From: dci@cs.washington.edu (Donald Chinn)
Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: alt.drumcorps netiquette (Re: POPCORN)
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:15:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug28.143856.21693@midway.uchicago.edu> xklh@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.091548.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> streuer_d@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>>To Willard, my respond to your remarks TYPED IN ALL CAPS, was not meant
>>to be shouting.  I used all caps so as to have my remarks standout in
>>all the extracted comments.  Geez.....
>>
>>I'll have to get back to you on your comments......I really thought this
>>news network was suppose to provide an opportunity for people to express
>>their opinions about particular subjects and be able to 'hear' others
>>views.  I didn't realize people would be psycho-analyzing your statements.
>>Get real, asking the definition of true fan.  It's probably just semantics
>>and I should have used 'hardcore fan' instead.  The problem is you missed
>>the *essence* of what I was saying or trying to say.  So, I guess that explains
>>why you could never accept input from the fans for performances that have
>>entertainment value - you don't comprehend the intangible. 
>>
>
>THANK YOU!  THANK YOU!  THANK YOU!  THANK YOU!
>I'm glad that I am not the only one who would
>like to have a discussion without someone
>criticizing my personal opinions.
>

While its designers originally had high ideals for it (and still do,
I suppose), the Usenet had degenerated into a morass of endless numbers
of newgroups, most of which consist of people yelling at each other
for things like: spelling, grammar, etc.  And, of course, as people are
wont to do in everyday speech, discussions often degenerate into ad
hominem assaults.  This is why people often say that the Usenet has a
low "signal to noise ratio."

Well luckily alt.drumcorps has had a very high signal to noise ratio so
far, although there have been brief signs that it might degenerate into
just another worthless newsgroup.

Here is a short list of things what I personally think are unreasonable to
put into a posting.  This is by no means some sort of mandate, but I'd
be interested in hearing what people think.

1. ad hominem attacks. Examples: "You obviously do not know what it means
to spend 8 hours a day practicing with no hot showers ...", "Your dislike
of corps X just shows that you cannot feel emotion Y", "Get a life!"

2. correction of spelling/grammar/etc. and then turning it into an ad hominem
attack.  Of course, spelling of people's names (such as Prof. Campbell's :-)
and pieces are very important to get right.

3. claims that are opinions but suggest that everyone else thinks the same
way.  This is a tough one, but I think if people are careful, their posts
won't be misleading (when they are, they usually lead to ad hominem attacks).


A while ago, there was discussion about whether people can safely criticize
corps (not necessrily in a constructive manner).  IF people realize that
criticism of a corps' show says nothing about the corps as an organization 
or the dedication, etc. of the people in the organization, then I think
that we can have some very interesting and useful discussions here.  The same
goes for criticism of an opinion expressed here.

If, on the other hand, everyone gets touchy-feely about any criticism about
their favorite corps or any opinion s/he might have, then this newsgroup
will be practically worthless.

My bottom line advice: flame away at each other's OPINIONS and IDEAS, but
not each other.  Don't make unsubstantiated claims (or if you do, label it
as such); the worst is speculating about another poster's motives without
labelling it as speculation.  Don't be discouraged by other people flaming
at you -- flame back with a controlled reason and people will respect you.
Both poster AND reader have responsibilities to control flamage.

Remember, these are just my thoughts.  I am not a lawyer, etc.  I await
the flames!  :-)

-- Donald