WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (10/10/86)
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #80
Drivel.
Noise, especially when (1) you miss the point in the paragraph you
quoted and (2) you presented a fallacious argument. The point of that
paragraph is that when a contributor feels that he/she is not
participating in a *discussion* (i.e. one in which there is genuine
give and take based on the soundness of the arguments presented) but
rather in an exchange where the other party yields no quarter at all,
it is a matter of time before the contributor feels that the offending
party is just trying to dominate the exchange and that he/she is
wasting his/her time in the exchange. And now to your fallacious
argument...
.......... If any writer requested that any contribution be run
without JOSH's afterword, JOSH invariably respected the
request;...... and then further said that if any writer wished
all of his contributions run without afterword, he would do so.
You have picked a default mode of operation in which the moderator
will append his replies to the messages unless otherwise requested. I
can see an equally applicable mode of operation where the contributor
has to explicitly request the moderator to append his replies to the
messages.
.....if memory serves, JOSH publically announced this policy....
Those public policy announcements were, in most if not all instances,
responses to complaints of the practice.
This strikes me as an eminently fair and reasonable position.
I don't think you mean to use "eminently" here. (Certainly
"imminently" would be incorrect too.) If it is that eminently fair
and reasonable, if would be universally accepted and there will be no
complaints whatsoever about the practice. Take a look at ARMS-D. The
moderator there does not append his replies to the messages but rather
sends them as separate messages. I have yet to see a message
requesting that he appends his replies to the messages. On the other
hand I have seen several messages complaining about JOSH's practice.
As libertarians would say, if it is that fair and reasonable, there
will be a multitude of requests for the practice and the mailing list
(e.g. ARMS-D) will very quickly settle on that mode of operation.
I sincerely doubt that anyone can make a valid claim that JOSH
took unfair advantage of his moderator's position.
This statement is a consequence of your missing the point (as
explained in the first paragraph of this message).
Despite my disagreement with JOSH's debating tactics, I have sent
several public messages expressing my sincere appreciation of his
effort in moderating POLI-SCI (my sincere appreciation to you too,
Charles aka CWM). The frequent occurrence of long messages just makes
life even harder for the moderator. I sincerely hope that the rarity
of messages of appreciation does not lead them (i.e. JOSH and CWM) to
think that their toil is not appreciated. I would think most if not
all of us do appreciate their work. It is perhaps this feeling of
appreciation that enables us to tolerate the practice of having the
moderator's replies appended to the messages. Of course if the
moderator takes the effort of not appending his replies, he/she would
be appreciated even more.
Willie
P.S. Charles, I have no strong feelings against the practice, so
append your replies if they are short. (Is this the first message
requesting that you append your replies?) Again, thank you for your
effort in moderating this list.
-------