Nathan and Communication [was Re: downloading to Mac] (long)

[Toby Reiter <treiter@cs.oberlin.edu>]

On 7 Jun 1997, Nathan Mates wrote:

> In article <Pine.ULT.3.96.970603114721.27843A-100000@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>,
> Toby Reiter  <treiter@cs.oberlin.edu> wrote:
> >Ok, Nathan, let's go through this again.  People have different reasons
> >for communicating.
> 
> [Big long load of crud snipped]

It was long, don't think it was truly crud, though, if you'd been
listening.
 
>    And you seem to want to repeat the psychobabble you hear in class.
> If you're going to not have any factual info content, fine, go do so
> elsewhere.  However, please take it to soc.talk.amateur-psychology
> or the like.

Actually, Nathan, even though I am not a thick-headed ego-freak unwilling
to listen to anyone else's views, what I said in my post did not come from
any class I took. Sure, some of the terminology I used came from a book,
but if every term posted in csa2 had to be thought up by the user, zip
repairs would sound like "stick th thingy on the other thingy and solder
it together." I think my post had definite factual content: I stated that
I did not appreciate the communication style used and that it was possible
others in the group agree with me.  Since there's no way for me to prove
it to you conclusively, it's essentially just opinion--but so are many of
your statements about ground, Macs, graphical web browsers, etc.

And like I said in my post, not everyone comes here simply for factual
info, so since my post only sensibly belonged in csa2, that's where I put
it.

> >The absence of absolutes when posting not only makes csa2 exciting, it
> >keeps it alive.
> 
>    So you'd rather have people posting lies and crap, just so that
> people can correct them? Sounds like you like the flammage that
> results, so I'd love to hear you defending the big flame wars just
> because you think it's healthy for the group. There's plenty of new
> people asking questions that'll keep this group alive without trying
> to justify the existence of unlearning idiots.

Not exactly, Nathan. First off, there is a difference between
misinformation and lies. I think of lies as only occurring when a person
is deliberately aware that a statement they make is deliberately
incorrect.  You would be correct if you said that this applies in more
cases then when one knows the truth but tells an untruth. For instance, if
I were to say to someone that your sister's name was Kathy (or whatever)
when I had no idea what her name was (or even if you had a sister), then
that would be lying.  If I thought that your sister's name was Kathy, but
wasn't 100% sure (or had been misled by someone else to believe it) I
would not be lying. This is a major, and important distinction. It crops
up in most of your wars with Scott, and many of your wars with Tom.  When
you charge a person with having lied, you are saying not only that
they are wrong, but that they knew it--a pretty serious charge. If you
simply tell them that they were mistaken, it does not have as much of a
negative effect. 

[Tip (stealing Nate's syntax)--although you are probably not aware of
feelings in a conversation/discussion, other people are. Where you would
simply react with an "Oh" when someone abruptly pointed you at as wrong
(or more probably flame them for something) it could give some people a
temporary emotional shock. See if you can figure out a nicer way to say
"You're wrong." Incidentally, I think that perhaps much of the flaming
that does occur is because you are insensitive to the distinction between 
misinformation and lies, and insensitive to people's reactions if you
call them liars.]

I'm not sure what you mean by "posting crap." I think (I could definitely
be mistaken), that you use the word crap to describe anything which goes
against your opinions which is true, since if you were to declare a truth
a lie you would be called upon it. For instance, and I'm not trying to
start a new war here, Dr.Tom, no matter what a scumbag he may seem to you
and others in far and near past has done SOME good things for the Apple
II:  Medley, hosting Apple II web information, working to reclassify
software. You could not call that a lie because it's true--even if you
feel that Tom has done a million times more harm than good, he has done
some good for the Apple II. 

[For those of you beginning to be concerned with length, I won't write a
paragraph for each word like I did above].

Ok, I will grant you this, Nathan:  people definitely have the right that
when they ask a question, they get an accurate answer. However, I feel
that any post on csa2 which is not a lie (as defined above), however
incorrect parts of it may be, is useful for the following reasons: a)
involves a larger portion of the newsgroup and allows relative newbies
(3-4 months of Apple II/csa2 experience) to attempt to answer questions;
b) it allows people who may have incorrect idea (who would not have known
that their ideas were incorrect) to be corrected in a manner such that
they can learn; c) perhaps part of their incorrect answer can be the
jumping point for an even more accurate one than would be first given; d)
an incorrect post could lead to a discussion of why it was incorrect and
whether it could be made correct (i.e. the creation of software/hardware);
e) they might turn out to be right, you might turn out to be wrong.

As a result, I don't think it's fair for you to immediately flame someone
who innocently posts an inaccuracy.  Instead, think about a nicer way to
respond to such posts, keeping in mind that they are an integral part of
life on csa2. This is what I meant by my original post.  This is not
comp.sys.apple2.answers--this is a DISCUSSION group. Meant for
discussion/argument/entertainment/community/etc.  Anyone who is seeking an
encyclopedia can come here to try and find the answer, but should not
expect that to be all that's here.

I don't particularly enjoy flammage, but it's often interesting to watch.
Although all out flame wars do hurt the group, I don't think that heated
discussions do--when people feel strongly about something--which most
Apple II users do by being here--you have to expect this kind of result. I
don't think non-factual oriented posts are wasteful to this newsgroup: I
personally have enjoyed the "Apple II's on the Big Screen" discussion more
than any Dip-switches post.

Finally, I would like to apologize for the lack of clarity in my previous
post, and apologize in advance for any lack of clarity in this one.  I am
not the best philosophical/theoretical writer around, and it definitely
takes a specific viewpoint to justify many of my opinions.  However, I
feel that it is important for me to express my ideas, and to assert that
they have as much importance to this newsgroup as any factual contribution
I can give it.