SUO: Formal Request To Cease Personal Attacks
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> That question gets to an issue that I have been
> raising from time to time for the past year or so:
>
> > So what can I do, spend even more extra time than
> > I already do on these graphical communiques?
> > That seems unfair, does it not?
>
> What is your goal in writing these missives? If it is to annoy
> people to the point that they unsubscribe from the email list,
> then you have succeeded.
There were 175 subscribers on May 28. I seem to remember about 150 when
I first joined the SUO group. Of course, I cannot take credit for all of
these new recruits, but then, unless you have solid substantiation for your
attributions of responsibility to me for whatever imaginary wrongs you have
in mind, then I suggest that you not waste people's time with them. I can
only consider them -- aside from being yet another in a very long series
of volume-creating remarks directed toward petty, stylistic, trivial,
and overall non-substantive issues -- a form of calumny, harrassment,
and intimidation. Based on my own experience, including the now
and again commiserations that I receive, and the more frequent
seeking of commiseration that I get from off-list notes to me,
I am personally led to suggest this alternative hypothesis:
H1. One of the major chilling effects on risking an opinion
if not the terminal discouragement to entering discussion
that potential contributors undergo on this list is watching
some 'poor unknown person' (PUP) like myself be subjected to
constant brutalization by a VIP like you, who really ought to
know better, I should think.
I have no problem with critics being as severe as they feel motivated
to be when it comes to a substantive issue, as everybody will learn
from whichever way the argument proceeds, but this kind of diversion
is a bigger waste of time than anything of which you seem to think
I am guilty.
> But if your point is to communicate something effectively to the
> world, then your ASCII diagrams have not been successful.
How do you mean?
> And you can't complain about anybody being unfair, because nobody
> (or at least very few, to my knowledge) has asked you to write the
> notes to SUO list or to draw the diagrams.
As it happens, I misinterpreted Seth's request this time.
But I have gotten all sorts of requests, some of them
in opposite directions, to post things with or without
this or that feature or parameter. I put vertical bars
guards to left of figures because one person asked me to,
dropped the signature that I used to employ because that
seemed to incense another person, quit using HTML with
the resultant loss of decent tables and greek and math
symbols becuase the same person found that a problem.
And it never even seems to occur to you why the hell
I would even be here.
> I believe that you do have something important to say,
> when you actually get around to saying it without all
> the word play and embroidery.
>
> If you really want to communicate your thoughts effectively,
> then you should do the following:
>
> 1. Get a web site (there are free ones available, if you are
> willing to accept advertising banners). Otherwise, you have
> to pay a fee to get a site without somebody else's advertising.
People do not read web sites.
> 2. Get some software for drawing diagrams. There is some for free,
> and there is some for sale. But most of it will generate .gif
> or .png files that can be put on your web site.
My very fist day on this list I got major bit-ching from
a certain person about sending HTML instead of plain text.
But at least we are making progress in our course of rhetoric:
* Rhetoric 101. Syllabus:
|
| A. Rhetoric in the good sense is just considerate communication.
| B. The consideration of one may not be the consideration of all.
> 3. Start publishing your messages on your web site with well-designed
> diagrams. And those same diagrams could be included in any papers,
> books, dissertations, or other publications you may write.
I am here for dialogue about live issues. People do not dialogue with
papers, books, websites, or even the best and brightest of dead people.
It is my earnest desire to be a part of a living community of inquiry
where the participants have some object outside of themselves to reach,
and things so much better to talk about than the personal peculiarities
of their population that they hardly even notice such tangential matters.
> Then you can still send messages to SUO and other lists, but you could
> put the longer ariticles on your web site and just send brief notes
> with abstracts to the mailing lists. That's what I do.
Theme: People who have become so accustomed to taking for granted certain levels
of resources that they cannot even imagine what it must be like for other people.
Aside from that, I will be encouraged to go up against the bureaucratic hassle
at my university, which even in the best of scenarios always ends up wasting
a solid month of time, when and if I ever find myself talking to anybody who
shows any inkling of having read more than the proverbial first three lines
of one of my on-line papers. People do not read websites. That is what I
have learned. As this is a persistent phenomenon, there is probably some
sort of good reason for it. And a Working Group is not a Page Exchange.
> Bottom line: If you don't want to communicate, then don't.
> But if you do want to communicate, then do it effectively.
I have raised many, many substantive issues.
And I know that I tried many, many different
ways and styles of expressing them, not all
of which have the qualities that seem to be
such a problem for you, personally. It is
true that incidental word associations are
a part of the way that my brain does what
it does, such as it is. People who do not
find the muse-invocations so amusing just
skip to where they see some mathematics,
and I believe that there is a bit there.
But that is a function of what they are
mainly interested in getting down to.
This is the last time that I am going to write
a piece of apologetics for my personal options,
or write a message that is wholly dedicated to
addressing non-substantive issues, as I regard
them, except for exchanging the usual amenities
and the occasional pleasantries, of course.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤