harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. R. Harnad) (01/22/90)
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) of Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc. wrote: > In my opinion Harnad is psychologically unsuited to the job of > moderating anything, and should *NOT* be the moderator of this group if > formed. He is the sort of person who assumes anyone using a four-letter > word is mentally ill, and his remedy for this is to get that person and > anyone else in the line of fire thrown off the net if possible, by > means of whatever kind of libel seems suitable. peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) of Xenix Support, FICC replied as follows: > Well, Gene, how many four-letter-words typically show up in postings to > moderated groups? Inappropriate affect in this somewhat restricted area is > unlikely to be a problem. In response to this, Gene W. Smith added: > My point is that Harnad's reaction to Michael Ellis' use of words such > as "fecal" was so excessive and, so to speak, anal-retentive that I > wonder if he is up to the job of moderation. His prose style is always > stuffy and prolix, as if he were writing a journal article whose > editors enforced a high boredom content. A natural or vigorous style > would be, I suspect, anathema. This is based in part on the *fact* that > he accused Mr. Ellis of being mentally unbalanced because of his use of > words like "fecal". > > Of course, I have a personal grudge which I should be up-front about. > Harnad's writing to the sysadmin here at Berkeley, complaining that > insane street people were posting from Berkeley accounts, led to me > having to convince people that no, I wasn't breaking into other > people's accounts nor forging letters, despite whatever it was Harnad > was saying. His behavior was irresponsible, libelous and contrary to > the spirit and best interests of the net. I do *not* think he should be > allowed to moderate a newsgroup. A couple of things to set the record straight for the reader whose interest may have been caught by this diversion from matters of content: Mr. Smith is much too coy, making it seem as if the discussion in question four years ago might have been about gastro-enterology. The opening line that caught my attention at the time was "You have shit for brains," not "fecal"; the topic of discussion was gender in Urdu, and the rest of the posting went downhill from there (I have the whole thing archived, in case anyone has a prurient interest...). I rightly surmised at the time that someone may have been using an account illicitly at Berkeley for those postings, and the sysadmin confirmed it, saying the real poster was not the name that appeared on the login; he had previously had his posting privileges revoked and was using someone else's userid. To prevent him from continuing to do this, the sysadmin then closed the account. (Whatever local repercussions this may have had for others who likewise fit the profile, I cannot say, or assume responsibility for...) And that should have been the end of the matter. But look, the population of the Net, like every population, is a Gaussian distribution, which, as we all know, has tails at both ends. Instead of letting the matter drop, a vocal minority called my response an attack on free speech and demanded that *my* userid be revoked! For a while, the net, and even moreso my email, became like a global graffiti board, with these people demonstrating their right to be as coprolalic as they pleased. Now it may come as a surprise to some that I have no allergy to four-letter words -- I use 'em myself, and sometimes even in writing, but not in learned journals or scholarly correspondence. I have been the "moderator" of an international journal specializing in peer controversy in psychology and related fields for 12 years, and I've never allowed scatological or ad hominem remarks to appear there -- and rarely have I had to exercise my editorial veto, because serious scholars and the field as a whole happen to share this desire to focus on objective content rather than pulling out all the personal stops on form. And quality control in scholarly communication is called "peer review," not censorship; peer review has many flaws (and I'm a critic and have published research on the subject), but the universally accepted insistence on not being rude, vulgar or personal to one's fellow scholars is not one of them. Because it is such a new medium, and because of its initial demography (dominated mainly by the representatives of the computer-related fields that created it, and the students and hackers who were the first to come aboard and avail themselves of it), many people have become confused over what "Skywriting" (as I've called it) is or can or ought to be like, and I've heard countless scholars say they would have nothing to do with it because it was clearly just a global graffiti board for flaming and trivial pursuit by know-nothings. I disagree. I think Skywriting is potentially as revolutionary a development in human communication as the advent of language, writing and print, one in which scholars and scientists can interact, advancing knowledge at a global scale and lightening interactive pace that no other medium can produce, and that matches the potential of the human brain better than any other. Now you make your own decision: Smith's posting has put the proposed psycoloquy group at a symbolic crossroad, just as scholarly skywriting itself is: We can allow the discussion to be diverted to whether or not everyone should be allowed to say shit-fuck-piss to anyone he likes, whenever he likes, on the net, or we can turn to more serious questions about ways to allow this remarkable new medium to move on toward realizing its vast unexplored potential. (One of the ironic quirks of this medium is that the foregoing is likely to trigger a burst of noise from the tail-end of the guassian again, rather than putting a plug in it; this is why moderated groups, a step backward to the old land-based media, are probably the only way to get scholarly skywriting launched initially. I've accordingly affixed a ".scat" to the header, so that those who are not interested in this side-issue can skip it; I myself will be skipping the ".scat" postings because this is about as much prolixity as I want to waste one the subject.) One last point. I did make a clinical diagnosis at the time (though I'm no clinician), and I think subsequent events confirmed that I was right about that too. There seems to be a borderline personality type that is irresistibly attracted to acting out, often abusively, on the net. This may even be an appropriate topic for discussion on the proposed psycoloquy newsgroup, but not by its practitioners (or their advocates), demonstrating it, so to speak, but by professionals who have some objective data and clinical experience to bring to bear on the problem, and by the peer review and computer security specialists who have practical ideas about how to control it. -- Stevan Harnad Department of Psychology Princeton University harnad@clarity.princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu harnad@pucc.bitnet (609)-921-7771
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/22/90)
In article <13144@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, harnad@phoenix (S. R. Harnad) writes: >>His behavior was irresponsible, libelous and contrary to the >>spirit and best interests of the net. I do *not* think he should >>be allowed to moderate a newsgroup. >opening line that caught my attention at the time was "You have >shit for brains," not "fecal"; the topic of discussion was gender >in Urdu... Dear dear, such naughty words. I think anyone who would "make a clinical diagnosis" on such a basis is a quack, and is also indulging in libel. In case anyone is interested in Mr. Ellis' sanity, he often posts to talk.philosophy.misc, alt.individualism various other groups. You will find he is a "computer professional" who happens to have a considerable knowledge of, and interest in, philosophy. And you will find he is entirely sane and rational, and not generally given to scatological outbursts. >I rightly surmised at the time that someone may have been using an >account illicitly at Berkeley for those postings, and the sysadmin >confirmed it, saying the real poster was not the name that >appeared on the login; he had previously had his posting privileges >revoked and was using someone else's userid. This is incorrect. He was using the student account (with permission of that person, but not of the department) of someone who had graduated. >And that should have been the end of the matter. But look, the >population of the Net, like every population, is a Gaussian >distribution, which, as we all know, has tails at both ends. Instead of >letting the matter drop, a vocal minority called my response an attack >on free speech and demanded that *my* userid be revoked! It was and remains an attack on free speech. Incidently, Michael Ellis is once again a system adminstrator, and has been posting right along without causing any particular problem. The fact is, you acted badly and still won't admit it. >For a while, the net, and even moreso my email, became like a >global graffiti board, with these people demonstrating their >right to be as coprolalic as they pleased. Poor baby. You libel someone, and get their posting access pulled, and people take exception. (By the way, I was not one of these naughty people who filled your mailbox, etc. But I know why they were tempted to do so. Do you?) >Now it may come as a surprise to some that I have no allergy to >four-letter words -- I use 'em myself, and sometimes even in writing, >but not in learned journals or scholarly correspondence. I take it your position is that you my do so with impunity, but if someone else does, then you may make a professional "clinical diagnosis" on their sanity. Have you ever heard of practicing medicine without a license, Dr. Quack? >Now you make your own decision: Smith's posting has put the proposed >psycoloquy group at a symbolic crossroad, just as scholarly skywriting >itself is: We can allow the discussion to be diverted to whether or not >everyone should be allowed to say shit-fuck-piss to anyone he likes, >whenever he likes, on the net, or we can turn to more serious questions >about ways to allow this remarkable new medium to move on toward >realizing its vast unexplored potential. My point is not that it would be awful if shit-fuck-piss is disallowed, my point is that your judgement has historically been so poor that you do not seem to me to be a suitable choice as moderator. I will add that anyone who thinks "psycoloquy" and "scholarly Skywriting" is good style has a bad ear for language, even when the language isn't bad language. >One last point. I did make a clinical diagnosis at the time (though I'm >no clinician), and I think subsequent events confirmed that I was right >about that too. Care to elaborate on this, Dr. Quack? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/23/90)
Is it my imagination or do these two paragraphs say the same thing? > >I rightly surmised at the time that someone may have been using an > >account illicitly at Berkeley for those postings, and the sysadmin > >confirmed it, saying the real poster was not the name that > >appeared on the login; he had previously had his posting privileges > >revoked and was using someone else's userid. > This is incorrect. He was using the student account (with > permission of that person, but not of the department) of someone > who had graduated. This implies, to me at least, that he had lost his account and was (unless the rules have changed since I was there in 1980 or so) illicitly using someone else's account. I've got into minor trouble for doing that myself, back when Cory was an 11/70. However I remain in agreement on Gene's conclusion: > It was and remains an attack on free speech. At the least it was extreme overkill. Back to the point: > I take it your position is that you my do so with impunity, but > if someone else does, ... His position seems to be that there is a time and place for such things, and that the net is neither. > My point is not that it would be awful if shit-fuck-piss is > disallowed, my point is that your judgement has historically been > so poor that you do not seem to me to be a suitable choice as > moderator. It's a bit late for that... he is the moderator of the mailing list in question. The only question is whether a mailing list that he moderates should be gatewayed to Usenet. And if so, where? > I will add that anyone who thinks "psycoloquy" and > "scholarly Skywriting" is good style has a bad ear for language, > even when the language isn't bad language. I find both terms interesting and evocative, and wonder at the sanity of someone who doesn't. (:->, for the second part) -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'