[Leica] Who respects netiquette?

[arbos <arbos@iname.com>]

I support Barney's view and assume that the *majority* of the LUGgers do.
In a real community, individuals with the behaviour in question are more or
less restrained or eliminated. The community has a power to do so (Do not
confound it with mass insanity repeated in our history).  However, a
cyber-community cannot function efficiently to exert such a power on
individuals thus allowing some of them "freedom".  This problem has recurred
and will recur. IMHO one possible remedy is to ignore them completely.
Disregard is the hardest response they get.  Any words of wisdom from sages
in LUG ???.

If this should offend anyone, I would appreciate disregard instead of
flames. ;-)

mikiro


At 3:35 pm +0100 6/3/99, Barney Quinn wrote:
>Freedom of speech works two ways, in my view. It is hypocritical, and all
>too human, not to extend to others those freedoms one insists on for one's
>self. Usually I just lurk. But I am going to de-cloak long enough to say
>that I, for one, neither like nor appreciate what strikes me as the
>increasingly hostile, netgative tone of many messages I have read of late
>on the LUG. I don't think that it is necessary, and I don't think it
>presents one's views in a way which will convince anyone else.
>
>I don't think that freedom of speech was even intended to be a
>justification for rudeness, abuse, or simple bad manners. The fact that
>these things often go with the territory doesn't make them right.
>Photography, I think, is an art, and I think that photographers are
>artists. That, in my mind, implies a certain level of sensitivity and
>openness to other people, opinions, situations and places. I wish we could
>spend our time celebrating each other's creative work, lives, and
>experiences.
>
>It ain't what you say, as the saying goes, it's the way what you say it.
>I think that what we write and how we write it says something significant
>about each of us as both humans and as artists. A little sensitivity to
>the feelings of others is one of the corner stones of good manners. The
>fact that all of what I have read on the LUG lately is protected by the
>first ammendment doesn't make the content of these messages factually
>correct, praiseworthy, mannerly, or tasteful, in my view.
>
>Perhaps we should work a bit at toning down the rhetoric. Baring that,
>could we at least work at labeling our opinions as such. Little points of
>nettiquite such as IMHO can, in my humble opinion, go a long way to
>greasing the wheels of discourse on the LUG.
>
>Barney