Vic, dangit, I guess I'm not expressing myself well at all; I agree with
every word you said. My point, however, is that Tom, in my opinion, was
getting the short end of the stick because he didn't sugar coat what he had
to say. As to cutting off dialog, that was my fondest hope...if it could be
cut off from the direction it was heading. I agree that, as you put it,
Tom's comments were intimidating. And that engineering types are the worst
"offenders"...Tom epitomizes the engineering type. I personally think that
is an enormous asset. Arch wants to be the great facilitator, qualifying
everything he says with "this is what I'm doing, I'm not telling you that
you have to do it." That's fine, even commendable, but does the fact that
Tom is so much more brusque mean that he should be ostracized? PLEASE
understand that I am not criticizing Arch; I am merely pointing out the
difference in presentation.
As to your statement "paint a corner, put a person in it, etc" I agree 100%;
as I say, my impression was that this was happening to Tom. This is the same
Tom who went to an enormous amount of effort and I'd think no little expense
to cause each and every person here to have the opportunity to own, at his
raw cost, a superb tool for an extremely specialized item of maintenance. I
think the town drunk deserves better treatment. One thing I learned when I
was a cop is that almost everyone, hardened criminals, drunks, almost
everyone, responds favorably to courteous treatment.
You're definitely on to something on the engineering types; human thought
process is part reasoning, part emotion. The ratio varies with the
individual. The dreamer type, as typified by Arch (again, not a criticism at
all; he describes himself as a dreamer) tends to mix more emotion, less
reason; the "engineering type" as exemplified by Tom tends to be more
rational, less emotional. Of course this doesn't mean that either is not
capable of both types of thoughts; Arch is very obviously capable of reason,
and I'm pretty sure that Tom can feel emotion. Lord knows I can--I get my
feelings hurt pretty easily. Again, this is probably why I felt compelled to
jump in here on something that has essentially no GMC content at all...I've
been there.
As to it being "the same couple of people each time," I made it a point not
to name names, but scan the digests. This is not the first instance. Damn
it, why is it ok for some to criticize another for his presentation, but not
for me to criticize the criticizer? This is tolerance for another's
viewpoint?
In actuality, I hope that what we are doing here is clearing some air and
learning respect for one another. I sincerely hope that I am not
disappointed, and that I am not misinterpreted.
Believe me when I tell you that I have greatest respect and fondness for
each of you. In fact, I will even add that the "couple of people" whom I did
not name are among my favorite posters here. I hope that opposing viewpoints
can be tolerated.
Very best regards, I mean that,
Travis
>
> I have often been the subject of this same phenomenon myself, so maybe I'm
> overly sensitive to it. I sense that Tom, like me, wants to help and is
> probably amazed that a few people get there backs up. I guess I am too.
> Especially when it's the same couple of people each time.
>
> Travis: This is the kind of comment that cuts off dialog - "Especially
when
> it's the same couple of people each time." Paint a corner, put a person
in
> it enough times and he or she will not bother stepping over the line
again.
> You may perceive that Tom's comments were not intimidating or that the
same
> types always complained about it but my guess is that any of the positions
> taken on the net have a number of supporters who do not put in their "two
> bits" because somebody else has voiced their feelings appropriately. As a
> person who has worked with words for 25 years (in the book publishing
> industry), I can assure you that how you choose your words is critical to
> the message. And I quite agree with Patrick, Tom's choice of phrase did
> come across as intimidating. I was going to post something myself but the
> message was well posted by others.
>
> To add a bit of fuel to the fire, my experience is that "engineering
types"
> seem to some of the worst offenders. Perhaps because they are used to
> working with absolutes and therefore don't "suffer fools gladly."
>
> Vic Marks
> Vancouver BC
> 75 transmode
>
>
every word you said. My point, however, is that Tom, in my opinion, was
getting the short end of the stick because he didn't sugar coat what he had
to say. As to cutting off dialog, that was my fondest hope...if it could be
cut off from the direction it was heading. I agree that, as you put it,
Tom's comments were intimidating. And that engineering types are the worst
"offenders"...Tom epitomizes the engineering type. I personally think that
is an enormous asset. Arch wants to be the great facilitator, qualifying
everything he says with "this is what I'm doing, I'm not telling you that
you have to do it." That's fine, even commendable, but does the fact that
Tom is so much more brusque mean that he should be ostracized? PLEASE
understand that I am not criticizing Arch; I am merely pointing out the
difference in presentation.
As to your statement "paint a corner, put a person in it, etc" I agree 100%;
as I say, my impression was that this was happening to Tom. This is the same
Tom who went to an enormous amount of effort and I'd think no little expense
to cause each and every person here to have the opportunity to own, at his
raw cost, a superb tool for an extremely specialized item of maintenance. I
think the town drunk deserves better treatment. One thing I learned when I
was a cop is that almost everyone, hardened criminals, drunks, almost
everyone, responds favorably to courteous treatment.
You're definitely on to something on the engineering types; human thought
process is part reasoning, part emotion. The ratio varies with the
individual. The dreamer type, as typified by Arch (again, not a criticism at
all; he describes himself as a dreamer) tends to mix more emotion, less
reason; the "engineering type" as exemplified by Tom tends to be more
rational, less emotional. Of course this doesn't mean that either is not
capable of both types of thoughts; Arch is very obviously capable of reason,
and I'm pretty sure that Tom can feel emotion. Lord knows I can--I get my
feelings hurt pretty easily. Again, this is probably why I felt compelled to
jump in here on something that has essentially no GMC content at all...I've
been there.
As to it being "the same couple of people each time," I made it a point not
to name names, but scan the digests. This is not the first instance. Damn
it, why is it ok for some to criticize another for his presentation, but not
for me to criticize the criticizer? This is tolerance for another's
viewpoint?
In actuality, I hope that what we are doing here is clearing some air and
learning respect for one another. I sincerely hope that I am not
disappointed, and that I am not misinterpreted.
Believe me when I tell you that I have greatest respect and fondness for
each of you. In fact, I will even add that the "couple of people" whom I did
not name are among my favorite posters here. I hope that opposing viewpoints
can be tolerated.
Very best regards, I mean that,
Travis
>
> I have often been the subject of this same phenomenon myself, so maybe I'm
> overly sensitive to it. I sense that Tom, like me, wants to help and is
> probably amazed that a few people get there backs up. I guess I am too.
> Especially when it's the same couple of people each time.
>
> Travis: This is the kind of comment that cuts off dialog - "Especially
when
> it's the same couple of people each time." Paint a corner, put a person
in
> it enough times and he or she will not bother stepping over the line
again.
> You may perceive that Tom's comments were not intimidating or that the
same
> types always complained about it but my guess is that any of the positions
> taken on the net have a number of supporters who do not put in their "two
> bits" because somebody else has voiced their feelings appropriately. As a
> person who has worked with words for 25 years (in the book publishing
> industry), I can assure you that how you choose your words is critical to
> the message. And I quite agree with Patrick, Tom's choice of phrase did
> come across as intimidating. I was going to post something myself but the
> message was well posted by others.
>
> To add a bit of fuel to the fire, my experience is that "engineering
types"
> seem to some of the worst offenders. Perhaps because they are used to
> working with absolutes and therefore don't "suffer fools gladly."
>
> Vic Marks
> Vancouver BC
> 75 transmode
>
>
