[1512] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
End of Modesty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Oct 19 16:22:08 1992
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 15:14:22 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
4 Messages, 111 lines
*----
From: JN829@ALBNYVMS.BITNET
Subject: end of modesty or controversy
While a number of persons on PACS-L find controversial statements annoying
some of us (maybe just a few) may not enter but nonetheless enjoy the
fray. I am not tired of Hart's comments, although I'm not certain that
his copyright notices accomplish much for him. The appearance of his
notices and the discussion engendered have produced, what I regard as a
valuable discussion.
If PACS-L is to be a really vital discussion list, don't we need a variety
of perspectives to stimulate vigorous thought and response? (And, by the
way, aren't people who complain about complainers complaining?)
To respond to another complaint, short quips and political snippets not
only entertain but also serve to give some insight into the perspective
of the message-writer. I would be sorry to see these small notes
become the sum and substance of the messages but I would be sorry to
suggest that they are unwelcome.
On less technical issues where there are no easy answers, I believe we
should welcome controversy and even the odd outrageous comment. We all
have a lot to learn from one another and these kinds of messages provide
one vehicle for learning. I hope I'm not alone in this view.
Janice Newkirk
University Libraries
University at Albany/SUNY
JN829@ALBNYVMS
*-----
From: "D.E. \"Dave\" Bloomberg" <BLOOMBER@FAUVAX>
Subject: Re: End of Modesty
When somebody criticizes in public, you better have your facts
straight. One of the first things I read when we went "On-Line"
was the document about e-mail etiquette. The author(s) did an
excellent job detailing emotional response to the written word.
I have seen posts to lists that would provoke physical violence
were they spoken face-to-face.
One of the most important point the article (forgive me for not
having a specific cite, but it was mentioned by the Bitnet
administration people) was to WAIT some period of time before
actually sending a response back to someone who Ticked-you-off.
If you whip off a response in the heat-of-the-moment, you may
regret it later.
Smiley faces work most of the time, and I also like the people to
use phrases such as "On to my Soapbox..." or "My .02 worth"
then you know that it is an issue the writer feels particulalrly
strong about.
Negativity strangles discussion! Contrary opinions, fuel
discussion!! Before you send that flame, STOP! WAIT! Think how
YOU'd feel if you'd receive the note you're about to whip off
and LASH somebody with....!!
Dave Bloomberg
BLOOMBER@FAUVAX
*-----
From: <PEMMONS@WCU>
Subject: Re: End of Modesty
I would hypothesize that the reason for disagreements appearing in public
more frequently than agreements is that agreement is the path of less
resistance, hence no activity is indicated. The person who agrees respects
not only the opinions of another but the way they have been expressed; and
if he feels impelled to act simply wants to give moral support and
encouragement. If disagreeing, however, one wants to encourage others also
to disagree; hence one must respond publicly.
Perhaps another reason is that we assume that if we disagree with a
position, we ought to give reasons for disagreeing; whereas one needs no
reasons to agree. This is not logical; but it does accord with the feeling
that agreement is the path of least resistance.
The most interesting messages to me are often those which agree in part
and disagree in part. What do you do with those?
*-----
From: kclelan1@cc.swarthmore.edu
Subject: Re: End of Modesty
There is no venture where enlightened new world views variously
termed "post-processualism" ( in archaeology ) "critical theory"
(in sociology and elsewhere) or, the one some attempt to approach
in daily life called "post-patriarchy," more appropriately apply
than in the development and refinement of electronic information
porcessing, classification, and retrieval. We need specialists,
not layered managerial structures (antithetical to binary access,
anyway...you're on the system and have access, or you're not, and
you don't). This is basically a two class society...those on the
net (whichever) and those not. Innovative projects and movements
in this field require leadership more than highly visible,
personality-
identified leaders. Leadership deserves credit, but, in the
interest
of a better electronic information community, the end product, as
well
as the PROCESS (yes, a woman would be concerned with the process,
not
just the goal...a bit of leadership credit going to Deborah Tannen
for my understanding of that) will be better, nobler, and easier to
refine and improve if the egos get left in our face-to-face, or
letter-to-letter encounters. It's OK to be human, but let's try
to be the finer side of it...human like the inventors of the wheel,
the pendulum, the flint firemaker, the boomerang, the potter's
paddle
and anvil, the microchip, or the neat new line of a recently
improved
program. Most of those folks are anonymous, and no one person
alone
had the idea once for all time.
As for the class without access...hey, in the interests of
a better society, we'd better think about that. Electronic
information literacy and dissemination are part of where our
projects and movements should be directed; any contribution with
a good intent and feasibility is just an idea without someone being
"leader" long enough to keyboard and send it. From better
machines,
clearer channels, more total interfaces, to better access to the
public, there may be opportunities for may of us to be momentary
leaders. Acknowledged or not, our ideas are too important not to
share; this IS a non-profit domain, eh?
This is light on specifics, but momentary leaders can suggest
those infinitely. I ego-free leadership oxymoronic?
