I will endeavor to keep this short.
When I read Eva's message, I thought it was very funny. I have a twisted
sense of humour. I thought it was another personal post mis-posted to the
whole list. As some have commented, it is kind of voyeuristically
interesting sometimes when this mis-posting happens.
I found eva's message funny, because it precisely fell into the internet
zone outside of a straight information exchange that is of interest to me
now.
I wasn't really thinking about how Paul would react.
Selfish, on my part. And not a useful contribution to the list.
So, sorry all.
Mary
----------
>From: "Paul Dillon" <dillonph@northcoast.com>
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Re: middle class/intellectual labor
>Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2000, 8:19 AM
>
> Eva,
>
> When I first began using mailing lists there was a very strong distinction
> between list-related and personal exchanges. This totally independent of
> the issue of "flaming". It seems now, so clearly, that your recent posts
> including the last, fall into the "personal" and of no general interest to
> the purposes of the list.
>
> Your piece on multilogue suggested that the domain of exchanges was broader
> and included those related to what you called community building, perhaps
> in this frame, personal messages can be considered part of the framework
> exchanges. I always had a problem with the inclusion of that parameter
> since it always seemed to be beyond the data you were commenting directly;
> i.e., the archives of the xlists. That is, the analyst can never chart the
> ubiquitous back-channel exchanges. Then there comes the other problem: who
> appoints who as "moral conscience" of a mailing list. Since the acceptable
> morality emerges from the interactions, it all becomes negotiated in the end
> anyway. I know of mailing lists that have recognized individuals who fill
> this role and who, it would appear, also have the power to kick someone off
> the list for repeated failures to observe the specific mailing list
> etiquette. I wasn't aware that such existed on xmca although the degree to
> which some droning obeisance to certain "politically correct" positions
> characterizes the dynamic here, i.e., positions the challenging of which is
> itself interpreted as destructive of the "safety zone" that encourages broad
> participation.
>
> So, what's the deal: the rules don't apply to your messages on list to me?
> you have appointed yourself the role that Mary (in her tangential--probably
> should have been back channel--comment) applauded you for assuming?
>
> But the bottom line is, if you have messages that are intended only for me,
> why not just send them to me at my personal email address which, in case you
> don't know how to find it, is dillonph@northcoast.com . Open 24 hours a
> day/365 days a year.
>
> And yes, I'm sending this to the list, since although it appears personal, I
> think it should be clear that this relates to general policy regulating what
> does and what doe not get posted to xmca, ie, is not intended for you, and
> you alone.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
> anyway, what does your particularist behavior have to do with the purposes
> of xmca.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eva Ekeblad <eva.ekeblad@ped.gu.se>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: middle class/intellectual labor
>
>
>> At 15.24 -0800 0-01-26, Paul Dillon scrobe:
>> >does it even occur to you that the posts you have directed my way vitiate
>> >any complaint you may have ever had about my contributions to xmca?
>>
>> Yes it does. Constantly.
>>
>> You are getting very special treatment from me, Paul. Nobody else but you.
>>
>> I can of course not speak for Mary.
>>
>> Eva
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:22 PST