 |
 |
Has, In order not to start a list war which is apparently raging now anyhow I had written to Janet privately expressing similar feelings although not as eloquently as you have. I hope- but doubt- that I have been as positive as you have been. The issue is not a referendum on Janet as she has made it but rather a discussion of what kinds of posts are appropriate and what are not.. There are always controls on the list IMHO. The only question is whether they are self censored or censored from the outside . Self censorship differs from censorship in that we voluntarily converse or stop conversing about a subject when we get feedback AND WE AGREE to listen or not listen and accept or not accept others points of view regarding process. When the feedback becomes intimidating as was the case with Michel that creates a problem almost as bad as direct censorship. Unfortunately Janet doesn't see or accept the view that her responses to others is often harsh and STIFLES the very debate she says she is encouraging. I think that she honestly doesn't recognize it and defends the tone of her posts. No Janet don't go. You offer much to the list. Just don't come on so strong that you keep others from saying what they want to say (regarding the list process). Charlie Hans van der Genugten wrote: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: janet paterson <[log in to unmask]> > Aan: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > Datum: zondag 29 augustus 1999 11:49 > Onderwerp: perceptions > > Janet, > > >> some see me as eloquent > some see me as a demagogue << > > have you considered: > sometimes you are eloquent? > sometimes you are demagogic? > > >> i write what i feel compelled to > after much thought and concern and selection > i seek expression and understanding and clarity << > > Have you considered that you might be so focussed on analysing the text (in > good intentions I'm sure), that during this process you sometimes loose some > perception of the person BEHIND the text. A person with feelings. Feelings > that are not always suitable to be analysed mathematically. Sometimes they > are contrary to any logical analysis, but therefor not less important and > they deserve just as much respect for recognition as the logically > analysable facts (or perceptions). > > >> due to fear of what others may see in my words > regardless of my intent?<< > > Supposing your intent in replying to Michel was positive. > No matter if he is right or wrong: HE felt your reply as flaming. > At that moment you replied AGAIN analysing the FACTS (or perceptions if you > like). > IMO you should have realised, which Michel stated very clearly, that you > hurt his FEELINGS and should have apologized (or something like that) for > the UNintended grieve/hurt/discomfort you might have caused. > > Instead you turned the world around IMO, as if Michel by stating his > feelings was initiating a problem, while you projected it onto yourself (IMO > you placed YOURSELF in the focal point). > > I hope you understand my intentions for writing this are positive, though I > have to agree with Michel in seeing your original post as flaming. I hope > that all the negative vibes on the list at the moment, will soon disappear > again, leaving us as better, richer and happier people. > > BTW: I think Barb Mallut was flaming Bonnie and should have directed her > "mea culpa" to her instead of towards Camilla. At least she had the insight > to apologize (very good, Barb!!), but IMO to the wrong person and IMO some > nice words to Bonnie would be appropriate. > > Hans. -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************