Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 16:36:48 EDT
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: What goes around comes around
 <92099.164327RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET> <1992Apr14.093125.2633@spcvxb.spc.edu>

In article <1992Apr14.093125.2633@spcvxb.spc.edu>, finlay_j@spcvxb.spc.edu says:
>
>> Would you like to define precisely what you think the difference between
>> discussion and arguement is, and the difference between arguement and
>> bitter arguement? I would contend that if you're not willing to engage
>> in valid arguement about your views, you should refrain from sharing
>> them with the world.
>
>Again, with apologies, I reply to something not directly addressed to me, but
If you read it, it was addressed to you. Though I followed up specific points
made by somebody else, it wasn't a private conversation.

>which nonetheless seems to be speaking directly to me out of my past, and my
>understanding of some of the things that have gone into the making of Irish
>consciousness, at least in my lifetime.
>
[stuff about the links between "celtic" and mysticism (?) deleted for brevity. ]
>Looking at what this poster is saying about making distinctions between
>"arguments" and "bitter arguments" and "discussions" I find myself thinking
>about the way that I was brought up, the youngest of a family of eight growing
>up in Bray, Co. Wicklow. The epithet that his way of speaking brings to my
>mind
>is not "Celtic" at all, but what we used to or still call "west British."
Wow! It must be a result of my West Brit education, (Holy Cross BNS, Dundrum
and St Benildus College, Kilmacud). Or maybe I got it from my Gaelgoir mother?
NOT!

Indeed, the original poster made the distinction between discussion (which
he would engage in) and bitter arguement, (which he wouldn't). I asked him
to clarify that (so I could argue with him about it! :-) The epithet that
it brings to my mind is not "misty eyed" but "logical". We will have to
agree to disagree about whether being of a logical frame of mind disqualifies
me as a Celt.
>
>Again, here we can get into a whole matrix of meanings and cultural
>associations. I'm not sure what "west British" means to anyone else; all I
>know is that it seems to apply very well to the kind of childhood I had. The
>poster's demands remind me very much of my father's and my brothers' desires
>that I should be "manly," that I should, perhaps, talk, if at all, about "real
>things," and not talk "rot and rubbish."  Also, I seem to hear in this poster
>a certainty that his way of talking--which seems, in his view, to be above
>the heads of what he calls "net.neophytes" (another neo-Victorian legacy of
>west British culture, akin to "children should be seen and not heard"?)--is
>the only right way, and anyone who says anything different is simply not on
>our side, old boy, dontcha know.
I corrected a poster who said "All you guys talk about is NI". Both the tone
and content of the message indicated that the poster was new to both the
net and scc. When you are have more experience in netnews, you too will
be dismissive of net.neophytes who wish to state the obvious, but happen
to get it wrong. And you'll get your chance, because there's one born every
minute!
>
>Maybe it's unfair to read my own experience into what he's saying. But it does
>seem to me as though it ought to be possible to have a conversation rather
>than an argument (how many of us Irish-born posters grew up in
>families dominated by garrulous banter?--it DOES seem to be a distinctly Irish
>custom, and it CAN become very wearing). It also seems that it ought to be
>possible to offer some reflections on some subject or other without
>needing to anticipate an automatic attack, counter-attack, or, as I saw
>elsewhere, "an all-out flame war before the issue fizzles out."
It can't have been all that elsewhere, as I wrote that too, (and in the
same thread, if a different message).

It is possible to offer reflections on a subject without having to
anticipate a counter attack, but it helps if your reflections aren't
inherently critical of somebody. You would like to offer an opinion on
the type of traffic in this newsgroup, but your opinion is inherently
critical of my recent actions in posting to a thread that you dislike.
If you complained about the spate of postings about Scotland, or Altan
drinking Corona, I wouldn't respond, because you wouldn't have criticised
me.

NetNews is a distinctly different forum from every day conversation, and
it has it's good points and it's bad points. The good points include the
wide range of people, with all sorts of experience and skills available to
share their knowledge. The bad points include the awkwardness of the medium,
the likelyhood of misunderstanding, the fact that you can't pick your
company, that your conversation is open to attack from all sides, or
even worse, that your point might be supported by a total nutter! You
are much more likely to hear views you find offensive, or find people who
find your views offensive, than you will in the comfort of your own home,
or the local pub.
>
>(I mean, if we're going to talk about Northern Ireland could we hear less
>about the dogmas of politicians and ideologists, who are after all people
>who make a living holding stereotypes in place, and more about the differing
>experiences of people living in the conflict. I would like to hear some
>Northern Protestants talk for a change, perhaps.
Well, they probably don't have net.access. Remember, the volume of traffic
in this group is not an inherent problem. It may pose practical problems
for a smaller number of readers, but nobody is being denied access because
somebody else is using too much bandwidth.

It is in the nature of netnews that new posters typically respond to an
existing thread, rather than start a new one, so existing traffic is
more likely to act as bait. There were in fact some postings about
cross fire in one of the earlier threads that fell into this category,
but you're unlikely to elicit Northern Protestant experience in a
thread about net.usage.
>
>>If they're not worth defending, they're not worth posting.
>
>        One is inclined to simply shrug in response and say, "well, Pop,
>        it's a point of view, and of course you're entitled to it."
And if we all simply shrugged, there'd be no traffic at all!
>
>                                                Jeff Finlay
>                                                St. Peter's College
>                                                Jersey City, USA
Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"