"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> Michael and Joe exchanged a set of messages with relatively
> low information content (which I generally do not mind since
> we are all friends here *right*!?!)
.
.
.
> So if you *knowingly* post a message to the list that is designed
> to do nothing more than "tease the dog", then you should think twice.
> Note: I include *myself* in this category! If you want to "tease
> the dog" do it in private with the dog, not on the list. I will
> admit there is a fine line here in using rhetorical devices to
> get someone to see your point and simply stirring the muddy
> waters. It takes careful re-reading to determine whether you
> are trying to keep things at DEFCON 1 or 2 or whether you are
> seeking to push them to DEFCON 3 or 4.]
Heck, back during that flamewar, I tried to point out to Dees that most
of the policies he advocated were *already* law, and he just blew it off
and went on with his confrontational style. That's when I plonked him.
My advice to other list participants: consider the rhetorical style and
signal/noise ratio of various posters, and decide for yourself if a
particular poster is worth reading.
I drew my own conclusions a while back- that Lorrey has some hot buttons
that can easily be avoided, and that Dees goes straight into my trash
folder simply for being rude and uninteresting (not because of his
views). Now this might be seen as teasing the dog, but I calls 'em as I
sees 'em.
-- Doug Jones Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:49 MDT