From: "kasper salonen" <[log in to unmask]>
> "your behaviour" should be "his (Roger's) behaviour", of course. the
> names Robin/Roger are too similar to each other.
Yo. Not to speak of The Problem of Confusing the Two Rogers. <g>
> but where the hell is all this bad blood coming from??? what the fuck
> happened to civil fucking conversation? (that's meant as irony kids)
I've been wondering that myself. Part of the problem is that there are at
least three things at issue, all coming together here.
The most obvious problem is tone in emails, about which I'm sure we're all
well aware.
At the other extreme are the instances of clear violation of list etiquette,
of which one could make a catalogue. Hm ...
In the middle is what I'd consider generalised irritation. Which was what
lay behind my getting at you in my last post. I do, at the best of times,
get irritated by people, however well-meaning, attributing motives to others
and going on to elucidate these hypothetical motives and emotions. Whether
or not Roger Day's words went beyond the permissable verbal dress code of
poetryetc (and I personally didn't feel they did, but then that may be a
matter of tone), I felt it was patronising on your part to presume to
"explain" them. Roger knows what he was feeling when he posted, but neither
you nor I do.
Whatever.
> I think I'll just try to step out of this situation before it gets out of
> hand.
Me too, which is partly why I've changed the header. I've already said my
last word on the other thread, and this will be my last on this.
>> name keeps cropping up here as a kind of fearful whisper, FLAME WAR.
Mind you, when it comes to flame wars, this is a tiny blaze compared with
for instance what happened in the Last Days of subsubpoetics. Now *that is
what I'd call a flame war! <g>
R. [Hamilton]
(who is off to see if he can find the notes he once made for a study
entitled "Internet Discussion Groups Considered in Terms of Primate
Territoriality".)
|