arndt@lymph.DEC (02/28/85)
Several people from the net and one person with whom I work have suggested
that what I "have here is a failure to communicate". That is, some persons
reading my postings on the net can't tell when I am being serious or if I
mean what I say because I don't make use of the 'smiley face' symbol to let
everyone in on the tone of my voice. It was told to me that it was in the
net 'rules' that use of the ( :- ) was incumbent upon me.
Well, I have thought about that and I have decided that it's a bunch of bosh!
I mean, I see no real substantive difference between what you are reading on
this screen and what you would read in any type of hard copy. Sure it is
brought to you by the magic of electronics, but it is not another language.
The medium is different from the message here. Where else do any of you
use :- as a part of your expression? Next time you write home to ask for
more money try it out on Dad.
As for not being understood, well, who IS understood all the time? I send
something out that I think is a howler and one person tells me it was a yawn
and another says he fell off his chair. I cast a pearl and someone steps on
it. I think I nail someone with a short pithy barb and it gets called 'inane'.
Doesn't everyone face the same problems of communication? I say I shave my
face with a rock (I have a beard) and someone believes me! When I pushed
back on the person I know here about my not using the 'smiley face' I was
told to use it because "the other person doesn't know (crazy) you". Well,
that's not good enough. I mean, I do lots of reading (and so do you) where
you don't know the other person.
Now I'm not saying that one SHOULD NOT use it. Just that I shouldn't HAVE
to. It has become a 'convention' on the net. That is perhaps the most
cogent argument in its favor that I can think of. But it is not a part of
what one might call 'everyday' usage. And we can make the tone of voice of
the speaker understood without it. Not always of course, but it is done.
I must say the way some of you people take some of what I post makes it an
awful temptation to string you along into larger worlds.
The only thing I can come up with is that, on average (I AM given to murky
expressions sometimes), those who misunderstand me do so on purpose because
of a different world-view/ideology, they are the type who read Tattle, and/or
are bad peole!
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndtperelgut@utai.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (03/02/85)
Dear Mr. Arndt,
You have posted a rather elegant defense of your net.contributions, but
I think you may have missed your friend's point. Perhaps I can make it a
bit clearer for you.
I have never met you in person and have formed my rather strong opinion
of you based solely on your netwide contributions. I think you are an idiot
at best and probably a complete asshole. I would probably not accept a job
at whatever site dec-lymph represents because they allow you access to their
systems. And all that from your postings.
Furthermore, I have heard very similar opinions from others, both locally,
and known to me only over the net. So, perhaps your "style" of writing is
hurting you far worse than you imagine. And whether or not we are right about
you, we have our opinions and "that too is reality."
--- Sincerely ---
--
Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Institute, Univ. of Toronto
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!utcsrgv!utai!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Toronto js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/05/85)
Stephen Perelgut to Ken Arndt: > I think you are an idiot > at best and probably a complete asshole. I would probably not accept a job > at whatever site dec-lymph represents because they allow you access to their > systems. And all that from your postings. > Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Institute, Univ. of Toronto Look, I disagree with Arndt most of the time too. And I hate the way he posts what is apparently personal mail to the net. You've seen those articles: Subject: To Joe Schlemiel. But I don't blame the company which allows him access to their systems for his opinions or his nettiquette. And why should you? They have more important things to do than to monitor their employees netnews postings. But maybe if enough people get an attitude like yours, that companys are responsible for their employee's postings, maybe they'll start monitoring postings. Maybe they'll censor out Ken Arndt. Maybe U of T will start doing that too. Maybe they'll decide to censor *you* out too. Maybe they'll decide that the net is just too dangerous and expensive to continue to maintain. It's wombat-bait like you, Stephen, that may make disclaimers necessary for all of us. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "What you mean *WE*, paleface?" - Tonto, at Little Big Horn.