TriggerFinger


BlogRoll

From the Barrel of a Gun
Lurking Rhythmically
Random Nuclear Strikes
Daily Pundit
Borepatch
Only Guns and Money
Mostly Cajun
Massad Ayoob
The View From North Central Idaho
Armed and Dangerous
Hell in a Handbasket
View From The Porch
Patterico
Guns, Cars, and Tech
Alphecca
Legal Insurrection
Irons in the Fire
Volokh Conspiracy
Snowflakes in Hell
Shot in the Dark
MArooned
Power Line
Michael Bane
Reason
The Smallest Minority
Publicola
Sharp as a Marble
The Silicon Greybeard
3 boxes of BS
Saysuncle
Alphecca
Of Arms and the Law
Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives
Infodancer
Speculative Fiction
GunBlogBlackList
John Lott
Confiscation

Categories

FeedBoomershoot 2008 

Most Popular

Featured Posts

Being nice on the internet


So... the instapundit linked to a rant on internet etiquette.  I found it inspiring myself.  Here is what it inspired:
Dear Mr. Gilsdorf,

I would love to say that I enjoyed reading your article, that I found it to be insightful, amusing, and a useful application of my time.  I wish I could say that I will carry the wisdom of your words with me for longer than it will take me to compose this reply.  However, I fear I value my honesty more than your opinion of my politeness, so I must refrain.  I hope my well-meant verbosity will be sufficient substitute as a buffer for your tender palate, and I regret to say also that the time spent composing this reply has already exceeded the value of your words... considerably.

Your primary complaint -- indeed, the entire reason for your article -- appears to be that someone was mean to you on the internet.  No doubt, following your first draft, the editor who reviews your work mentioned to you that people are mean to other people on the internet all the time, and suggested that you perhaps expand on your original complaint by generalizing from one example onto an entire population.  I respectfully suggest that your editor's time might be better spent proofreading your headlines, as I notice that your article did not actually deny that the headline of the article penultimate to the one upon which I am commenting was in need of such services.

It is with the utmost respect and sincere desire for you to find a proper home for your talents that I recommend you cease writing articles upon the internet and return to your obvious true calling, by which I mean the writing of letters to the editor. 

Your clear command of the nicer elements of courtesy appropriate in a written -- nay, even unto a printed! -- letter will serve you well.  As will the time spent in due contemplation as you carefully write, or perhaps type, a perfectly-spelled letter that you will then fold, place into an envelope, wet with the appropriate soaked sponge (never, never the tongue!) and fix a stamp upon the appropriate corner.  

As you carefully print your return address in your best cursive lettering, you will have ample time to contemplate that the rules of proper etiquette vary by time and place and the level of formality desired. Perhaps by the time you are writing in your careful hand the address of the newspaper you will even be able to find inspiration in the realization that the email writer whose prose you so delicately undertook to mock -- not to correct, mind you, for the target of your politely-phrased derision was to all evidence completely correct on the merits of his accusation -- but which you undertook to mock for the manner and appearance rather than the substance was in a position with regard to you as you will be in regard to the newspaper editor who will, in some few days or weeks, deign to open your letter, consider whether it is reasonable to publish, and in fact, possibly do so.  

In point of fact, were you to write a letter to an editor of a newspaper, you would be understood as even requesting publication and as such have undertaken on your own account to carefully edit your own submission to follow the rules of formal speech to which you are no doubt accustomed.  How dramatic a gap already exists between a writer of formal letters to the editor such as your hypothetical self and a mere commoner, a peon as it were, who seeks only to bring to your attention the lack of proof-reading applied to your own work, whether it be your own fault of that or your editor or perhaps both.  Indeed, rather than engaging to mock and abuse such a person, you might be better served by contemplating the following course of action:

1) Correct the headline of the original article, as your email-writer so helpfully pointed out to you.

2) Thank the email-writer politely (you are so good at that!) for pointing out the error, which you might otherwise have had to pay an editor to discover and the prompt correction of which will spare you no end of future humiliation at the hands of other people who are being mean on the internet.  Remember, for everyone who writes in to inform you of the error, a hundred or even a thousand noticed, laughed, and said nothing... to you.

3) Apologize most humbly to the email-writer for using his helpful and polite, if informal, correction request as fodder for mockery and abuse of the most caddish sort.  You should strive to achieve not only the formal rules of courtesy, but also true sincerity in your apology.  As I hope you are now aware, observing the rules of formal discourse does not mean being nice.

4) Apologize even more humbly to those whose lives have been affected by people being mean on the internet in ways much more concrete than yours.  To those who have received death threats, for example, making a fuss about failing to use "Dear Sir" and declining to say something nice and meaningless before getting to the point must seem like some sort of sick joke.

Remember to begin now!  If you hurry, at least a little, in your leisurely stroll between your domicile and your local post office, your letter to the editor may even be delivered to your doorstep before the last printed newspaper goes out of business.

I wish you the best in your future occupation,
A not-very-concerned reader

P.S. A "proof" is an early copy of a book or article meant for future publication, used to check for errors before the process of high-volume printing begins.

P.P.S To "read" a "proof" is to verify that the proof contains no errors and is correct.

P.P.P.S If you have a "proof" you may be said to "read" the proof, or to "proof read" it.

P.P.P.P.S "Proofread" is an informal contraction of the two.  To "proof read" is therefore perfectly correct, if somewhat formal or antiquated.
Alas, that site does not allow anonymous comments, and would certainly have chosen not to publish mine.

This entry was published 2012-06-17 15:17:23.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org and last updated 2012-06-17 15:17:23.0. [Tweet]

Recent Entries

Most Popular

Featured Entries

comments powered by Disqus
If you would like to receive new posts by email:

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice. this site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.