Hi Ian,
Don't you worry about it.
I am in the middle of getting my MBA and I have been taught that a
moderate level of conflict is good. Call it moderate conflict,
functional conflict or even constructive conflict, it keeps us stirred
up and thinking creativily.
Too little conflict leads to "group think". No one thinks outside the
box or wants to disturb status quo. As a result nothing new gets tough
of, developed or questioned. Think Challenger booster O rings.
Too much conflict leads to distructive resolutions. In our case that would be people leaving the group.
As a result I tolerate a level of disagreement on the list. As long as
members do not degress down to name calling or bad language. All one
has to do to stop the argument is not respond.
I was also was taught that communication is 55% body language, 38% by
voice tone and inflection, 7% by the words. Most of our flame
wars occur because 93% of the message content does NOT get transmitted
over email. That is 93% of the orginal message, 93% of the
response, 93% of the defence.... and so on. I am amazed we work
as well as we do!
Regards,
Ray
--- On Tue, 8/26/08, irox <irox@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From: irox <irox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Nautilus pictures/large subs
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 8:46 AM
Hi guys,
I'm sorry for starting/priming this frame war. I didn't have anybody
in mind when I wrote that email. Email is a hard medium to discuss
certain topics with, and I think this might be on of those topics.
I'm happy with every body's answer and I'm now perfectly happy to
discuss large subs on the list.
I think this list has had a very good rappor for the last year, I guess
a little friction is to be expected once in a while. I hope no body
feels the need to unsubscribe from the list or post less as a result
of this thread. In fact
I'll be seriously bummed out if that happens.
Again, my apologies for this, I feel like I opened a can worms with
a dead horse in it.
Best regards for all,
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
>From: jonw@psubs.org
>Sent: Aug 26, 2008 3:07 AM
>To: "Personal_Submersibles@Psubs. Org"
<personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
>Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Nautilus pictures/large subs
>
>
>>Well Jon you are wrong! When did Ian say it was the Official Position
of
>>Psubs as an organisation that big subs were not discussed?
>
>I have explained this twice. You are apparently unwilling to accept my
>explanation.
>
>>My second point was that if you think that there has not been a
negative
>>reaction to large subs by some members of this group, you are kidding
>>yourself. This includes the Precious one! You were suggesting
that
Ian's
>>point of view was invalid and his perception wrong! I strongly
disagree.
>>Your stomping on him is going to be a bigger negative that that which
he
>>described and acts like a form of pier censorship. It is the experience
Ian
>>has had with members of this group. Others feel the same way. I even
>>explained why and stated that was ok if many don't have an interest
in
>large
>>boats. How can I be fairer!
>
>Why do you make comments like "the precious one" insinuating that
there's
>some collusion to put Jay Jeffries on a pedestal? Do you understand the
>disrespect that represents or are you just so angry that you'll say
>anything. So what if he said you have to consider the depth of the harbor
>for a large sub. So what if he said you have to consider cost and
>maintenance for a large sub. I'm at a loss to understand how
you
expect me
>to have sympathy for you, Ian, or anyone else over trivial statements like
>that. Are you serious? At the end of December 2007, Ian announced his
>concrete sub project to the group. Jay Jeffries did not respond to it. In
>February, Jay Jeffries offered an analysis of large vs small subs, and as
>far as I can tell the bottom line was that large subs beat out small subs
in
>every way except transportation. Now maybe Jay just happened to see the
>light and came out of darkness on his own, or maybe Jay saw the light when
>he found he had an opportunity to procure a large tank that he could
develop
>into a large sub. Whatever the reason, who cares?! The fact is he is
>apparently very much in favor of large subs, now. Continuing to argue
about
>statements he made a year or more ago seem less valuable to me than taking
>advantage of his turn in thinking
and using him as an ally to bolster
>discussions for the development of private large subs. Whatever Jay
>Jeffries said, might have said, or could have said, yesterday, last year,
or
>three years ago; it didn't rise to the level of disrespect apparent in
your
>messages. And apparently, the two people who were actively involved in
>building large subs when Jay said whatever he said, ignored him and simply
>continued on with their projects.
>
>Stop talking to me about Ian and his negative experiences with this group.
>If Ian can't speak for himself, then it isn't bothering him enough
to care.
>Ian attended the convention in Maine and attended more than one "rum
>tasting" party hosted by Jay Jeffries, with numerous other people. At
least
>in my presence, Ian was treated with total respect. Questions were asked
>about his concrete sub, and he answered them. Nobody
chastised him,
>belittled him, or cut his head off and handed it back to him. If anything,
>Ian garnered more support for his project after discussing the details of
>his plans for the sub than ever before. If Ian is saying anything
>different, then shame on him. Jim Kocourek, Andy Goldstein, Ray Keefer,
Jay
>Jeffries, Lee Nichols, Lynn Darnell, Russ Kinne, Kevin Green, Doug Farrow,
>Wayne Russell and Bob Oberto were all there, in the same room, at the same
>time. If you don't believe me, then ask the others.
>
>>Just because you state something is incorrect does not make it the
case.
>Why
>>are you so afraid of someone saying ' I had a negative
experience' or 'this
>>is my perception''. This is very Pat Regan of you Jon. In my
own business
>if
>>someone has a negative experience I WANT to know so I can restore
goodwill
>>or fix
the problem.
>
>As I said earlier, I have clearly explained my response to Ian, to you,
>twice.
>
>>As for idle banter I note you yourself on occasions indulge in the same
>>practice so throwing crap like that at me in the attempt to claim the
high
>>moral ground is in itself silly. I would suggest most list members
except
>>that deodorant would be an essential on a long voyage in a confined
space
>>and see the funny side of Brent astride the casing rowing a sub back to
>>shore. Oh I'm sorry, new rule; don't exercise a sense of humour
on p-subs.
>>Well at least I didn't mention a home made machine gun.
>
>There's alot of idle chatter on this list, which for the most part we
>ignore. Hence my statement previously that the group is very tolerant of
>such things. Your statement above is over-dramatic and inflates
the
context
>of my words to something I never said. I don't have to defend a
statement I
>didn't make and which clearly is not practiced on the mailing list.
What
>you should have taken from my statement was that people have tolerated 11
>nonsense messages between you and Brent, and you should be more tolerant
>when others have the audacity to question the relevance of large subs.
>
>>Making the 'us v them' comments just reinforces the very idea
that such an
>>environment exists when I said nothing of the sort and again this does
not
>>dismiss the substance of my email. I note you avoided that because my
>>assertions are hard to dispute. In fact you have left most of them
>>unchallenged and adopted the Ostrich approach. I didn't see my
e-mail as
>>particularly inflammatory but as supportive of a fellow member so
Ian
>didn't
>>think he was Robinson Caruso as others just like him have had the same
>>experience. Just because you can get the majority to agree with you
doesn't
>>mean you are right.
>
>There is nothing you asserted that is hard to dispute and I did not avoid
>your assertions for that reason. I avoided the bulk of your message
because
>it contained nothing more than insinuations which weren't worth my time
>responding to. By the time I responded to you the way I did, I thought it
>had been made very clear that discussing large submarines on this list is
>patently and unquestionably acceptable. I researched the archives and
found
>that not only did Jay Jeffries NOT respond to Ian's announcement of his
>large 200-ton concrete sub in December 2007 (and therefore could not be
>accused of intimidating Ian at that time) but that in February of
2008,
>Jeffries was espousing the virtues of large submarines. Additionally, I
had
>my own personal experience of observing Ian discussing his sub at the
>convention, with Jay and the others named above, without any malice or
>disrespect. So from my perspective, if there ever had been an issue, it no
>longer was one. With Ray responding to Ian separately (and without my
>prompting) everyone was on notice, including Jay Jeffries, that discussion
>of large subs was not only permissible, but that we've seen sensitivity
to
>this issue so don't disrupt any such discussions. Apparently, Ian had
the
>same perspective given his statement of 8/25/2008 at 3:45pm,
> "Cool, I'm getting a strong message, bigs subs are acceptable
> psubs! Thanks guys. I will think no more of the issue and
> get on with what we love, talking about submarines!"
>
>Now with Ian satisfied,
there was no point in continuing a discussion about
>a problem that no longer existed.
>
>I stand behind my statement that your message sounded like "US vs
THEM"
>based upon personality conflicts, particularly given your statements such
as
>"the precious one". Furthermore, I didn't say that psubs was
a "cult of the
>K250", you did. And further still, you are the one that offered the
>description of some participants as "core conventionist". These
are labels
>that contribute to an "US vs THEM" environment. That is the way
I see it.
>
>I did see your email as particularly inflammatory, and ignored the bulk of
>it hoping we could avoid any fireworks. Instead of recognizing that, you
>retort by accusing me of hiding my head like an ostrich and not challenging
>you further. In my opinion, that is indicative of somebody just looking to
>argue for the sake
of arguing. Your message could have been supportive of
>Ian had you taken a different tact and made your point without making
>unflattering remarks about Jay Jeffries.
>
>I don't "get the majority" to agree with me. People who
agree with me do so
>at their own risk. You most assuredly give me too much credit.
>
>
>>We do have a great group here and if it wasn't for many members
mentoring
>>and educating my very ignorant thinking back in June 2005 when I
discovered
>>this list I would not have the knowledge to attempt the project I am
about
>>to undertake. My experience is very much like that of Joe Perkel. In
fact I
>>value this group to the point that I have in a small way sponsored a
>>convention if you remember which I didn't even attend. In light of
this,
>>comments about starting wars or promoting disunity
offensive.
You're the
>one
>>that over reacted!
>
>We appreciate your sponsorship. However, I find your conduct, your words,
>and your insinuations in this thread equally offensive, and in fact,
>stunning. Nobody ever wins an argument based upon personalities. Hence my
>reference to the Lilliputian wars, or in other words, let's not go down
this
>road.
>
>>It's like this Jon. If I feel a member is unfairly stomped on by
you or
>>anyone else I have a natural urge to suggest that it was unfair and
reserve
>>the right to say so! If that's not acceptable to you Gulliver, kick
me off
>>the list!!!
>
>No need for name calling.
>
>First, this discussion thread is over. Ian is comfortable knowing he can
>discuss large subs if he chooses, and there is nothing left to discuss on
>the immediate subject he was concerned
about. Do not reply to this, and do
>not continue the discussion on the mailing list. If you feel the need to
>respond, do it privately, NOT on this list.
>
>Second, when you suggest something is unfair in the future, do so
>respectfully and without making childish remarks like "the precious
one" or
>making veiled attacks on others you have a personal conflict with. I
>believe that is a fair request.
>
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
>CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database
>because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive
messages
>from our organization.
>
>If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
>link below or send a blank email message to:
> removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>
>Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
>automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
>our server receiving your request.
>
>PSUBS.ORG
>PO Box 53
>Weare, NH
03281
>603-529-1100
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.
If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Removal of your email address
from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.
PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 53
Weare, NH 03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
|