Dear Bruce,
I appreciate your latest comments. If I may, with my 1/2 cent worth,=20
regarding communiting on the Internet. Over the years, I have learned=20
that it is very easy to be misinterpreted. Many among us, when writing=20=
an e-mail, are not really careful about the quality of our language=20
(for me as much in French as more so in English, not being my native=20
language). We write fast and, most of the time, we do not read=20
ourselves over to make sure that our thoughts are well formualted. It=20
is starting to be a well-known fact that because of the dehumanizing=20
aspect of the Internet (no face to face contact), we might be inclined=20=
to say things that we would not say in a real situation, or say them in=20=
ways that we would not in a normal situation. No one is there to stop=20
us or censure us from writing what we want. But then, it is easy to be=20=
misinterpreted. The Internet medium is a great one but with drawback of=20=
which we are not careful. I've learned to be more careful when I write=20=
an e-mail than otherwise because of these.
But also, one thing that is hard to do is: agree to disagree...
Have a nice day!
Bruno
Le Vendredi, 26 sept 2003, =E0 11:18 America/Montreal, Bruce Jones a=20
=E9crit :
>
> NOTE: This is a public reaponse to a private email (no names below,
> they're not germane). I post it here, rather than simply sending it
> to my private correspondent, because I think it addresses larger
> issues about how discussion takes place on the list (and on email
> lists and email in general).
>
> I got my first email account in 1984 (an auspicious time to join
> the "Global Village"). I had the good fortune of having a "teacher"
> who had been using email since the 70s, who pointed out an important
> aspect of the medium to me: to whit, email often comes across as
> being far more personal and critical than is usually intended. The
> complete lack of other communicative cues (physical context, quality
> and tone of voice, facial expression, etc.) mean that it is easier
> than normal to read more into a sentence than intended.
>
> This footnote at the end of my last message is a case in point:
>
> [2] Personally I don't know how to separate the spirituality
> of things from their physical incarnations. I don't believe in
> ghosts and have no particular use for Organized Religion of any
> sort.<snip>
>
> On reflection I can see how this can be read as a criticism of
> organized religions in particular and religion in general. This
> was not my intent. I was speaking for myself, and only myself.
> *I* don't find a need or use for religion, particularly those who
> are "organized" (read, have buildings and social, political, or
> economic structures). That is not to say, or even imply, that I
> have any negative feelings about the purposes those activities and
> organizations might serve in the lives of others (to the extent
> that such organizations are not used to abuse their adherents (cf.
> Jim Jones and Guiana).
>
> If we are going to survive, as a list and as a world, we are going
> to have to learn not to take everything said in a public space as a
> personal criticism. Even when it looks like it was intended, we are
> going to have to learn to follow the golden rule of judgement:
>
> "Never take as malice what can adequately be
> explained by stupidity"
>
> The second time someone reiterates the same point, in the same fashion
> and lanugage, then and only then should we begin to suspect that
> they are criticizing us personally.
>
> Yours for a little more forgiveness,
>
> bj
>
> -
> _____________________________________________
>
> List subscription information is at:
> http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
>
_____________________________________________
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:35 PST