Open letter (Re: Air Clearing; also, Re: Moderation)

[rj]

Having spent some time checking the archives in the last few days
(thanks so much for your concern, Doug) I’d like to say that the two
prominent personas I was referring to are probably not, in fact, the
same individual. Although I could not gather definitive assurance that
my suspicions were incorrect from the two long-standing list members of
repute (in my opinion) that I was communicating with on the matter, I
have subsequently come to this conclusion by way of independent
research. Apologies to all for getting it wrong.

Particularly in light of the subsequent fracas, I still stand by my
assertion that there is at least one list subscriber who is suffering
some form of mental psychosis, and at least one, possibly more, who
posts to the list under a number of different identities and from
different user-addresses. I also stand by my assertion that at least one
and possibly both of the individuals I was referring to are posting to
the list and privately as a persona, i.e., as a fictitious personality,
for whatever reason. And that, for both of these individuals it is a
habit to seek to thwart or hijack legitimate discussion in order to
succour their own profile and status on the list, and further, that
these tactics have been responsible for much of the disgruntlement and
unpleasantnesses, and for the noticeable ebbs (and overall decline) in
the quality of discussion, hereabouts of late (3-12 months). 

Equally, it has been my experience on a number of occasions that there
is a ‘hacker’ at play, as I noted and warned other listers. To this
juncture, however, the ‘hacking’ I have experienced has consisted of
vaguely threatening cyber-gestures and minor inconveniences only, and I
have since taken preventative measures and will inform my ISP about  the
possible source of the breaches of security (which they notified their
subscribers of), in order that they may be able to trace the
perpetrator(s). 

I am not certain that there is any connection between the two phenomena
I have mentioned above.

* * * * * * *

Re List Moderation: I was under the impression that we already have a
vocal and vigilant bunch of list moderators out there. All the
holier-than-thou types who post those earnest headmasterly-type
reprimands: “I’m so disappointed ... ”; “childish and boring ...”; “show
some self-restraint ...”; “you, you and you,SHUT UP ... Now, listen to
*me*.” Every time someone listens to their calls for censorship and
doesn’t post a message or response, list moderation *is* at work here.
But tell me, what is the *real* agenda of those who would be the gods of
the list? I’m very offended that these individuals presume to elevate
themselves to Olympian status with regard to etiquette and morality and
human decency and worthwhile intellectual substance, that they would
claim to know better than me how much self-restraint *I* should show in
an open forum discussion. Very offended. But, if I perceive their calls
for moderation as an insult (which I often do), what recourse do I have
to call for moderation of the calls for moderation? None.

In no current corporate, industrial workplace, pedagogic or domestic
theory of practice that I know of is telling people to shut up an
effective form of conflict resolution. Perhaps it was back in the 50s
and 60s and before, perhaps it is in a dictatorship where naysayers can
be taken out and shot, but, it is quite simply and demonstrably *not* an
efficient solution to inter-personal conflict in a ‘democratic’
community. In fact, quite the reverse approach is the one favoured by
psychologists and professional counsellors nowadays. Both disputants are
given the opportunity to fully air their cases, in a non-hostile and
impartial environment, to their mutual satisfaction, with a facilitator
who neither judges nor takes sides but simply ensures that both parties
have an equal opportunity to speak. Both the individual (i.e. the
*humans* who the would-be moderators here would have *repress* their
often legitimate grievances and concerns -- so much for comradely
concern!) and the discussion benefits from this, in that you don’t have
long-standing grudges and perceived wrongs bubbling away interminably
just beneath the surface of the discussion. As many have pointed out
also, the extent and vehemence of the ‘flame-warring’ here is slight in
comparison with other places, and most if not all of the alleged flaming
is actually directed towards the content (reading Pynchon) or the
meta-content (how to go about reading Pynchon) of Pynchonian
appreciation, which is the ostensible raison d’etre of the list. 

I agree also with Murthy about the delay in the dialogue being a
detrimental side-effect, and about the (voluntary and unpaid?)
onerousness of the task of moderating, not to mention the questions of
subjectivity and jurisdiction. Such a measure would see discussion tend
towards oration rather than dialogue, which might suit some I could name
(Doug), but which would be enough to drive me away (which also might
suit some I could name.) I agree also with those who view such a measure
as a contravention of *everything* Pynchon stands for and advocates in
his literary and non-literary texts.

When I get angry with calls for moderation and censorship I do so as an
advocate of free speech. I think it's worth speaking up for. Free speech
is not a given. Some do not, cannot have a voice, even in a ‘democracy’.
Which is why all voices must be allowed to be heard. Even the snide
remarks. Even the raving nonsense. I mean, think of it. If such calls
for moderation had been enforced in our culture then where would Pope's
_Dunciad_ or _The Rape of the Lock_ be today? Swift, Melville, Twain,
Joyce? Pynchon? Yeah, I wish people would show a bit more self-restraint
sometimes too. I wish *I* would. But it's not something I believe I, or
anyone, has a right to impose. (I have a right to impose it on myself,
and I prolly should, but that's what I'm saying. Only I can make that
imposition, for anyone else to do it would be taking on the mantle of
superiority -- assuming the status of Elite. Which would not really be a
good place for the Pynchon-list to go, imho.)

Murthy called for expressions of opinion. Perhaps I should have shown
more self-restraint and kept this one to myself?

best, sorry