to my
particular plight have suggested, that again is easier said than done --
especially when, as noted, it's your ox being gored. But if it were the
most brilliant discussion in the history of photography or the most
beautiful song in the history of singing, if someone steps up to the
microphone and makes loud noises it isn't easy to ignore.
Ironic isn't it, that yet once again Terry is "the subject"? And that I
compound the error? However, you may not be aware that some of our stellar
writers have left the list or gone inactive. I myself made my "Request" as
a last resort.(I understand by the way that Terry has fomented such crises
on other lists.) Perhaps you will consider that if matters were as easily
remedied as you suggest, they would have been.
But on the bright side, this does prove to be a most interesting lesson in
cyber-community doesn't it? We must ALL be good citizens. One rogue
e-mailer can bring the house down.....
Regards,
Judy