[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: netiquette

> People on a list that think it is their responsibility to tell other people
> how and what they should post.  "We have been getting new people on the list
> and I have to tell them what is acceptable to us".  How arrogant.

Hmmm... so, if you were to go to, say, Germany, and someone told you that
it was considered rude in that society to wear your street shoes in the
house, would you call that person arrogant for telling you what's acceptable?
There are guidelines for how to best facilitate the ease and convience for
all people to read email and postings.  It's called "netiquette", a term
that is at least 15 years old, probably older.  We didn't invent it.   It's
not arbitrary or based on any single person's personal preference.  Following
the guidelines ensures that everyone can read your posts.  You are essentially
coming into a conversation and saying "I'm going to do whatever I want, and if
that makes it hard for you to read what I write, tough luck.  All of you have
to conform to my idiosyncracies."  How arrogant.

> And then of course who would add his peeves to the list?  Right you are, 
> Mr.. Pompous.  

Hey, that's Dr.. Pompous, thank you very much.  I didn't spend six years at
Pompous Graduate School for nothing.  (Why two periods after the Mr.., anyway?)

> There is no moderator on this list and we don't want or need you to appoint
> yourself to said position.

Okay, that's uncalled for.  Nobody (and certainly not me) said anything about
moderation.  You're taking a request for some consideration and turning it into
some kind of dictatorial edict (as if I had any kind of power to enforce such a
thing, anyway, even if I wanted to, which I don't).  How ironic that you seem
to feel that it's okay for you to express what annoys you, but if I express
what annoys me, you cry "Pompous".  In any setting in which people interact,
there are guidelines for making that interaction productive: rules of the road,
robertson's rules of order, heck, the rules for poker.  Ultimately, the only
power these rules have is communal will that they be followed.  In some cases,
like driving rules, the community (in many countries, at least) decides that
the risk to life and limb is too great to just let people decide their own
degree of participation, and they enforce penalties for infractions.  In
civilized discourse, though, the only leverage a community has is to express
displeasure.  The only penalty available is ostracism and scorn.  That penalty
is only effective in so far as someone cares about the opinions of others.  In
most endeavors, it is considered polite for a new member to figure out how
things are done in a given context and adapt to the system, and then propose
changes, rather than to insist that everyone else conform to the new person's
ideas right away.  In an anarchy like the internet, there are no police, no
courts, there is just the court of public opinion, and we all participate in
that on an equal level.  You mistake the authority in my "voice" (which is only
there because I've been emailing for 12 years) for some kind of institutional
authority.

But, hey, if you want to whine, don't let me stop you.
-- 
Don Smith                          Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas at umich_edu                                http://xte.mit.edu/~dasmith/

"In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd" - Miguel de Unamuno
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/