Harvey,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful, impartial, and I hope
ultimately helpful summary and suggestion.
Harvey wrote:
> The very
> fact that all postings are being made publicly is because the
> participants are no longer speaking to each other, but are posting
> exposition to the rest of the list. Each side is casting their own
> position in the best light, while casting the opposing position in
> the worst light.
>
> I see (unintentional) exaggeration and misinterpretation on both
> sides. Although not deliberate, both sides have reacted
> disproportionately to certain statements. Items that were minor or
> meaningless have been taken as intentional insults. Attacks have
> been made upon some statements that were throw-away lines or even
> unrelated or content-free filler.
Yes.
People can do all these things when pressed in certain ways. I
think it's important to see these traits as general, and not the
sole possession of a "drunk" (as one of my anonymous
correspondents suggested).
> This really should be taken off-line. The postings made for the
> benefit of the list audience have distorted the discussion beyond all
> recognition. I suggest that all three parties apologize to the list
> for having a heated discussion in the public forum.
I apologize to the list(s) for my part in this mess. Personally,
I don't think public conflict is always bad. My experience is
that one -- if not all involved -- often comes out the other
side much improved. But 1) I think it seems very unlikely this
will happen in the case at hnd; and 2) I haven't been
sufficiently sensitive to others' _different_ views on the value
of conflict. Given that it actually started seeming likely to be
unproductive earlier, an apology is most definitely in order.
Again: I'm sorry, and I shall do my best to be certain not to
allow this to happen again.
Towards the Good,
Brian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:24 MDT