From: callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,news.groups
Subject: *Any* kind of r.a.b split, or at least a *serious* discussion
Date: 19 Dec 92 17:35:43 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD

In another thread...

tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:

>In article <9212181601.AA04042@cfdev1.shearson.com> mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>>You should have come to the NYC r.a.b.fest at the White Horse.  Mike Godwin
>>showed us the R.A.B. Inner Clique Secret Handshake.

>	Only the ICSH?

>	I guess he didn't really trust you, or he'd have shown you the 
>Get Down with the Inner Clique Secret Handshake and Hiphop Motto.

>	Of course if he'd been *really* taken with you . . .

Yes.  That's exactly the attitude I was trying to describe to Mark Taranto in 
e-mail yesterday (did he read it?--all I got was a note from his answering 
machine).  At the time, I said it was not so much a *callous disregard* for 
newcomers as a *whimsical disbelief* in their existence.  I could probably
improve upon the description, but it seems accurate enough.

Perhaps what is *revolutionary* about my suggestion is that I am not
criticizing those who are so condescendingly known as "newbies," but rather 
the deeply intrenched "RABworms" (to use Muir's term).  These are people  
who post much that is extremely interesting, but who also post a great deal
more that is utterly boring to all but themselves and their closest
r.a.b friends.  Instead of *admitting* that there might be a problem (and
several respondents--notably, people I *don't* recognize--agreed that there
is), they insist that their intellectual babble (*not* "pseudo") is usually a 
natural outgrowth of a book discussion.  I think this is probably false, 
factually, but I haven't actually "done the arithmetic," as a certain notable 
would say.  The point is such babble has *no* significance to anyone outside 
a small circle--not a secret society, I know, but a cozy clique that 
*some* of us do not wish to join.

Muir's posts, for example, usually have the nature of intellectual 
smoke rings.  I realize that he could watch himself blow these smoke rings 
all day, and I also realize that he has picked up quite an audience for
his behavior.  However, *I* am not among them, and I find it hard to believe 
that I am unique in this regard.  So, you ask, why don't I just put him in my
kill file?  Well, the thing is, every so often he says something insightful,
and sometimes it even has to do with a book I have read or would like to read.

Nevertheless, all of these people I criticize are quite intelligent, and if 
they would stop acting so *goddamn* smug, and stop to think about what is
of *general* interest, and what is *not*, then the quality of this group would
be improved enormously.

I don't really care if there is a split, per se.  I certainly don't care
what it is called.  For example, (as I also wrote to Taranto), you could
call it rec.arts.books.gods if you like.  You could make it moderated, and
*only* allow postings from well-known "RABworms."  Actually, this might be   
better.  What I am looking for is a *serious* discussion about whether
a problem exists, and ideally, some kind of attitude adjustment.

Zeleny wars are completely different problem, easily solved by kill files
(I just use "k" myself).

--
Paul Callahan
callahan@cs.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.food.historic