[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Decorum
i wished to distance myself from mike's position and i indicated my
annoyance in passing to underscore my point. while i don't believe that
what i wrote was "inflamatory," i understand your criticism--despite the
hypocracy in the manner in which you chose to convey it (i.e., not to me).
darryl
At 01:04 PM 3/17/98 -0500, JJSwaim wrote:
>To the list,
>
>My purpose in responding to Michael was not only for clarification but to
>demonstrate that everyone's comments are welcomed on the list as long as they
>are not personally inflamatory.
>To Darryl,
>I think, though easier to send the same message to the list as to the
>individual, it may be better to make a general, less inflamatory
disclaimer to
>the list, and any ' annoyance' you personally feel should, if you must, be
>directed to that person.
>
>In keeping with the goals and integrity of this list I think we would all be
>appreciative for the observance of such standards. Arguing, in the sense of
>debate, however, is healthy, exciting, and educational.
>
>Best regards to all, jj
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
References: