From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Jul 6 0:31:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462EB37B401; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12518; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 01:31:43 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010706012158.0449d990@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:31:39 -0600 To: John Baldwin From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: FreeBSD spokesman. Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010705190110.045359a0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 08:22 PM 7/5/2001, John Baldwin wrote: >That is not what you said. You said "I won't cc you." That is a vague >statement that can easily cover the e-mail it was a part of. What you should >have said then was what you meant: "I won't cc you on any future exchanges >after this reply." I wasn't cc'ing him on that message. That message was TO him. >A spokesman has to be clear in communicating the message to >the audience, except when explicitly using ambiguity. If I were in the process of conveying the "official" message to someone who was actually listening, I would indeed be very careful about avoiding the slightest bit of ambiguity. But in this case, I was dealing with a heckler -- a situation in which one can only "win" (or even break even!) by showing grace under fire and being witty where the heckler is mean, irate, or both. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message