Text 6918, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-08-25 15:14:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7415.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Short STORIES by JMS
================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C11471AA0021C295F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY:
<echvd30dj2@drn.newsguy.com><1156366572.545800.185080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com><12eqaatbqo34m9a@corp.supernews.com><

>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:24:10 -0400, Mox Fulder wrote
(in article <12esraqi3lsp7a3@corp.supernews.com>):

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:42:48 GMT, Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Firstly, some people care more about the content than the subject line -- 
>> some people barely look at the subject line, if at all (I know that I don't 
>> - 
>> I simply click through all of the messages that are new).  Also, changing 
>> the 
>> subject line screws up the threading in some peoples' newsreaders.
> 
> I wish I had that kind of free time.<<

Patronizing, much?  I'm a moderator here -- I _have_ to make time read all of 
the messages.

>>>> Your second point is irrelevant.
> 
> Hardly. You brought up the native speaker issue, suggesting non-native 
> speakers should get a free pass now and then. <<

No, I brought up the NON-native speaker issue.

>> What's irrelevant to me is 
> whether a poster is a native speaker, since many native speakers have 
> horrible problems with spelling and grammar. You may or may not agree, 
> but my response certainly is relevant to the issue you brought up. <<

No, it's totally irrelevant to the point we are discussing that "native 
English speakers are often much, much worse."  That point being that you were 
nastier than you needed to be.  What does the fact that some native English 
speakers are lousy grammarians and spellers have to do with that?

>>> Thirdly, there's nothing wrong with correcting someone, but your tone was 
>> really much nastier than was warranted, IMHO.  What you said:
> 
> That does not sound very humble to me. <<

Huh?  What's _not_ humble about it?  What does humility even have to _do_ 
with this?  Not following you at all.

>>> "Fix. The. F'ing. Subject. Line."
> 
> Here's the thing. That was one way of saying, "ugh! Enough already, 
> people, can't anyone fix the subject line when they reply? This is 
> like being stabbed in the eye. It's easy, see?"
> 
> Just a friendly jab among acquaintances. Nothing particularly nasty or 
> profoundly evil about it. <<

When you're posting on Usenet, people can't see your face.  This is why it is 
customary to follow up something you mean as a joke, or as a friendly gibe, 
but that _could_ be considered as angry, or mean, with an appropriate 
emoticon or "<g>."

Alternatively, you put something in your statement that could not be 
construed as anything _but_ humor, to temper it, e.g., "Fix the f'ing subject 
line before my organic spellchecker dissolves into oatmeal!"

>> My follow-up was not about the original poster, contrary to your 
> assumption. It was about everyone else who replied without fixing the 
> subject line. <<

Considering it was the original poster who originated the subject line, how 
could anyone assume your comment was directed otherwise?

>> As for the tone, I would agree it's not warm and fuzzy, but I would 
> disagree with any characterization of any certainty. It's too short to 
> read too much into it and get to any definitive conclusion. <<

You might just want to check your mode of expression for the future.  I have 
a high tolerance and a sharp ear for sarcasm and humor, and I didn't get it.  
Also, you have to balance your expression with the fact that this is a 
community: you have posted here quite a bit, and people get a feel for 
personalities based on previous posts.  I guarantee you that those words 
would have been read _very_ differently, by me at least (and most likely by 
many others), if they'd been posted by someone else here.

>>> So, it's not an issue with your having corrected someone -- really, I'm the


>> _last_ person who'd say that grammar/usage/spelling shouldn't be corrected. 
>>  
>> And it's not about some people taking themselves too seriously.  As we've 
>> discussed in this newsgroup before, on threads you've been a part of, it's 
>> all about tact, and tone, and kindness.
> 
> You do realize this is all based on your assumption and personal 
> interpretation that this was a "much nastier" comment. You have probably 
> said things to close friends that, taken literally and out of context, 
> would be incredibly rude. Yet, between you and your friend, it's nothing. <<

Right, but between me and my close friends, there's a common ground of 
relation.  We have been a community for a long time, and know each other's 
modes of expression, and even in e-mail where we can't see faces, we can make 
interpretations based on a long history of being a close-knit, geographically 
proximate community.

Here in Usenet we're a different kind of community.  Most people's last 
memory of you here is the considerably unhappy thread about expressions and 
sentiments offered upon someone's death.  And most people here have never 
seen your face, and don't know you personally, and therefore only have your 
_words_ by which to judge you.  And there's very little in those particular 
words that can be interpreted as anything _but_ a little on the nasty side.

>> I would suggest that along with being kind, we also take some distance 
> from frivolous online comments, and maybe ask for clarification, if 
> needed, before making too many assumptions. <<

I might have asked for clarification if I felt clarification was needed.  
That was a pretty direct statement.

Amy
                                                                               
                 
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)