[Up] [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fw: Teamwork ?

>At 09:33 AM 14/01/02 -0600, John wrote:
>>I'm removing both parties from the list immediately.
>G'day John,
>I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but it seems clear to me from the
>addresses shown on Ian Sinclair's quote that the offending message was not
>sent to the The Sinclair family discussion list (sinclair@quarterman.org),
>but direct.   I therefore can find no justification for your action to
>disbar anyone from this list.
>If a direct e-mail offends someone, methinks they should take it up with
>the offending party in a similar manner, i.e.; _directly_.

One of the parties reposted private mail to the list.
You may recall the guideline I already cited about ad hominem attacks.
See the guideline immediately before that one:

``Private mail and mail sent to a public list are two different things.
Forwarding private mail to a public list without permission from the
original sender is very impolite and is not permitted on this list.''

Regardless of that, they are guidelines, not rules.  I trust you read
this bold face paragraph towards the beginning of the list introduction:

     The Subscriber may, without notice or reason of any kind, be
     refused access to the list, at any time or times.


This list is my personal hobby.  I support it for my personal enjoyment.
I need no more justification to remove someone from the list than I
would to have them leave my living room.

In this case, even though I do not have to, I even gave warning in advance
and reminded everyone of the guidelines, to no avail.

>This is in no interpretation a voicing of support for the language used,
>but it was obviously never the intention of the writer that I should view
>that particular e-mail in the first place, nor indeed the bulk of this list. 
>I must say also that given the fact that the message was "Cc'd" to our
>chief seems to suggest to me that the writer has a dramatically different
>viewpoint on language usage than perhaps does the receiver - and that is
>their own particular perogatives, surely - in a _private_ e-mail exchange?

Indeed, in private mail, not on the list.

One thing I do enjoy seeing on the list is civil discussion about topics
of interest to the list members.  It is possible to disagree without
giving or taking offense.  Several list members have made that point
in the past few days.  Many of them have said it better than I could.

>Just my opinion of course, but I would like to see your decision reversed
>if possible!

Anyone who wants to be on the list is free to contact me off the list
to discuss joining or rejoining the list.  One of the two parties has
already done so.  I'll be happy to hear from the other, as well.
In a few days I'll either have heard from both of them or not, and
then I'll decide what to do.

>Cheers from upsidedown land,

>Ian Newman
>Perth, Western Australia

John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html