Herbert Graf wrote:
>> It was never tried in the past.
>
> Actually it was, you were kicked off, then came back without being
> invited.

Yes, but I was just told I was kicked off, period.  There has never been an
attempt that I've seen where I or anyone else was told "you're off the list
for xx days".

>> At the very least you could have told me.
>
> Why?

How about because it's the right thing to do for starters.

> It would have just resulted in the mess that's happening now.

No, this "mess" as you put it is because I had to find out indirectly I was
being moderated, and then to have a legitimate post silently blocked only
because you didn't like a part of the message, not because it was out of
line.  How would you feel?  Remember, I was content with a small paragraph
appended to a post about an IIC question.  It was getting that blocked that
"broke the camel's back", and I decided not to take it quietly anymore.

The bottom line is that if you treat people with a little respect, they
don't get as pissed off, and you don't end up with these kinds of
discussions.

> In retrospect all we ended up doing by NOT directly telling you directly
> was delaying things, which resulted in a good few months of peace on the
> list. Looking back I'd say it was the better choice, since at least we
> did have that peace, until now.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people pissed off.  How would
you feel if this was done to you?

> and given
> the amount of pain that involved in the past I didn't want it any more.

I really don't want to cause you any pain, but I also don't understand
exactly how that happens.  I have no experience administering a list, so I
don't understand what goes on.  It would help if you explained how I've
caused you pain.  I know you don't like these kinds of discussions, but
those are as a result of what you did to me.  You can't treat me like dirt
and expect me to always take it quietly.

Let's say I imply someone is stupid, and they turn around and say FU.  There
will be a few posts telling me I was out of line, a few more telling the
other guy he was out of line, then it dies down.  At worst you have to send
two warnings and maybe a dozen message are wasted telling people they were
wrong.  Granted none of this should happen in the first place, and I can
certainly understand you don't like it to, but where's the "pain"?  I'm
seriously asking because I don't know what goes on at your level.  The more
I understand this, the more I can be careful to not cause it.

> And this flood now proves it wasn't time.

That's rather unfair.  It's like justifying someone belongs in an insane
assylum because he objects to being in an insane assylum.

>> One of the problems is lack of openess.
>
> If you don't like it: leave. We'll refund the money you paid for this
> list (which of course is zero).

I can accept you may not agree with my suggestion to be more open, but there
was no call for the "screw you" answer.  It seems to me you are going out of
your way to say your message in a way most likely to piss off the recipient.
And then you blame the recipient when they object to the treatment.  I think
your ends would be better served by showing a little respect and
consideration.  Think about how you'd feel (and what you'd do) if I talked
to you like that.  I have a right to be treated with the same respect you
demand from me.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist