You're right, Trudy. The above
discussion
isn't universal.
However, I've not yet been exposed at length to an online community of any cohesiveness that didn't have the phenomenon. I don't think it was discussed, for instance, on soc.culture.african.american, for instance. It just was. Some people were louder than others, and some people agitated for change louder than others.
And not just cohesive -- I'd say another defining characteristic would be an online community in which the members had any say other than purely conversational in defining rules and characteristics.
Of course it
can
be a bad thing, but it being bad is certainly not universal.
You're right, Trudy. The above discussion isn't universal.
However, I've not yet been exposed at length to an online community of any cohesiveness that didn't have the phenomenon.
I
meant
the phenomenon, not the discussion.
Like I said, I've been in two where a) people basically get along and when they don't, b) NOBODY gets a pass for acting nasty, regardless of their status or history or "social capital" in the group. (That would be the phenomenon, Robin, not the loud/squeaky wheel getting the grease -- the the thing that makes nice people give up and walk isn't the "cabal" it's the "bitch")
This is precisely why the discussion doesn't benefit from summarisation. I was referring to a different part of Rafmun's post than you were, Trudy, I now see.
I see, Trudy, but in reading over past kerfuffles, I see a pattern of folks defining "doesn't agree with me and says so" as being bitchy or overbearing. I don't see it that way. I have always spoken out against people being unkind, and called them on it if I am around, but I am willing to give anyone a pass for one or two bad days or bad posts as I hope they will for me.
I see a pattern of folks defining "doesn't agree with me and says so" as being bitchy or overbearing.
I don't think it's that so much as "says so repeatedly, over and over." Which - discussion. I state my opinion, someone differs, I reiterate to clarify or expand, yadda yadda. I do it myself. But sometimes it feels like being hit over the head with it, just due to the repitition. And if I've stated and refined my position several times, and then a few others chime in to agree or to expand upon what I've said, it compounds. The intent and the impact aren't the same, and I'm not sure it's a fixable thing. Because noone's doing anything wrong, really. Nature of the beast, I think, between the medium and the fact that we're mostly a lot of talky meat. OK, I personally have tried to make an effort to resist the urge to clarify and expound every time I think of something new to add. And it's haaard.
Dumb question for the hivemind? When did the mm/dd/yy (or dd/mm/yy) date format start to be in common usage?
looks at brenda's response
thinks how unhelpful it was
t clarifies
I don't know if that was helpful. It seems to me brenda didn't think she was helping.
t /clarity
I found this:
This order [mdy] is used in the United States and countries with U.S. influence (but the U.S. federal government sometimes uses day, month, year). England originally used day, month, year, then for a while used month, day, year, and finally the original form (day, month, year) was revived around 1900. The U.S. uses the middle form of month, day, year. Canada uses both conventions, those starting with the day and those starting with the month.
In wikipedia. I can google some more after I finish making the pancakes.
Well, the dd/mm/yy I think of as European, not an American usage. But when either of them started, that's a good question to which I have no answer. Did google give any help?
