[net.misc] Misunderstandings

bobvan (12/08/82)

Floyd!trb (Andy Tannenbaum) and yale-comix!bj (B.J.) have both recently
stressed the importance of understanding an article before flaming
about it.  I agree fully -- having been both the misunderstander(?) and
misunderstandee.  I'd like to make a related plea, encouraging people
to flame by mail *before* flaming to the net.

Quite recently, I posted an article that was misunderstood.  Someone
posted a critical follow up article due to a misunderstanding (I don't
mean to place blame -- these things happen, and it takes two to have a
misunderstanding).  Then I had to post another follow up article
clarifying my point, assuming that I was widely misunderstood.  Next,
the same person posted yet another follow up article attacking a
different point because he's forgotten what I said in the original
article.  At that point, I gave up.

This sort of thing can go on forever.  It is not a good way to use the
net.  A public discussion is fine -- a public misunderstanding is not.
Like a forrest fire, the best way to stop it is to avoid starting it in
the first place.  When you post a critical follow up article, you are
starting such a fire.

So please, if you want to take up a contrary point of view, consider
sending mail first.  Keep a copy of the letter so that you can post it
if you don't get a response.

				Thanks,

				Bob Van Valzah
				(...!decvax!ittvax!tpdcvax!bobvan)

P.s. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy because I posted this.  I
couldn't have mailed it to everyone.