Discussion: View Thread

As per usual, after my post about the power point attachments, I got
the obligatory private response--usually they include stuff like
"heck, live with it", or my favorite: "It's a constitutional right",
to some people like them, some don't...

It is pretty obvious to me (probably cause I follow these things)
that attachments can and do create problems for list managers,
increase internet traffic for no reason (if people can't read the
attachments, why send them), and can cost people actual money in
addition to interfering (potentially and some times actually) with
receiving legitimate solicited email.

It is also clear (most recently on many of these lists and in the
list rules, that most lists forbid attachments.

Despite this, professionals on a number of lists keep sending them.
I'd like some help. What exactly does this mean.

Does it mean that, for example, people involved in management
education are so self-centered that they simply don't care about hte
consequences of their actions for others?

Do they carry this on in their management development activities?

Do such people also instruct the managers they may be working with to
ignore the company rules, and bluster at anyone who catches them
violating operating principles?

I try to remind myself that many people new to the net don't
understand (and really shouldn't be expected to understand) some of
the tech. stuff that goes on, unseen, or even the basics. What I
don't understand is those people who, given that information, are
STILL offended if they are expected to abide by community netiquette.

On the HR lists there is a similar thing about job postings. On a
dozen other lists, there was the IAoM instance. It's become an almost
daily occurence.

Given that there ARE simple workable alternatives to sending things
in email, what exactly is the issue here?

And what does it mean?


Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

On 2 Dec 97 at 22:46, Dutch Driver wrote:

> Perhaps it means some of us would rather put up with the inconvienience of
> an occasional attachment than a flurry of "Me toos!" that can also clog a
> listserv and mailboxes for weeks at a time.

If that's the case, I doubt people would be posting me too's in order
to avoid me too's...!?! Besides given that we have guidelines,
wouldn't all this be unnecessary if people read and followed the, in
the interests of the community?

There has to be some explanation, be it the nature of the medium that
tends us towards lack of responsibility or consideration, or
something else.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

I am responding to some of these posts in the hope that there may be
a small teeny possibility that people who use private property of
others will learn to respect other's rights.


On 3 Dec 97 at 16:36, robnphil wrote:

> If this goes to multiple lists I apologise in advance.
>
> Regarding PowerPoint attachments. I own up! I confess! It was me who
> sent it and now my machine is being clogged with debates as to whether
> or not it is my Constitutional Right to do so. (Under which amendment by
> the way?)

The rights that exist pertain to restraint from the STATE. You and I
and any American have NO right to the use of private property to send
anything...it is a service offered, not a right. THIS list is private
property.

>
> I'm sorry if it so annoyed people. My only reason for sending it was
> because it is my experience that when discussing things like
> competencies vs skills/capability there is much people in our profession
> don't know - and even more that they don't know what it is that they
> don't know. Go back into the archives and you'll see what I mean.

People always have reasons for violating the rules of the "house" in
which they are a guest.

>
> Posting anything allows people like me, whose Constitutional Right it is
> to freely express opinions and (to paraphrase) information, to do just
> that. Like pornography on television, it is the viewer's right to switch
> it off just as it is the sender's right to transmit it - as difficult a
> concept as that may be for some to digest.

You have NO right to choose the method of your expression. You cannot
use MY website to post what you want (unless I allow it). You have NO
right to use the services of a list you do not own. You have NO
rights to use a television or radio station to say what you will
unless you are permitted to do so.

>
> If my transmitting anything clogs up someone's equipment then I
> profusely apologise - however the fact is I am a teacher and if the way
> I teach is incompatible with the way people learn either I change my
> ways or they change their's. The fact is I have only one way to teach
> using this medium, and until Bill Gates et al figure out a better or
> faster way of using the Net we all are stuck with it. Perhaps a faster
> modem? Now there's a radical thought.

You are free to teach to those that have ASKED you. Teaching those by
dumping things down their throats and in their mailboxes is really
not a very useful enterprise.

> The truth of the matter is that more and more of our information is
> going to arrive via these means. If we are incapable of handling it now,
> think how bad things are going to be next year, or the year after.......

If we are incapable of abiding by the very few rules on the internet
in sending things, we are indeed in bad shape.

>
> In the meantime, to those whose sensitivities I offend by offering the
> fruits of my experience by sending PPT attachments I apologise. To the
> others, keep reading.

I'm really tired of the excuses many offer, and the lame attempts to
apologize while at the same time attempting to explain why the deed
was done. An honest mistake is an honest mistake...no problem. If you
make it, a one line apology is fine.

Fed up enough to do something about it. I have already marked one
company that added their list to my professional link page as a
spamming outfit. I will continue to do so, and am willing to add
names to a special web site page for those in our related professions
that show a lack of integrity by spamming intentionally and
repeatedly.

Since so many people seem to think that free speech means doing
whatever they want when they want and where they want, regardless of
who it costs, I am PREPARED TO EXERCISE MY FREE SPEECH to inform
potential buyers about the ethics of such companies.

I've received at least 30 spam mails and other inapproprate uses of
the internet TODAY.


Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

Perhaps it means some of us would rather put up with the inconvienience of
an occasional attachment than a flurry of "Me toos!" that can also clog a
listserv and mailboxes for weeks at a time.

______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX
Hm. Telephone: 915.698.7217
mailto:ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

If this goes to multiple lists I apologise in advance.

Regarding PowerPoint attachments. I own up! I confess! It was me who
sent it and now my machine is being clogged with debates as to whether
or not it is my Constitutional Right to do so. (Under which amendment by
the way?)

I'm sorry if it so annoyed people. My only reason for sending it was
because it is my experience that when discussing things like
competencies vs skills/capability there is much people in our profession
don't know - and even more that they don't know what it is that they
don't know. Go back into the archives and you'll see what I mean.

Posting anything allows people like me, whose Constitutional Right it is
to freely express opinions and (to paraphrase) information, to do just
that. Like pornography on television, it is the viewer's right to switch
it off just as it is the sender's right to transmit it - as difficult a
concept as that may be for some to digest.

If my transmitting anything clogs up someone's equipment then I
profusely apologise - however the fact is I am a teacher and if the way
I teach is incompatible with the way people learn either I change my
ways or they change their's. The fact is I have only one way to teach
using this medium, and until Bill Gates et al figure out a better or
faster way of using the Net we all are stuck with it. Perhaps a faster
modem? Now there's a radical thought.

The truth of the matter is that more and more of our information is
going to arrive via these means. If we are incapable of handling it now,
think how bad things are going to be next year, or the year after.......

In the meantime, to those whose sensitivities I offend by offering the
fruits of my experience by sending PPT attachments I apologise. To the
others, keep reading.

Sincerely

PHIL RUTHERFORD
robnphil@ozemail.com.au




Robert Bacal wrote:
>
> As per usual, after my post about the power point attachments, I got
> the obligatory private response--usually they include stuff like
> "heck, live with it", or my favorite: "It's a constitutional right",
> to some people like them, some don't...
>
> It is pretty obvious to me (probably cause I follow these things)
> that attachments can and do create problems for list managers,
> increase internet traffic for no reason (if people can't read the
> attachments, why send them), and can cost people actual money in
> addition to interfering (potentially and some times actually) with
> receiving legitimate solicited email.
>
> It is also clear (most recently on many of these lists and in the
> list rules, that most lists forbid attachments.
>
> Despite this, professionals on a number of lists keep sending them.
> I'd like some help. What exactly does this mean.
>
> Does it mean that, for example, people involved in management
> education are so self-centered that they simply don't care about hte
> consequences of their actions for others?
>
> Do they carry this on in their management development activities?
>
> Do such people also instruct the managers they may be working with to
> ignore the company rules, and bluster at anyone who catches them
> violating operating principles?
>
> I try to remind myself that many people new to the net don't
> understand (and really shouldn't be expected to understand) some of
> the tech. stuff that goes on, unseen, or even the basics. What I
> don't understand is those people who, given that information, are
> STILL offended if they are expected to abide by community netiquette.
>
> On the HR lists there is a similar thing about job postings. On a
> dozen other lists, there was the IAoM instance. It's become an almost
> daily occurence.
>
> Given that there ARE simple workable alternatives to sending things
> in email, what exactly is the issue here?
>
> And what does it mean?
>
> Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
> Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
> at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
> *Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:36:23 +1100, robnphil <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>
>If this goes to multiple lists I apologise in advance.
>
>Regarding PowerPoint attachments. I own up! I confess! It was me who
>sent it and now my machine is being clogged with debates as to whether
>or not it is my Constitutional Right to do so. (Under which amendment by
>the way?)

Intriguing that a fellow Antipodean should be claiming "constitutional
rights" ... or are you an expatriate American?

(snip)
>Posting anything allows people like me, whose Constitutional Right it is
>to freely express opinions and (to paraphrase) information, to do just
>that.

Oh yes, now is the time for the obligatory argument that free speech is not
unlimited - "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater (unless there is
one of course)"

>If my transmitting anything clogs up someone's equipment then I
>profusely apologise - however the fact is I am a teacher and if the way
>I teach is incompatible with the way people learn either I change my
>ways or they change their's. The fact is I have only one way to teach
>using this medium, and until Bill Gates et al figure out a better or
>faster way of using the Net we all are stuck with it. Perhaps a faster
>modem? Now there's a radical thought.


There are well established guidelines called net etiquette which tell us
what is appropriate behavior ... breaching it is not just annoying - it is
expensive for some recipients. The conventional way to distribute your .ppt
files is to lodge it on a server and allow those who want it to go get it.
It isn't hard to do, and achieves your goal without upsetting anyone.

>The truth of the matter is that more and more of our information is
>going to arrive via these means. If we are incapable of handling it now,
>think how bad things are going to be next year, or the year after.......

You mean when all the airline pilots cease to follow the instructions of
the controller, or being in Australia, you exercise your "constitutional
right" to drive on the right hand side of the road? :-)

Net etiquette sets out to enable us to do what we want without causing
conflict, but it does call for a modicum of compromise on the part of those
who recognise rights but not responsibilities.

>In the meantime, to those whose sensitivities I offend by offering the
>fruits of my experience by sending PPT attachments I apologise. To the
>others, keep reading.

Please do offer it, but let those of us who want to take up your offer (and
I do thank you for it) come and get it.


BTW, I hope you are well clear of all those bush fires?

regards


--
Brian Harmer
"Our luck is even better than I expected Don Qixote exclaimed ... I'm going to attack those mighty giants and slay them in their tracks" - Cervantes
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~bharmer/

I'm not sure if this thread was about Power Point or attachments (or
both), but...

aren't some of those Power Point attachments the result of magic and
computer fairies? (I believe that computer fairies are relatives of the
Paper fairies. Regardless of how much I do electronically the paper
fairies still visit my desk every night and plant paper seeds that grow
into stacks of junk mail and papers by morning.)

I communicate with my students via e-mail and get their papers as
attachments. I had one student whose attachments would sometimes come
in as a Power Point attachment--and it was not a Power Point file to
begin with. Yesterday a different student sent a WordPerfect file which
came to me as a Power Point attachment. Web magic maybe??

I must be zapping listserv messages with Power Point attachment, cause I
don't recall getting any.
Susie

--
H. Susie Coddington, Ph.D., Coddington Learning Co.
410.992.9563 hsusie@erols.com
LEARNING NEVER ENDS . . .