 |
 |
At 01:38 PM 5/19/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-05-19 10:05:40 EDT, Walt writes: > ><< It's unfortunate when people use sarcastic mean-spirited put downs. Yes, > put-downs such as telling me to leave ....>> > >Yes, Walt, it is disheartening when people respond in a hurtful way. As I >was monitoring the gold they were weaving for you, I had an urge to >contribute how I feel about this, and now that your Hornet's Nest posting is >up, I have decided to do so. > >The people on this list have impressed me previously as being exceptionally >positive in their attitudes and supportive in their actions. That made the >replies to your preference for political activism all the more disturbing. > The instantaneous response of "like it or lump it"/"if you're not for us >you're against us"/"love it or leave it"/"just go away"/"how dare you try to >change things" is terribly divisive and serves as a scary example for anyone >else daring to suggest change. It is especially hurtful to be attacked for >one's intellect. > >I feel the basic message of, "That's an idea, but count me on the list of >those who do not wish to emphasize political activism," could have been made >without the personal negativity. Suggestions along the lines of the other >list that uses Topics--or some other ideas entirely--would be another way of >signalling an acceptance and support of you for having an idea while not >endorsing it as a wholesale change. There are so many ways of drawing a >circle that encompasses us all. > >Now, the tone of your original message may have seemed too strident for some. >You might want to re-read your outgoing letters three times, using a >different tone of voice each time, to see how likely it would be for people >to misinterpret your underlying intent and emotional state. And you could >try prefacing it with, "I know this could sound violent, but it isn't >intended that way. Please read it without emotion and let me know what you >think of the content." Your first message may have generated fear that the >social character of the list was in jeopardy. I know that I would not wish to >see the back-fence nature of this list dramatically altered, but I am open to >those smaller >changes that might benefit parts or all of the subscribers. > >I dislike Parkinson's, but I love our all being in this together. I have a >feeling the messages are already getting gentler. > >Deanne Charlton >[log in to unmask] > you said it 100% I.Y.Q. don