W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: [Fwd: The third thing I don't like about the WAI-IG list]

From: Mike Burks <mburks952@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:15:20 -0500
Message-ID: <01bc01be3840$813be0c0$57424d0c@oemcomputer>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <coder@acnet.net>, "Accessability" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I would think it would behoove all of us to remember we are members of the
Human Race.  Supposedly with a common cause of making things more accessible
to everyone.  I seem to remember an admonition that applies here.

" A house divided against itself cannot stand. "


Mike Burks
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles F. Munat <coder@acnet.net>
To: Accessability <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: The third thing I don't like about the WAI-IG list]

>Lakespur Roca wrote:
>"I have actually worked with a woman doing an empirical
>study of Email
>communication and how it's messages are misunderstood. And
>boy are they!
>An idol of mine Norm Abraham of This Old House and New
>Yankee Workshop
>espouses "measure twice, cut once". Here I think it would be
>twice, send once."  I see lots of messages here the
>respondent to a
>message did not understand the premise of a message and so
>missed the
>point. And others where the sender did not clearly express
>their point.
>The ensuing messages went back an forth with out making
>points that
>would have added any thing to the discussion."
>An excellent point. But misinterpretation occurs on both
>ends, so I think we should say that both sender *and*
>receiver should read, reread, and give the other the benefit
>of the doubt (or ask for further clarification). I apologize
>if any of my posts or rebuttals have been interpreted as
>hostile or offensive. None were intended that way, and, in
>fact, I've been reading, rereading, and testing replies on
>my wife just to make sure. That some of them still appear to
>have given offense simply makes the above point. I also
>apologize if I have misinterpreted the posts of others. In
>several cases, I have asked for clarification before
>But, I must also say this: In my experience, many people
>have difficulty separating disagreement from disapproval. If
>I take a position opposing what another believes, that alone
>may be interpreted by the other as an attack on him or her
>personally. It would behoove all of us, I think, to refrain
>from making these issues personal.
>Charles Munat
>Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 19:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:03 UTC