From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: books to avoid
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:46:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.223257.26217@grebyn.com> fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:

>This is the sort of exchange that causes to stir within me an
>incarnation of Miss Manners  <gulp> oh no, she's emerging right now
>entirely without my volition  <gasp> uh oh... [Fiona's line breaks]

It also seems to have caused to stir within Dr. Webster an uncharacteristically
unprofessional desire to psychoanalyze someone she has never met.

>First you have MG starting off a posting with "Yes, but..." (usually a
>clear harbinger of condescension) ....

Really? Is Dr. Webster actually saying that the construction "Yes, but ..."
generally signifies condescension? I'd have thought it most often
signaled an agreement as to one fact, followed by a statement of an
additional, distinguishing fact. But perhaps my knowledge of English
is not so subtle as Dr. Webster's. 

It is interesting to me to discover at this late date, after years
of studying both literature and argumentation, that the two-word
construction "Yes, but ...." usually signifies condescension and therefore
must be interpreted by all reasonable readers as communicating that 
attitude. I deeply regret not having had Dr. Webster available to train me
as to this nuance of close reading.

>Without knowing anything at all
>about MG, we can conclude from this posting that either he's a know-it-
>all, or that he desires to portray himself as a know-it-all.

Really? A binary choice, eh? I suppose it's *impossible* to conclude
that MG honestly thought Subgenius had made an honest mistake
about NAKED CAME THE STRANGER, and that Subgenius, like MG himself,
might like to be told immediately if he's factually in error.

I feel fortunate to come across this insight from Dr. Webster on Usenet,
which, to me at least, is free. In a professional setting, I might have
had to pay Dr. Webster 50 or 100 dollars before she would share her
analysis of this two-word construction with me.

>Speaking as only one reader of rab, I don't feel that we have a consis-
>tent "I'm only joking--ha ha" environment here.

I wasn't joking. I should add that I'm not the only person who thought
that perhaps the poster in question did not know the story behind the
book. But I don't see Dr. Webster psychoanalyzing Nichael Cramer from
afar. May we conclude from Nichael Cramer's posting that he is either a
know-it-all or desires to portray himself as one? I think not.

>So is MG's comment rude?  I say, "Yes."

If it was rude, it was unintentionally so. I certainly didn't mean to
offend Subgenius, and in any case nothing I posted could, by any stretch
of the imagination, be as rude as what Dr. Webster posts about me here.

>Not rude, perhaps, in a
>one-on-one e-mail exchange--but I believe it's commonly considered rude
>to correct another person in the presence of peers, without making
>some concession to politeness, such as "I don't mean to sound stuffy here,
>but..." or "You may have known this, but I thought I'd just point out
>that..."

In the academic communities in which I was trained, such false gentility
was far more likely than simple straightforwardness to be taken as
condescension. Perhaps Dr. Webster makes the mistake of projecting her
own preferences into a supposed universal social norm.

And perhaps Dr. Webster has forgotten that some rec.arts.books readers would
prefer me (and other writers) to be brief if we have something brief
to say.

>Better yet, is not to correct them at all, but rather to
>construct your reply in such a way as to contain the missing info
>without implying anything at all about the other person's knowledge or
>lack thereof.  In this case, for example, MG could have started off
>with "Yes, and even when you already know that this book was intended
>as a spoof, you still have to admire..." or something along those lines.

Please. Nothing about politeness requires us to be so precious as these
all-too-cute circumlocutions Dr. Webster offers me here.

>All of these maneuvers are comprised in the set of behaviors
>usually referred to as "picking a fight."  

I doubt Subgenius, who in any case seems to already have known what
I mistakenly thought he did not know, would have given this exchange
more than five minutes' attention had Dr. Webster not had a lot of extra
time on her hands.

I also doubt he thinks I want to "pick a fight" with him; it is certainly
the case that I wouldn't bother to do so over this.

>If MG had re-read his posting,
>perceived its tone, and then modified his correction either by sending
>it through private e-mail, or wording it more politely, then SG would
>not have been triggered into an emotional response.

A more creative psychoanalyst than Dr. Webster seems to be could have
imagined that the "tone" to the posting was something other than the 
binary set of choices Dr. Webster lists above.

>I would say in return: "Fine.  But it is rude to fight in public.
>Everyone knows that."

Even in the unlikely event that Subgenius and I were to fight over this
trivial question in public (what's to fight over? I mistakenly thought
he didn't know the story behind this book), I trust that we would do 
so with an eye to entertaining other readers of rec.arts.books. It is
not rude to fight in public (even though one may be saying rude things)
if one entertains one's audience. See, e.g., Rostand's "Cyrano de
Bergerac."

>Here's a mnemonic to help you remember.  The "Three Rees" of writing a posting
>are: 
>	1) Re-read
>	2) Re-vise
>	3  Re-strain Yourself.

Here Dr. Webster demonstrates for us the piquant flavor of irony.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books