Text 6934, 141 rader
Skriven 2006-08-25 15:26:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7431.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.C114C12D00344613F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY:
<echvd30dj2@drn.newsguy.com><1156366572.545800.185080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com><12eqaatbqo34m9a@corp.supernews.com><

>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:50:31 -0400, Mox Fulder wrote
(in article <12euainre2q473c@corp.supernews.com>):

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:21:18 GMT, Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Patronizing, much?  I'm a moderator here -- I _have_ to make time read all 
>> of 
>> the messages.
> 
> You do realize that 99.999999% of the people here are not moderators? Why 
> would you presume that your way of reading a newsgroup is the way most 
> people read it, knowing you are a moderator? Maybe that was not your 
> intention, but it's exactly what you are doing when you say something 
> like, "that's not how *I* read this newsgroup," or "subject lines are 
> irrelevant to me."  <<

No, what I said was what I meant: "...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."  My information comes from years of participation on 
various Usenet newsgroups, and having meta-discussions with people about how 
they read their newsgroups, and how their newsreaders work.

The comment about you patronizing me was in response to your comment "I wish 
I had that kind of free time."

So, two separate issues.  1) The reason I read all of the messages is because 
I am a moderator, and 2) Some people don't do more than glance at the subject 
line, either because of the way their newsreader works, or because they read 
everything in a particular newsgroup anyway.

>> [... >>>>> 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.
> 
> What do you think IMHO means? And if you don't know, why do you use it? <<

Oh, please don't tell me you actually meant that.  Of course I know that the 
"H" in IMHO stands for "humble," but it's a conversational idiom meaning "I'm 
telling you what I think, here" -- generally it doesn't mean that the person 
is trying specifically for humility.  In any case, what _wasn't_ humble about 
it?  I'm telling you I thought that your comment was nastier than intended.  
That _is_ what I thought.  You might charge me with a lack of humility if I'd 
said "Well, you nasty person, you, I am a MUCH nicer and more tactful person 
than you, IMHO!"  All I did was give you my opinion of what your comment 
sounded like -- and once again, here we are in a conversation where at least 
three people have interpreted a post in one way, and the poster himself is 
absolutely righteously indignant that we're all obviously incapable of 
deciphering correct textual intent, rather than conceding that the problem 
might, just _might_, be with their own expression.

>> [...]
>> 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>."
> 
> Certainly, and I thought I was addressing an audience much smarter that 
> one that would depend *entirely* on whether "<g>" is included in the 
> message. As we've discussed before, we probably have a situation of poor 
> expression *and* poor interpretation. <<

I've gotta disagree with you here.  It has nothing to do with smarts.  If I 
posted "Fuck you" in response to what I thought was a nastier-than-necessary 
comment from you, with no "<g>" or ":-)" following it, I don't care what your 
IQ is, you'd _have_ to interpret that as unfriendly.

>>> >> 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!"
> 
> You are responding to your selective quote, not the message. The message 
> actually was:
> 
> "Fix. The. F'ing. Subject. Line.
> 
> Thanks."
> 
> That may not be what you prefer, but it is "something." <<

What about that "Thanks" helps to make it more humorous?

>> >>>> 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?
> 
> If I had been replying to the original poster, I would have done exactly 
> that [this would show in the refernces], and I would have left the "On 
> ..., ... wrote:" line. Like I said, I figured people here knew how Usenet 
> works. Maybe the intention was not clear, of course, but it should have 
> been perfectly clear I was *not* replying to the original poster. Not to 
> mention--the original poster has no way to fix the subject line. Only 
> people posting follow-ups can do that, so making that request to the 
> original poster makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not certain a telepath is 
> required to figure this out. It may not be immediately obvious, but it's 
> not *that* obscure, either. <<

Of course the original poster can fix the subject line, in the exact same way 
a responder can.  I see this all the time on other newsgroups, where someone 
forgot an "OT" or "TAN" tag, so they post a followup to their own OP with the 
appended tag.

>>>>> 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.  
> [...]
> 
> That's a good idea, and I agree. <<

You sure have a strange way of showing your agreement, Mox!   :-D   But in 
any case, I'm glad we can just drop this now.

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