I wasn't to add anything further to this "discussion," but
since Mark mentioned me by name and referenced my own
contribution to the thread as an example of being "anything
but friendly or appreciative" to him, I feel compelled to
respond.
So here goes.
Mark-
I have a few suggestions for you:
1. If you're going to insist that it's a great idea to do X,
Y, or Z to this group, and then further concede any of these
suggestions will entail significant amounts of work which you
then make a point of saying you yourself are not interested
in doing, don't be too surprised at the tepid response you'll
receive.
2. If you insist on going forward with number 1, and someone
makes a joke about something being "Orwellian," might I
recommend you not automatically assume malice on the part of
the person making the comment, so much as amusement at the
thought of someone like our own resident acquired taste, Mr.
Doherty being able not only to re-state their original case
ad nauseum, but to also edit it in order to realign it with
their updated stance on said topic ad infinitum (I know
Doherty has a sense of humor, but let me be clear here, this
is merely an illustration. I have no doubt that *I* would be
far more tempted to go back and repeatedly edit my own posts
for intellectual "purity" than Jim Doherty would, hence my
reluctance to entertain that sort of temptation, and my
further amusement at the prospect of having that opportunity
available to me).
3. At the risk of coming off as "defensive" (I can assure
you, I'm not), let me hasten to point out that I didn't make
personal statements about you, I didn't make fun of the way
you dress, or your punctuation. Come to think of it, aside
from pointing out the fact that you had promised to stop
proseletyzing, and then further posted something along the
lines of four additional ancillary postings to the same
thread (you know, holding your words up next to your actions
and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions) I
barely referenced you at all. In fact, I took issue directly
with what you've claimed you wanted addressed in this
discussion: your idea.
How is that being "unfriendly," or "unappreciative" toward
you personally? Would you have reacted differently had I
included LOLs or smiley faces?
The questions above are largely rhetorical, because the last
thing we need here is further dialogue on this already
shop-worn topic. With that in mind, I'm going to promise to
get off of the soapbox, and stay off (for this topic, at
least), because Charles Ardai was absolutely correct in his
analysis of this tempest in a teapot, and rather than give a
poor recitation of what he's already masterfully express,
I'll just add a "Yeah, what Charles Ardai said."
I hope you'll take comfort in the assurance that taking issue
with your proposal had nothing to do with taking issue with
you personally.
All the Best-
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R. Harris
To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Forum Format
Jim,
Thanks for your comments. If the group is not
collectively interested in
making a change, they aren't -- I can accept
that. I have real frustrations
with the current set-up myself, but maybe I'm an
isolated case.
That said, I think many of the responses were
anything but friendly or
appreciative to me, and I will remember that. I
don't mind the idea itself
being rejected or argued down, but responses like
Brian Thornton's will make
me think long and hard about posting in the group
again. You've been through
a similar period of reaction yourself, as I
recall, so I imagine you might
be able to relate to this.
Mark
On 2/18/08, JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Re your comment below:
>
> "I'm not disputing the success or value of the
group
> -- clearly not, or why would I bother making
an
> intended-to-be-productive suggestion? It
wasn't
> intended to provoke the defensiveness that it seems
to
> have."
>
> I'm sorry if anything I said sounded defensive.
If
> the format changes, I'll go along with it.
And,
> whether most members agreed with you or not, I'm
sure
> they appreciated that your suggestions were meant,
not
> as a criticism of the group, but as a way of
improving
> the group.
>
> That said, the reason I don't get a sense that
people
> are dissatisfied with keeping the status more or
less
> quo is because all the responses your
suggestion
> generated were unenthusiastic, and it's reasonable
to
> presume that anyone who failed to offer an
opinion
> either generally likes the current system, or at
least
> doesn't dislike it enough to regard a major change
as
> being warranted.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
--
Mark R. Harris
2122 W. Russet Court #8
Appleton WI 54914
(920) 470-9855
brokerharris@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 18 Feb 2008 EST