Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 21:18:25
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
> Does the definition of politeness really stretch so far as to think it's ok for two posters on Social to tell a third that they are having a private conversation and that they do not wish to hear input from the third?
Hmm.
Lets seeMain Entry: po·lite
1 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2 a : showing or characterized by correct social usage b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities <polite literature>I don't think that would be polite.
But I didn't think we were talking about politeness so much as feelings of inclusion / exclusion...
So is it that there are two reasons why you don't like the idea of small boards:
1. They are impolite
2. They will result in feelings of exclusion???
I think Dr Bob (and myself) were looking at 2.
Which is a seperate issue from 1.
1. could be prevented by making small boards only viewable to members (IMO)...> And do you have any teensy suspicion that *I* would feel worry for one teensy weensy itty bitty second about being excluded from the small boards? After reading what I've said about small boards for how long now?
I thought you were worried about other people who might be...
> Well, now I'm just getting angry.(((Dinah)))
This thread has become diverted from the intended topic.
I didn't intend to start up the small board stuff again.
I intended to help you persuade Dr Bob that it would be better if small boards were only viewable to members, remember???
I didn't divert the thread back onto the costs / benefits of small boards but it seemed that other people wanted to talk about this again...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:500533
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/504982.html