Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Part of the problem (or the problem itself) is that we are all of us ignorant of how to constructively conduct disputes online (granted that it's hard enough in meatspace).

With the best motives imaginable, we are apt to say something to set someone off stating something on the basis of our own unexamined assumptions. For example:

Frank Schnittger:

I appreciate how exasperated you are at almost any criticism of ET no matter how diplomatically couched, and how little credit you feel frontpagers get for the very time consuming and difficult job they do

That sentence contains two different surmises, to which I personally would assign different likelihoods (my own personal surmise!), but neither of which I consider by any means a certainty. When he reads those lines afew might (or might not!) consider them condescending, mistaken or beside the point, and... well, onward and downward, really.

I don't mean to pick on you, merely illustrate unintended consequences.

Frank Schnittger:

I am going to leave this conversation at this point because my experience is that my views on this simply aren't accepted and seem to inflame others.

Come on, is that really fair?

And is it really accurate to speak of views in a meta diary? I always thought they were about feelings?

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt št gmail dotcom) on Sun Apr 5th, 2009 at 09:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series