Jane's Posts

Sep 24 1998 12:00 am

[I agree that the same rules of etiquette that apply to the real world should also apply to the internet.]

I have to admit that I've written some pretty nasty messages ... especially when I first started "surfing the net." It was very easy to do with all the so-called anonymity ... until I realized that there are very real human beings behind all the handles.

[snip]

I have a slightly different problem. I don't ever intend to post "nasty" messages. Still, when I look back at some posts (not in this NG necessarily), I sound pretty brutal. I tend to write with a jackhammer.

I just can't get the hang of expressing myself in a conversational forum without the visual and auditory cues. I'm working on it.

My confession of the day is that I hate emoticons. I'm sure they can be very useful for people in my situation. Those little smiles and winks can make it clear that you don't intend to offend the prior poster. They seem so coy, though. Is it really that difficult to tell when a person is being humorous? And shouldn't I be able to express myself clearly without parenthetical explanation? I keep thinking, "If Oscar Wilde were on USENET, would he stick ;-) in after every bit of irony?"

I'm getting to the point here. I agree that netiquette is mostly just general etiquette. Unfortunately, I find myself inadvertently hurting people's feelings here far more often than I do in the flesh. I hate that.

Suggestions?

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

I don't care for the little smileys either though I frequently use them. Since we are, in a sense, talking to each other in these news groups more than formally writing to each other it is useful, I think, to be able to replace the usual facial and body language clues we all use in conversation with something and the emoticons, if I'm using your word correctly for I hadn't seen it before, seem to work fairly well. Oscar Wilde would have found a better way but then there was only one Oscar. Wouldn't it be lovely if he could participate in this group!

I've decided I just need different emoticons, the elegantly arched eyebrow, a rueful shake of the head, even a sneer of derision. These I would find helpful.

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

Smileys are not subtle, it's true, but I like them. Misunderstandings are rampant on the net -- without smileys (sorry -- I hate the word emoticon) -- without smileys I fear it would be a wall-to-wall battlezone.

Well, I certainly don't mean to launch a campaign against them. As you say, a wink or smile may sometimes avert outright war. OTOH, they don't seem to keep Peti out of trouble.

That's another thing that I can't quite get used to on USENET, the unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into a full-blown war. It always catches me off guard. The recent "ignoramus" and "gadfly" threads, for example, seemed to come out of nowhere. One minute we were discussing whether there should be an official body to make rules of English grammar; the next everyone seemed to be screaming, "Fuck you."

Where does that come from? I know that sometimes I have to wait before I send off a post and reread it with a cooler head. Some topics get me going. I guess I expect newsgroups to be less explosive than real-time dialogue, because you do have that cooling down period. OTOH, the distance and anonymity in the medium makes a punch in the nose a lot less likely.

It seems odd to me that people sitting in front of a monitor and keyboard can get an adrenaline rush from a comment made by a stranger half the world away. I wonder why it matters enough for us to get angry.

Am I making any sense?

jane

Sep 28 1998 12:00 am

Jane, you don't at all write with pneumatic tools and haven't, from what I can tell, written anything overtly offensive.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm working on it.

jane

Sep 29 1998 12:00 am

[. . .unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into a full-blown war. . .]

Hmmm. It didn't seem that way to me.

I think that there are other things that matter besides being polite. I can't say much about the "gadfly" thread, because I killed it when I lost interest, which was fairly early on. The thread about the meaning of "inform" didn't strike me as hostile, though. It's true Charles got called an ignoramus, but he's still alive, isn't he? I thought the word was pretty mild, considering the offence. For a lot of people on Usenet (I'm one), giving wrong information in tones of authority is one of the worst crimes you can commit. I'm trying to avoid stirring it up all over again, but I do want to make this point -- that there are matters of principle or fact which are more important than manners. IMO.

Well, judging by the responses to my post, I have stirred it all up again, nonetheless. Enough! (That's another emoticon I could use, a hand raised imperiously.) I'm switching to another example.

Re: officiously delivered misinformation. Recently, a poster in another NG, stated that Einstein had not gone past 6th grade in school. It bugged the hell out of me. When a poster states an opinion, I figure they can just go ahead and spew forth. It really annoys me when an argument is supported with bogus facts, though. If people can't take the time to check their facts, I resent their posting misinformation off the top of their heads.

What I find more interesting is that I did not reply to the Einstein statement. I couldn't write a response that did not include "You idiot! It took me less than two minutes to discover that Einstein went to Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule." I was too annoyed to respond decorously, so I left the poster to further disseminate her drivel. I hate to attack others personally because 1) I really don't have the time or energy for an off-topic pissing match, and 2) I prefer people not to call me an idiot when I make a mistake.

Which brings me to the manners issue. I don't think I agree that there are matters of principle or fact more important than manners. After all, if you didn't want to scream "Idiot" at people, there would be no point in having conventions for getting around it. Obviously, you can disagree without directly insulting a person. People do it to me all the time. I'm always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan Ackroyd fans left on USENET.

Even at that, name calling is just the most understandable trigger for the flash fires that catch me off guard. Any disagreement or confrontation can do it. I see it everywhere. All of a sudden two or more people take off on a tangent. To me there is a difference between threads that evolve into discussions of time, politics, or religion and threads that end up in a personal battle. I agree with Charles that if I feel attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is what makes me feel attacked.

The more I think about this, the more I suspect that people's posting style does not necessarily reflect their style of interaction in conversation. My new theory is that people post the way they drive.

I was shocked by that thread, not because of namecalling (of which there was really very little), but because of the suggestion, repeated by more than one poster, that that meaning of "inform" ought to be disallowed on the grounds of obscurity. That shocks me still.

I am bothered by the logical conclusion of this approach: the loss of depth and diversity in our language.

Online communication lets people speak their minds without always having to tiptoe around others' sensibilities. Sometimes the freedom is abused, no question about that. But most people use it pretty reasonably. Don't you get a kick out of hearing people say what they really think? I do.

Yes. I read NG's because they make me laugh and because they make me think. After a while, I find flame wars tedious, though.

I hang out in one or two newsgroups where insulting is an art form. It doesn't happen often, but when it does no punches are pulled. I've been reduced to a moaning wreck, tears running from my eyes, almost unable to breathe for laughing. I keep my mouth shut, you bet! not because I'm afraid of being insulted, but because I know I wouldn't be able to rise to the expected level of insult in return. :-(

Well those groups are like ice hockey. You don't get into the rink unless you're prepared for some rough and tumble.

In some NG's insult is an art form. I enjoy others' performance even though I lack the gift myself. I have a friend who is so mean and so funny that she leaves me in awe. I may be blunt, but I envy her wickedness.

[I guess I expect newsgroups to be less explosive than real-time dialogue, because you do have that cooling down period. OTOH, the distance and anonymity in the medium makes a punch in the nose a lot less likely.]

Yes. So the non-nose-punchers no longer have to be silent out of fear.

[It seems odd to me that people sitting in front of a monitor and keyboard can get an adrenaline rush from a comment made by a stranger half the world away. I wonder why it matters enough for us to get angry.]

It's odd, isn't it? But if we didn't engage enough to respond with an adrenaline rush, I guess we wouldn't bother to do it at all.

Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to participate in a discussion. I don't care enough about time measurement. I care too much about women's "role." Genderless pronouns, evolution of language, and the English as the official language (that one was borderline) are issues I care about that do not make me foam at the mouth.

jane

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

Pity there isn't a Deja-TV.

Can the panel please consider this question: were the skits on TV and radio wittier at one time or am I suffering from when-I-was-a-lad syndrome?

(I claim this isn't off-topic because a general decline in the level of with might be linked to a widespread decline in verbal facility.)

Actually, sometimes I watch SNL and find the skits as funny as they ever were. Last year they had Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and Saddam Hussein on a conference call. Bill and Monica were trying to convince Saddam to start a war so that they could spend more time together. Then there was the time Bill was trying to sell Paula Jones depo transcripts from a 800 number.

Then there is the show Frazier. Niles, the brother, kills me.

There's other stuff, too. You just have to take it where you find it.

jane

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

[I'm always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan Ackroyd fans left on USENET.]

I'm one, but the more I thought about your post, the more I think that so many posters are guilty of the Emily Latilla syndrome - you know - "We need more violins on television!"

Because I'm studying (in mid-life of all things!) to be a teacher, I've been asking persons who are responsible for large groups of people (like our bishop, etc.) what children require that they do not currently learn in school. One answer was "discernment." I found it disarming until I picked up C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man." I laughed aloud on the commuter train on reading about Gauis and Titius. A fellow rider (well heeled and purportedly the recipient of *some* education), looked down at the book and said "What's funny about slavery?" Then I wanted to cry.

I realize this is not a charitable thought, but have you ever noticed that some people are just thick as mud? I'm not sure discernment can be taught.

jane

Sep 30 1998 12:00 am

[snip]

[Which brings me to the manners issue. I don't think I agree that there are matters of principle or fact more important than manners. After all, if you didn't want to scream "Idiot" at people, there would be no point in having conventions for getting around it.]

I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

I think we have rules of etiquette to bridge gap between what we want to do and what we want done to or for us. It's like a codification of the Golden Rule. No one wants to write thank-you notes, but everyone wants to be thanked for their gifts. No one wants to get up out a seat, but everyone wants to be offered a seat when they are elderly or pregnant.

I think that sometimes everyone wants to call another a nasty name, but that no one really likes being called names all the time. Of course, there may be mutual consent. A rousing rank fest, dis match, or insult gang bang can be both intellectually stimulating and a great stress reliever.

[more snipping]

[I agree with Charles that if I feel attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is what makes me feel attacked.]

What does it take -- an AK47? (My instinct is to stick in a smiley there but I'm repressing it out of respect for your feelings. Is that not civilised?)

LOL. Thanks for your restraint.

It's not that it takes MORE to make me feel attacked. It's a shift toward me personally. I can't really think of a good example. I feel attacked when the discussion shifts from an objective topic like genderless pronouns to a subjective topic like whether I am a feminazi. There doesn't have to be any swearing or name calling. All the next poster has to do is start with, "Of course, the radical, lesbian, lunatic fringe always thinks...," and I automatically start thinking, "Of course pompous, narrow-minded, bigoted cretins like you would say that." Even a subtler categorization of me as individual could set me off.

[Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to participate in a discussion.]

I'm just the opposite. I try hard to avoid threads about gender, including allegedly-but-not-really genderless pronouns, because I know I'd soon lose it. But also because I've spent so many words, and so many years, talking about those issues and listening to others and reading the books and talking and talking and talking. I've worn out my words on the subject of gender. Just tell me the jokes, I'll let others do the arguing. Same with anything political. I'm too tired to say it all over again.

I don't think this is opposite. I know exactly what you mean.

jane