[ga-abuse] Re: Think twice before sending [Was: RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free"]

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Roberto

Sorry - you are a nice person and don't see the personal attacks.

Try this one.  My complaint.


Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
To: babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules & Protocols Committee

> At 06:05 AM 4/17/2001, babybows.com wrote:
> >This pattern of constant sniping and badgering must come to an end.
> 
> It probably does not further the stated goal to have an elected GA official 
> engage in slander.
> 
> d/



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roberto Gaetano <ga_chair@hotmail.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:43 AM
Subject: Think twice before sending [Was: RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free"]


> Hi.
> In re-reading my post (below), and JFC's original, I think I did 
> misinterpret it and my answer was not to the mark.
> Maybe this can bring me (and maybe all of us) to a reflection about how 
> things are going in these last few days on the list.
> 
> The conflictuality is rising beyond acceptable limits, the [ga-abuse] has 
> more traffic than the GA list itself, people (including me in my last post) 
> argue and reply almost automatically. The amount of things to read is 
> raising so much that I start doubting that anybody with a day job can read 
> all posts, and down to the last row.
> 
> This is creating further misunderstandings, further replies, further appeals 
> to [ga-abuse].
> Can we stop it for a minute, and take a breath before restart?
> 
> I cannot understand how otherwise reasonable peopel can tear eachother to 
> pieces in a mailing list.
> The [ga-abuse] is supposed to be there to handle the supposedly few 
> exceptions that go beyond the reasonable decorum. More than better define 
> exact rules, which will mean that from the next post we will watch which 
> post will pass these limits, we need collaboration in keeping the arguments 
> sound and the tone correct.
> 
> We are getting back to where we started 1.5 years ago, when the situation 
> was such as the GA did not have any credibility. If we continue along this 
> path, there will be no point in making a good argument, because the GA will 
> be so short of credibility that nobody "outside" will pay any attention.
> 
> Anyway, can I just ask everybody to think twice before hitting the "send" 
> button for a message that contains text with dubious decorum, and to avoid 
> personal arguments? Think that the more we argue in this way, the less we 
> all globally count, no matter who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> P.S.: my apologies to Jefsey for having misinterpreted his message, and 
> overreacted about.

<snip>