>From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Mmm, mesquite smoky goodness (was Re: (~) Please.)
>Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:31:20 -0500
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The big problem, as I see it, is that constructive threads are getting
>ignored. I tried to get people to talk >about The Player of Games, since I
>know there's Culture fans here, but no one was interested.
>
>There are a few points about this that I've noted over the last few years
>I've been on the list.
>
>1) Fully on topic threads are very hard to keep going. Remember how JDG
>worked hard to keep threads going on DB's work? I have seen very few
>sci-fi discussion threads go for very long. Partially because, where such
>threads do go on, there are folks who love to analyze every nuance in the
>writing (Tolkin) or argue ideas on how the series of 100 books will turn
>out (Wheel of Time). That won't happen here.
>
>2) Science topics rarely generate much discussion among people who know a
>great deal about a topic. I've killed science threads with one post on a
>number of occasions. Mostly because the discussion was on a subject I
>understood, and there are not a plethora of right answers to solveable
>questions in physics. Sorta exceptions exist in evolution; there have been
>some nice threads going there.
>
>3) Political discussions usually generate lively discussions. These
>threads can go forever. Mostly because it is hard to come up with a
>difinitive solution. Further, a lot can be written off the top of one's
>head.
>
>4) Some people tend to get angry about topics that bore them; and claim
>that it shuts other discussions down. I know that I've been fussed at for
>damaging the list for posting on philosophy. It wasn't that I was
>antagonistic towards the people I was debating; I felt it was a pleasant
>debate; it was that people were upset that I was posting on something they
>weren't interested in.
>
>5) The topics that everyone seems to have an opinion about is list gossip.
>Whether it is Mark's alternative reality postings; Jeroen and JDG fussing;
>Jeroen and Eric fussing; etc. Look at the months in the last 2 years with
>a lot of posts, and you will find a fuss.
>
>
>
> > I'm frankly surprised at how much flaming has been going on these past
>few months. First there
> >was the JDG/JVB ugliness, then there was Mark and his hallucinatory
>posting style, and now ER
> >and JVB are having a lovely tiff.
>
>Actually, IMHO, the last is not a real tiff. My understanding is the Erik
>is posting a serial parody of Jeroen. I've been on the other side of
>Jeroen's heated posts on a number of occasions; and I recognize a lot of
>Jeroen's style in Erik's posts. I think Erik is playing Jeroen like a
>violin. I think gigging him into shouting; which is what got JDG warned
>"you are one step closer to being banned" is a good example of this. BTW,
>Jeroen did state that I lost my credibility as a scientist because he
>didn't like the way I analyzed data. So, even that bit was a parody of
>earlier Jeroen posts.
>
>But, even though I did appreciate the humor and parody in Erik's posts, I
>agree that more than enough is more than enough. 100 posts from now,
>Jeroen will not see why it is a parody. Sometimes the elephant in the
>living room is seen by everyone but the owner of the house. Further, there
>is no sport in it, now. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. IMHO, its
>gotten to the point where its like hearing the same joke 200 times.
>
>Dan M.
But has Erik crossed over from parody into trolling, i.e. purposely posting
to try to get a negative reaction from someone? Personally I understand the
reason for the parody; Erik was trying to point out certain behaviors he
perceived as being incorrect, and was doing it by giving Jeroen "a taste of
his own medicine," for lack of a better phrase. But where do we draw the
line?
(By the way, parody does not just mean joking about something; it means
taking something and using it in a way that is different that originally
intended, such as 13th century musical "parodies" that are actually just
secular melodies worked into sacred pieces. Perhaps someone else can give a
better definition as it applies specifically to Erik's posts.)
Erik's behavior certainly doesn't excuse Jeroen's response. Mail-bombing
someone as Jeroen threatened to do to Erik will get the mail bomber sued by
the ISP of the bombee, and will get the bomber's access cancelled by their
own ISP. Mail-bombing is serious, serious stuff.
I think the best resolution at this point is for Erik (or if he refuses,
someone else could volunteer?) to explain to Jeroen exactly what Erik was
doing and why, followed by Erik bringing his parody to an end, and for
Jeroen to calm down and stop responding to parody as if it were a physical
attack. I don't think either of those is likely, but I do have hope that it
might happen.
Erik and Jeroen, if either of you are offended by me speaking about you in
third-person, I apologize.
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
