[EM] [Fwd: No response was requested from you]

[Rob Lanphier]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Richard Moore wrote:
> Craig may have a genuine problem understanding some of the 
> statements made on this list (though most of the time I 
> think it's plain disingenuity, or that's how it comes 
> across), but his bigger problem is that he just doesn't know 
> how to ask for clarification nicely.  Start with ad hominems 
> -- against the entire list, mind you -- and add in 
> non-sequiturs such as those about Martin and "P" to confuse 
> the issue, and exclude any contextual information that would 
> help express what his question is, and you can see why 
> rational people get frustrated with this behavior. If 
> there's a genuine inquiry in there, why must it be wrapped 
> up in the language and tactics of a troll? And what's with 
> the unsolicited off-list messages?

I completely agree with your observations, and I think your time would
probably be better spent working with people who are engaged in less
hostile inquiry.  (And the reason why I knew to respond to you was one of
those unsolicited off-list messages). 

Craig has solicited my intervention on multiple occasions on this list,
and I've refrained from doing that.  I've generally suspected that, if I
did take the time to investigate fully, I'd intervene against him. 

Of course, occasions like these give me the opportunity to share one of my
favorite quotes:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to
be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." -- Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 1927.

It would be nice to come up with a self-moderating rating system so that
people could easily do their own filtering of this list, but I'm not aware
of any system that applies to mailing lists.  Something like what's used
on Advogato (http://www.advogato.org) would be great.  Any ideas?

Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla