jj@rabbit.UUCP (02/24/84)
>From alice!allegra!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > > >A third alternative is to simply ignore the article. >This seems to be tantamount to simply abandoning netnews >to the idiots, though. Now that all these articles get sent >to other countries, do we want to let these wild assertions >pass unchallenged? What image are we presenting to the rest of the >world? That our citizens are all as stupid as our president? Now you know where I've been hiding, Phil. Consider your own words. I do have a few suggestions: 1) Why don't we ALL <this means YOU> try to tone down the obnoxious emotional ranting, references to religion, disparaging remarks used instead of reason, etc, and remember that the other authors on this net are also people? 2) Why don't we all <again, this means YOU> forswear doing things like sending people mail that tells them that they should see a psychatrist, or telling them that rabbit!jj <for example, using a recent net mail episode> is worse than Hitler or Stalin, or whatever, and try to assume that the other person/people are just as human and well intentioned as you are? That would remove a lot of the incentive to wave around emotional claptrap. 3) Why don't we ALL assume that the other person is neither insane nor evil, and also has some reasoning capability? Why don't we further assume that this reasoning capability has been USED to reach the conclusions that motivate the person, and that there is undoubtedly more to the person's position than fits in a single netnews article? In the dying debate on world hunger, causes, and solutions thereof, I have been accused of being worse than Hitler, Amin, Stalin, etc. I have been advised to see a psychatrist, and told that I will go to Hell because of my "insane ravings". All of this venom has come from ONE single person on the net, and has been mailed not only to me, but also apparantly to anyone (at least three instances that I've heard of) who has complained to this particular author about their behavior. It's clear to me that it only takes ONE person to completely eliminate reasonable interchange on this net, and that net.politics has been the (deliberate?) victim of such a power play for the last six weeks. <A look at some propaganda manuals that I was once offered by an interesting person (who assumed my political stance from my appearance, chuckle) had several chapters on how to snuff out a reasoned dialog and create an appearance of agreement by ridding a communications medium of opposing viewpoints. The suggested methods appear to have been written by some of the users of this particular newsgroup. It's an interesting subject, unfortunately I don't have the books, the twit found out my political leanings and removed them from my personal belongings many years ago.> I would like to urge all readers who are interested in reasonable dialog to attempt to ignore the deliberate baiting, and try to start a constructive dialog, devoid of emotional ranting, attacks, and baiting. I would also urge those individuals who engage in such baiting <I certainly admit that I often rise to same> to attempt to modify their behavior. I, personally, will assume that those who do NOT modify their behavior to be engaging in deliberate stifling of useful discourse. Yours for peace, plenty, and a useful communications medium,