ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:25 am
Robert wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:36 am
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:30 am
I would consider it rude if there was an ongoing group discussion and someone came up, addressed a comment to one person in particular, and then tried to shut down anyone else who responded to that comment.
Maybe in general, but ther are times when one directs a comment to one person and it is easy to see it was a personal statement meant for another. One can comment, but it is also respectful not to if one knows it was directed toward another.
"Joe, will you get my kids after Sunday School? Mary is late and I can't get there in time."
Someone may chime in, but that is really directed towards one person.
Yes, I agree with that.
Robert,
You add another layer to forum etiquette, at least, MN.
One thing i appreciate about MN is, when admin-mods speak directly to certain members, it is widely respected as one on one,
others mostly “let it sit.”
In other, instances, where it’s “public” one on one, i frequently see others respond - - OFTEN before the stated person responds.
i try not to be bothered by this, ever, it’s happened to me, both ways - - mostly because, on this forum, who knows if the stated person will respond? - Whether by deliberate choice (Max often is addressed, yet ignores and moves on to another topic, usually laughing and joking) - they may sign off and not see the comnent/question, etc. In other words, as others are saying, it’s fair game.
i believe you prefer to be “not special” in conversation, you shared this with me on MD, but, as admin+owner, you are. So are mods.
Not gods. But, special. To me, you’ve always been special, and still are. you+george were more than special in the past.
i digress.
i’m still not greatly experienced with internet forums. but, no, i do not see personal conversations as being off limits to the peanut gallery. no way. not even on RCC sites i visited in the past. (where protestants were reliably denigrated by Catholics, they really like hating Martin Luther and hold him responsible for all their troubles). i’m not sure any even named Anabaptists, there are tons of folks who know nothing about Anabaptists.
Soloist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:12 am I personally feel that snide comments without naming a person is just as rude if not more so then interjecting into a conversation.
It’s done quite often and is an excuse to avoid being called out on this negative behavior as no one has proof that it’s the case but obvious to anyone involved in the conversation.
As for interjection, this is a public forum and if you want a private conversation, that’s the purpose of the pm.
i think what you’re referring to as “snide comments” is what i’ve thought of as passive-aggressive, which some are so good at, it’s hardly noticeable. i’ll add, there’s a pride factor involved. taking a swipe without getting caught.
i much prefer an honest direct hit over a sneaky swipe. it smarts. but it’s honest.
Wayne once referred to Josh as “a man without guile.” i smiled, and agreed. even having been a target for Josh many times.
i prefer an honest awkward lack of guile to a smart covert stab.
because of direct private interaction with Max, i’m not speculating, but recalling candid words.
i won’t say i understand what’s going on here, but, something’s weird.
members’ questions are valid.
boot,
i apologize if i’ve gone off topic with others on this, but it’s important, and not easily addressed.
so, i hope you’ll tolerate it.