From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: books to avoid
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:32:57 GMT

MG writes:
>Yes, but NAKED CAME THE STRANGER was *intended* to be... [what it was
>intended to be]

SG replies:
>Nice of everyone to point that out, especially since their source of
>information is the same as mine--the book itself.  
>
>Anyway, the argument that since the book was "*intended*" to be lurid and
>ludicrous does not signify... [example of why it "does not signify"]
>But feel free to continue to state the bleedin' obvious in the future if it
>makes you feel better.

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]

---------------------------------------------------------------------	

An incarnation of Miss Manners indeed, Fiona, except that I shall do
what Miss Manners would *never* condone--which is to make haughty obser-
vations about the ways in which the social behavior of some rabbers is
entirely uncivilized.  I am especially concerned to point out cases such
as these, where if the individuals had taken a moment to *re-read* their
postings with an aim toward guessing what the posting will sound like
to the other person, and then to *revise* their postings in the light of
anticipated consequences, this little flare-up of hostility need never
have taken place.

First you have MG starting off a posting with "Yes, but..." (usually a
clear harbinger of condescension) and then correcting the supposed
ignorance of the other person (SG).  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.  The first
of these two positions is obviously rude, and the second is only
defensible within a pre-established joking context.  There is no such
context within this thread, so that means MG, if he's taking this
position, must be relying on a broader, rab-level, meta-context.  
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.  Many folks here are
deadly serious.  I am one of them.

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

The next step in the evolving sequence of incivility is taken by SG:
instead of mentally noting that either MG is being rude, or that the
context isn't clear, then saying something simple like "Uh, yeh, I
already knew that," he allows his emotional response (irritation) to
spill out into his posting.  He uses swear words ("bleedin'") and
emotionally charged language ("Nice of everyone to point that out..."
and "Feel free to continue...").  Further, he tries to make MG look
ludicrous, by mis-interpreting what was a simple correction of fact
as something that "signifies" a particular argument in the discussion
at hand.  All of these maneuvers are comprised in the set of behaviors
usually referred to as "picking a fight."  

I think by now you can see my point.  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.  Or, if SG had
restrained himself from allowing this response to show in his posting,
then the newsgroup would not have to suffer through this exchange.

You may well say, "But MG and SG *wanted* to pick a fight.  They enjoy
fighting.  It's all in good fun, Ms. Whoever-You-Are."

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

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.

That is all for today.  Since Miss Manners is already taken, I shall
adopt the moniker of Ms. Officious Courtesy, even though it's mis-
leading, because while courtesy is my special area of expertise, I
am not, myself, at all courteous.  Take care to do what I say, not
what I do.  And don't blame any of this on Ms. Webster, either.

					--Ms. Officious Courtesy