ASSumptions and Sundry Replies

[Sojourner]

andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk writes (in part):


>I was just going to reply to Sara Jones alone but I think this might
>be of interest to other list members. It concerns the list and
>member's posting habits so is arguably on topic.
>
>I wrote:
>
>> >My Jenny enjoys but is not obsessed by Pynchon. She is however hooked
>> >on tales from the P-list as a kind of high-class, lettered soap.
>
>>  As for "high-class", I've never seen so much petty squabbling, idle
>> threats, dumb un-related one line replies to 500 lines of quoted text, and
>> non-literary or even topical comments.
>
>Well, she hears my edited version. So, frankly, your judgements as to
>the appropriateness of her `high-class' appelation are definitely
>somewhat underinformed as to the matter of evidence. But you miss the
>point again - maybe I was being deliberately elliptical (what me?  no,
>never) and I am to blame for your misconstruction - since her comment
>betrays a rather different set of criteria in making her judgement
>than you employ in making yours. She is interested in the
>communication not because of its `high intellectual content' - far
>from that - rather because she is a professional in Human Computer
>Interaction and finds the twists and turns of a strong-minded,
>dedicated and highly eloquent (by net standards) user community
>fascinating.
>

I am "Sara Jones" (a co-worker's computer I borrowed, as Mine was Deluged by
a Torrent from Above, and Flood nonwithstanding, my Able and Wonderful
Computer is now operational again).

I appreciate your reply quite a bit, and I'll tell you why.  Your response
makes sense to me, and I understand it now, as it is both Topickal and
Explanatory.  Perhaps my original post "ASSumptions" was to elicit this
response from you, as this is clearer, more accurate, and something we can
understand (we being those who perhaps didn't), as opposed to your original
broad-based statement.

I thank you for taking the time to respond and clarify your position, and I
would encourage all other posters, whether their Posts be Topickal or Not,
as this clears the steam from the room, if not banks the fires of Flaming a
little.

>In particular, she is very interested in how we adapt our discourse to
>the technology. One of the reasons why you see so much flaming and
>scratching recently is because lots of people have recently joined the
>list and most of them have not had the good sense to sit around long
>enough to find out what is going on before they start igniting each
>other's blue touch paper. Add to that the irritated reactions of long
>term members and the general malaise which accompanied the long, long
>wait for M&D to arrive and you have a recipe for battles-a-plenty. I
>hope and expect that the M&D reading will occupy us enough to damp
>down the flames over the next few months.
>
>While this is all particularly interesting to my dear Jenny that's not
>an endorsement from me. If you are asking people to stop the
>squabbling, idle threats, dumb one line replies, redundant quoted text
>and all the other inanities I concur 99%. I reserve 1% (or maybe I
>should double that to two cents) to note however that in any community
>grief and strife are naturally bound to happen, particularly at times
>of major change. And in particular it is well documented by those who
>study computer system use that e-mail based communications are far
>more prone to engender argument and extreme positions than face to
>face and/or voice to voice communications.  Mostly because the various
>feedback mechanisms which these alternative modes of communication
>support are missing in text only e-mail and so the problem of making
>one's intentions and the import of one's words known is seriously
>exacerbated. Hence my jenny's interest in the role of our (relative)
>eloquence in initiating, controlling and damping down such conflict......
>
>
>Andrew Dinn