NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/angst/5601

Text File | 1993-01-26 | 6.4 KB | 139 lines

Newsgroups: alt.angst
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!dsmither
From: [e-mail] (Diane Smithers)
Subject: Re: twirps and calm and the angst-gatekeepers
Message-ID: <dsmither.728022952@cunews>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
References: <dsmither.727914490@cunews> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:35:52 GMT
Lines: 129

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (philip marlowe) writes:

> Yeah, but does that give you (or anyone else) the right to act as the
>alt.angst vanguard? Snapping at Hermes would probably do the trick, and
>if not, well, that'd what kill files are for.

I'm very sorry if that's what I was doing, I wasn't intending to speak
*for* anyone, I was merely offering my opinions, which I thought was
acceptable here.

>> > Well...the nagging doubt whenever I read anything here is "What if
>> >he/she's a liar, and is playing me for a fool?". Terribly irritating if
>> >one's been feeling sorry for a practical joker now, isn't it?
>>
>> And shouldn't it be? In my *life* I have never met a person that enjoys
>> being taken for a ride.

> You miss my point. Sure, that sucks, but short of mob-violence
>totalitarianism, there isn't much that can be done about something like
>that.

Look, I can tell that we diverge epistemologically, so except to say
that people view things and deal with things in all different ways and
that you have numerous unchallenged assumptions upon which your
statements about what can or can't be done rest, I will leave this alone.

>> > That's where your...ah...victim comes in. If ONE person can try to play
>> >us, all certainties go out the window, and alt.angst becomes a colder
>> >place. Thing is, to blame all of this complex reaction on one annoying
>> >user really isn't fair, since you're attributing structural faults of
>> >this newsgroup to a buffoon who inadvertently exploits them.
>>
>> I agree with you in some respects, but I also think that you are
>> collapsing some things together.  The medium (which is written rather
>> than spoken)  makes it particularly easy for people to do a hermes,
>> because it can be difficult to get a sense of people.  However, I
>> think that there is a difference between talking of "structural
>> faults" and blaming hermes for this complex reaction in the sense you
>> describe:  "A" lies; reaction in group member due to Honesty Code
>> infraction - A is tried and convicted of Honesty Code offense; A is
>> implicitly blamed, through complicated discursive constructions, for
>> eliminating all certainty and wrecking the group.

> But that'd just be propping up a collapsing system.

I was not saying that the system was collapsing, I was trying to
distinguish between saying that the system is structured in a certain
way, and your argument about the impact of a hermes and her
responsibility for eliminating all certainty.  I don't agree that
these are the same thing or that they logically follow from one
another, or that that is what I was doing.

 Hermes is obvious --
>others are not. Hell, *I* could be an escaped mass murderer who's just
>talking to you in hopes of somehow wheedling an address out of you so
>that I would be able to hunt you down and kill you (whew!). Just 'cause I
>say it ain't so is not proof at all.

So?  I'm not sure I understand your point.  Them's the risks.

> Besides, what do you mean by "tried"? By whom? alt.justice.tribunal?
>alt.angst.lynch-mob?

No, I was meaning by "me", according to your argument.  I was not
describing what happened literally, I was describing what I understood
to be your argument to tell you that I don't agree with it.

>> I still reserve the right to evaluate a hermes and feel that it is
>> not a positive and productive addition to the group and respond to
>> her with my opinions about that. I mean, of course it was happening
>> within a group that I have certain ideas about what I want to get from
>> it, but I think that what you really didn't like about my postings was
>> how strong my reaction was to her, and that's fine, but it's different
>> from what you are saying.

> Nope. Me, I've been accused many times of being nasty, abrasive, or just
>plain vindictive, and these charges have not always been without grounds.
>Be angry at Hermes, by all means...just don't confuse her with the REAL
>problem.

I am telling you that you and I don't share an understanding of the
"REAL" problem.

>> Actually, I only posted two angry posts and had said as much that I

> Heh. Only two? You certainly packed a lot into those, then.

Indeed.  That's just the way I do it.

>> wasn't going to bother posting any more to her.  And if I overreacted,
>> I think it's mainly because I hadn't dealt with a moron like that
>> before and was not able to be The Voice of Rationality, Reason, and Calm
>> which I presume would have received higher marks.  In the future, I
>> will probably try to be more careful, and if mine were the
>> only angry posts this group ever saw, I might accept your reprimand.
>> I find it pretty hard to stay calm when people are doing things I
>> really take exception to.

> Yeah...hell, I was chuckling at the venom in your diatribe. What made me
>want to correct you was your motivation.

Please .... please, please, please.  Be very careful in interpreting
others' motivation through a computer network.  Geez.

>> But on the melodrama scale, I am pretty darn skeptical that
>> anything I said  was so inflammatory and divisive that it will "burn
>> us all up along with the two(?) of you".

> Why not? We're STILL discussing it...and NOT posting angst. I've seen
>things like this get MUCH worse.

Well, I guess I'm unclear at why you seem to think that's not ok.  You
know, most of the time people still have to talk about things to make
sure they understand each other before getting to the "real things".
I've been reading a number of postings by people clearly uncomfortable
with what seems to be an "angst orthodoxy".  And I don't think I'm out
of line to suggest that you have certain set ideas about what is
appropriate, both in terms of responses to people (particularly if you
feel that you understand their motivation, an understanding derived
from your own beliefs and experiences) in terms of what constitutes proper
angst, having read a few of your other postings.  What gives YOU the
right to act as Angst Policeman?

Diane


[e-mail]