Bravo.  Very well said.

Kimm


On 7/29/07 3:31 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Neighbors,
>     As is typical for our list, people are tending to exaggerate on both ends
> of the issue: either there is no issue (characterized by the "that's what the
> delete button is for defense" which posits that anything goes is a suitable
> standard of conduct) or that the new list is anti-democratic, insular, opposed
> to debate and dissent, etc.
>     It's too bad that Ross discontinued his monthly statistical report on list
> volume, top posters and top topics.  It helped to quantify the traffic and
> made it easier to see what was going on conversation wise.  In my view, the
> stats were a useful social control mechanism because the top 10 posters were
> publicly identified for talking so much.  I had on several occasions used the
> stats to urge that the big talkers be more circumspect and to consider that
> their content didn't match their contribution; more likely, it was the
> opposite.  So one problem with the list is that the volume is often
> burdensome, and that the value of the posts is steadily dropping.
>     To those who see the delete button as the answer to volume, I completely
> disagree.  I guess you enjoy spam, junk mail and telephone solicitation, since
> you can use the delete button, the recycling can or the hang up and feel fine
> that you have not lost any time, or felt the need to check items for lack of
> value before discarding them.  Others have said its like going to a party and
> seeing a jerk there who talks too much, is rude, etc and you worry not as you
> can simply walk away.  Me, I say if I keep going to parties and there are 5
> jerks I will likely encounter and have to extricate myself from their
> yammering, maybe its easier to stop going to the parties, or host one myself
> and not invite them.
>     As to content, I'm not so much opposed to disagreement and dialogue.  What
> bothers me is the lack of civility especially common among many big posters.
> Name calling (including intentional reversal of names, use of last names or
> diminutives as insults, gender based attacks, etc), open hostility, personal
> attacks, etc., are included routinely in a lot of posts.  It is also apparent
> that there are pairings of people who are unable to stop themselves from
> answering their opponents, no matter what they say or how they say it, right
> or wrong, etc., as if they were former romantic partners who never could
> forgive and forget.
>     This also takes the form of people ceaselessly engaged in some kind of
> propaganda campaign to support their personal political goals, continually
> talking, inserting their issue in every context, caring not if they are boring
> everyone else to tears and being nasty to boot.
>      These entrenched behaviors, which resist all attempts by others for
> moderation or change, are causing the demise of the list.  One thing that
> bothers me the most, and should bother those who view the list as a community
> communication device, a democratic tool, and the embodiment of free speech, is
> the cumulative impact of the big talkers and the rude: they have suppressed
> communication from what appears to be the large majority of the list.  Those
> members, certainly with valuable knowledge and opinions, post rarely or not at
> all, electing instead to hunt for the occasional post of value, like people
> panning for gold.  They have things to say but have learned it could lead to
> attacks, pigeon holing, etc., which just isn't worth it to them.  Who misses
> out from that?
>     Our founding father evidently made a decision that he valued free
> communication at any cost, so he will not do much by way of setting rules of
> conduct or ejecting those who won't follow them.  So what we have is a free
> for all by design.  People can control themselves, or yield to group pressure
> in the absence of external controls.  It appears that these efforts have
> failed.  So I don't think its about content, diversity or debate, its about
> civility, promoting real dialogue and controlling anti-social behavior.
> 
> Paul
> 
> ps Wilma is not the kind of person that is the problem.  She actually thinks
> and responds.  She brings her views and is capable of changing them and even
> apologizing when she's wrong.  And I doubt she's made it in the top 10.
>     
> 
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from
> AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> .
> 


Reply via email to