[pure-silver] Re: OT: Concerning Rudeness Was: Re: Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
- From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:16:49 +0100
No doubt, you mean well, but from what I've seen, the people on this list
handle English well enough to communicate without too much danger of being
misunderstood. The unfortunate issue of rudeness is more a matter of
expectations of what people want to give or get from being on this list.
I'm sure most, if not all, people on this list, just want to learn, or help
and share what they have learned themselves. To help and share is satisfying
and promotes further learning. However, if this satisfaction is confused
with ego, problems arise. If a different experience or critique, aimed at
the subject at hand, is misunderstood as a personal attack, disaster is
near. After all, this is a public forum, which makes the 'attack' public as
well.
Unfortunately, some recent statements clearly have been directed at the
people and not at the message, and language competence was definitely not
the issue.
We should just stick to the subject matter, listen to what is said and not
who said it, allow for different opinions and treat each other with respect.
We share a fantastic hobby, and there are fewer of us every day. There are
lots of people here, who have much knowledge in certain areas of traditional
photography. There is nobody here who knows it all.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
On 12/18/04 5:29 PM, "Lloyd Erlick" <lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> dec1804 from Lloyd Erlick,
>
> I wouldn't normally interject in such a discussion, but I have a theory to
> expound. Also, I find this list particularly valuable, and I do not want to
> see it descend. And speaking of particularly, both RS and PDS are, from my
> point of view, on the level of primary sources.
>
> I haven't been following the discussion, and I know nothing of it. The
> following is worded (nuanced, hah!) as generically as I can manage:
>
> My theory is that a very large proportion of the conflict we see keyboarded
> over the Internet is due to the fact that one or both or all sides of the
> 'discussion' are speaking English-not-their-primary-language. All languages
> have subtlety and nuance that are nearly impossible to learn as an
> outsider, not least because they even differ geographically and socially
> across native speakers. So it is nearly impossible for native English
> speakers to reliably communicate even with each other, without emotional
> 'noise' taking place. It is even farther from possible for non-primary
> users of English to successfully eliminate all unintended negative
> connotation from their English writing. Where there is voice contact, or
> even handwriting on paper, there is a basis to at least attempt to decipher
> the intended emotional content. Keyboarding onscreen puts it down to words
> only, and they are slippery words. I'm tempted to say English words are
> especially slippery, but I really don't speak anything but English so I
> can't compare. Still, as a lifelong English speaker who has paid attention
> to it, and written, a lot, I find English very slippery indeed.
> Mono-linguists like me should just be grateful the rest of the world chose
> English!
>
> The solution, in my opinion, is that one (everyone) must make a strong
> conscious effort to resist a negative emotional reaction to anything
> keyboarded over the Internet. Where a strong reaction is legitimately
> called for, I believe one is entitled to it, as long as one has analyzed
> the writing sufficiently to be sure that it is, in fact, legitimate. This
> implies a measure of detachment even in situations of legitimate emotion.
> The alternative is flying off the handle merely because many people have a
> less than perfect skill level at English. I admit that I have flown off the
> handle myself, more than once, merely from exposure to an instruction
> booklet originating in any one of many countries ... (and if I changed that
> to "any one of many foreign countries", are there people who would take
> offense???) ... the level of this group has been higher than that.
>
> regards,
> --le
> ________________________________
> Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
> voice: 416-686-0326
> email: portrait@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> net: www.heylloyd.com
> ________________________________
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
