David Homerick wrote:

----------
:From: Nicholas Leifker <nwl9354@unix.tamu.edu>

:
:To show you, I've decided to C&C your C&C.  Unlike you, I've decided to
:cut the irrelevant parts here.

Fair enough -- I'll respond.

Note, though, that my comments were added as I went through the story.  In
many ways, they are a log of my response to the story.  Yes, I did get flip.
 I *felt* flip -- the story was heavy-handed and lachymorose.

Okay.  In other words, you weren't willing to give an honest, respectful
negative C&C.  That is an insult, David, whether you were intending to
or not.  

While reading your response to my post, I was thinking two things over
and over.

1.  I seriously disagree with some of your reasonings.  Apparently you
don't know the difference between a respectful comment and a flippant
one.  If you claim your point was "Sufficiently clear", as you state
earlier, then why did several people (I wasn't the first one to be up in
arms about your post, after all) have such a strong negative response to
it?  Also, you claim you never insulted Richard at any point; by not
showing another writer the respect to make negative C&C in a
professional manner, you were doing precisely that by showing nothing
but contempt for his work.  If this was not your intention, it was
certainly your action.  Finally, you claim that you are not a
professional.  By "professional manner", I mean getting rid of the snide
comments and stating what you mean plainly and succinctly.  I do
apologize if you misunderstood what I meant by "professional manner"; it
is common language in the engineering profession, my current subject of
study, and is common language throughout most of the corporate world as
far as I've been able to tell.  If you are unable to do that but wish to
let the author know your thoughts anyway, there is still one other
course of action: Mail the author privately.  This results in no public
insult toward the writer, and allows you to air your views to the
author.  

2.  Why didn't you try to explain your responses to Richard's work in
this manner?  While I may disagree with most of your reasonings, you did
try to explain them clearly and respectfully this time.  That, sir, is
what good negative C&C is all about: disagreeing with what someone has
done, and stating it clearly and without insult.

Now... it has been suggested to me that this might have been an attempt
at a MSTing.  If so, it is a poor one at best, as it is neither marked
as a MSTing, nor does it have the characteristics normally found of a
MSTing.  If a MSTing is what you intended, I recommend you look at the
MSTings currently out, and study and emulate their styles so that such
misunderstandings do not occur again in the future.

Finally, I do respect a log of reader's responses, to the same extent
that that reader respects the author's story.  You didn't, so I don't. 
Negative comments are one thing; I've given them to Richard and others
numerous times (if you wish, I will send my commentary of Roses of
Shadow pt. 10 to you).  However, your commentary crossed the line of
negative C&C and went to insults.  To expect any respect for that is
folly at best.  

-- Nick