Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

a gentle plea

Expand Messages
  • Deborah
    I m wondering if folks who are conducting an exchange of insults could label their posts as such. This is such a high volume list that I can t possibly keep up
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 29, 2005
      I'm wondering if folks who are conducting an exchange of insults could
      label their posts as such. This is such a high volume list that I
      can't possibly keep up with all of it, and therefore have to
      prioritize. Unfortunately, some threads may begin as interesting
      exchanges and later deteriorate into shouting matches and then rise
      back to high quality exchanges and then...well you get the idea. What
      I'm suggesting is a pause after you have finished writing your
      post...a quick review to see if there is any content of general
      interest or if the post just consists of variations on "you filthy
      pond scum." The latter sort of posts could just have a little
      tag, "insults" inserted into the subject line and those of us who are
      too busy or not fascinated by invective could easily skip over them.

      I don't want to interfere with anyone's free speech rights. I just
      feel as though I ought to have some way of exercising selective,
      efficient, reading rights.

      Nana
    • Sophia
      Dear Nana, ... We can remind our listmates about the rules of the Art of Flaming: From the online book Netiquette by Virginia Shea -
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 29, 2005
        Dear Nana,

        You wrote:

        I'm wondering if folks who are conducting an exchange of insults could label their posts as such.

        We can remind our listmates about the rules of the Art of Flaming:

        From the online book "Netiquette" by Virginia Shea - http://www.albion.com/catNetiquette.html


        Rule 7: Help keep flame wars under control

        "Flaming" is what people do when they express a strongly held opinion without holding back any emotion. It's the kind of message that makes people respond, "Oh come on, tell us how you really feel." Tact is not its objective.

        Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming is a longstanding network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition). Flames can be lots of fun, both to write and to read. And the recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat.

        But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars -- series of angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed toward each other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a discussion group. It's unfair to the other members of the group. And while flame wars can initially be amusing, they get boring very quickly to people who aren't involved in them. They're an unfair monopolization of bandwidth.
         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        From "The Art of Flaming:

        Use FLAME ON/FLAME OFF markers

        It's good form to warn readers that you're about to let off steam. Just write "FLAME ON" at the beginning of a diatribe to let readers know what's coming. That way, they may still be offended, but at least they were warned. Additionally, the "FLAME ON" marker can indicate that you yourself don't take the diatribe entirely seriously. When you've finished flaming, write "FLAME OFF" and resume normal discourse.

        Faithfully,

        Sophia (moderator)
        http://www.geocities.com/anarchosophia/

      • Deborah
        Thanks Sophia, A Flame marker in the subject line would work just fine, for those messages that consist of one type of content only. I don t mind reading
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 29, 2005
          Thanks Sophia,

          A "Flame" marker in the subject line would work just fine, for those
          messages that consist of one type of content only. I don't mind
          reading through a certain amount of hot language if there is some
          interesting content somewhere amidst the verbiage.

          I would also like to offer a special award to Frank, who has offered
          up some of the most hilarious insults it has ever been my pleasure
          to read.

          Nana

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Sophia
          <anarchosophia@y...> wrote:
          > Dear Nana,
          >
          > You wrote:
          >
          > >I'm wondering if folks who are conducting an exchange of insults
          could
          > >label their posts as such.
          >
          > We can remind our listmates about the rules of the Art of Flaming:
          >
          > From the online book "Netiquette" by Virginia Shea -
          > http://www.albion.com/catNetiquette.html
          >
          >
          >
          > Rule 7: Help keep flame wars under control
          >
          > "Flaming" is what people do when they express a strongly held
          opinion
          > without holding back any emotion. It's the kind of message that
          makes
          > people respond, "Oh come on, tell us how you really feel." Tact is
          not its
          > objective.
          >
          > Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming is a
          longstanding
          > network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition).
          Flames can
          > be lots of fun, both to write and to read. And the recipients of
          flames
          > sometimes deserve the heat.
          >
          > But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars --
          series of
          > angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed
          toward each
          > other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a
          > discussion group. It's unfair to the other members of the group.
          And while
          > flame wars can initially be amusing, they get boring very quickly
          to people
          > who aren't involved in them. They're an unfair monopolization of
          bandwidth.
          > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
          > From "The Art of Flaming:
          >
          >
          > Use FLAME ON/FLAME OFF markers
          >
          > It's good form to warn readers that you're about to let off steam.
          Just
          > write "FLAME ON" at the beginning of a diatribe to let readers
          know what's
          > coming. That way, they may still be offended, but at least they
          were
          > warned. Additionally, the "FLAME ON" marker can indicate that you
          yourself
          > don't take the diatribe entirely seriously. When you've finished
          flaming,
          > write "FLAME OFF" and resume normal discourse.
          >
          >
          > Faithfully,
          >
          > Sophia (moderator)
          > http://www.geocities.com/anarchosophia/
        • simonedim
          This subject of flame wars reminded me this classic piece of cyber-humor, one of my all time favorites. (Sorry those who had read it before and/or oppose off
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 29, 2005
            This subject of flame wars reminded me this classic piece of
            cyber-humor, one of my all time favorites. (Sorry those who had read
            it before and/or oppose 'off topic' posts)
            If you've been in the internet for a while, changes are
            you'll find yourself fit in one of these subgroups, at some point
            (or maybe all of them).

            CYBER DISORDERS (left out of the DSM-IV)

            The Cyber Disorders section includes disorders that have a
            dependency upon cyberexistance as the predominant feature. The
            section is divided into three parts.

            The first part describes e-mail episodes that serve as the building
            blocks for the disorder diagnoses.

            The second part describes the Cyber Disorders themselves. The
            criteria sets for most of the Cyber Disorders require the presence
            or absence of the e-mail episodes described in the first part of the
            section.

            The third part includes the specifiers that describe either the most
            recent e-mail episode, or the course of recurrent episodes.

            The Cyber Disorders are divided into Posting Disorders, Flaming
            Disorders and CC Disorders.

            The Posting Disorders (i.e. Lurking Disorder, Chronic Posting
            Disorder and Posting Disorder not Otherwise Specified) are
            distinguished from the Flaming Disorders by the fact that there is
            no history of ever having posted a Flame, or Flame-with-Apology. CC
            Disorders (CC-All Disorder and Spam Disorder) may include episodes
            of Chronic Posting, Flames, and/or Flame-With-Apologies but can be
            distinguished by the number of addressees.

            Lurking Disorder is characterized by one or more episodes of lurking
            (i.e. at least two weeks of lurking or loss of interest in answering
            mail accompanied by at least four additional symptoms of Lurking
            including high on-line time balances, walking away from the computer
            while logged on, composing posts and deleting them without sending
            them, etc.)

            Chronic Posting Disorder is characterized by at least 4 weeks of
            posting to a newsgroup or listserv more days than not, accompanied
            by additional Cyber symptoms such as checking mail several times per
            day, posts in which the content is shorter than the message header
            or sig, and messages of extreme anxiety when list volume drops.
            Posting Disorder not Otherwise Specified is included for coding
            disorders with posting features that do not meet the criteria for
            Lurking Disorder or Chronic Posting Disorder.

            Flaming Disorder is characterized by one or more episodes of hot-
            tempered posts, usually posted within seconds of receiving
            the 'trigger' message, but can be distinguished from the Flame-With-
            Apology in that the sender has a sincere belief that he/she is 100%
            correct and morally entitled to his/her feelings of outrage. Flaming
            Disorder is often accompanied by Chronic Posting Disorder.

            Flame-With-Apology Disorder is a milder form of the Flaming
            Disorder, in which the poster sincerely apologizes for the first
            portion of the message and yet sends it anyway. A variation of Flame-
            With-Apology exists in which posters staunchly defend their position
            for 3 to 4 days, then abruptly back down and revert to Chronic
            Posting or Lurking.

            The specifiers described in the third part of the section are
            provided to increase diagnostic specificity, create more homogeneous
            subgroups, assist in treatment selection, and improve the prediction
            of prognosis. Some of the specifiers describe the current or most
            recent episode (i.e. Pine, Elm, Anonymous, With Humorous Features,
            and With Uncomplicated Internet Access).

            In a fit of insomnia -- Liz
            (Elizabeth Galvan)
          • Frank Thomas Smith
            ... Huh? And I thought they were compliments. Frank
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 30, 2005
              >
              > A "Flame" marker in the subject line would work just fine, for those
              > messages that consist of one type of content only. I don't mind
              > reading through a certain amount of hot language if there is some
              > interesting content somewhere amidst the verbiage.
              >
              > I would also like to offer a special award to Frank, who has offered
              > up some of the most hilarious insults it has ever been my pleasure
              > to read.
              >
              > Nana

              Huh? And I thought they were compliments.
              Frank
            • Deborah
              ... and Frank replied: Don t be sorry, Di. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and thinking isn t your strong point. ... I do hope Diana realized it was
              Message 6 of 7 , May 1, 2005
                Diana said:
                > Sorry. Been trying to think of a cute reply but give up.

                and Frank replied:
                Don't be sorry, Di. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and
                thinking
                isn't your strong point.

                ---------------------
                I do hope Diana realized it was a compliment, Frank.
                Nana

                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
                <franksmith@v...> wrote:

                > > I would also like to offer a special award to Frank, who has
                offered
                > > up some of the most hilarious insults it has ever been my pleasure
                > > to read.
                > >
                > > Nana
                >
                > Huh? And I thought they were compliments.
                > Frank
              • Frank Thomas Smith
                ... Gosh, I hope so, Nana. I wouldn t want her to think I m anti-impediment. I know it s not their fault ( they being those who have thinking impediments),
                Message 7 of 7 , May 1, 2005
                  >
                  > and Frank replied:
                  > Don't be sorry, Di. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and
                  > thinking
                  > isn't your strong point.
                  >
                  > ---------------------
                  > I do hope Diana realized it was a compliment, Frank.
                  > Nana

                  Gosh, I hope so, Nana. I wouldn't want her to think I'm anti-impediment. I
                  know it's not their fault ("they" being those who have thinking
                  impediments), that it's not even a question of IQ. Rather that something in
                  their biography (this life or a previous one) so affected their psyche that
                  it makes objective judgment where spiritual subjects are concerned difficult
                  if not impossible, and can result in paranoia, or at least in paranoia-like
                  actions and/or words.
                  Frank
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.