TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> Seriously, I enjoy the list as is and enjoy the lightning-quick
> repartee and the intelligent discourse.
The lightning-quickness is exactly what is destroying "intelligent discourse."
People fire off every last thought or emotional response they have to the list.
They don't discuss, they banter, nitpick, and exacerbate the mundane. The
result is wayward discussions that are often more about personality then
substance. If people were limited to only 1 to 3 posts per day, they couldn't
fire off every thought they had the moment they have it. They'd be forced into
waiting to compile their thoughts into a more presentable form.
"Jeff Hanvey" wrote...
> Posting limits won't curtail incivility...you can be just as uncivil in one
> post as in twenty. All it will do is force the issue to private email...
No, it won't make rudeness go away, but it will reduce the amount of rudeness.
If people only had 1 or 2 posts per day to be rude, then the total amount of
rudeness would decrease as a whole.
Most rude exchanges are the result of escalations: people bantering back and
forth tit-for-tatting each other. This rule would seriously reduce those
exchanges since tits and tats would have to transpire over days. After a day,
most people will forget why they were titting or tatting.
Furthermore, if it forces rudeness into private email that is GREAT! When
people want to scream at each other, they can do so privately, without
bothering the rest of the list. Furthermore, when somebody does bug you, you
can just block their email and never hear from them again.
"Doug Grossman" wrote:
> Limiting folks such as Geoff (and he's the best and most obvious example, but
> not the only one) would be a major detriment to the list, from where I sit.
Decent folk can still post. Its just they'll have to space out their posts.
I'll bet if you look back, Geoff doesn't post more than 1 or 2 messages per
day. In my opinion, some of the best and most insightful posters on TECHWR-L
are the LEAST prolific.
These people could also use the scheduling feature of their email client to
queue up messages for delivery over the course of a few days.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
ANNOUNCING ROBOHELP STUDIO
Create professional Help systems that feature interactive tutorials and
demos with all new RoboHelp Studio. More at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l2
Mercer University's online MS Program in Technical Communication Management:
Preparing leaders of tomorrow's technical communication organizations today.
See www.mercer.edu/mstco or write George Hayhoe at hayhoe_g -at- mercer -dot- edu -dot-
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
