(Brad gets up on soapbox)
To Conn@wctc.net, who seems to be afraid to use his name in a post, I
read the first part where you chewed out Laura about her arrogance and
then the other part of your post where you were telling people to try and
look at the positive side of an email post. Maybe you aught to take your
own advice when it comes to reading Laura's posts and maybe lump her
into the rest of the spit owner category.
Personally I think the discussion currently going on is a waste of
bandwidth. Let each do to their car what they want and not try and tell the
others how it SHOULD be done. I enjoy reading what other people do to
their cars, what I don't enjoy is people putting other people down.
(I'm off the soapbox now because I don't like heights)
>
>
> "Laura G." wrote:
>
> > Hey Dan!
> >
> > Cool your jets,man. He's just expressing his opinions and experiences.
>
> >
> > Now who's on a high horse? Honestly-I read this response of yours and
> I
> > thought you were mean and condensending-some kinder gentler souls
> might be a
> > little leary of posting for fear of provoking one of your responses.
>
> For Laura: From a disinterested party, I must say that from a casual
> glance, the
> bulk of your posts seem almost arrogant. From reading your comments, I
> have come to the conclusion that your car regularly jumps into phone
> booths, puts on a cape, and and goes about saving the world from evil. We
> all love our LBCs, but...
>
> For everyone: e-mail is a unique form of communication. It has no visual
> or audible components, therefore our words have to stand alone to convey
> their meaning. Since in face-to-face communications, words only count for
> 10% of the receivers understanding of the message, we are, in essence,
> missing 90% of our communications tools when we write an e-mail. It has
> been my experience (and I've been using the 'net for a long time) that if
> a benign message can be interpreted as a negative one, it almost always
> will, particularly when discussing a subject we feel strongly about. It's
> very easy for an expression of differing opinion to seem like an attack,
> even when it was not intended so. My advice is, -and this is not an
> original idea- before you fire off a post, proofread it. Look at it from
> the reader's perspective. Think about how the words might be misconstrued.
> Then, soften it. If it looks like it could be read as a negative thought,
> add words that convey positive emotions. Use emoticons (despite their
> current reputation as being silly, they *work*, and are one of the few
> things that do) to denote when you are joking ;^), happy :^), sad :o(,
> disgusted :^P, or surprised 8^O. I also picked up the habit of using
> asterisks in the way you might use italics, to emphasize a specific word
> in a text format that has no bold or italics.
>
> For the reader: Remember that people seldom *intentionally* get nasty in a
> forum like this. When you read something that could be taken two ways,
> assume it was meant the less offensive of the two, and 99% of the time
> you'll be right. And finally, if you aren't sure about what someone's
> intentions were, ask them to clarify. I'm sure they will, even if it's to
> say, "Yes, I *did* intend to imply that you're a moron." ;^)
>
> @B^)) (This is me, driving my Spit, wearing a houndstooth snap-brim and
> driving glasses, grinning like an idiot.)
>
>
>
Brad (Lincoln Nebraska 402-464-1502)
My Web Site Http://www.141.com/triumphs
1964 Spitfire4 BFC25720L -- 1973 Spitfire Mk4
1962 TR4 CT288L -- 1959 TR3A TS41311L
1951 Dodge Truck B-3-B-108
|