Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(February 2003)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:31:17 -0800
To: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Cc: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <5 . 1 . 0 . 14 . 2 . 20030225111637 . 53948090 @ 199 . 74 . 151 . 1>

On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 08:20  AM, Nick Simicich wrote:

Yep, my comment was uncalled for, and rude. It was based on my faulty memory and I apologize for it. Chuq really does want the extra > copies.

thanks, Nick. Appreciate that.

However, I still assert that it is rude to send (or cause to be sent) multiple copies of the same e-mail to people who have not specifically said that they want them.

And you're welcome to. Me, I assert it's rude to try to force people to do things your way, or force people to have to remember how each of the 500 people in their address book want things done, because it's not just you that has that "right of assertion" but every person, and if I was to agree to your request, I'd have to do it for everyone -- and I can't. and won't try.

so when two assertions clash, the one that wins is -- the one I have control over. I.e. mine. It has veto power over yours, just like you have veto power over any request I make of you to do your stuff my way.

And that's why my position is not "do it this way" or "do it that way" but "if you want it done a certain way, set up your own system to do it that way" -- because that's what you have control over. And that's what's manageable, and minimized the kind of arguments we're in now. I'm not proposing a policy based on my preference or against yours, but towards most harmony and least flames, and because it's the only one that has a chance of working.

So I guess you'll have to consider me rude, which is your privilege. Just as I consider folks rude who walk into my life and tell me how to run it on any number of levels.

You always have the right, of course, if you consider me rude enough, to simply deny communication, too. ultimately, that's your choice. But I won't change my way of doing things because someone tells me they don't like the way it's done. Not unless *I* think that person is correct. you don't own my mail client. I do. Just like I don't own yours, and I'd never think of trying to tell you how to set it up, what mail to accept, and what to reject. I just wish you'd show me and others the same respect. But I won't demand it.

In any case, I assert that all polite people should ignore you and fix all headers not to send extra private copies when they send responses. You can do what you want.

you and people who feel the way you do are welcome to. I have no problem with that, any more than I try to force admins (see! I'm putting this back on topic! honest!) to set reply-to the way *I* prefer it on *their* lists. it's their choice. I'll advise if they ask. I won't demand.

Same issue, different scenario. My computer, I control. Your computer, you control. when you start telling me how you want me to run my computer, I have a problem. until then, we're best buddies. because I know you'd do the same for me, and you should.

The fact that you want extra copies should not stop people from doing the right thing.

But see? I *am* doing the right thing. You and I simply disagree on what the right thing is, and when it comes to my computer -- you don't get a vote.

And THAT is the basic underlying issue here. You're complaining because you want a fix you have no power to make. So rather than complain, go fix something you do have power to change. How your own system deals with this stuff.

Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui @
plaidworks .
com --

But I can hear the sound
Of slamming doors and folding chairs
And that's a sound they'll never know

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: false positives
From: bwarsaw @ python . org (Barry A. Warsaw)
Next: Godwin's Law... and more
From: "Tatum, Richard" <rich @ ChristianityToday . com>
From: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Next: Godwin's Law... and more
From: "Tatum, Richard" <rich @ ChristianityToday . com>

Search Internet Search