From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: netiquette (Independent Insulting Ethnology)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:05:23 GMT

In article <724564858snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Dec15.202330.2990@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:
 
|>  > What rules? This is silly. (This is also Hardwick's mistake.) There is
|>  > no room for rules in a discussion among a constantly shifting subset of
|>  > the several MILLION people who in principle have access to this discussion.
 
|> What mistake? Please do enlighten me a little on what I am supposed to
|> have done, of neglected to do this time?

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.

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.

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.
 
|> Then we agree wholeheartedly, yes? Except that if the "middle" are a
|> pack of bloody wimps whose fear of causing offense inhibits their every
|> act then IMHO they get whatever they deserve, like corrupt politicians,
|> incompetent bureaucrats, political activists, ideological ning-nongs,
|> loss of topsoil, failed crops, teenage kids turning to drugs in despair,
|> and whatever else arrives to blight them from time to time.

In the immortal words of Inspector Clouseau, "buht, zet ees exactly whut
I said!" I just wasn't quite as loud about it...

|>  > Everyone who can type can learn, I think, and almost everyone can be
|>  > offended or put off by an ill-chosen remark. In any case, I think
|>  > it is the better part of valor to act as if this were the case, and
|>  > to offer the general readership and lurkership the benefit of some
|>  > pointers to genuine evidence whenever possible.
|> 
|> The point will always eventually come when fear of causing offence is
|> overcome by a greater fear of poverty or starvation, like the gangs in
|> Somalia or on the streets of American cities. 

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.

|> Your readership has not
|> acted because the shit has not yet hit their particular fan, as it has
|> so many others. 

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.

|> In the meantime I am not here to edify the lurkers;
|> if they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face up to reality and
|> join a substantial discourse on the global environment, again, they
|> get what they deserve.

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.

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.

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.

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

mt

"Think globally. Act locally." -bumper sticker
"Think locally. Act globally." -me
"Think. Act." -my friend Gail
 

Newsgroups: sci.environment