Damian Brasher wrote:
> You weren't standing up for Jacqui or backing her up on any particular
> point at the time.
>
> Ok, well it kinda makes sense, just thought I'd ask:) where's the aspirin?
>
>Too long to bear a grudge though...
This may seem harsh and as if my sense of humour failed - well it did.
What I see in this exchange is a member, who is probably quite able to
stand up for herself, being humiliated/ridiculed on a regular basis. That
is what I see without much knowledge of Hants LUG personal political
history. I believe that this is what some other ordinary members see too.
I was trying to discuss something in a thread and then thrown in is
something I find distasteful and unnecessary. Humour is a personal
subjective entity and can not be assumed. Humour should be pitched at the
average reader. Furthermore I see some Lug members shooting themselves in
the foot, The Hants Lug list is read by many types of people, especially
as the list is open. I am not happy to stand by and watch the landscape of
the list degrade without saying something - this is my conscientious
decision.
My question is why are the list moderators not managing the quality of the
list? Why was nothing said before about this? The legal horizon in this
day and age is not pretty. Legal action is a way of life for a few people.
I trust people that can talk and work through a problem in a reasonable
amount of time, I don't trust people that have the potential to hold
against me something that should have been forgotten a long time ago.
I would like to see the list better moderated and the rule if 25:50:25
implemented - that is an understanding that 25% of people will disagree
with you, 50% will be ambivalent and 25% are with you, if you get the
picture. No I am not a manager nor do I want to be one!
Damian
--
Damian Brasher
www.diap.org.uk "Aiming to protect mission critical data: 'You can't afford
to lose...'"
All mail scanned by clam-av
http://www.clamav.net/
