Rodger, Usually when I write a "business memo", I try to be "perfectly
polite". I never viewed politeness with being detrimental to
constructive disagreement. This year I've agreed with "almost"
everthing the AALL Board has decided to do. Not much point in "posting"
to this list if I am in agreement. With the few "list" members I
disagree with, from prior communications, I know we won't change each
other's mind, so "what's the point". It's similar to a presidential
election, more people vote when they are upset, then when they are not.
Too bad for Bob Dole. As is, I'll just happily stand here, chewing my
cud. I remain yours in the mysterious, magic of Law Librarianship, Al
Podboy, Cleveland, Ohio. Phone 216/861-7101 On
Tue, 28 May 1996 Lawstuff@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-05-28 10:57:07 EDT, podskius@ohionet.org (Alvin Podboy)
> writes:
>
> >Obviously, if you give the "list" something to discuss, they will discuss.
> Much like "build it and they will come."
>
> How's this for a diagnosis: Discussions usually involve some sort of
> disagreement. Yet this list seems especially sensitive to perceived
> deviations from the perfectly polite. On those very few occasions when the
> discussion has become spirited, many members sent messages cautioning the
> participants to mind their manners, more concerned about context than
> content. In order to disagree on this list, one must walk an exceedingly
> fine line, and perhaps many members are reluctant to walk that line.
> Maybe we should be a little more robust in submitting our thoughts.
> (See how I said "seems, " "maybe" and "perhaps," perfect indicators of
> hesitancy.) For instance, "I completely disagree with everything you have
> said," isn't a bad start for an informative discussion, if it's followed by
> some good reasons.
> (I can guess what my mail will look like now.)
>
> Rodger
> National Law
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:14 PST