Rude and Ignorant

[R. Michael Litchfield]

> Ldy.  Isabella de Foscari says:
> >I myself have received rude e-mail from Litch.  When I replied to an 
> >announcement that feast reservations should be sent for Queen's, I didn't 
> >not realize that they went to the mailer.  I received a message from Litch 
> >saying that "this was rude and ignorant."  
> 
> I believe this kind of mistake was exactly the type that it was mentioned
> would be more common by having the list in the return address rather than
> the sender.  I believe it was Litch (if I remember correctly) who heatedly
> said he wanted it this way. A mistake of this sort is hardly "rude and
> ignorant". Accidents of this sort happen to even the most experienced email
> correspondant, although the current setup insures that when a mistake does
> occur the whole list sees it.

No, Sending private mail to a public list is clearly ignorant, perhaps a 
brief foray into a dictonary would be appropriate, according to my EWebster
"b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence." It is
clearly rude in that you are intruding your personal private affairs
in a forum where people are uninterested in it, it is also rude to begin
use of a facility when your understanding of it is incomplete and force
other people to go out of thier way to educate you or put up with
your ignorance.

I however am quite willing to do this, I am even reasonably pleasent about
it, usually. But I am CLEARLY doing you a service when I do so. I have
found after long irritating experience that about half the people
correct their behaivior when responded to in the most polite way
possible (and half of those that don't correct thier behiavior get pissed, 
no matter how polite you are). If you tend to be caustic, you get a much 
higher compliance rate, even if everyone thinks you are an ass.

> Stefan li Rous

-Michael