On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, B.G. Sloan wrote:
> I think John Marr is missing my point.
Was your point that "some NGC4LIB subscribers probably don't post to the
list because they may be concerned about being treated rudely"?
If so, then my point was that those people who are reluctant to post
because they sense personal offense can accept responsibility to rephrase
the rhetoric back on point in order to neutralize the perceived personal
rudeness and respond impersonally, rather than allowing themselves to be
intimidated by the rudeness.
We simply can't allow all the manipulative rudeness (much of it
intentional) in the world to continue uncontested, but the only practical
way to neutralize it is to not take it personally and avoid being
distracted or becoming defensive in response.
Heck, we don't want to stop it entirely-- rudeness, besides being
entertaining (re. as political "talking-heads" claim), is a quality
symptom of manipulative rhetoric which allows us to counter the latter
(rather that the rude "person") or at least practice doing so.
> I don't think anyone would be crazy enough to dispute that.
First, one need not be "crazy" to evaluate your perception (and "crazy"
is an emotionally charged, personally-attacking and manipulative word
usually utilized to be distracting and prevent rational response).
2nd, I don't dispute your perception of the problem. It is at least
valid as your perception, and it was stated flexibly. It makes a good
working hypothesis, and you seem to allow for other possible reasons for
the reluctance (if that is even what it always is). I merely perceive
your particular perception to be potentially deconstructive (possibly
attacking one side and patronizing the other) and prefer to seek a
depersonalized solution that permits both contesting parties ("rude" or
"reluctant") to be more effective and less emotionally distracted (see
above).
> Personally, I really like it when folks post
> spirited-and-sometimes-contentious notes to NGC4LIB. It would be a
> REALLY boring list without that.
You got that right! In fact, a lot of people who are not posting may
simply be enjoying the contentiousness as entertainment and not feel any
need (or have the time) to participate beyond that. They just don't see
the value of a good challenge!
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon Jun 28 2010 - 21:58:39 EDT