Re: Being polite was Re: [libreoffice-users] Problem with spellcheck

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Richard Hainsworth
<richard@rusrating.ru> wrote:
> I am replying to this once only on list.

This is good, probably better than my responding here as well, but I
feel a need to answer at least some of what you write.  Not argue with
you, insult you or ridicule you, just respond.

> The atmosphere in a mailing list is
> set by the people in agreeing to abide by conventions of courtesy. One
> disagreeable poster cant taint the atmosphere for everyone else.

I agree, and I submit that the disagreeable poster in this particular
thread (and its original) was not me, at least not to begin with.

> Email lacks all the signals of body language. So it is even more important
> to avoid emotion in words.
Agreed, and I have said so myself, more than once.

> It is not an excuse to say that English is not the writer's first language.
> All languages have common words for 'stupid', 'illiterate', 'dumb', etc.
> Using these words transfers emotion in all languages.
I have no idea what this refers to inasmuch as English is my first,
and to a much too large extent, only language, and I did not use any
of those particular words.  Still, I expect you meant others that I
did use, not in reference to you or your post, that were less than
flexible in their meaning.

As for what followed (which I won't requote here), I agree in some
parts and not so much in others.  You used an excellent example of
proper quoting so at least those who read your post would know who
said what in the previous conversation.  You also used a more
impartial approach that I found acceptable.

A situation where two people agree on an opinion about a third person
or opinion neither validates nor invalidates the third person or
opinion, it merely establishes a vote count.  In this case, what it
establishes to me is that more than one person read meanings into my
posting that I had not intended and I will make an effort to remedy
that in the future, as I do in all things.  I have noticed over the
years that this is not at all unusual, but that doesn't mean either of
us is right or wrong, just that we disagree.  As the originator, in my
earlier response to you, I meant to make my point more acceptable to
you and take the sting you took from my words out of them.  For the
record, I am not interested in learning how to communicate better from
someone whose communications I find offensive in form as well as
substance (again, not you).

I agree that I could have said "refrain from comment" instead of "shut
up" to convey my message better.

I repeat: I do not need an apologist, thought I may need to apologize
under some circumstances. I suggest that "apologist" was not the right
word, having looked it up.

I do not find lectures from someone who persists in defying the
conventions of this email list to be pertinent, let alone convincing.
My statement to that effect was probably wasted and not effective.
Again, I will make the effort to restrain my outbursts in the future.

to use different words to express something I said to which you
partially agreed, if I don't know how to help but don't understand the
problem because not enough information was given for me to help, I
will ask for clarification or more information, but I will *not* say
"Sorry, I can't help" - I expect my lack of response to infer such.

As for my suggestion about starting good examples, you did so, and (I
think) unnecessarily as the comment wasn't directed at you.

I will now go and chew on my feedback, from you, myself and others,
and resolve to be less ambiguous in future postings, here and
elsewhere.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***