From: callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan)
Subject: Re: *Any* kind of r.a.b split, or at least a *serious* discussion
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:56:32 GMT

tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:

>>At the time, I said it was not so much a *callous disregard* for 
>>newcomers as a *whimsical disbelief* in their existence.  I could probably
>>improve upon the description, but it seems accurate enough.

>	To you, perhaps.  But I've noticed that newcomers who simply *post*
>prove their existence to their own and everyone's satisfaction.

Well, I've been posting off and on for years, and I'm not sure people are
convinced of my existence.  I don't mind anyway.  I'm more interested in 
occasionally writing about *books* (and reading daily what others have to say
about them), than convincing others of my existence.  I'm fairly convinced of 
it myself already, so I don't need the affirmation.

Here is the difference between r.a.b and other "polite" groups, in my 
opinion.  When you post a question on a reasonable group, people react by  
asking themselves "Can I be of any help to this person?" and if so, they post
or (even better) respond in e-mail if they think the interest is not general.
Here, they react by asking themselves "How can I use this opportunity to prove 
that I'm extremely clever?"  If they merely "know the answer" (granted, 
book-related questions are not usually so factual) they may not bother to 
respond but will instead move on to more "interesting" questions.

It is a fact that most of the *helpful* replies I've received while
subscribed to this group have come in the form of e-mail from people whose
names I *don't* recognize.  I contrast this, for example, with rec.gardens, 
where Kay Klier was helpful in answering one of the few questions I ever 
posted there.  Now, I know that no one around here is getting paid to help me, 
so I take what I can get without complaints (usually).  I also realize that 
book-related questions will necessarily involve more subjective answers than 
questions posted to rec.gardens.  However, I would appreciate it if 
discussions about books could somehow be separated from discussions that are 
pure one-upmanship.  (Let me retract my comments about the hussy/bimbo thread,
by the way, since this was actually an informative discussion about
word connotation.)

My (perhaps incorrect) assumption is that if there were a place intended 
specifically for discussion about *books*, where threads containing obscure
wordplay and in-jokes were *discouraged*, and another in which they were the
order of the day, then both groups would get a decent amount of traffic.
I feel that there is an audience for both.  To make an analogy, the posting
of "proofs" of 1=2 are discouraged on sci.math, but they (might) be 
appropriate on rec.puzzles.  This is not to say such things are never posted,
but they rarely turn into "officially sanctioned" threads, with the well-known 
posters contributing most of the comments.

I agree that a split is worse than useless, if the ones I wish to address are
unwilling to take it seriously.  However, those who refuse to acknowledge the 
degree of cliqueishness are fooling themselves.  I do not accuse anyone of 
specifically shunning newcomers.  I do accuse a small group of people of 
ignoring the fact that most of the *readers* of this group do not wish to play
their games.

--
Paul Callahan
callahan@cs.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books