Welcome back Terri. You are on the nail as usual
============
In the "lurkers" thread, it has been interesting to watch how others
interpreted Keith's original comments. I am one (of apparently only a
very few!) who did not make meaning of his remarks as being negative or
condeming. I agree with Rol that the overwhelming negative response to
Keith are evidence of some shared values we hold--be that "unjust
criticism
==========
I agree the sentiment but then question this 'overwhelming negative
response to Keith'. I think the title >stop making lurkers wrong> was one
I first used in a response to Keith's message which started
"This message is triggered by an emergent conversation about contributors/
Lurkers on the list. See several posts. What triggered my response was
Keith's LO7929. I may or may not be tongue in cheek."
The meaning may or may not have got across but I was trying to indicate
Keith's message was the trigger rather than the sole cause of my
contribution.
My message closed with
"Just an attempt to ask us that we reflect on our own being in respect of
the list."
The subsequent correspondence at least got me reflecting. I learnt as much
from it as any thread in my time on the list and would like to acknolwedge
all who contributed. Also Terri, thanks for reminding us of how we make
meanings.
If Price
The Harrow Partnership
Pewley Fort Guildford UK
101701.3454@compuserve.com
--Dr Ilfryn Price <101701.3454@compuserve.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>