Re: RE: Replies to posts

[wleric@showme.missouri.edu]

On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Dr. Bob Holderer wrote:
> I think that a major principle is being forgotten here: courtesy to others.
> Having just read a post that first states that we all need support from each
> other and then essentially tells another to get the hell off the list because
> he doesn't like a lot of posts, I just feel that I had to respond.

I sure agree with your first point, Bob, though I haven't detected all
that much discourtesy here. Tension, yes. But if courtesy means a ban
against heat, then perhaps it's being used as a shield against the
discomfort of disagreement rather than as a protocol for *managing*
disagreement? 

In the case you cite, one person rather bluntly suggested a change in the 
social character of the list and its participants. One public response to 
that note might be described as a tad aggressive, and we might debate 
whether the tone was justifiably provoked or no, but discourteous? 
I'm not sure whether I'd go that far. Surely a more graceful response was 
possible, but a more graceful comment in the first place might have 
forestalled the question altogether, eh?

I'd give both parties a break. No blood has been let, no broken teeth 
have skittered across the floor. 

> I am not opposed to people posting these types of messages; I am opposed to 
> having my work disturbed by these types of messages. 
> It is also quite   
> unproductive to tell someone who raises objections to see his/her system
> manager.

Well, maybe. Depends a lot on delivery, I'd say. If we're referring 
people to their sysops just to get them off our backs, yeah, that's not 
very collegial or productive. That may not be the motive and is not the 
stance I've seen taken (or it's not the way I've taken it, I should say). 

The advice itself *is* potentially productive. Quite productive. 
Humanists like us are very often engaged in troublesome, tentative, 
nervous relations with our machinery and with the people who know how to 
make it work for us. 

Many of us (self included) only use a fraction of the capability our 
technology has. We use our word processors like typewriters when they are 
designed to be full-blown publishing systems. We use our email programs 
like typewriters-in-cyberspace when they are designed to be flexible, 
convenient communications systems. 

Every time I learn something new about some bit of software that I 
*thought* I knew how to use, I'm grateful as can be. Usually the new 
knowledge lets me do something easier, or lets me do something I have 
wanted to do but couldn't. 

My life and work improve a wee bit every time I ask a techie a question.

It's not habitual for most folks to hang out with techies, though. The 
nudge in that direction is a favor to them, I think. Heck, I'll bet 
there's some fairly simple option that would allow you to concentrate on 
your work *and* let the messages flow in. Explain the problem to somebody 
who knows your mail system & your computer and software configuration and 
you might be pleasantly surprised by the result. 

If that doesn't work, I owe you a beer.

 
> The issue here is keeping discipline on the net itself.  Otherwise,
> an awful lot of people will be turned away from something that can be quite
> beneficial to all.

Ah, this is a bit of exclusion itself, Bob. As has been pointed out, by 
Steve I think, the kind of discipline some people seem to require for a 
productive work environment is exactly what others resist. If we made the 
list properly disciplined, it would cease to serve the needs of those who 
like it's free and easy (and sometimes irrelevant and irreverent) nature. 

Whatcha gonna do?

well, I've already offered one option. Perhaps there are others. 
Compromise may be the best bet, but it don't happen easily. Especially 
without a strong central authority to enforce an agreement, it's up to 
the whole group to *agree* on the change and stick to it. We need a 
specific set of conventions that will accomplish what the discipliners 
need without unfairly harnessing the anarchists. And we need to have a 
necessary minimum of people from various sensibilities agree that it's a 
fair & feasible solution. 

Or we'll keep arguing this point every few months, which really is fine, 
too, from my view.

--Eric Crump