Responding to the thread and not this specific email...

This conversation has an unfortunate subtext of "us v. them." It is  
the case that c4l is a small-ish group that has a particular  
personality, and folks really care about that. And the c4l conference  
(which I only attended once) has a great feel about it of folks  
sharing ideas (and beer).

The problem with that kind of chummy-ness is that it makes it hard for  
newcomers or folks who aren't native c4l-ers to participate, either in  
the conference or in the various ways that c4l-ers communicate. To  
then take someone to task for "violating" an unwritten rule of that  
culture really does not seem fair, and the unfortunate use of language  
("pandering"), not to mention the length of this thread, is likely to  
discourage enthusiastic newcomers in the future. If c4l is open to new  
participants and new ideas, some acceptance of differences in style  
must be tolerated. Where there isn't a tolerance, any rules must be  
made clear. "Be just like us" isn't such a rule.

I personally feel that the reaction to the alleged offense is over the  
top. If this has happened before, I don't recall this kind of  
reaction. If c4l were a Marxist organization this is the point where  
one could call for an intense round of self-study and auto-criticism.  
Something has gone wrong here, and it is just possible that it is c4l  
that owes an apology. Not the other way around. I believe that Miss  
Manners would have suggested that rather than a public drubbing the  
"offender" could have been politely contacted off list with an  
explanation of said unwritten rules.

kc

Quoting Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]>:

> Ross:
>
> +1 to the disclaimer splash page. That seems to be the best way to  
> maintain our faith in humanity to do the right thing.
>
> Dan
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet