From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Why you people alienate so many...
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:15:11 GMT


In article <ldoui0INNqp9@spim.mti.sgi.com>
dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>I have been reading soc.motss for a long time now.  I see
>certain patterns which seem to come up a lot.  Here is the
>scenario:

This should be called "the cabal scenario" in future,
probably.

>1.  A new poster joins a conversation.  This time it is
>Matt, last time it was JD.

Have I already forgotten?  Must be getting old, but I don't
recall JD (if that means John Dorrance) getting much guff,
though when I reach *way* far back in my mind, I think it's
your name I see in that connection.  I could be wrong.

>2. He says things which infuriate some member of the cabal.

Take note, cohort.  Be offended by outright misogyny or
arguably outright homophobia, and you risk being labeled
"cabal member."  If this misfortune should overtake you, a
rescuer is in the wings, ready to give you more help than
you need, I think.

>They start flaming each other.  Whenever there is a flame
>war between an old timer and a cabal member, the rest of the
>cabal sides with the old timer.

Take note, cohort.  This is how you tell cabal members from
garden-variety old-timers.  I guess I can't be a cabalista
(did you catch that little item, btw).

>The war becomes a name calling fest and an insult fest.

While this is true, maybe you should sum up the insults in
most of your postings today, old man.  "Fest" has its fun
side too, I think.

>This tends to make the new person look bad, because in your
>first all out gang insult war, you always lose.

"All-out." "Gang insult war." Sounds rather a lot more
monolithic than it is.  And god (well, Jeff) forbid that
some poor soul should get called out and "look bad."
I guess you think no one ever got away with it, huh?

>3.  The new comer decides to take another tack.  He posts
>something with content.

Give credit where credit is due.  Postings with content are
fairly likely to get responses with content.  A person who
arrives with insults usually gets insults in reply.  That
can be explained without resort to the cabal fiction.

>The cabalistas continue to insult the new person, speaking
>in condescending tones.

Those "cabalistas" have no corner on condescending, however;
wanna borrow my mirror?

>By this time, however, the cabal members are not
>reading what is posted (yes, I am talking to you Jess).

You mean all the time, or just some of the time?  Seems a
pretty relevant question.  Did you mean a specific item?

>They post in long pompous tones about how ignorant the
>person is.

All this, for that *one* posting, eh?  Well, it was fraught
with errors, that I must admit, and maybe posting it at all
was an error too.  But you know, I'm quite willing to take
my lumps, including yours.  Saying *anything* is a risk, a
risk I take with some regularity.  I get pulled up short
fairly often, I'd say.  You do what you can, that's all.
I've had to offer my apologies quite a few times, as I think
some others might attest, unless they're afraid to have the
"cabalista" charge leveled against them, of course.

>4.  Someone thinks to talk with the new comer over email,
>and finds them to be intellegent, but green.  A little
>advice and the newcomer is suddenly a contributing member of
>soc.motss.

>5. Repeat process forever.

Those last two do seem to be a frequent pattern.  I've done
quite a bit of emailing to the newly-arrived m'self, as some
of them might attest, unless they're afraid of being labeled
"cabalistas," that is.  Whether they do or don't, I wouldn't
call it "defending" me, as I have a longish track record of
being able to manage that for myself.

>Having been watching the insult war with Matt, I have
>noticed a number of things.  First, Matt blew it by starting
>the name calling, taunting Jess and Arne.  Then, when other
>people come to their rescue, Matt started to taunt them as
>well.  We all know that this does not work, but with many
>years of usenet under our belts, we know that this does not
>work.

I know you for a careful reader and an intelligent man, but
it seems to me Matthew has held his own *quite* well, so I'd
say in his case it seems to have worked pretty well.

>However, if you read the last couple of days worth of
>Matt's postings, you will see that he is trying to stay on
>topic.

So I guess you're saying Matthew *doesn't* seem to be able
to manage without your assistance.  The trouble with your
whole scenario is that it has been devised ass-end-to; you
started with your desire to defend Matthew (or was it Phil
Ronzone?), then looked around for bogeypersons.  Finding
some, this elaborate charade about cabal gets another breath
of tired old life, the vehicle for *your* insults, *your*
condescension, etc.

It's your life, but to come off as pure, you have to *be*
pure, which is a rather large order.

>However, BBC has been insulting him in return.  Not
>commenting on his words, but just insulting.

But some cabalista will shortly defend him, for sure.

>Jess is being condescending (as per usual).

But some cabalista will now defend him, I'm sure.

>Melinda is siding with the Cabal (as per usual) without
>reading what he is saying.

But some cabalista will defend her, betcha anything.

>The patterns have been repeated over and over and over,
>with different cabal members taking different roles.

Well, we all have our flaws.  Yours is seeing a cabal under
the sheets.

>I have some advice for y'all.  Try reading what he says,
>and drop the antagonism and see what changes...  Perhaps the
>coversations will go a little better.

I suppose you mean: Now that you've cleared up a few things.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Newsgroups: soc.motss