Yes, I too, agree with this thoughtful and well-written assessment
100%. Thank you .
Well, maybe 95%...
It works my last nerve, but I use the "delete" button when I see
certain names over and over again.
I still believe in the "delete" key, but it's getting more and more
difficult!
-cm
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
On Sunday, July 29, 2007, at 09:04 PM, Kimm Tynan wrote:
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.
<image.tiff>
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> .
