Re: [OPE-L] On flaming

From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2006 - 15:27:25 EST

In einer eMail vom 26.11.2006 18:07:14 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  

> I  find your contribution to this problem very imaginative. Instead
>  showing  ways of how a problem might be solved you are suggesting  to
> discriminate against  a member of the list. Rakesh may have  not chosen
> the right way of expressing his  concerns but this  does not give anyone
> the right to say ignore him.

Nicky's  suggestion isn't as "imaginative" as you seem to suggest: not
opening  messages from a sender whose messages you do not care to
read or marking  someone's mesasages as "SPAM" so that they do not fill
your "inbox" are  legitimate and normal ways which Internet subscribers
use to filter their  incoming mail.  Both of these methods have long
been practised by some  subscribers to this list.
It is one's own decission and right to do whatever he/she wants to do with  
his/her post received. Biut it is something else and no longer private matter 
if  someone suggests publicly discriminating aginst. Such an atitute requires 
public  response.

This is not a solution for myself, though, as I -- wearing  my
administrative hat -- have to follow the discussions and intevene
as  moderator where necessary.  I normally use this address when so
doing  so as to avoid confusion.

As for your wish to see the conflict solved,  the answer is very
simple: DON'T FLAME!  This is not the optimal  answer, however:
public apologies to the person who has been flamed and to  the list
would be a much better and just solution.
You say here to me in plural "DON'T FLAME". Do you mean I have flamed  anyone 
in the list or why are you using the plural imperative form.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST