NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/13800

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 6.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!tillage!gil
From: [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: netiquette (Independent Insulting Ethnology)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:36:52 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
Lines: 116


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 > Well, since you ask...
 >
 > I meean the mistake you make when you demand scientific rigor in an unmoderated
 > usenet newsgroup, of course. Nothing prevents anyone from putting as much
 > or as little care into their postings as they might wish. So the endless
 > and rather silly postings from young enthusiasts who have yet to discover
 > that the real world does not necessarily subscribe to their particular
 > enthusiasm are a necessary cost of the free and open discussion here, as is
 > the difficulty of keeping a focus.

Scientific rigour? No, just a few facts and substantiated discussion;
certainly not such blatant lies and political propaganda designed to
subvert and obfuscate science on a sci.* forum.

 > I suspect you still haven't subscribed to news.announce.newusers, since you
 > seem to mistake the purpose of this group for that of a mailing list, which is
 > generally more focussed, limited in circulation, and professional in
 > orientation and content.

Sorry, I make no mistake except perhaps in asserting my freedom of
expression among those who maintain they champion such rights. HA!

 > The goal of this sort of group is the widest possible circulation and
 > participation, which implies inconsistent focus, and in which rigor and
 > even honesty are at the option of the participant.
                                .
                                .
                                .
 > Quite so. But I think it would be a good thing if more people did a good deal
 > more thinking before they decide to talk, and more talking before they
 > decide to act. It seems to me that study followed by discussion is
 > an appropriate first step, though often (not always!) inadequate as a last one.

Well, Michael, which way *do* you want it?

 > This comparison is either facile (casting doubt on your expertise in
 > ethnology) or deliberately insulting (inconsistent with your desire for
 > constructive and focussed discussion). Ultimately, when action on the part
 > of the society is necessary, some segment that benefits from the status
 > quo will be offended. But this is surely no reason for being gratuitously
 > rude, as you are even in making your point.

So, you merely find me rude. We have had somewhat similar discussions
elsewhere on Internet culture shock. I do consider myself to be polite,
thoughful, considerate, and very well mannered indeed up to the point
beyond which I can be very rude indeed. But we of the Land Down Under
have no monopoly on rudness, that's a fact.

 > I participate (beyond asking an occasional question) only in threads on this
 > group where I have some expertise, but I follow most of them because
 > ultimately all these issues are related and we all need to learn about
 > them as much as possible. Your implication that I have to blather on about
 > things I know nothing about or deserve the worst is revealing, but alarming.

Sorry, Michael, but at no time do I recall ever being involved in an
argument with you, been rude to you, insulted you, or made any comment
about you whatever. Until now my very scant attention to you has merely
arisen from my scanning of the various threads pertaining to this news
group.

Please, what *are* you talking about here?

 > Indeed the etiquette file recommends lurking on a group for a few months
 > before joining in. It has been suspected that you did not do so before
 > joining in here, and this latest comment supports that suspicion. Perhaps
 > had you lurked a bit longer you might not have been so eager to demand
 > that this International Scientific Forum conform so closely to your
 > expectations.

Well, some discretely dip their toe into the shallow end of the pool,
while others just jump straight into the deep end. Is that difficult
for you in some way, or does it inconvenience you to be splashed all
over when you only wanted to wet your toe?

 > In any case, your suggestion that silent readership is cowardice is
 > inconsistent with your vision of this discussion as focussed and rigorous.
 > Which is it to be: an open discussion or an academic discourse? In practice
 > it's a little of both, but whenever it tends one way you seem intent on
 > demanding the other!
 >
 > In other words:
 >  1) Take it or leave it.
 >  2) Try to distinguish between making irritating observations
 > and irritating propositions (which most of us do in one way or another)
 > and making observations and suggestions in the most irritating possible way.
 >  3) do read news.announce.newusers please.

Oh dear, I wonder just how long it is taken you to summon the courage
to write all this? Everyone else here dropped it months ago, or do we
have to start all over again now for your benefit? It's not a problem
either way, although you could also join our now really very irritated
Mr London over in alt.sustainable.agriculture and as you wish make it
a real ding-dong of a flame war over nothing as usual.

 > I also wish you could trim your verbiage by half, but I understand that
 > verbosity is an occupational hazard of social science.

You might simply double your verbiage, Michael; come up to speed and
start actually saying something, yes?

On the other hand, I have a little boy called Michael too. We call
him Mikey and he is just a few months past two years old. He is also
fairly verbose; must run in the family.

Maybe I should set up an Internet account for him here on this node,
and whenever you want you can get into some real flames together. Now
wouldn't that be fun. My four year old can join in as well . . . ;-)

--
Gil Hardwick                          Internet:  [e-mail]
Consulting Ethnologist                              Fidonet:  3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                         Voice:  ([phone]
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *