1 |
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:59:39 -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:37:03AM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
4 |
> > Unfortunately, there are times when it is necessary to point out how |
5 |
> > bad an idea is in order to help someone. Recent example: the |
6 |
> > suggestion to use dd to copy one drive to another with a different |
7 |
> > block size. While this may have worked for the person suggesting it, |
8 |
> > it is a bad idea in general and refraining from stating that could |
9 |
> > have resulted n problems for someone following that advice. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Might I suggest that it is more appropriate, and more likely to be |
12 |
> received, if it is 'pointed out' with logic, technical explanation, and |
13 |
> courtesy. |
14 |
|
15 |
I didn't say otherwise. However, clarity is also important, if an idea is |
16 |
considered poorly conceived, dangerous or simply stupid, there is nothing |
17 |
wrong with stating that. Condemning the idea is not the same as condemning |
18 |
the man, even though there is always an implication that someone |
19 |
proposing a poor idea is in some way at fault, even if that fault is no |
20 |
more than rushing to try to help without considering the possibilities. |
21 |
|
22 |
> > Surely stating the merits or otherwise of an idea is a core element of |
23 |
> > discussion, and discussion is what this list is about. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Which can (and should) be done well without sarcasm and personal attack. |
26 |
|
27 |
Agreed absolutely. There are times when a discussion moves beyond the |
28 |
facts into personal territory, as happened in this thread. In such a |
29 |
case you should consider the track record of the person making the |
30 |
comments. Volker is known to to be somewhat abrupt, although there |
31 |
doesn't appear to be any malice, Alan has a somewhat sarcastic streak. |
32 |
When the comments come from an unknown poster (even one with no |
33 |
recognisable name) they can provoke a stronger, less considered reaction, |
34 |
precisely because there is no history. |
35 |
|
36 |
> > On the topic of swearing, some consider it "bad language", as you do, |
37 |
> > and I respect that view. Others consider it a means of expression |
38 |
> > (others seem to use it for punctuation, but no one is defending |
39 |
> > that). There are times that some words can add emotion or emphasis to |
40 |
> > a statement, especially when used rarely, but on a list like this |
41 |
> > there is generally little or no need for it. However, not all users |
42 |
> > of this list are native-English speakers and other cultures see use |
43 |
> > of such language different - one only has to look at the comments |
44 |
> > made on the podium of the Abu Dhabi F1 Grand Prix, made by |
45 |
> > professional drivers who are paid not to offend. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> God, whom you mention in your sig, has written His law on the heart of |
48 |
> every one, so that "they are without excuse". Having visited 10 |
49 |
> countries, and lived in China for almost 9 years, my experience has |
50 |
> been that even most heathen in remote villages understand propriety. |
51 |
|
52 |
Maybe, but propriety is a feature of a culture and this list has users |
53 |
from many cultures. There may even be some offended by your trying to |
54 |
enforce your God's edicts n their behaviour. |
55 |
|
56 |
This is a multicultural list, we should live and let live. If someone's |
57 |
attitude or words offend you, you are free to ignore them, but they are |
58 |
just as free to continue acting as they do. The Internet is |
59 |
self-regulating and that applies to mailing lists too. This is primarily |
60 |
a help forum, those with attitude may find that when they need help, they |
61 |
have been killfiled by the very people that can help them. |
62 |
|
63 |
> This person doing post-grad work in a Mexican universtiy well |
64 |
> understands. But even if you doubt that, just reference his remark: "I |
65 |
> hope it doesn't offend anyone. That was not (nor is) the intention." |
66 |
> Seems he didn't *really* mean that, and will continue to offend others. |
67 |
|
68 |
I agree, although that is more to do with attitude than language, it's |
69 |
like people who apologise before doing something wrong. What they are |
70 |
really saying it "I know what I am about to do it wrong, but I'm going to |
71 |
do it anyway". Not that I was at all bothered by the client that phoned |
72 |
me again yesterday with "sorry to ring you no a Sunday, but..." followed |
73 |
by a trivial question that could have waited until today, or even be put |
74 |
in an email. |
75 |
|
76 |
Please don't confuse choice of vocabulary with courtesy. I use what you |
77 |
consider bad language at times, when it fulfils two criteria. |
78 |
|
79 |
1) I feel it makes my statement more effective |
80 |
2) I know it won't offend the person(s) I am speaking to |
81 |
|
82 |
However, those are my values, I don't try to force them on others. People |
83 |
who don't like the way I act are as free t ignore me as I them. Making a |
84 |
big thing about it is ultimately pointless. |
85 |
|
86 |
|
87 |
-- |
88 |
Neil Bothwick |
89 |
|
90 |
Your lack of organisation does not represent an |
91 |
emergency in my world. |