I'll admit to long term lurking...and liberal use of my delete key...as
this conversation about tone has morphed into a call for rules...and now
a concern that not enough people are participating in the rule making
activity?
I'd been gone from XMCA for a couple of years and just rejoined a couple
of months ago. I'd begun to wonder what happened to the exciting "old"
conversation, which seems to have replaced with a huge concern for
social control. In my last experience with XMCA, misunderstandings were
quickly forgotten and dismissed as such. Carefully considered,
perfectly formed, ruly statements were deemed to be relatively
unimportant in the overall process. It was all those lumpy, squishy,
unruly, rather unappetizing "half-baked" ideas that made life in the
kitchen so exciting!
So, maybe I speak for more than a few folks with an observation: If
only 5% of the XMCA cooks are concerned with cleaning up the kitchen,
maybe they could take a deep breath and let the kids get back to making
a happy mess of things.
With LOTS of :-)'s and good wishes and hugs, and a little nostalgia,
Dale Cyphert
Paul Dillon wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I don't have much of an opinion about the discussion. It seemed
> to me that about 4-6 people contributed about 90% of that discussion. I
> really used my delete button a lot when I got back from my trip so I didn't
> read much of it.
>
> I did see that there were a number of different proposals and
> given that the number of people participating in the discussion represented
> at best 5 percent of the people subscribed to xmca, I didn't really
> take any single proposal as very representative. I admit to not having read
> completely: was there some consensus? How many consensed?
>
> I did notice that someone opined that things weren't all that bad and I
> guess I agree with that assessment. Personally I think we'll all be fine
> just moving along with what brought us to subscribe to xmca to begin with.
> I don't think xmca is broken and so the old adage about when to fix things
> seems appropriate to me.
>
> I also agree with those who feel that it's rather futile to try to establish
> rules beyond
> those that, as mike and others pointed out, most of the people follow most
> of the time. Of course there'll always be conflicting interpretations about
> these not so terribly implicit rules.
>
> As to my previous involvement in this thread, it has really been
> tangential. Other than my comments on Rosa's use of something I wrote in
> response to kathie who was criticizing me for the "tone" with which I asked
> for activity triangle procedures, I
> really haven't contributed. Also, this is not something I intend to
> post about again. I am in Bruce's camp on this issue. But you asked me
> a direct question, and I have given you a direct answer--winking here to
> Rosa in her garden--pues para mi el asunto ni es chicha, ni limonada.
>
> If others find the discussion useful that's fine too.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
-- Dale Cyphert, Ph.D. Business Communication Program Coordinator __________________________________________ College of Business Administration University of Northern Iowa 1227 W. 27th Street Cedar Falls, IA 50613 (319) 273-6150 dale.cyphert@uni.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:14 PST