Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.groupware Subject: Re: Electronic Use (was Re: Electronic Abuse) Message-ID: Date: 28 Dec 90 05:59:09 GMT References: <1990Dec16.113452.19023@wbgate.wb.com> <214@buster.ddmi.com> <115@intrbas.UUCP> <9785@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <20816@crg5.UUCP> Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World Lines: 70 In-Reply-To: szabo@crg5.UUCP's message of 27 Dec 90 07:25:12 GMT As someone who has used "the nets" for over a decade I agree that there's something seriously amiss in these analyses. Nick Szabo's points about the power of the written word and the apparent longing for non-threatening interaction (even where that interaction becomes less valuable) are well taken. People see this behavior, tack the word "rude" on it, remember that "rude" is a no-no, and proceed to propose cures...whoa! Let's step back to definitions and descriptions. A lot of what people label "rude" is in the eye of the beholder. I remember once one of my employees received a complaint about some software he had installed, from another system admin (not my employee, but not exactly a "civilian" either.) The complaint was rather accusatory in tone, I guess some change in the mail system had caused problems on his system. I knew my employee and predictably he apologized and said he'd back out those changes (which, in fact, were quite important to a lot of users.) I pointed out, rather careful to be courteous, that this other guy's mailer problems were due to long-standing problems with the system he managed, which we had pointed out before. And which we even had offered to help him fix. But that this had become a real problem, as either way some large group of people were going to suffer. Could the fixes to his system possibly be moved up in priority, a lot? I had posted that reply in the evening. I came in the next day and his boss's boss's boss, who was my boss, asked me to stop by his office. What unraveled was a morning apparently a morning filled with angry tears from this guy about how I had abused him with this e-mail. I was wrong, that was that, and I had better figure out a way to smooth things out. What? I had the message (I quickly found out none of these management geniuses had asked to see the message in question.) We pulled it up on the screen. "Hmm, I guess you're about to tell me that he had no reason to react like that to this message, right?" "Right, it looks fairly innocuous to me, there it is, you read it, what do you think? I haven't lost my mind have I?" "I agree, it looks pretty tame, but he...there must be some reason, some context we don't have here?" "Here were the other messages..." "Uh, hmmm, looks like pretty typical crap, what sparked this...?" "I dunno, I'll speak to him, but gee..." So I spoke to him, he was *really* shaken. I bet to this day he talks about this horrible experience. It was wierd. I've seen this kind of thing elsewhere, not usually that dramatic, but someone seeing something, some emotional intensity, some accusation or threat, in a fairly innocuous e-mail message, that just wasn't there. That, to me, is far more interesting. And might well be the problem. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD