george@sysvis (09/28/85)
I am writing this note especially to the [hooter,hootees],[asserters,attackers] on this network who have reduced the open discussion/forum groups to the level of "net.lets.see.who.can.jump.in.on.it.first" (Maybe, at least, there's a peri- od out of place somewhere!) and the "Right-on" brotherhood who supports them. In the first case, there's fear of the unknown, in the second is safety in num- bers. A common mistake made by all of us at one time or another, is to get so self- righteous and intolerant that we no longer attempt to hear what others have to say, nor especially whether such others-sayings may have any truth value. From what I have seen, the main thrust of this closed society (those who read news/ notes) is to make other people, who disagree with us, "wrong". I must assume that this induces some feeling of "rightness" within ourselves when we succeed in making others "wrong" for what they state or believe. The last time I look- ed at it, this was the exact definition of self-righteousness. The same people who see self-righteousness in others have first found it in themselves. The act of censorship, or judgmental censorious comment, IS, in itself, tacit admission that one's own house is not quite in order. Assuming that one is not interested in cleaning one's own house first, then the very best way to censure another's viewpoint from your closed set, is to totally IGNORE the perpetrator! Yet the self-appointed guardians of self-righteous dogma and faith just contin- ue on, spoon-feeding the more infantile of the attention-getting mechanisms. A very good teacher once said, "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone." There are those on the net who, with frequent long-winded (and self- perceived as incisive) postings, try to psychically stone anyone who says anything against their own "accepted" dogmas. I am glad that Galileo didn't have to put up with this sort of thing. (-: [I am not naming any names because they, and I, and all of you, know exactly of whom I speak.] This second scenario is when the originator of some note is attacked personally (in lieu of any valid, non-dogmatic points). This is a heinous waste of time. Time that could be well spent in learning or teaching something useful. I have been laboring under the assumption that the group-who-reads-this-net are mostly those of better than normal mental ability, to have obtained jobs that enable them to be in the proper environment to participate. I say that I am laboring because there is less and less intelligence and civilized gentlemanly behavior being displayed with each vitriolic attack on another human being. i.e. The "Lord of the Flies" and "Planet of the Apes" mentalities. Which of you will hold yourself up as the shining example of morality or wisdom for others to follow? Have you learned nothing from any classical literature that would say to you, "Stop! You are deceiving yourself, but not others." From time to time, there actually are notes posted which, by contributory dis- cussion, could add something to the general knowledge of all readers. These notes usually wind up in a long chain of people arguing about some moot point contained within the letter, but not within the spirit of the original note. Other "addicted responders" espouse no beliefs, or positive information, their only desire in life seems to be to "put down" others. This is the epitome of covert hostility. It is covert because there is implicitly no good intent in personal attacks and name-calling. I am reminded of Garfield, the cartoon. The worst of these offenders are the ones who have appointed themselves as "Guardians of the Faith" (or "Dogma Denizens") who range and patrol the entire network in order to have some sort of personal vendetta with any perceived "slob-who-doesn't-believe-as-I-do." The public inquisitions held by these "guardians" are possibly some of the best examples I have ever seen of those with lowered self-esteem. There is a local college professor who teaches Mental Health courses, among other things. I use the professor's library frequently when trying to understand what it is that people are really saying. It would do some of you a lot of good also to read something besides engineering data, and then enlighten your brethren on the net as to what you have learned. This is in opposition to trying to show them how intelligent you are by vitriolic attack on their beingness. By these attacks, you are really showing all of us how poorly you feel about yourselves. Making "light of" or making fun of other people is one of the first signs of someone in danger of totally losing their own humanity and self-image. Condemning others is particularly egregious. In sum, if you can't agree with someone else, fine. That is your prerogative. No matter how narcissistic you have become, this world is not required to think like yourself. Please post some of your enlightenment in a positive, referenced, manner so that others may also come to your enlightened conclusions as they see your data. If you do agree, it is not necessary to post "Right-on" messages to show that you have the same degree of understanding as does the originator. If you choose to violently disagree, fine, spend your anger in the library in order to find out the truth of the matter. When you can fin- ally contribute POSITIVELY, do so. Start a separate discussion on an alternate topic. Just please stop the denigration of yourselves by attacking others.