First, I'd like to thank Hal for being willing to put our conversation
on-line.
Hal, I do understand that you interpreted my premise as you described
below.
What I'm trying to do in my moderation of the list is a little different.
I have no conscious objection to spirit, emotion, and advocacy. As
evidence of this I offer the fact that I invited taking your spirited
private message on-line to the list.
In reviewing msgs for distribution, I'm most conscious of instances in
which an author appears not to repsect the author to whose msg they are
replying, or when there is the possibility that their writing may be
interpreted that way. (I'm conscious that our discussion reaches a cross
section of the English speaking world, is multi-cultural, and that certain
patterns of words are liable to mis-interpretation in email.)
In other words, I'm trying to insure that there is an unambiguous tone of
mutual respect and that the second author has listened in the process of
replying.
-- Rick
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996 GaltJohn22@aol.com wrote:
> Rick's premise (please correct any inaccuracy) seemed to be: Too much
> emotion in advocacy or in rebuttal, even it focused on the idea rather
> than the preson, is too disruptive to the list, given its goals and its
> medium.
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | email: rkarash@karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Mailing List (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://world.std.com/~lo>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>