From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Dans Tops McEnroe Superbrat Status (Re: Derek advocates quality. cough. choke.)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:30:53 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Sep1.103210@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.011451.27211@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> I have no problem with what you do in private. However, is this the way you
>> would behave if you were televised on the news? Or reported in the
>newspapers?
>> Or before a jury in a court? Or questioning a speaker at a conference?
>
>   Maybe.  The answer is context dependent.  Have you been following the US
>elections?
>

When did Clinton or Bush say s**thead? Would many people vote if they did?

>> Of course not. You would be more professional with your people communication
>> skills, when you are exposed in a professional situation.
>
>   Um, why are you contradicting recently posted counterexamples (e.g. SJ
>Gould/sociobiology) without refuting them?

Compare apples with apples. Gould did not use any of your favourite s words
or Ben's favourite f word.

Furthermore one or two examples of a breakdown in professionalism does not
imply that professionalism suddenly has to be modelled on the lowest
common denomenator. Ask Gould, he probably regrets it.

Dan, that's fallacious argument #1193, you're making quite a score.

>
>> And this is my point, if people want sci.skeptic to look professional and to
>> attract the right kind of people then start by cleaning up the language!!
>
>   ...and blow your net node.  Niether is likely.

I live in hope.

>
>> If you really have to let off steam, then do it in the privacy of email
>> and call the guy whatever name you like. But if you do it on line for
>> thousands of readers to see, you are hurting the calibre of the group.
>
>> When did you ever see  the "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine publishing some of
>> the expletives that we see in this group?
>
>   Compare Robert Schaffer's posts with his articles in that fine magazine.  I
>suspect that the failure of SI to be short-turnaround interactive allows the
>politeness.  Also, have you _read_ the letters?  Some of them are pretty sharp.
>

Sharp is different from degenerate. S**thead is degenerate.

I've scoured every copy of SI and haven't found a single reference
to s**thead. Funny that.

If Randi called Geller a s**thead in one of the court trials what do you
think that would do to his chances of winning?

Do you approve of McEnroe's behaviour on the tennis court? Or can you see
that it is just a little touch on the immature side?

As you admit at the begining of this post "maybe the answer is context
dependant," you need to ask yourself if you want sci.skeptic to be
the right context for unprofessional name calling or the right context
for professional debate.

I suggest we take some kind of vote on what people expect out of sci.skeptic
whether they like it immature or want it cleaned up.

Then a clause ought to be put in the FAQ on what the group's position
is on personal attacks & bad laguage are.

cf. the FAQs in arts.rec.startrek.* they have some sensible veiws on this
kind of stuff.