Re: The meaning and value of telephone conferences

Forgive me for butting in here (or don't), but I think I agree with Joe 
in this instance.

Certainly, I prefer to receive only warm, friendly, witty, urbane emails 
filled with clever ideas and incisive insights, but few of us (myself 
included) are really up to the task. Most of the email I get is poorly 
written and boring. Sometimes it is outright offensive. But even in the 
most offensive posts there is usually something of value. I try to look 
past the offensiveness to see what the writer is really trying to say.

While it may be tempting to trade some people in for others with better 
people skills (read: people who conform to our own ideas of proper 
behavior), I wonder: who gets to decide? Is it up to the powers that be? 
Or maybe the tyranny of the majority? Should only those who conform be 
allowed to participate?

My solution for people who are offensive is to simply write to them 
(off-list: never chastise in public) and tell them that you find them 
offensive. If that doesn't work, then ignore them. But I'll never 
support censorship, no matter how disgusting I find someone else's 
speech. Color me politically incorrect, but I just don't buy this hate 
speech stuff. If someone says something bigoted and rude, then speak up 
and say something positive! Silencing others is the lazy way out. The 
solution for bad speech is good speech, not censorship.

I hear Singapore is a nice clean place, but at what price? I'll take a 
dangerous and messy liberty over a clean, safe prison any day.

If you don't like what someone wrote, then look for the button labeled 
"delete" and click on it. End of story.

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington



Joe Clark wrote:
>>People who are dedicated and committed can be found in all walks of life.
>>People who are rude and bloody-minded and bloody-minded in addition may not
>>be the only ones who have expertise in an area and are prepared to
>>participate in a productive process and a working culture that insists on
>>treating people as peers and showing simple respect.
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on that, Charles. You seem to be saying that if
> even one person disagrees with the way a point is made, every point
> made by that party can be disregarded.
> 
> I'm sure I'm dramatically misreading that, but I'd really prefer to
> make sure.
> 
> 
>>(Although in my
>>experience such people often claim they are indispensable, they are
>>surprisingly and often refreshingly easy to replace with people who have the
>>same skills and some additional ones in understanding human behaviour and
>>communicating effectively).
> 
> 
> May I suggest you actually go about this replacement process?
> Let's get it started! Please make sure to do it in public, though.
> It will be interesting to watch, particularly as WAI prides itself
> on being an open and inclusive organization.
> 
> Unfortnately, Charles's post leaves me with the same question so
> very many WAI documents leave me with: What is he *really* trying to
> say?
>

Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 18:29:45 UTC