|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [M] Spocks and plonks
| [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252074] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 13:57 |
|
I've been Usenetting for a few years now - not as long as some of you folks,
I guess, but I'm no newbie to Usenet in general, although I'm quite new to
afp - and for most of that time I've mainly subscribed to groups in the
comp hierarchy (although I've dipped into rec and sci).
It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is a much
friendlier group than a typical comp group.
In some ways, that's true; newbies, certainly, get a much kinder greeting in
afp than in comp groups. This /may/ indicate that afp is a nicer bunch of
people than you get in a typical comp group, but I suspect it has much more
to do with the fact that TP texts are rarely set as homework.
And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is entirely justified.
Within a very short time of subscribing to this group, I was plonked by
several people, not because I was aggressive or ill-mannered or clueless,
but simply because I was espousing a view that seemed on a casual reading
to be unreasonable. I'm sure many of you remember the thread(!).
I don't wish to bang on about that, because this isn't a sour grapes
article, but it was nevertheless an indicator, a straw in the wind. (To
their credit, by the way, several of those plonkers appear to have changed
their minds and unplonked me at some point, Stacie being an admirable case
in point - as well as being generally admirable for her admirably realistic
and balanced approach to arachnids, which I wholeheartedly endorse.)
Were that the only such indicator, I wouldn't have said anything. But it
isn't. Several times in the last few months, I've seen perfectly reasonable
people being plonked by other people I had also considered perfectly
reasonable, and it seemed to me in each case that it was an escalation
based on successive misunderstandings.
A few years ago, in one of the comp groups, I witnessed a fascinating case
where just such an escalation was clearly imminent, between two perfectly
reasonable people, for the most astoundingly trivial of reasons. Let us
call the two people involved M and N. Now, M posted an article in which,
possibly because he was slightly careless or tired, he omitted a comma -
yes, a comma, for heaven's sake! - from his opening sentence.
Unfortunately, this omission completely changed the meaning of the
sentence, and it looked like an attack on N. Knowing M as I did, I realised
that such an attack was out of character, so I looked for an explanation,
and saw that a comma would fix things up nicely. I pointed this out, and
then both M and N realised what had happened, and all was sweetness and
light again.
The comp groups have a reputation for being mean n' nasty places, but once
you've carved out a place for yourself within the group, you can pretty
much relax. In what I consider to be my "home" group, comp.lang.c, I know I
can post just about whatever I like, without having to be
walking-on-eggshells careful in case someone misunderstands me.
Here in afp, though, this nice pleasant warm newsgroup where everyone is
happy and the sun shines merrily on all and sundry, I feel no such ease. It
seems that hardly a month goes by without some ludicrously unimportant
discussion leading to some perfectly reasonable chap or chappette plonking
some other perfectly reasonable chap or chappette. People are *so quick* to
take offence here!
It isn't just me. Stacie noticed it too (cf "tenor of afp" thread), and just
recently we've heard someone worrying that Feb 2008(!) is here already.
That is not good for anyone.
This is a plea for - no, not tolerance, because that's an ugly, ugly word,
which implies that We are Better than Them, but We will nevertheless Put Up
With Them.
Rather, it's a plea for love. Understanding. Willingness to take a second
glance; to look for an interpretation of Their article that is based on the
assumption that They are probably not trying to annoy us; to realise that
normal people don't subscribe to afp specifically to get up our noses, but
rather They subscribe to afp so that they can have relaxed
semi-pratchettesque conversation among friends - in other words, They are
just like Us. So, in effect, They /are/ Us - and it would be much
pleasanter if We were to recognise the fact.
Maybe it drives you nuts that your disputant appears to be some kind of
pointy-eared alien weirdo with a complete lack of empathy for basic
humanity - but if you first take the plonk out of your own eye, you will be
able to see more clearly to take the spock out of your brother's eye.
Please?
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252084 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 14:12 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> I've been Usenetting for a few years now - not as long as some of you folks,
> I guess, but I'm no newbie to Usenet in general, although I'm quite new to
> afp - and for most of that time I've mainly subscribed to groups in the
> comp hierarchy (although I've dipped into rec and sci).
>
> It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is a much
> friendlier group than a typical comp group.
>
> In some ways, that's true; newbies, certainly, get a much kinder greeting in
> afp than in comp groups. This /may/ indicate that afp is a nicer bunch of
> people than you get in a typical comp group, but I suspect it has much more
> to do with the fact that TP texts are rarely set as homework.
>
> And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is entirely justified.
> Within a very short time of subscribing to this group, I was plonked by
> several people, not because I was aggressive or ill-mannered or clueless,
> but simply because I was espousing a view that seemed on a casual reading
> to be unreasonable. I'm sure many of you remember the thread(!).
>
> I don't wish to bang on about that, because this isn't a sour grapes
> article, but it was nevertheless an indicator, a straw in the wind. (To
> their credit, by the way, several of those plonkers appear to have changed
> their minds and unplonked me at some point, Stacie being an admirable case
> in point - as well as being generally admirable for her admirably realistic
> and balanced approach to arachnids, which I wholeheartedly endorse.)
>
> Were that the only such indicator, I wouldn't have said anything. But it
> isn't. Several times in the last few months, I've seen perfectly reasonable
> people being plonked by other people I had also considered perfectly
> reasonable, and it seemed to me in each case that it was an escalation
> based on successive misunderstandings.
>
> A few years ago, in one of the comp groups, I witnessed a fascinating case
> where just such an escalation was clearly imminent, between two perfectly
> reasonable people, for the most astoundingly trivial of reasons. Let us
> call the two people involved M and N. Now, M posted an article in which,
> possibly because he was slightly careless or tired, he omitted a comma -
> yes, a comma, for heaven's sake! - from his opening sentence.
> Unfortunately, this omission completely changed the meaning of the
> sentence, and it looked like an attack on N. Knowing M as I did, I realised
> that such an attack was out of character, so I looked for an explanation,
> and saw that a comma would fix things up nicely. I pointed this out, and
> then both M and N realised what had happened, and all was sweetness and
> light again.
>
> The comp groups have a reputation for being mean n' nasty places, but once
> you've carved out a place for yourself within the group, you can pretty
> much relax. In what I consider to be my "home" group, comp.lang.c, I know I
> can post just about whatever I like, without having to be
> walking-on-eggshells careful in case someone misunderstands me.
>
> Here in afp, though, this nice pleasant warm newsgroup where everyone is
> happy and the sun shines merrily on all and sundry, I feel no such ease. It
> seems that hardly a month goes by without some ludicrously unimportant
> discussion leading to some perfectly reasonable chap or chappette plonking
> some other perfectly reasonable chap or chappette. People are *so quick* to
> take offence here!
>
> It isn't just me. Stacie noticed it too (cf "tenor of afp" thread), and just
> recently we've heard someone worrying that Feb 2008(!) is here already.
> That is not good for anyone.
>
> This is a plea for - no, not tolerance, because that's an ugly, ugly word,
> which implies that We are Better than Them, but We will nevertheless Put Up
> With Them.
>
> Rather, it's a plea for love. Understanding. Willingness to take a second
> glance; to look for an interpretation of Their article that is based on the
> assumption that They are probably not trying to annoy us; to realise that
> normal people don't subscribe to afp specifically to get up our noses, but
> rather They subscribe to afp so that they can have relaxed
> semi-pratchettesque conversation among friends - in other words, They are
> just like Us. So, in effect, They /are/ Us - and it would be much
> pleasanter if We were to recognise the fact.
>
> Maybe it drives you nuts that your disputant appears to be some kind of
> pointy-eared alien weirdo with a complete lack of empathy for basic
> humanity - but if you first take the plonk out of your own eye, you will be
> able to see more clearly to take the spock out of your brother's eye.
>
> Please?
<<applauds>>
Bravo!
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252092 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 14:54 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> I've been Usenetting for a few years now - not as long as some of
> you folks, I guess, but I'm no newbie to Usenet in general,
> although I'm quite new to afp - and for most of that time I've
> mainly subscribed to groups in the comp hierarchy (although I've
> dipped into rec and sci).
>
> It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is a
> much friendlier group than a typical comp group.
AFP has changed a fair bit over the 11 years I've been reading it;
it's gotten larger and noisier, as well as spawning various
subgroups and secondary entities and RL events like the Cons.
I would say that the 'old' AFP was far more like your typical comp.*
group, both in tone and content (since most of the people back then
were geeks of some sort).
Back then, if you said something silly, you'd probably get slapped
down fairly hard and fast; and while there were in-jokes like ASCII
roses and hedgehogs, they tended to expire fairly quickly.
AFP today is a much fuzzier entity; and the average AFP poster is no
longer stuck behind some form of *nix box in a university.
(This in and of itself is no bad or good thing; it simply is.)
> And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is entirely
> justified. Within a very short time of subscribing to this group,
> I was plonked by several people, not because I was aggressive or
> ill-mannered or clueless, but simply because I was espousing a
> view that seemed on a casual reading to be unreasonable. I'm sure
> many of you remember the thread(!).
Alas, this is one area where you have to be far more careful than
you used to; the size of the group and the differing English skills
of various posters mean that there's now a lot more of the sort of
casual lexical misunderstanding you're describing.
> The comp groups have a reputation for being mean n' nasty places,
> but once you've carved out a place for yourself within the group,
> you can pretty much relax. In what I consider to be my "home"
> group, comp.lang.c, I know I can post just about whatever I like,
> without having to be walking-on-eggshells careful in case someone
> misunderstands me.
>
> Here in afp, though, this nice pleasant warm newsgroup where
> everyone is happy and the sun shines merrily on all and sundry, I
> feel no such ease.
I suspect that this /might/ be something of a misapprehension on
your part, Richard.
AFP has always been partly about subtle little ego games and being
seen to be right, or intelligent, or popular - and though the
players have changed from year to year, the same sorts of games
still get played.
I think they're natural emergent effects of a social grouping;
especially one with the tendency to engage in dicksize (or
disksize) wars.
> People are *so quick* to take offence here!
I think it's partly because AFP is seen as a recreational group
rather than a 'serious' group.
To use the ancient pub analogy again...
If you're at work, and you screw up, and someone calls you an idiot
because of it, there's a certain impetus towards "Yep, OK, I
screwed up, let's move forward".
If you're in a pub, surrounded by friends, and someone calls you an
idiot, then not only are you far more likely to take offence, but
so are all your friends on your behalf; and you end up with the
same old A+B+C+D... /vs/ Z dogpile.
To a certain extent, people come here to relax; and as often as not
end up expending a fair amount of effort to be relaxed.
A case in point: I remember an outbreak of filking a few years back;
and someone who asked for feedback on their filk - and was mightily
offended when someone else said they didn't think it was up to
much.
Was the offended person at fault? - they must certainly have spent
effort on the filk, but they really shouldn't have asked for
feedback unless they were prepared for the response; and if they
thought the group was some sort of uncritical mutual adoration
society, they were just plain wrong.
> This is a plea for - no, not tolerance, because that's an ugly,
> ugly word, which implies that We are Better than Them, but We will
> nevertheless Put Up With Them.
>
> Rather, it's a plea for love. Understanding. Willingness to take a
> second glance...;
<snip>
> ... in other words, They are just like Us. So, in
> effect, They /are/ Us - and it would be much pleasanter if We were
> to recognise the fact.
I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not 100% happy with who I
am. There are things about my fellow AFPers I'm also not happy
with.
So, is it preferable to keep schtum in the interests of a
pleasant 'froup, or to risk the offence of a person or people by
pointing this out? - remember also; no matter how careful you are
with your wording, it is entirely possible that people will take
offence with what you have to say; especially if you're describing
their behaviour or character.
The general guideline I work along is to try and moderate my wording
to the point where I can make my point whilst offending as few
people as reasonably possible. If I offend someone, I tend to
apologise unless I consider the argument really worth having.
cheers,
Gideon.
--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252094 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 14:55 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[I'll quote this in full]
> I've been Usenetting for a few years now - not as long as some of you folks,
> I guess, but I'm no newbie to Usenet in general, although I'm quite new to
> afp - and for most of that time I've mainly subscribed to groups in the
> comp hierarchy (although I've dipped into rec and sci).
>
> It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is a much
> friendlier group than a typical comp group.
>
> In some ways, that's true; newbies, certainly, get a much kinder greeting in
> afp than in comp groups. This /may/ indicate that afp is a nicer bunch of
> people than you get in a typical comp group, but I suspect it has much more
> to do with the fact that TP texts are rarely set as homework.
>
> And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is entirely justified.
> Within a very short time of subscribing to this group, I was plonked by
> several people, not because I was aggressive or ill-mannered or clueless,
> but simply because I was espousing a view that seemed on a casual reading
> to be unreasonable. I'm sure many of you remember the thread(!).
>
> I don't wish to bang on about that, because this isn't a sour grapes
> article, but it was nevertheless an indicator, a straw in the wind. (To
> their credit, by the way, several of those plonkers appear to have changed
> their minds and unplonked me at some point, Stacie being an admirable case
> in point - as well as being generally admirable for her admirably realistic
> and balanced approach to arachnids, which I wholeheartedly endorse.)
>
> Were that the only such indicator, I wouldn't have said anything. But it
> isn't. Several times in the last few months, I've seen perfectly reasonable
> people being plonked by other people I had also considered perfectly
> reasonable, and it seemed to me in each case that it was an escalation
> based on successive misunderstandings.
>
> A few years ago, in one of the comp groups, I witnessed a fascinating case
> where just such an escalation was clearly imminent, between two perfectly
> reasonable people, for the most astoundingly trivial of reasons. Let us
> call the two people involved M and N. Now, M posted an article in which,
> possibly because he was slightly careless or tired, he omitted a comma -
> yes, a comma, for heaven's sake! - from his opening sentence.
> Unfortunately, this omission completely changed the meaning of the
> sentence, and it looked like an attack on N. Knowing M as I did, I realised
> that such an attack was out of character, so I looked for an explanation,
> and saw that a comma would fix things up nicely. I pointed this out, and
> then both M and N realised what had happened, and all was sweetness and
> light again.
>
> The comp groups have a reputation for being mean n' nasty places, but once
> you've carved out a place for yourself within the group, you can pretty
> much relax. In what I consider to be my "home" group, comp.lang.c, I know I
> can post just about whatever I like, without having to be
> walking-on-eggshells careful in case someone misunderstands me.
>
> Here in afp, though, this nice pleasant warm newsgroup where everyone is
> happy and the sun shines merrily on all and sundry, I feel no such ease. It
> seems that hardly a month goes by without some ludicrously unimportant
> discussion leading to some perfectly reasonable chap or chappette plonking
> some other perfectly reasonable chap or chappette. People are *so quick* to
> take offence here!
>
> It isn't just me. Stacie noticed it too (cf "tenor of afp" thread), and just
> recently we've heard someone worrying that Feb 2008(!) is here already.
> That is not good for anyone.
>
> This is a plea for - no, not tolerance, because that's an ugly, ugly word,
> which implies that We are Better than Them, but We will nevertheless Put Up
> With Them.
>
> Rather, it's a plea for love. Understanding. Willingness to take a second
> glance; to look for an interpretation of Their article that is based on the
> assumption that They are probably not trying to annoy us; to realise that
> normal people don't subscribe to afp specifically to get up our noses, but
> rather They subscribe to afp so that they can have relaxed
> semi-pratchettesque conversation among friends - in other words, They are
> just like Us. So, in effect, They /are/ Us - and it would be much
> pleasanter if We were to recognise the fact.
>
> Maybe it drives you nuts that your disputant appears to be some kind of
> pointy-eared alien weirdo with a complete lack of empathy for basic
> humanity - but if you first take the plonk out of your own eye, you will be
> able to see more clearly to take the spock out of your brother's eye.
I endorse this.
The only thing I would add is that I think the condom/helmet thread is
a good example of how afp _ought_ to handle an intense, emotionally
driven debate. In that thread, we disagreed about stuff, but managed
to talk it through like adult human beings until we found the source of
the misunderstanding - and in the process, not a single flame was
thrown. There were, at most, one or two unlit matches.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252095 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 14:54 |
|
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I've been Usenetting for a few years now - not as long as some of you
> folks, I guess, but I'm no newbie to Usenet in general, although I'm
> quite new to afp - and for most of that time I've mainly subscribed
> to groups in the comp hierarchy (although I've dipped into rec and
> sci).
>
> It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is a much
> friendlier group than a typical comp group.
>
> In some ways, that's true; newbies, certainly, get a much kinder
> greeting in afp than in comp groups. This /may/ indicate that afp is
> a nicer bunch of people than you get in a typical comp group, but I
> suspect it has much more to do with the fact that TP texts are rarely
> set as homework.
>
> And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is entirely
> justified. Within a very short time of subscribing to this group, I
> was plonked by several people, not because I was aggressive or
> ill-mannered or clueless, but simply because I was espousing a view
> that seemed on a casual reading to be unreasonable. I'm sure many of
> you remember the thread(!).
>
> I don't wish to bang on about that, because this isn't a sour grapes
> article, but it was nevertheless an indicator, a straw in the wind.
> (To their credit, by the way, several of those plonkers appear to
> have changed their minds and unplonked me at some point, Stacie being
> an admirable case in point - as well as being generally admirable for
> her admirably realistic and balanced approach to arachnids, which I
> wholeheartedly endorse.)
>
> Were that the only such indicator, I wouldn't have said anything. But
> it isn't. Several times in the last few months, I've seen perfectly
> reasonable people being plonked by other people I had also considered
> perfectly reasonable, and it seemed to me in each case that it was an
> escalation based on successive misunderstandings.
>
> A few years ago, in one of the comp groups, I witnessed a fascinating
> case where just such an escalation was clearly imminent, between two
> perfectly reasonable people, for the most astoundingly trivial of
> reasons. Let us call the two people involved M and N. Now, M posted
> an article in which, possibly because he was slightly careless or
> tired, he omitted a comma - yes, a comma, for heaven's sake! - from
> his opening sentence. Unfortunately, this omission completely changed
> the meaning of the sentence, and it looked like an attack on N.
> Knowing M as I did, I realised that such an attack was out of
> character, so I looked for an explanation, and saw that a comma would
> fix things up nicely. I pointed this out, and then both M and N
> realised what had happened, and all was sweetness and light again.
>
> The comp groups have a reputation for being mean n' nasty places, but
> once you've carved out a place for yourself within the group, you can
> pretty much relax. In what I consider to be my "home" group,
> comp.lang.c, I know I can post just about whatever I like, without
> having to be walking-on-eggshells careful in case someone
> misunderstands me.
>
> Here in afp, though, this nice pleasant warm newsgroup where everyone
> is happy and the sun shines merrily on all and sundry, I feel no such
> ease. It seems that hardly a month goes by without some ludicrously
> unimportant discussion leading to some perfectly reasonable chap or
> chappette plonking some other perfectly reasonable chap or chappette.
> People are *so quick* to take offence here!
>
> It isn't just me. Stacie noticed it too (cf "tenor of afp" thread),
> and just recently we've heard someone worrying that Feb 2008(!) is
> here already. That is not good for anyone.
>
> This is a plea for - no, not tolerance, because that's an ugly, ugly
> word, which implies that We are Better than Them, but We will
> nevertheless Put Up With Them.
>
> Rather, it's a plea for love. Understanding. Willingness to take a
> second glance; to look for an interpretation of Their article that is
> based on the assumption that They are probably not trying to annoy
> us; to realise that normal people don't subscribe to afp specifically
> to get up our noses, but rather They subscribe to afp so that they
> can have relaxed semi-pratchettesque conversation among friends - in
> other words, They are just like Us. So, in effect, They /are/ Us -
> and it would be much pleasanter if We were to recognise the fact.
>
> Maybe it drives you nuts that your disputant appears to be some kind
> of pointy-eared alien weirdo with a complete lack of empathy for basic
> humanity - but if you first take the plonk out of your own eye, you
> will be able to see more clearly to take the spock out of your
> brother's eye.
>
> Please?
<<plonk>>
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252096 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 15:08 |
|
8'FED wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> [I'll quote this in full]
(but I won't, for now)
> I endorse this.
>
> The only thing I would add is that I think the condom/helmet thread is
> a good example of how afp _ought_ to handle an intense, emotionally
> driven debate. In that thread, we disagreed about stuff, but managed
> to talk it through like adult human beings until we found the source of
> the misunderstanding - and in the process, not a single flame was
> thrown. There were, at most, one or two unlit matches.
I agree; that was - or wanted to be - a very heated debate, but it was
handled in a way that was - at least from my perspective - quite enjoyable.
And most of those matches were jokingly catapulted between the thumb and
forefinger, with a big grin behind them. :-)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252098 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 15:18 |
|
8'FED said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> [I'll quote this in full]
>
[but I won't]
>
> I endorse this.
Thank you.
> The only thing I would add is that I think the condom/helmet thread is
> a good example of how afp _ought_ to handle an intense, emotionally
> driven debate. In that thread, we disagreed about stuff, but managed
> to talk it through like adult human beings until we found the source of
> the misunderstanding - and in the process, not a single flame was
> thrown. There were, at most, one or two unlit matches.
I had a whole flame-thrower ready - but kept the safety-catch firmly on.
I thought the entire discussion was based on a - er, forgive the pune - a
complete misconception about how human relationships are best conducted.
I suspect that, if I /had/ had the temerity to put forward my opinion, the
debate would have been much noisier, much plonkier, and much much longer.
Which is why I stayed out.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: Spocks and plonks [message #252099 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 15:24 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > This is a plea for - no, not tolerance, because that's an ugly, ugly
> > word, which implies that We are Better than Them, but We will
> > nevertheless Put Up With Them.
> >
> > Rather, it's a plea for love. Understanding. Willingness to take a
> > second glance; to look for an interpretation of Their article that is
> > based on the assumption that They are probably not trying to annoy
> > us; to realise that normal people don't subscribe to afp specifically
> > to get up our noses, but rather They subscribe to afp so that they
> > can have relaxed semi-pratchettesque conversation among friends - in
> > other words, They are just like Us. So, in effect, They /are/ Us -
> > and it would be much pleasanter if We were to recognise the fact.
> >
> > Maybe it drives you nuts that your disputant appears to be some kind
> > of pointy-eared alien weirdo with a complete lack of empathy for basic
> > humanity - but if you first take the plonk out of your own eye, you
> > will be able to see more clearly to take the spock out of your
> > brother's eye.
I am not spock.
(That is, "Huh?")
I think of afp as on the whole a place of goodwill. Afp is not abp,
which is there more concentratedly.... is "bookish" putting it too
strongly? At any rate, in afp it doesn't matter if you want to talk
about how your own dog is exactly like Gaspode or if you make a fool of
yourself by completely misremembering the plot of _Maskerade_.
I skip a lot of afp - ferret nonsense and Tales and most Meets - and I
may have missed a change in the weather overall. I think it's
important to maintain tolerance, which does not imply to me superiority
but merely culture clash, which happens even in the best clubs; nor
does it imply not reacting at all to provocation, but a polite or
jocular reproach is most often more appropriate and more effective than
a flame.
> <<plonk>>
>
> Regards,
> --
> *Art
Now that's what I like to hear!
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252105 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 15:46 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Maybe it drives you nuts that your disputant appears to be some kind
> of pointy-eared alien weirdo with a complete lack of empathy for basic
> humanity - but if you first take the plonk out of your own eye, you
> will be able to see more clearly to take the spock out of your
> brother's eye.
>
> Please?
You didn't say "Pretty please with sugar on top", so I don't have to.
FWIW, I agree with you, as I agreed with Stacie's concerns in the tenor
thread.
This is one of those hard issues, though. I look at afp and think "I
could have done more", to calm things down, to encourage understanding,
to encourage restraint and to make things more civil.
Yeah, I could have. But sometimes it's just too much work, sometimes
the best you can do is just stand back, because you know it won't be
possible to be Swedishly aloof and neutral and chide other people for
not behaving.
Maybe it's the lethargy of old age.
Thing is, though, that it's always been thus, as long as I've been on
the group. Someone says something that could have been better phrased,
someone else takes offence, and none will back down.
A little less than nine years ago, when I had been on the group for two
and a half weeks, I defended another newbie against an old fart, who got
upset over a joking accusation of afp being elitist. The other newbie
left after that, for that reason (the original e-mail he sent me
explaining this and thanking me for leaping to his defence can not be
reproduced on request on account of being lost when I moved to another
job, though).
Some days it's easier than others to get offended. Some days it's
easier to think again.
In the end, it's about being considerate. To have the moral fibre
needed to say "I did not intend this, but seeing how it happened anyway,
I'm sorry it did."
Occasionally, people seem to be on a diet, and will refuse to swallow
their pride and eat their own words. The only word they'll be prepared
to have is the last one, which often leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
We have to accept that. We don't need to encourage it. When someone is
having a tantrum, tell them you disagree, but after that you should just
ignore them.
See, that's the problem with tool belts. When the plonk and the
matchbox are so easily accessible, those are the tools you use. Not
because they're the best for the job, but because they're close to hand.
Since I figure I'll rarely have a genuine use for them, I keep them at
the bottom of the rucksack, underneath the umbrella and the gloves.
On the desk, next to the keyboard, I keep the "unimportant, move on"
pile.
That's right behind the "mixed metaphor" bowl, which I now notice is
empty. I'd better go and refill it.
ttfn,
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252107 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 15:53 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Since I figure I'll rarely have a genuine use for them, I keep them
> at the bottom of the rucksack, underneath the umbrella and the
> gloves.
And the CONDOMS, don't forget the *CONDOMS*.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252108 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 15:53 |
|
It all started on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:18:55 +0000, when Richard Heathfield
wrote:
> 8'FED said:
>
>> The only thing I would add is that I think the condom/helmet thread is a
>> good example of how afp _ought_ to handle an intense, emotionally driven
>> debate. In that thread, we disagreed about stuff, but managed to talk it
>> through like adult human beings until we found the source of the
>> misunderstanding - and in the process, not a single flame was thrown.
>> There were, at most, one or two unlit matches.
>
> I had a whole flame-thrower ready - but kept the safety-catch firmly on.
I think we're doing okay.
We manage to have an extraordinarily huge thread about condoms where
no-one gets hurt. There's a plus.
And then, just in case anybody thought we were all just being nice for the
sake of being nice, there comes much wailing and gnashing of teeth over
the subject of pancakes.
In other words, an admirable set of values all around, and nothing to
worry about whatsoever.
...PeterH
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252118 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 16:16 |
|
In article <pan.2006.04.12.13.53.19.291835 [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Peter Davies
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> We manage to have an extraordinarily huge thread about condoms where
> no-one gets hurt. There's a plus.
>
> And then, just in case anybody thought we were all just being nice for the
> sake of being nice, there comes much wailing and gnashing of teeth over
> the subject of pancakes.
That's because condoms may be a matter of life or death, but pancakes
are much more important..
Gid
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252119 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 16:22 |
|
Gid Holyoake wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.04.12.13.53.19.291835 [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Peter Davies
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> We manage to have an extraordinarily huge thread about condoms where
>> no-one gets hurt. There's a plus.
>>
>> And then, just in case anybody thought we were all just being nice
>> for the sake of being nice, there comes much wailing and gnashing of
>> teeth over the subject of pancakes.
>
> That's because condoms may be a matter of life or death, but pancakes
> are much more important..
/me imagines 22 men running around on a field passing a pancake between
them
/me envisions a future where the noble sport of pancake-passing has
split into Union Sweet League and Federation Savoury League
/me sees the Aussie Rules version become popular, despite only being
played in the morning
/me goes to the vending machine for a snack
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252124 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 17:14 |
|
Stacie Hanes wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>> Since I figure I'll rarely have a genuine use for them, I keep them
>> at the bottom of the rucksack, underneath the umbrella and the
>> gloves.
>
> And the CONDOMS, don't forget the *CONDOMS*.
<cue brief image of an earnest do-gooder wringing hands and saying "The
CHILDREN, think about the CHILDREN", but with a different noun>
Nah, if I keep the condoms at the bottom of the rucksack I'll never find
them when I need them. That's why they go in the "useful stuff" pocket.
It's possible that the most surprising item in or on my rucksack is a
threelegged foldable camping stool. Very handy for the morning train to
work, on which there is only a 1/3 chance I'll get a seat.
The evening train back home is officially one of the most overcrowded in
Britain [1], but I usually come to that early enough to be able to find
a seat.
[1] 18.15 from London King's Cross to Cambridge, with 1.44 passengers
per seat
http://www.railbritain.com/index.php?option=news&task=vi ewarticle&sid=513
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Spocks and plonks [message #252125 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 17:34 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[The condom/helmet thread]
> I thought the entire discussion was based on a - er, forgive the pune - a
> complete misconception about how human relationships are best conducted.
Well, the thing is, there are so many differing views on what is
'best'.
> I suspect that, if I /had/ had the temerity to put forward my opinion, the
> debate would have been much noisier, much plonkier, and much much longer.
It would depend on two things, I believe...
A) Whether you were willing to 'agree to disagree'
B) Whether anyone/everyone else was.
If there had been a spate of "I'm not dropping this till you agree with
me", then yes, I think the whole debate would have been a lot less
pleasant. As it was, we discussed things in a civil and - for the most
part - friendly way, and it was a hugely enjoyable thing to read.
CCA
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Spocks and plonks [message #252127 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 18:31 |
|
CCA said:
> It would depend on two things, I believe...
>
> A) Whether you were willing to 'agree to disagree'
I think this is amply demonstrated by the very fact that I stayed out of the
thread!
> B) Whether anyone/everyone else was.
Um, quite so.
> [...] it was a hugely enjoyable thing to read.
It was? I think we'll have to agree to disagree! :-)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252200 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 23:17 |
|
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes:
> It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is
> a much friendlier group than a typical comp group.
> In some ways, that's true; newbies, certainly, get a much
> kinder greeting in afp than in comp groups.
Afp is a 'social' group, not a 'topical' group. People are here
for the conversation and the relaxation, not for problem-solving
or educational purposes.
This difference in newsgroup focus between afp and, say, the
comp.* groups is certainly reflected in the culture that springs
from it. There are just different ways for newsgroups to evolve.
It says, in my opinion, very little about the actual people
involved.
> This /may/ indicate that afp is a nicer bunch of people than
> you get in a typical comp group,
That would be a singularly silly claim to make. I am certainly
willing to concede that afp is a friendly, sociable newsgroup --
more so than some other newsgroups, sure. But e.g.
comp.lang.python is *also* extremely helpful, sociable, even
funny (with trolls, grumpy old farts, or long-winded flamewars to
make things occasionally annoying). It's just the interaction
model and the expectations of behaviour that are different, not
the people or the friendliness as such. I don't believe that for
a second.[*]
Alt.*books*.pratchett is an interesting case. I think it's not
unfair to say that abp was an attempt to create a version of afp
in the comp.* mold: more serious, always on-topic and not afraid
to remind people that they shouldn't be wasting other people's
time.
And the silly thing is that this (no matter how politely or
friendly it is pointed out!) has led to more offended and
insulted people on abp than I've seen in many of the so-called
'unfriendly' comp.* groups. People *expect* a forum about
Pratchett to be informal and chatty, and can get really huffy if
it is pointed out that, no hard feelings, but abp was explicitly
created to get away from chit-chat so please stop chitchatting.
Abp is a group where these two approaches to on-line communities
sometimes really clash.
[*] Although, as a caveat, the fact that a.f.p. skews
British/European rather than American may, especially in the
early years, in fact have caused a distinct flavour of
conversation and community to arise that sets it apart from many
other newsgroups. But that would hold for other alt. groups just
as well.
> And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is entirely
> justified.
Of course it isn't. Afp's tendency to self-congratulation is --
to me -- one of its least endearing aspects.
The problem I have with it is not so much that afp is not (on the
whole) a friendly and even wonderful community. I wouldn't have
stayed this long if I'd felt it wasn't, and I am perfectly
content to have made afp my virtual home turf.
But afp is not unique, and we weren't even the first, and I
sometimes get very tired of the parochialness of the "we're so
precious and lovable and surely nobody on the whole Internet has
ever built such a terrific community" idea. (Usenet) generations
of afpers *have* built something nice, yeah, but there are other
on-line communities just as solid; some even based around mailing
lists or <gasp!> web forums. We don't *need* to define ourselves
by looking down on or trying to raise ourselves above others.
> Within a very short time of subscribing to this group, I was
> plonked by several people, not because I was aggressive or
> ill-mannered or clueless, but simply because I was espousing a
> view that seemed on a casual reading to be unreasonable.
The following is a sweeping generalisation based entirely on
personal observation and interpretation, so please take this with
as many grains of salt as you like, but:
The problems you've experienced here didn't surprise me one bit,
because it was clear to me from the beginning that your
particular style of posting (which I think of as "amused
detachment") is one that has often lead to a lot of friction when
it surfaces on a.f.p. For some reason it fits in really badly
with the general afp style of conversation, doubly so when we're
not used to you yet.
Part of it is, I think, the lingering, possibly subconscious,
suspicion (whether true or not isn't the point!) that you are
making fun of your opponents, not taking them serious at all, and
simply feeling/knowing yourself to be vastly superior to
everybody else.
Your ability to run logical and verbal hoops around your
opponents doesn't help (it's a particular chip that rests on many
shoulders around here), and your unfailing politeness and refusal
to get upset unfortunately only pours oil on the boiling waters.
If only you *would* get upset and show you're human, so we can
shake our heads, and tut-tut at you and then forgive you! But you
just smile, and twirl your moustache, and come out with another
analytical smartypants post in which you point out all our
logical mistakes, or explain how we jumped to unwarranted
conclusions about what you wrote (because we inevitably tried to
read between the lines instead of sticking to the exact letter of
what you wrote) and none of the discussion ever really *touches*
you or seems to get you involved on a personal level, and *that*
is what is so maddening about it!
As I said, you are not the first one I've seen this happen with.
Two notable examples I can think of who provoked similar
reactions with their "amused detachment style" are Margaret
Tarbot and Sherilyn.
> But it isn't. Several times in the last few months, I've seen
> perfectly reasonable people being plonked by other people I had
> also considered perfectly reasonable, and it seemed to me in
> each case that it was an escalation based on successive
> misunderstandings.
Surely *that* is something that is common to just about every
newsgroup ever, whether comp.* or alt.*? When confronted with an
even remotely multi-interpretable post, people generally tend to
assume the worst, rather than the best interpretation.
It's one of the things, even after so many years, I still find
myself having to fight against in my own responses. Afp has been
suffering from this since about a week after it was created, and
I don't feel it's particularly bad right now.
I do agree that we seem to be passing through an annoyingly long
and tedious period of increased bickering, but that seems to me
more an unfortunate combination of various factors, rather than
specifically caused by an enhanced quickness to take offence. But
I could well be wrong.
--
Leo Breebaart <leo [at] lspace.org>
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252209 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 23:26 |
|
In a speech called 4a592iFrg2apU1 [at] individual.net,
Leo Breebaart uttered thus:
> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> > It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that this is
> > a much friendlier group than a typical comp group.
>
> > In some ways, that's true; newbies, certainly, get a much
> > kinder greeting in afp than in comp groups.
>
> Afp is a 'social' group, not a 'topical' group. People are here
> for the conversation and the relaxation, not for problem-solving
> or educational purposes.
>
> This difference in newsgroup focus between afp and, say, the
> comp.* groups is certainly reflected in the culture that springs
> from it. There are just different ways for newsgroups to evolve.
> It says, in my opinion, very little about the actual people
> involved.
>
>
> > This /may/ indicate that afp is a nicer bunch of people than
> > you get in a typical comp group,
>
> That would be a singularly silly claim to make. I am certainly
> willing to concede that afp is a friendly, sociable newsgroup --
> more so than some other newsgroups, sure. But e.g.
> comp.lang.python is *also* extremely helpful, sociable, even
> funny (with trolls, grumpy old farts, or long-winded flamewars to
> make things occasionally annoying). It's just the interaction
> model and the expectations of behaviour that are different, not
> the people or the friendliness as such. I don't believe that for
> a second.[*]
>
> Alt.*books*.pratchett is an interesting case. I think it's not
> unfair to say that abp was an attempt to create a version of afp
> in the comp.* mold: more serious, always on-topic and not afraid
> to remind people that they shouldn't be wasting other people's
> time.
Actually, I haven't seen a "please take this to afp"/"afp is not abp's
trashcan" post/response for a long while on abp. About 18 months ago,
there was roughly one a fortnight.
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
There is nothing wrong with my...
um..
er...
Memory!
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252213 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 23:30 |
|
Also Sprach Leo Breebaart:
> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> It wasn't that long ago that I read, here in afp, that
>> this is a much friendlier group than a typical comp group.
<snip>
>> And yet I wonder whether this self-congratulation is
>> entirely justified.
>
> Of course it isn't. Afp's tendency to self-congratulation
> is -- to me -- one of its least endearing aspects.
>
> The problem I have with it is not so much that afp is not
> (on the whole) a friendly and even wonderful community. I
> wouldn't have stayed this long if I'd felt it wasn't, and I
> am perfectly content to have made afp my virtual home turf.
>
> But afp is not unique, and we weren't even the first, and I
> sometimes get very tired of the parochialness of the "we're
> so precious and lovable and surely nobody on the whole
> Internet has ever built such a terrific community" idea.
> (Usenet) generations of afpers *have* built something nice,
> yeah, but there are other on-line communities just as
> solid; some even based around mailing lists or <gasp!> web
> forums. We don't *need* to define ourselves by looking down
> on or trying to raise ourselves above others.
Is this where I thread-cross with the argument about the
definition of snobbery?
>> Within a very short time of subscribing to this group, I
>> was plonked by several people, not because I was
>> aggressive or ill-mannered or clueless, but simply because
>> I was espousing a view that seemed on a casual reading to
>> be unreasonable.
>
> The following is a sweeping generalisation based entirely
> on personal observation and interpretation, so please take
> this with as many grains of salt as you like, but:
>
> The problems you've experienced here didn't surprise me one
> bit, because it was clear to me from the beginning that
> your particular style of posting (which I think of as
> "amused detachment") is one that has often lead to a lot of
> friction when it surfaces on a.f.p. For some reason it fits
> in really badly with the general afp style of conversation,
> doubly so when we're not used to you yet.
<snip>
> As I said, you are not the first one I've seen this happen
> with. Two notable examples I can think of who provoked
> similar reactions with their "amused detachment style" are
> Margaret Tarbot and Sherilyn.
This is interesting, because, while it's obvious now you
mention it, I'd never noticed the similarity between Richard
and Sherilyn's posting styles (obviously, otherwise I'd have
reacted to Richard as badly as I did to Sherylin). I'm still
trying to work out what the difference is, but I'd say that
Sherylin's posts often seemed (at least to me) to *read*
detatched, but *feel* haranguing. Also she came across as
amused at the group itself, whereas Richard seemed more amused
by the situations in the threads.
Or maybe it's as simple as not being one of the ones who ended
up in closed-loop arguments with him (as I did with Sherylin).
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252228 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 00:27 |
|
In article <Xns97A3E4E8F21CAdaibhid [at] 130.133.1.4>,
daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com says...
> This is interesting, because, while it's obvious now you
> mention it, I'd never noticed the similarity between Richard
> and Sherilyn's posting styles (obviously, otherwise I'd have
> reacted to Richard as badly as I did to Sherylin). I'm still
> trying to work out what the difference is, but I'd say that
> Sherylin's posts often seemed (at least to me) to *read*
> detatched, but *feel* haranguing. Also she came across as
> amused at the group itself, whereas Richard seemed more amused
> by the situations in the threads.
>
> Or maybe it's as simple as not being one of the ones who ended
> up in closed-loop arguments with him (as I did with Sherylin).
My personal perception - and it is only a perception and very personal -
is that Richard is arguing from a single point of view, whereas Sherilyn
is arguing from a shifting POV. Richard has is opinions, which he argues
clearly and cleverly - somtimes a little trickily. But he doesn't shift
his ground. He is arguing to prove his point. Sherilyn is arguing for
arguments sake; if s/he appears to be losing, the argument is twisted a
little onto more winnable ground.
Therefore I am happy to argue with Richard. Or not to argue: we
disagree, on grounds that are essentially faith based. Richard has his
view and I have mine, and argument will never resolve them - so why
argue. But until this was established, Richard fought clean, and I hoppi
I responded in kind. Whereas Sheilyn, IMO, doesn't fight clean. S/he is
in it for the argument. S/he is undoubtedly very clever (as is Richard,
and as am I, and a large slice of AFP; this is not a thckios hangout).
but s/he use his/her clevernes to maximise argument, not to achieve
clarity. When, after many iterations, I realised this, I ceased to
respond.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252234 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 00:44 |
|
Leo Breebaart said:
> The following is a sweeping generalisation based entirely on
> personal observation and interpretation,
....and, because it's All About Me, it's a fascinating topic on which I will
happily focus to the exclusion of all your other, more general remarks.
> so please take this with
> as many grains of salt as you like,
No sooner said than done; it just so happens that I still have several
pounds of the stuff left over from the "radioactive ash" discussion, so
that's lucky...
> but:
>
> The problems you've experienced here didn't surprise me one bit,
> because it was clear to me from the beginning that your
> particular style of posting (which I think of as "amused
> detachment")
A curious interpretation, although in a way it does sound right. It is
certainly true that I am amused by much that is said here, but mostly
that's intentional on the part of the amuser, and I am merely doing my bit
as amusee.
As for detachment, that's simply a Usenet survival skill, without which we
might as well all take up a less stressful hobby (such as bungee-jumping or
skyboarding).
> is one that has often lead to a lot of friction when
> it surfaces on a.f.p. For some reason it fits in really badly
> with the general afp style of conversation, doubly so when we're
> not used to you yet.
I think I've got away with it, though, possibly because I sometimes come at
topics from a completely unexpected angle, and Pratchett fans wouldn't be
Pratchett fans if they didn't enjoy such shifts in perspective.
> Part of it is, I think, the lingering, possibly subconscious,
> suspicion (whether true or not isn't the point!) that you are
> making fun of your opponents, not taking them serious at all, and
> simply feeling/knowing yourself to be vastly superior to
> everybody else.
If the factual basis, or otherwise, of this suspicion is not the point, then
it might be interesting to make it the point, so I shall do so now.
Do I make fun of my "opponents"? No.
Well, all right - make that "rarely".
I'm sure it happens occasionally, but in fact I'm not really interested in
belittling people - quite the reverse, actually. On the other hand, I'm not
above making fun of their *arguments*, if it seems to me that those
arguments are not based on some kind of solid logical ground. (In any case,
I think "opponents" might be the wrong word, but never mind that for now -
I'm trying to stay focused here.)
Do I feel/know myself to be vastly superior to everybody else? No, not at
all. But it's easy to see why people might get this impression. After all,
they only "know" me through what I write and how I write it - and /how/ we
write can have a major impact on people's perception of us.
I suppose I tend to write in what many people regard as an authoritative
manner. And yet this is purely an accident of history. I take considerable
care over spelling, punctuation, and grammar, on the simple grounds that my
English teacher would turn in his grave if (a) he were dead and (b) he
caught me writing carelessly and (c) (a) and (b) were not mutually
contradictory.
Such care seems to be sufficiently rare nowadays that we tend not to
encounter it very often except in books - and we still regard books as
being, a priori, authoritative. (Whether we should is another matter!)
This impression of "superiority" might also have something to do with my
being endowed with a modicum of native wit (or, at least, half a native
wit), and an occasional felicitous turn of phrase.
But mostly, I guess, it's to do with spending much of my spare time over the
last seven years or so explaining mind-numbingly simple concepts to student
programmers elsenet *and* having long technical debates with very clever
people. The latter tends to hone one's ability to formulate one's arguments
persuasively, convincingly, and above all *logically* - and the former
tends to make one's writing style a little didactic. (And so does writing a
book on computer programming.)
> Your ability to run logical and verbal hoops around your
> opponents doesn't help
Oh, but it does! :-)
> (it's a particular chip that rests on many
> shoulders around here),
That says far less about me than it does about those who... well, let's not
go there. It would not be kind.
> and your unfailing politeness and refusal
> to get upset unfortunately only pours oil on the boiling waters.
Firstly, there's just no *point* in getting upset. Secondly, any long-time
Usenetter knows how important a thick skin is. Thirdly, being rude to
people is far more likely to lose you sympathy and support than it is to
gain them.
How many times has Vetinari lost his cool? Setting aside the newt incident
(which in any case was really only proto-Vetinari), the only time I can
remember is in Jingo, when he suddenly realises the import of a throwaway
remark by Leonard of Quirm. And even then, that was only a loss of
composure, rather than a loss of temper.
There's simply no mileage in it.
> If only you *would* get upset and show you're human, so we can
> shake our heads, and tut-tut at you and then forgive you!
Tough. :-)
> But you
> just smile, and twirl your moustache, and come out with another
> analytical smartypants post in which you point out all our
> logical mistakes,
All? No, I don't think that's actually possible - but I do try to catch as
many as seems necessary at the time. :-)
> or explain how we jumped to unwarranted
> conclusions about what you wrote (because we inevitably tried to
> read between the lines instead of sticking to the exact letter of
> what you wrote)
That's what comes of spending a few years in tech groups, I'm afraid.
> and none of the discussion ever really *touches*
> you or seems to get you involved on a personal level, and *that*
> is what is so maddening about it!
I actually care pretty deeply about some of the issues discussed here. I
have learned to avoid such threads, because I've discovered that there are
insufficiently many people here who are capable of discussing them
dispassionately (which is not to say that there are no such people, but
they tend to get lost in the noise). Had I made my views clear in the
recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have been eight times as long and
sixteen times as bitter. And that's a shame, because I reckon I had
something important to say. Unpopular, but important. And now you'll never
know what it is, so you'll just have to guess.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252239 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 00:51 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> I actually care pretty deeply about some of the issues discussed
> here. I have learned to avoid such threads, because I've discovered
> that there are insufficiently many people here who are capable of
> discussing them dispassionately (which is not to say that there are
> no such people, but they tend to get lost in the noise).
I've found that I have no problem treating any given subject
dispassionately, but there are a few posters whose style hits all my
annoyance buttons when I try to debate with them, and so I try to
refrain from entering a debate with them.
When I have, I have almost inevitably regretted it.
> Had I made
> my views clear in the recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have
> been eight times as long and sixteen times as bitter. And that's a
> shame, because I reckon I had something important to say. Unpopular,
> but important. And now you'll never know what it is, so you'll just
> have to guess.
Strawberry flavour, right?
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252247 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 01:05 |
|
Alec Cawley said:
> My personal perception - and it is only a perception and very personal -
> is that Richard is arguing from a single point of view, whereas Sherilyn
> is arguing from a shifting POV.
Yes - and some things aren't up for negotiation. But other things are. For
example, you'll never convince me that addition in Z (the normal integers)
is not commutative, or that the Bible is fictional, or that spiders are
good to eat. But you might convince me that it's worth buying "Monstrous
Regiment" or "Going Postal" (both of which I've browsed and put back on the
shelf, as they didn't strike me as being anything like as good as TFE, J,
FOC, HF, and the like). Or you might not.
> Richard has is opinions, which he argues
> clearly and cleverly -
I thank you.
> somtimes a little trickily.
I thank you even more. :-) Sometimes, one must play tricks to make a point,
or to get around a preconception on the part of one's "opponent".
> But he doesn't shift his ground. He is arguing to prove his point.
Right. But on occasions where I don't see what is to me a self-evident
progression from axiom to premise to conclusion, I am certainly prepared to
be convinced that my point is incorrect. (To be thus prepared is a
necessary survival skill in techie groups.)
> Therefore I am happy to argue with Richard.
Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to contradict me? It's slightly cheaper.
> Or not to argue: we
> disagree, on grounds that are essentially faith based. Richard has his
> view and I have mine, and argument will never resolve them - so why
> argue. But until this was established, Richard fought clean, and I hoppi
> I responded in kind.
Thanks. I'm afraid I can't remember whether you fought clean or not - but I
am certainly prepared to take your word for it. What I do recall is that
Daibhid showed a clarity of thought (in "that" thread) which greatly
impressed me.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252277 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 02:53 |
|
In article <e1itab$11t$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, Gideon Hallett
diogenes [at] freeuk.com wibbled...
[Snip]
> I would say that the 'old' AFP was far more like your typical comp.*
> group, both in tone and content (since most of the people back then
> were geeks of some sort).
>
> Back then, if you said something silly, you'd probably get slapped
> down fairly hard and fast; and while there were in-jokes like ASCII
> roses and hedgehogs, they tended to expire fairly quickly.
*sigh* Fond memories...
Suzi
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252314 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 05:31 |
|
in article MPG.1ea71baa657f255c9896f0 [at] news.btinternet.com, Gid Holyoake at
abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk wrote on 12/04/2006 7:16 AM:
> In article <pan.2006.04.12.13.53.19.291835 [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Peter Davies
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> We manage to have an extraordinarily huge thread about condoms where
>> no-one gets hurt. There's a plus.
>>
>> And then, just in case anybody thought we were all just being nice for the
>> sake of being nice, there comes much wailing and gnashing of teeth over
>> the subject of pancakes.
>
> That's because condoms may be a matter of life or death, but pancakes
> are much more important..
That would be life or Limbo, shirley?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252321 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 06:26 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
> This impression of "superiority" might also have something to do with my
> being endowed with a modicum of native wit (or, at least, half a native
> wit), and an occasional felicitous turn of phrase.
>
After reading most of this thread to date, I'm surprised you didn't
twist that last one another quarter turn to come up with "native half wit".
In defense of my interuption, I hang out elsewhere but added afp to my
repetoire recently. Variety, spice of life, and all that.
> But mostly, I guess, it's to do with spending much of my spare time over the
> last seven years or so explaining mind-numbingly simple concepts to student
> programmers elsenet *and* having long technical debates with very clever
> people. The latter tends to hone one's ability to formulate one's arguments
> persuasively, convincingly, and above all *logically* - and the former
> tends to make one's writing style a little didactic. (And so does writing a
> book on computer programming.)
>
>
<snip>
>
> I actually care pretty deeply about some of the issues discussed here. I
> have learned to avoid such threads, because I've discovered that there are
> insufficiently many people here who are capable of discussing them
> dispassionately (which is not to say that there are no such people, but
> they tend to get lost in the noise). Had I made my views clear in the
> recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have been eight times as long and
> sixteen times as bitter. And that's a shame, because I reckon I had
> something important to say. Unpopular, but important. And now you'll never
> know what it is, so you'll just have to guess.
>
I'd read the condom thread but It seems to have gone from my service.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252327 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 09:51 |
|
Blake said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <snip>
>> This impression of "superiority" might also have something to do with my
>> being endowed with a modicum of native wit (or, at least, half a native
>> wit), and an occasional felicitous turn of phrase.
>>
> After reading most of this thread to date, I'm surprised you didn't
> twist that last one another quarter turn to come up with "native half
> wit".
I was tempted - I rewrote that part of the article several times, trying to
find the best way to phrase it - but part of the challenge of humour is
knowing just how much twist you can leave to your audience to do. I
reckoned afp were up to the job.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252342 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 11:31 |
|
Blake wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <snip>
Hi Blake, pull up a chair and pour yourself a drink.
>> Had I made
>> my views clear in the recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have
>> been eight times as long and sixteen times as bitter. And that's a
>> shame, because I reckon I had something important to say. Unpopular,
>> but important. And now you'll never know what it is, so you'll just
>> have to guess.
> I'd read the condom thread but It seems to have gone from my service.
Or it may be that the thread took place under the title '[I] Teaching
children
how to behave', and no one thought to retitle it when it became the condom
thread (a missed opportunity there, I'm sure you'll agree).
Diane L.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252347 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 12:23 |
|
on 12/04/2006 22:17 Leo Breebaart said the following:
<snip>
> As I said, you are not the first one I've seen this happen with.
> Two notable examples I can think of who provoked similar
> reactions with their "amused detachment style" are Margaret
> Tarbot and Sherilyn.
And for those who are wondering "Who's Sherilyn":
http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/what-is-afp/sherilyn.html
Not the best representation of her style but not that far off either.
Actually I'd never noticed the similarities before but now that Leo has
pointed them out, they're quite obvious [1]. That said, although I know
Sherilyn's style drove some people into a frenzy, I actually enjoyed
many of her posts - especially the dry wit. This would explain why I'm
reading so many of Richard's posts atm. :-)
esmi
[1] Though I never really read many of Margaret's posts, so couldn't
comment there
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252348 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 12:26 |
|
on 13/04/2006 01:53 Suzi said the following:
> In article <e1itab$11t$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, Gideon Hallett
> diogenes [at] freeuk.com wibbled...
> [Snip]
>>I would say that the 'old' AFP was far more like your typical comp.*
>>group, both in tone and content (since most of the people back then
>>were geeks of some sort).
>>Back then, if you said something silly, you'd probably get slapped
>>down fairly hard and fast; and while there were in-jokes like ASCII
>>roses and hedgehogs, they tended to expire fairly quickly.
> *sigh* Fond memories...
Two words: 'T*mple' and 'Feminism'. Not all of the memories are fond -
unless, of course, you've got those rose-tinted glasses on again. ;-)
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: Spocks and plonks [message #252380 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 15:52 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Firstly, there's just no *point* in getting upset. Secondly, any long-time
> Usenetter knows how important a thick skin is. Thirdly, being rude to
> people is far more likely to lose you sympathy and support than it is to
> gain them.
>
> How many times has Vetinari lost his cool? Setting aside the newt incident
> (which in any case was really only proto-Vetinari), the only time I can
> remember is in Jingo, when he suddenly realises the import of a throwaway
> remark by Leonard of Quirm. And even then, that was only a loss of
> composure, rather than a loss of temper.
>
> There's simply no mileage in it.
So I'm imagining a newsgroup where participants model their conduct on
Vetinari. Interesting idea... Of course he has a system, spies,
secret police - even with Google /and/ Wikipedia, I can't live up to
that! ;-)
I would /sooooo/ love to discuss whether the bible is factual, I know I
shouldn't I know I shouldn't - aagh! I can't hold it in Ican'tholditin
PARABLES! Ooh. That feels so much better. (But dirty as well.)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252398 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 18:21 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Had I made my views clear in the
> recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have been eight times as long and
> sixteen times as bitter.
*What* would have been eight times as long, exactly?
And that's a shame, because I reckon I had
> something important to say. Unpopular, but important. And now you'll never
> know what it is, so you'll just have to guess.
I'd probably have enjoyed the conversation.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252418 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 19:15 |
|
In article <e1l920$2aob$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, esmi esmi [at] lspace.org wibbled...
> on 13/04/2006 01:53 Suzi said the following:
> > In article <e1itab$11t$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, Gideon Hallett
> > diogenes [at] freeuk.com wibbled...
>
> > [Snip]
>
> >>I would say that the 'old' AFP was far more like your typical comp.*
> >>group, both in tone and content (since most of the people back then
> >>were geeks of some sort).
>
> >>Back then, if you said something silly, you'd probably get slapped
> >>down fairly hard and fast; and while there were in-jokes like ASCII
> >>roses and hedgehogs, they tended to expire fairly quickly.
>
> > *sigh* Fond memories...
>
> Two words: 'T*mple' and 'Feminism'. Not all of the memories are fond -
> unless, of course, you've got those rose-tinted glasses on again. ;-)
T*mple was a passing phase which was fun for those involved in it, and
killfiled by most of the rest of the group... I far preferred the
honesty back in those days, though, when compared to the fluffy-bunny up
front approach with added stabby-back behind :-)
Suzi
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252426 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 19:47 |
|
Suzi wrote:
> In article <e1l920$2aob$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, esmi esmi [at] lspace.org
> wibbled...
>> on 13/04/2006 01:53 Suzi said the following:
>>
>>> *sigh* Fond memories...
>>
>> Two words: 'T*mple' and 'Feminism'. Not all of the memories are fond
>> - unless, of course, you've got those rose-tinted glasses on again.
>> ;-)
>
> T*mple was a passing phase which was fun for those involved in it, and
> killfiled by most of the rest of the group...
Er... When the subject was discussed recently, I made the point that the
T*mple wouldn't have been so bad had it been possible to killfile it.
But it spread to pretty much all threads.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252450 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 21:15 |
|
In article <4a7heoFru1skU2 [at] individual.net>, Orjan Westin
nospam [at] cunobaros.com wibbled...
[Snip]
> Er... When the subject was discussed recently, I made the point that the
> T*mple wouldn't have been so bad had it been possible to killfile it.
> But it spread to pretty much all threads.
I've noticed similar things happen at regular intervals since then as
well... and each time there's less and less said with less and less
vitriol about it :-)
Suzi
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252451 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 21:19 |
|
Diane L wrote:
> Blake wrote:
>
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>><snip>
>
>
> Hi Blake, pull up a chair and pour yourself a drink.
Thanks for the welcome.
>
>
>>>Had I made
>>>my views clear in the recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have
>>>been eight times as long and sixteen times as bitter. And that's a
>>>shame, because I reckon I had something important to say. Unpopular,
>>>but important. And now you'll never know what it is, so you'll just
>>>have to guess.
>>
>>I'd read the condom thread but It seems to have gone from my service.
>
>
> Or it may be that the thread took place under the title '[I] Teaching
> children
> how to behave', and no one thought to retitle it when it became the condom
> thread (a missed opportunity there, I'm sure you'll agree).
>
> Diane L.
>
>
Thanks also for the directions. I found some of it and had a good read.
It's nice to get to know some of the regulars. As in the ng I usually
hang around in each has a personality and a part to play in the group.
I hope the part of 'well meaning smart alec' hasn't been taken here,
because that's usually my part to play.
I also seem to detect that, much like in my other favourite ng, off
topic is pretty much a foreign concept here.
Have an excellent day everyone.
Blake
ps. I love the motorcycle references in the 'condom' thread.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252454 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 21:42 |
|
In article <dvx%f.8773$Zl.5663 [at] edtnps89>, blake_hugh [at] hotmail.com says...
> I hope the part of 'well meaning smart alec' hasn't been taken here,=20
You called?
--=20
[at] lec =A9awley
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252464 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 22:22 |
|
Blake <blake_hugh [at] hotmail.com> wrote
(on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:19:37 GMT):
> It's nice to get to know some of the regulars. As in the ng I usually
> hang around in each has a personality and a part to play in the group.
> I hope the part of 'well meaning smart alec' hasn't been taken here,
> because that's usually my part to play.
I think you'll find about 250 well-meaning smart alecs here. They may
have a rota.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252470 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 23:15 |
|
Torak said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Had I made my views clear in the
>> recent "condoms" thread, I think it would have been eight times as long
>> and sixteen times as bitter.
>
> *What* would have been eight times as long, exactly?
The thread. The discussion.
>
> And that's a shame, because I reckon I had
>> something important to say. Unpopular, but important. And now you'll
>> never know what it is, so you'll just have to guess.
>
> I'd probably have enjoyed the conversation.
Yes. But for many[1] people here, it would have passed through
simplification converters and prejudice filters, before finally arriving
much modified at the reader's brain, where it would have produced horrified
outrage at the temerity of those who dare to have a view that does not
appear to conform to the currently mandatory religion of "Tolerance", and
much plonking of plonks.
[1] I use this word in the programming sense - i.e. "zero or more", with the
faintest suggestion that it will probably be a reasonably substantial
number.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Spocks and plonks [message #252478 ] |
Do, 13 April 2006 23:39 |
|
Ailbhe ailbhe [at] lspace.org wrote in
<slrne3tcoa.l6n.ailbhe [at] frivolous.ossifrage.net>:
> Blake <blake_hugh [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> (on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:19:37 GMT):
>
> > It's nice to get to know some of the regulars. As in the ng I usually
> > hang around in each has a personality and a part to play in the group.
> > I hope the part of 'well meaning smart alec' hasn't been taken here,
> > because that's usually my part to play.
>
> I think you'll find about 250 well-meaning smart alecs here. They may
> have a rota.
>
Actually it's 250 rotas. 251 if you include the compromise rota that
absolutely nobody uses.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 02:47:49 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09607 Sekunden |
