My suggestion: If someone feels that Carl or Carol has said something
inappropiate, factually incorrect, or unfair, then:
1. State what they said explicitly (i.e. not ``Lewis is mean!'',
but ``Lewis claimed that Bolt was/has/will ... Cf.
http://www.YYY.com/lewisInterview.html.'')
2. Explain what your opinion on the subject ist.
(Again, not ``Lewis is mean!'', but a statement about Bolt contrasted with
the statement made by Lewis.)
3. Give some reasonably verifiable facts and logical arguments to support
your position.
Note that even if Lewis has said something truly outrageous
(_hypothetically_, ``Bolt is more doped up than Ben was.'') it is far from
certain that all of us have heard of it. Nor can you count on us having
read the various current sprint threads in detail---the noise to information
ratio is not what it could be, at the moment.
inappropiate, factually incorrect, or unfair, then:
1. State what they said explicitly (i.e. not ``Lewis is mean!'',
but ``Lewis claimed that Bolt was/has/will ... Cf.
http://www.YYY.com/lewisInterview.html.'')
2. Explain what your opinion on the subject ist.
(Again, not ``Lewis is mean!'', but a statement about Bolt contrasted with
the statement made by Lewis.)
3. Give some reasonably verifiable facts and logical arguments to support
your position.
Note that even if Lewis has said something truly outrageous
(_hypothetically_, ``Bolt is more doped up than Ben was.'') it is far from
certain that all of us have heard of it. Nor can you count on us having
read the various current sprint threads in detail---the noise to information
ratio is not what it could be, at the moment.
Comment