[Tango-L] Flames on Tango-L

[Shahrukh Merchant]

In case anyone (a) thinks I've been sleeping or (b) thinks that repeated 
warnings about posting personal flames on Tango-L can be disregarded, 
here is a snapshot of postings over the last 3 days that merit being 
used as examples. They are not necessarily the best specimens in their 
respective genres, but happened to be the best ones in the recent three 
days, so apologies to anyone I've quoted who feels singled out (except, 
that is, to those who deserve to be singled out).


A. POSTINGS THAT CROSSED WAY OVER THE LINE, because the violation was 
extreme and/or clearly intentional or provocative. The offenders should 
send an email to tango-L-owner at mit.edu indicating that they have reread 
the rules (may be found at http://tango-L.com/), acknowledge violating 
them, and agree to observe them in the future, before submitting any 
further posts.

Example A.1.

> From: Lucia <curvasreales at yahoo.com.ar>
> Dear Charles:
>   
>   Without statistics, all you say is crap. And with statistics it would  be even more crap. As about intellect, your utterrances are foolish, to  put it mildly.

Clearly an intentional personal flame, with no Tango content whatsoever 
to boot.

> From: Deby Novitz <dnovitz at lavidacondeby.com>

> Lucia, once again, I must ask you, who died and made you King?  Ooops, 
> sorry, Queen?  Is it your lack of language skills?  Your inability to 
> digest written English properly, or your sheer arrogance and  
> ignorance?  

Undoubtedly triggered by the previous "Class A" violation, but 
nonetheless in the same league as it is clearly directed at insulting 
the person rather than at constructive complaint.

And as far as Lucia's claim that:

> And by the way Deby, if you were not aware until now, if someone has  the right to write rubbish on the Web, so has anyone else the right to  shred it.

Indeed, and even on Tango-L. But not the person writing it, at least not 
on Tango-L. And for those that can't tell the difference between 
"shredding rubbish" and "shredding the person allegedly saying what in 
your opinion is rubbish," sorry but Tango-L can't be your training ground.


B. CROSSED SOMEWHAT OVER THE LINE. No action taken or needed, but those 
who have a tendency or temptation to post in this manner should consider 
that they are borderline.

Example B.1.

> From: Lucia <curvasreales at yahoo.com.ar>

>   Mr. K. Elshaw's anger and invective is hard to understand, for Tango-L  is still kicking, and one should not forget that a lot has already been  said here about Tango, and everything said is easily accessible in the  excellent archives of the forum. 

This is a good example of where someone is misquoted or 
mischaracterized, probably deliberately, and apparently with an intent 
on picking a fight or being unnecessarily provocative. In this case 
referring to Keith's posting as containing "anger and invective" whereas 
it was perhaps nostalgic and lamentful. It's not just a question of 
mischaracterization, but that it is done in an inflammatory way through 
the choice of words. Ironically, Keith's posting lamented, among other 
things. exactly this sort of unfortuante tendency by some posters on 
Tango-L.

Example B.2.

> From: "Igor Polk" <ipolk at virtuar.com>

> Shut up, Huck !

Apparently said ironically, but as Huck himself observes later, not 
really. Not a pattern in the case of this poster, and apparently a 
genuine misunderstanding of Huck's intent but nonetheless (a) still a 
mini personal flame and (b) another example of the "pick a fight" 
mentality of jumping to use an unnecessarily provocative and rather 
extreme interpretation of the original post.


C. POSTINGS THAT ARE NEGATIVE BUT IN FACT COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE within 
the rules of Tango-L (nothing says that everything has to be positive on 
Tango-L, but it can be constructively or at least informatively 
negative, and certainly not a flame on the person making them. Here is 
one example (of a legitimate and appropriate post):

Example C.1.

> From: DocDAS at aol.com
> 
> Hola;
>      I a sense of absurdity overwhelms me regarding the  'Truth & Truthiness' 
> dialogue that has caught so much attention of late.  I've been dancing tango 
> for nearly 10  years and a subscriber to Tango-L  for about the same time and 
> have yet to see such inane, pedantic, nit picking,  and ultimately pointless 
> raving as displayed in the recent postings!

An opinion on post(s) clearly focussed on the posts and not on the 
person(s) making them. Even what might be perceived as personal in the 
context of an individual post ("inane, pedantic") is not in the context 
of a class of numerous posts by several persons.


Regards,

Shahrukh Merchant
Tango-L-owner at mit.edu