From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Bullshit (was: *Any* kind of r.a.b. split, or at least a *serious*
Organization: Clark University
Date: 24 DEC 92 02:38:28 GMT

Dani Zweig wrote, among many other sensitive and reasonable statements:

>>communications with 
>>strangers should be more cautious and formal than communications with 
>>friends and acquaintances.  It's easy, sitting alone at one's own  
>>terminal, to forget that those commonplaces apply here as well.  Posting 
>>to tens of thousands of newsgroup readers in the same terms you'd use 
>>to speak to one of them is...provincial. 

Barbara Hlavin responded:

>Yeah, it's tough out here with all the rubes.  Not to mention the 
>insensitive, inconsiderate brutes who persist in imposing their 
>own style on the discourse. 

So, Barbara, who do you picture yourself as, a rube or a brute?  How about
perceiving everyone as a potentially valuable contributor to the discussion? 
How about being polite?   (God, what a concept.)

>Hey, this goes with the territory.  One person's attempt at formality 
>and courtesy will inevitably be interpreted by *some*one, *some*where 
>as rudeness or indecisiveness.  There's no end to the ways we are 
>capable of misinterpreting one another. 

Ever read the Gettysburg Address?  

>People who engage in what passes for communication here have to 
>understand that we, collectively, form a brand-new culture, one 
>that has a life of its own.  Not everyone is comfortable with its 
>manners and rituals as they've more or less evolved, just as not 
>everyone in the world is comfortable eating with knives and forks,  
>or with chopsticks; it's not Their Way.  But it's the way it is 
>*here*.  

Oh, bullshit.  Bullshit!  BULLSHIT!!  There's no brand-new culture!  There
are no new rules for politeness and propriety!  What people like you have to
understand is: This group is not some kind of shadow play, this is Real Life.
You are talking to Real People.  People who can be irritated, have their
feelings hurt, be pleased, made joyful, and made furious.  The same kind of
humans that we've always been throughout history, except that now we have a
quicker mode of communication.  So we're allowed to be ruder now that we've
entered an age where one can communicate in three seconds rather than three
months?  Bullshit.  So we can allow a public group to be controlled by
whomever gets there first?  Bullshit.  I would venture a guess that everyone
who reads this group knows something about books, and would probably be able
to contribute something useful to this discussion, however stupid it might
seem to some others in the group.  That's the purpose of this discussion, to
get these elements out into the open.  Everyone who reads netnews who's
interested in something connected to the vague title rec.arts.books should
feel able to contribute.  Maybe this is too broad a definition for you.  If
you want a cozy little enclave where select like minds can commune, it isn't
here.  Go somewhere else.  This is a public forum.  

Barbara, you and others have done better than I possibly could at
illustrating the cliquish attitude among some contributors to r.a.b.  The
hilarious thing is, the few of you have no idea that, in fact, you've been
living in a dream world.  You believe that you've been existing in some
exalted state, in some walled-off duchy in which you can make your own rules
about who's going to discuss what, and when, and how.  Let me tell you this
again, because it needs repeating:  This is the Real World!  There are many,
many different people reading this group, and lots of different people who
want to contribute, and who should *feel* as though they are able to
contribute, even though they don't belong to some "private club".   If you
raise a ruckus at their wanting to contribute, fine, be a jerk.  If you
insist that there's this bizarre "divine right of r.a.b." that all newcomers
have to acknowledge, you're full of shit.  Why is this so fucking hard to
understand?  

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu