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 - 01:03:21 PST