 |
 |
Janet- Of course you have a right to an opinion and to express it but when you respond so strongly you intimidate and cut off debate. You will notice that I reprinted almost all the text responses including those which I disagreed with. I also edited out the thank you's for doing something like this for the list. I know this list means a lot to you but please trust me when I say I am not trying to attack or hurt the list. It is just that action when you see something that you perceive as a problem is just as caring as protecting the list from perceived attack. I am not attacking so please don't respond like I am. The reason I used the anecdote about a member feeling like he would be crucified was the tone of your reply. Your lead-off with asking me - reminding everyone-- that -I had been away from the list and then questioned my motivations. If I were less assertive I would have said to myself F--- Y-- lady I don't need this sh-t and moved on. I took your statements as personal attack but If you say it wasn't meant that way then the subject is done with. You don't understand why dissatisfaction comes up every few months maybe because little has been done to address the problem. It becomes" survival of the chattiest" and those who don't like it either become inactive or vote with their feet and are gone. I would like to see the list be something more than a PD chatline (not that it shouldn't take that function at times too). I think there is a lot of sentiment to look at the problems- as well as the strengths of of the list . I propose that we work toward change in a positive way and I'm sorry if you read it as an attack. Janet, and listmembers I have to say that it is my observation that the level and relevance of the discussions on list has IN MY OPINION as well as that of some very respected contributors has deteriorated significantly. I see the list as an organism which can either grow (in quality as well as quantity), stagnate, or wither and die. Its our choice. LET'S DEBATE NOT INTIMIDATE (Gee- a few more slogans like that and I will be ready to challenge Johnny Cochran) Charlie janet paterson wrote: > hi charlie > > At 16:43 1998/12/18 -0600, you wrote, in part: > >Janet > >...You are confusing questioning based on anecdotal information and > >trying to get information with an attack on the list and Barb Pattern > >which it is not. Questioning about whether people thin there is a > >problem I believe is helpful. and in the spirit of your challenge to > >help Barb, > > > >I'm going to let your subtle (or not so subtle) personal attack go by > >for now (on my motivation and LIST "patriotism" except to say that > >looking at problems and trying to cone up with solutions is not looking > >a gift horse in the mouth. It is appreciating that gift that is > >received and showing caring for it and its welfare. Not acknowledging > >that the horse's teeth may be decayed is far more irresponsible. > > i did not intend a personal 'attack' on you charlie > maybe i've misread your intentions > in the same way that you have misread mine > > i simply don't understand the > 'i don't like it, therefore it should be changed' complaint > that rears its head every few months > and i still don't > > our perceptions and our opinions obviously differ > what you see as problems to be solved > i see as perceptions that are negative > > maybe the 'gift horse' is a poor analogy > > your point about the horse's teeth being decayed > doesn't suit fit this situation in my view > since we do not own the gift/list > we are given the use of the gift/list > but the gift/list is still owned by barb patterson > > >Barb can speak for herself and if she sees what I > >am doing as disloyal or out of bounds I am sure > >I will hear from her. > > i agree > but am i not allowed to express my opinion about list events > in the same way that you are? > > >In the mean time don't polarize a well intentioned effort. If you > >think I have a hidden agenda I'd love to hear it. Maybe I have a > >financial interest in the outcome. I sure see why one person wrote > >after expressing his views. Please don't use my name or someone > >will crucify me . > > i don't see how having a difference of opinion > is 'polarising' or 'crucifying' > > those members who see the list volume as a problem > are entitled to their opinion and to expressing it > > those members who do not see the list volume as a problem > are entitled to their opinion and to expressing it > > janet > > janet paterson - 51 now /41 dx /37 onset - almonte/ontario/canada > [log in to unmask] -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************