"Parker Peters" wrote
Charles, I apologize for sending it directly to the list, but you obviously had misread my words and I was worried that others might have as well.
Come, sir. Do I have your permission to let the list have the wording of your mail to me, including the request for a _private_ discussion.
A phrase by phrase analysis is not misreading, it is close reading.
I am not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
Can we throw this guy off the list now?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 06/10/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
He's not known for his ability to learn.
Can we throw this guy off the list now?
You realise he's why the list was set to start all new members moderated in the first place.
Damn, the list mods will have to work for a living again.
- d.
Charles,
I'll do it myself. Seems only fair.
-----------
If that is your only response, you aren't interested in discussing this in a civilized fashion?
I'm asking you privately. I mean not to be rude, but I am genuinely concerned and do not want to bother with flamewars or anything else. - Hide quoted text -
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Parker Peters" wrote
Every policy we have on the matter is designed to make it impossible for an aggrieved
user
to make any protest against abuse.
Nonsense.
Charles
---------------
I was emailing you privately, to make sure that I was understood and to try not to cause a flamewar. As you had obviously misunderstood me, and I can see how I could have been misunderstood, and I could see how others could have misunderstood me too, I took the time to clarify my position. My own poor choice of words might have been to blame for this, but it would have been very poor form of me to leave it unclarified.
I am not trying to flame, or be rude, or anything else. I will tell you that I find your combative attitude rude, which is why I asked for your calm and suggested a breather might be in order.
I am a big fan of civility. If I have broken that, and you obviously did take offense at my forwarding my clarification to the whole list, I apologize. I apologized for sending it out to the whole list, publicly: I do so again. I made a mistake and am sorry. I apologize for any other poor choices of words I may have made as well.
I will tell you also that I had a private email from Jimbo, and had emailed him requesting his permission to send my reply to this list, and am still not doing so because I have no response from him yet, and will not do so until such time as he sends me an affirmative, or not at all if he sends me a negative.
Can we please discuss the topic at hand now, without any more rudeness?
Parker
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Parker Peters" wrote
Charles, I apologize for sending it directly to the list, but you
obviously
had misread my words and I was worried that others might have as well.
Come, sir. Do I have your permission to let the list have the wording of your mail to me, including the request for a _private_ discussion.
A phrase by phrase analysis is not misreading, it is close reading.
I am not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time
that
you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
Can we throw this guy off the list now?
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6 Oct 2006, at 17:59, Parker Peters wrote:
I am not trying to flame, or be rude, or anything else. I will tell you that I find your combative attitude rude, which is why I asked for your calm and suggested a breather might be in order.
This perpetuates the myth put out by the blocking people that a breather helps a disagreement. I find that discussion is more likely to create a resolution than ignoring differences.
I've also found that a more heated exchange sometimes allows people to resolve to a new consensus.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Parker Peters" wrote
I am not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
Can we throw this guy off the list now?
That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.
On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Parker Peters" wrote
I am not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
Can we throw this guy off the list now?
That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.
Yes - even if he has behaved badly in other contexts, and by publishing a private email, people can still look at his arguments with an open mind.
Stephen Streater wrote:
On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Parker Peters" wrote
I am not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
Can we throw this guy off the list now?
That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.
Yes - even if he has behaved badly in other contexts, and by publishing a private email, people can still look at his arguments with an open mind.
Exactly, and tossing somebody from the list also tosses out any possibility of finding a consensus because a significant POV in the argument would be missing
Ec