Lack of Social Graces
Charles Riggs
along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
emailing in general. Perhaps Miss Manners could write a book for us
defining what is proper "Internet etiquette" and what is not. Or
perhaps the books she has already written apply here.
Unfortunately a number of people hide behind the relative anonymity of
an email address, some even provide fake ones, and feel they can say
anything to another person. They can be rude, obnoxious and swear at a
person whenever they feel like it, these people seem to think. They
write things they would never, let us hope, consider saying in person.
Some lack the imagination to transfer what they have learned in the
"real" world to the world of electronic communication. To me, the
rules for social etiquette in the office place or on the street are
the same rules that apply to intercourse on the Internet, or perhaps I
am just being an ignoramus? The Internet is relatively new and this
is a problem that I feel needs addressing and solving. The flamers on
some news groups, not this one, are so offensive that a visit to them
is simply unpleasant and civilized people drop out of what could be
interesting topics for conversation.
Charles
Daniel James
> Perhaps the world of the Internet could use a new word. Something
> along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
> emailing in general.
>
Is that not what people mean when they refer to "netiquette"?
Not a particularly lovely word, but I think I agree that there is a
need for the code that it describes.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Frank Ecke
>Perhaps the world of the Internet could use a new word. Something
>along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
>emailing in general. Perhaps Miss Manners could write a book for us
>defining what is proper "Internet etiquette" and what is not. Or
>perhaps the books she has already written apply here.
The term ``Netiquette'' is used to refer to the ``etiquette governing
communication on the Internet'' (Reference: www.m-w.com). You will find
many guidelines for Internet communication in news.announce.newusers
Also, simply searching for ``Netiquette'' in the Internet returns many
references.
>To me, the
>rules for social etiquette in the office place or on the street are
>the same rules that apply to intercourse on the Internet, or perhaps I
>am just being an ignoramus?
An ignoramus? Why? As I understand, you are conscious about what you
say/write, you *do* care about it, both in public and in the anonymity of the
Internet. This is to be hailed for it shows that you have respect for other
people, Charles! Carry on this way!
Frank
--
Frank Ecke <fra...@minet.uni-jena.de>
In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?
Charles Riggs
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36072d6e...@news.anu.ie>, Charles Riggs wrote:
>> Perhaps the world of the Internet could use a new word. Something
>> along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
>> emailing in general.
>>
>
>Is that not what people mean when they refer to "netiquette"?
>
>Not a particularly lovely word, but I think I agree that there is a
>need for the code that it describes.
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
Thanks for telling me. Not a pretty word but a useful concept. I'd
like to read the code.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 05:14:12 GMT, Charles Riggs <ri...@anu.ie> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps the world of the Internet could use a new word. Something
>>along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
>>emailing in general. Perhaps Miss Manners could write a book for us
>>defining what is proper "Internet etiquette" and what is not. Or
>>perhaps the books she has already written apply here.
>
>The term ``Netiquette'' is used to refer to the ``etiquette governing
>communication on the Internet'' (Reference: www.m-w.com). You will find
>many guidelines for Internet communication in news.announce.newusers
>Also, simply searching for ``Netiquette'' in the Internet returns many
>references.
>
>>To me, the
>>rules for social etiquette in the office place or on the street are
>>the same rules that apply to intercourse on the Internet, or perhaps I
>>am just being an ignoramus?
>
>An ignoramus? Why? As I understand, you are conscious about what you
>say/write, you *do* care about it, both in public and in the anonymity of the
>Internet. This is to be hailed for it shows that you have respect for other
>people, Charles! Carry on this way!
>
>
>
>Frank
Thank you, Frank. That's the nicest thing I've heard said of me on the
Internet this month!
Charles, who sometimes tends to get paranoid, Riggs
tamt...@my-dejanews.com
ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
> Perhaps the world of the Internet could use a new word. Something
> along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
> emailing in general. Perhaps Miss Manners could write a book for us
> defining what is proper "Internet etiquette" and what is not. Or
> perhaps the books she has already written apply here.
>
> an email address, some even provide fake ones, and feel they can say
> anything to another person. They can be rude, obnoxious and swear at a
> person whenever they feel like it, these people seem to think. They
> write things they would never, let us hope, consider saying in person.
> Some lack the imagination to transfer what they have learned in the
> rules for social etiquette in the office place or on the street are
> the same rules that apply to intercourse on the Internet, or perhaps I
> is a problem that I feel needs addressing and solving. The flamers on
> some news groups, not this one, are so offensive that a visit to them
> is simply unpleasant and civilized people drop out of what could be
> interesting topics for conversation.
>
> Charles
>
also apply to the internet. Luckily there is a book on "netiquette"! It is
called Online!A reference guide to using internet resources. It happens to be
the text for an internet course that I am taking. It was written by my
professor Andrew Harnack and Andrew Kepplinger and includes a whole chapter on
"Netiquette". I found it very helpful. Now, if only we could get the rest of
the world to read it! Ha!I think it is extremely important that these issues
be addressed but unfortunately since the Internet is so new, it could be some
time before these concerns are seriously addressed. We should all work toward
emphasizing "netiquette" to users around the world.
Tammie Akers
Richmond KY
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
JUST AN H
>I agree that the same rules of etiquette that apply to the real world should
>also apply to the internet.
I have to admit that I've written some pretty nasty messages ... especially
when I first started "surfing the net." It was very easy to do with all the
so-called anonymity ... until I realized that there are very real human beings
behind all the handles.
There are definitely some jerks hiding behind anonymity here (they'll always be
with us, I imagine), but there is so much decency here that the world's worst
cynic need only log onto the "Net" to find that the world ain't so bad after
all, because there are still a lot of good people out there.
I'd better quit before I start waxing maudlin. -grin-
J.
Charles Riggs
>I agree that the same rules of etiquette that apply to the real world should
>also apply to the internet. Luckily there is a book on "netiquette"! It is
>called Online!A reference guide to using internet resources. It happens to be
>the text for an internet course that I am taking. It was written by my
>professor Andrew Harnack and Andrew Kepplinger and includes a whole chapter on
>"Netiquette". I found it very helpful. Now, if only we could get the rest of
>the world to read it! Ha!I think it is extremely important that these issues
>be addressed but unfortunately since the Internet is so new, it could be some
>time before these concerns are seriously addressed. We should all work toward
>emphasizing "netiquette" to users around the world.
>Tammie Akers
>Richmond KY
Amen!
Charles
janelaw
>
> >I agree that the same rules of etiquette that apply to the real world should
> >also apply to the internet.
>
> when I first started "surfing the net." It was very easy to do with all the
> so-called anonymity ... until I realized that there are very real human beings
> behind all the handles.
>
J,
I have a slightly different problem. I don't ever intend to
post "nasty" messages. Still, when I look back at some posts
(not in this NG necessarily), I sound pretty brutal. I tend to
write with a jackhammer.
I just can't get the hang of expressing myself in a
conversational forum without the visual and auditory cues. I'm
working on it.
My confession of the day is that I hate emoticons. I'm sure
they can be very useful for people in my situation. Those
little smiles and winks can make it clear that you don't intend
to offend the prior poster. They seem so coy, though. Is it
really that difficult to tell when a person is being humorous?
And shouldn't I be able to express myself clearly without
parenthetical explanation? I keep thinking, "If Oscar Wilde
were on USENET, would he stick ;-) in after every bit of irony?"
I'm getting to the point here. I agree that netiquette is
mostly just general etiquette. Unfortunately, I find myself
inadvertently hurting people's feelings here far more often than
I do in the flesh. I hate that.
Suggestions?
Jane
janelaw
>
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:40:18 +0100, Daniel James
> <inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps the world of the Internet could use a new word. Something
> >> along the lines of social etiquette as it applies to the Internet and
> >> emailing in general.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Not a particularly lovely word, but I think I agree that there is a
> >need for the code that it describes.
> >
> >Cheers,
> > Daniel James
>
> Thanks for telling me. Not a pretty word but a useful concept. I'd
> like to read the code.
>
> Charles
Charles,
I've emailed you a basic netiquette file. I believed I pulled
it off microsoft.public.netiquette a while ago.
Jane
Pk2222
Jane wrote:
> "If Oscar Wilde
>were on USENET, would he stick ;-) in after every bit of irony?"
Mr. Wilde, I'm sure, would have stuck something in, but I suspect that the
emoticon in question would have been unprintable.
Jane, you don't at all write with pneumatic tools and haven't, from what I can
tell, written anything overtly offensive. I'm sure that we all could provide
numerous examples of offensive posts - some of my favorites include a fellow on
misc.education who insists that "third world" software engineers are usurping
American jobs and another fellow who insists that teachers exist only to
collect paychecks and collectively lower the intelligence of elementary school
students.
I try simply to stay to the business of the question at hand - unless, of
course, there is *great* fun to be had!
pk
<ornery mode off>
Charles Riggs
>Charles,
>
>I've emailed you a basic netiquette file. I believed I pulled
>it off microsoft.public.netiquette a while ago.
>
>Jane
Thanks Jane. I read your message and found it most interesting; I
hope I'll be able to apply it. One might have to be a saint to follow
it 100 per cent of the time, but it is worth trying.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>I'm getting to the point here. I agree that netiquette is
>mostly just general etiquette. Unfortunately, I find myself
>inadvertently hurting people's feelings here far more often than
>I do in the flesh. I hate that.
>
>Suggestions?
>
>Jane
I don't care for the little smileys either though I frequently use
them. Since we are, in a sense, talking to each other in these news
groups more than formally writing to each other it is useful, I think,
to be able to replace the usual facial and body language clues we all
use in conversation with something and the emoticons, if I'm using
your word correctly for I hadn't seen it before, seem to work fairly
well. Oscar Wilde would have found a better way but then there was
only one Oscar. Wouldn't it be lovely if he could participate in this
group!
Charles
Daniel James
It's s shame "acronym" doesn't rhyme with "notation".
Cheers,
Daniel James
JUST AN H
>Smileys are not subtle, it's true, but I like them. Misunderstandings
>are rampant on the net -- without smileys (sorry -- I hate the
>word emoticon) -- without smileys I fear it would be a wall-to-wall
>battlezone.
I agree wholeheartedly, ELLEN. Sometimes it's easy to read offensiveness into
cold hard print when being offensive was not the author's intent. I'm all for
any tool (like smiley signs or pouts) that helps to convey and clarify a
poster's meaning.
J.
janelaw
>
> Jane, you don't at all write with pneumatic tools and haven't, from what I can
> tell, written anything overtly offensive.
Thanks for the encouragement. I'm working on it.
janelaw
>
>
> I don't care for the little smileys either though I frequently use
> them. Since we are, in a sense, talking to each other in these news
> groups more than formally writing to each other it is useful, I think,
> to be able to replace the usual facial and body language clues we all
> use in conversation with something and the emoticons, if I'm using
> your word correctly for I hadn't seen it before, seem to work fairly
> well. Oscar Wilde would have found a better way but then there was
> only one Oscar. Wouldn't it be lovely if he could participate in this
> group!
>
> Charles
I've decided I just need different emoticons, the elegantly
arched eyebrow, a rueful shake of the head, even a sneer of
derision. These I would find helpful.
janelaw
>
> janelaw (jan...@excite.com) wrote:
> > I keep thinking, "If Oscar Wilde
> > were on USENET, would he stick ;-) in after every bit of irony?"
> >
>
> ago. In this version, Wilde's fate hinged on the failure of others
> to appreciate his sense of humour. He was asked whether or not he
> had kissed a male servant. He replied, "Certainly not, he was
> extremely ugly." The court didn't think it was funny. From that
> point on he had lost their sympathy.
>
> I think this was an invention for the purposes of the production,
> but I'm not sure. I don't suppose a smiley would have helped,
> in any case.
>
> Smileys are not subtle, it's true, but I like them. Misunderstandings
> are rampant on the net -- without smileys (sorry -- I hate the
> word emoticon) -- without smileys I fear it would be a wall-to-wall
> battlezone.
>
> very interesting to learn all the different ways of expressing
> nuances of feeling in a text medium.
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
Ellen,
What's a MOO?
Jane
janelaw
>
>
> Smileys are not subtle, it's true, but I like them. Misunderstandings
> are rampant on the net -- without smileys (sorry -- I hate the
> word emoticon) -- without smileys I fear it would be a wall-to-wall
> battlezone.
>
>
Well, I certainly don't mean to launch a campaign against them.
As you say, a wink or smile may sometimes avert outright war.
OTOH, they don't seem to keep Peti out of trouble.
That's another thing that I can't quite get used to on USENET,
the unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into
a full-blown war. It always catches me off guard. The recent
"ignoramus" and "gadfly" threads, for example, seemed to come
out of nowhere. One minute we were discussing whether there
should be an official body to make rules of English grammar; the
next everyone seemed to be screaming, "Fuck you."
Where does that come from? I know that sometimes I have to wait
before I send off a post and reread it with a cooler head. Some
topics get me going. I guess I expect newsgroups to be less
explosive than real-time dialogue, because you do have that
cooling down period. OTOH, the distance and anonymity in the
medium makes a punch in the nose a lot less likely.
It seems odd to me that people sitting in front of a monitor and
keyboard can get an adrenaline rush from a comment made by a
stranger half the world away. I wonder why it matters enough
for us to get angry.
Am I making any sense?
Jane
John Davies
<$news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>janelaw (jan...@excite.com) wrote:
[...]
>> That's another thing that I can't quite get used to on USENET,
>> the unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into
>> a full-blown war. It always catches me off guard. The recent
>> "ignoramus" and "gadfly" threads, for example, seemed to come
>> out of nowhere. One minute we were discussing whether there
>> should be an official body to make rules of English grammar; the
>> next everyone seemed to be screaming, "Fuck you."
>>
>
>Hmmm. It didn't seem that way to me.
>
>I think that there are other things that matter besides being
>polite. I can't say much about the "gadfly" thread, because I
>killed it when I lost interest, which was fairly early on.
>The thread about the meaning of "inform" didn't strike me as
>hostile, though. It's true Charles got called an ignoramus,
>but he's still alive, isn't he? I thought the word was pretty
>mild, considering the offence. For a lot of people on Usenet
>(I'm one), giving wrong information in tones of authority is one
>of the worst crimes you can commit.
[...]
Precisely. And that's why I allowed my irritation to get the better of
me and used the word "ignoramus". By the standards of some neighbouring
groups that's pretty mild, and it wasn't even directly addressed to the
offender.
I was, I have to confess, both amazed and amused by the reaction it
triggered; I was irresistibly reminded of a small child crying "Mummy!
Did you hear what the nasty man called me?" Or even of Dogberry in
"Much Ado" and his "but masters, remember that I am ass; though it be
not yet written down, forget not that I am an ass!"
But as Dogberry also says, comparisons are odorous. I ought to be
thoroughly ashamed both of my initial irritation and of the unholy glee
that the reaction to it aroused in me. I promise I'll get round to it,
when I can stop giggling.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Hmmm. It didn't seem that way to me.
>
>I think that there are other things that matter besides being
>polite. I can't say much about the "gadfly" thread, because I
>killed it when I lost interest, which was fairly early on.
>The thread about the meaning of "inform" didn't strike me as
>hostile, though. It's true Charles got called an ignoramus,
>but he's still alive, isn't he? I thought the word was pretty
>mild, considering the offence. For a lot of people on Usenet
>(I'm one), giving wrong information in tones of authority is one
>of the worst crimes you can commit. I'm trying to avoid stirring
>it up all over again, but I do want to make this point -- that
>there are matters of principle or fact which are more important
>than manners. IMO.
I must disagree. How you say it is more important than what you say.
This comes right out of the Buddhist tradition and I, at least,
believe it. I think we have to ask ourselves, what is the main
purpose of using news groups? If it is for enjoyment then profanity
and name-calling should be strictly out; if it is merely for
informational purposes then I would suggest a person is far better off
consulting an authoritative source in the library or at a WEB site.
>I was shocked by that thread, not because of namecalling (of which
>there was really very little)
Why have any at all? It's never needed by a clever person.
>Online communication lets people speak their minds without always
>having to tiptoe around others' sensibilities.
Now why should online communication be any different from face-to-face
communication? I don't tiptoe around anyone in real life and, if I
disagree with a person, I can generally find a way to do it in a
reasonably pleasant way that doesn't anger the other person. Now, if
it is my INTENT to anger the person, that is child's play and can be
easily done at any time. I take it the same way on the Internet. When
someone insults me I figure it is his or her intent to anger me and he
can expect reprisals - generally they will be of a more violent nature
than I received for that is only human nature I think. However, that
violates the tenets of the treatise on Internet behaviour that Jane
sent me, so perhaps I should mollify my responses.
>I hang out in one or two newsgroups where insulting is an art form.
>It doesn't happen often, but when it does no punches are pulled.
>I've been reduced to a moaning wreck, tears running from my eyes,
>almost unable to breathe for laughing. I keep my mouth shut, you
>bet! not because I'm afraid of being insulted, but because
>I know I wouldn't be able to rise to the expected level of insult
>in return. :-(
That's fine, if that is their purpose. As I understand it, this is not
the purpose of either a.e.u or a.u.e.
Charles
Daniel James
> Smileys are not subtle, it's true, but I like them. Misunderstandings
> are rampant on the net -- without smileys (sorry -- I hate the
> word emoticon) -- without smileys I fear it would be a wall-to-wall
> battlezone.
>
True, and I think that's the "bottom line".
I do find, though, that some of the ASCII-graphic smiley faces becoe
distorted beyond recognition when displayed in a proportional font, and
that some newcomers to the 'net (I hate "newbie" even more than
"emoticon") fail to understand what they are meant to be. That's why I
tend to use <smile> or <grin> instead of ASCII "art" (a habit I picked
up, I think, in my days on CompuServe before starting to use a _real_
ISP <wink>).
Cheers,
Daniel James
janelaw
> >
>
> A MUD, Object-Oriented.
>
> A MUD is a Multi-User Dungeon game: an online adventure game along
> the lines of Dungeons and Dragons. MOOs are for people who find
> the online interaction interesting but don't much want to interact
> with characters named Quog or Gzark, or spend their time trying to
> kill off all the other characters. A MOO is more like a place to
> live. If you spend time on a MOO, you get to know the others who
> spend time there, and eventually you may be allowed to build your
> own home on the MOO.
>
> One of the first MOOs was the one at Xerox Parc -- Lambda MOO.
> Two or three years ago there was a rather horrifying incident
> at Lambda MOO, when one character forced his (virtual) sexual
> attentions on another against her will. This was written up
> by one of the other Lambda-ites, and published in VLS. It was
> described as "the first virtual rape". (I don't go along with
> this, myself, and nor, if I remember correctly, did the woman
> who was attacked.)
>
> I mention that incident because it precipitated much thought and
> discussion about the use of language in virtual environments.
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
Thanks,
I knew about mudders, but I have never known one personally. I
have played Magic once or twice. My stepson has Inferno (?).
I'm having a hard time picturing a virtual MOO home, never mind
virtual sexual advances. "Virtual rape" seems like a fairly
unpleasant business. I am trying to imagine the cyber
equivalent of a knee to the groin.
janelaw
> > snip smiley discussion
> >
> > That's another thing that I can't quite get used to on USENET,
> > the unexpected outbreak of hostilities and rapid escalation into
> > a full-blown war. It always catches me off guard. The recent
> > "ignoramus" and "gadfly" threads, for example, seemed to come
> > out of nowhere. One minute we were discussing whether there
> > should be an official body to make rules of English grammar; the
> > next everyone seemed to be screaming, "Fuck you."
> >
>
> Hmmm. It didn't seem that way to me.
>
> I think that there are other things that matter besides being
> polite. I can't say much about the "gadfly" thread, because I
> killed it when I lost interest, which was fairly early on.
> The thread about the meaning of "inform" didn't strike me as
> hostile, though. It's true Charles got called an ignoramus,
> but he's still alive, isn't he? I thought the word was pretty
> mild, considering the offence. For a lot of people on Usenet
> (I'm one), giving wrong information in tones of authority is one
> of the worst crimes you can commit. I'm trying to avoid stirring
> it up all over again, but I do want to make this point -- that
> there are matters of principle or fact which are more important
> than manners. IMO.
Well, judging by the responses to my post, I have stirred it all
up again, nonetheless. Enough! (That's another emoticon I
could use, a hand raised imperiously.) I'm switching to another
example.
Re: officiously delivered misinformation. Recently, a poster in
another NG, stated that Einstein had not gone past 6th grade in
school. It bugged the hell out of me. When a poster states an
opinion, I figure they can just go ahead and spew forth. It
really annoys me when an argument is supported with bogus facts,
though. If people can't take the time to check their facts, I
resent their posting misinformation off the top of their heads.
What I find more interesting is that I did not reply to the
Einstein statement. I couldn't write a response that did not
include "You idiot! It took me less than two minutes to discover
that Einstein went to Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule." I
was too annoyed to respond decorously, so I left the poster to
further disseminate her drivel. I hate to attack others
personally because 1) I really don't have the time or energy for
an off-topic pissing match, and 2) I prefer people not to call
me an idiot when I make a mistake.
Which brings me to the manners issue. I don't think I agree
that there are matters of principle or fact more important than
manners. After all, if you didn't want to scream "Idiot" at
people, there would be no point in having conventions for
getting around it. Obviously, you can disagree without directly
insulting a person. People do it to me all the time. I'm
always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant
slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan
Ackroyd fans left on USENET.
Even at that, name calling is just the most understandable
trigger for the flash fires that catch me off guard. Any
disagreement or confrontation can do it. I see it everywhere.
All of a sudden two or more people take off on a tangent. To me
there is a difference between threads that evolve into
discussions of time, politics, or religion and threads that end
up in a personal battle. I agree with Charles that if I feel
attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in
swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is
what makes me feel attacked.
The more I think about this, the more I suspect that people's
posting style does not necessarily reflect their style of
interaction in conversation. My new theory is that people post
the way they drive.
>
> I was shocked by that thread, not because of namecalling (of which
> there was really very little), but because of the suggestion, repeated
> by more than one poster, that that meaning of "inform" ought to be
> disallowed on the grounds of obscurity. That shocks me still.
I am bothered by the logical conclusion of this approach: the
loss of depth and diversity in our language.
>
> Online communication lets people speak their minds without always
> having to tiptoe around others' sensibilities. Sometimes the
> freedom is abused, no question about that. But most people use it
> pretty reasonably. Don't you get a kick out of hearing people
> say what they really think? I do.
Yes. I read NG's because they make me laugh and because they
make me think. After a while, I find flame wars tedious,
though.
>
> I hang out in one or two newsgroups where insulting is an art form.
> It doesn't happen often, but when it does no punches are pulled.
> I've been reduced to a moaning wreck, tears running from my eyes,
> almost unable to breathe for laughing. I keep my mouth shut, you
> bet! not because I'm afraid of being insulted, but because
> I know I wouldn't be able to rise to the expected level of insult
> in return. :-(
Well those groups are like ice hockey. You don't get into the
rink unless you're prepared for some rough and tumble.
In some NG's insult is an art form. I enjoy others' performance
even though I lack the gift myself. I have a friend who is so
mean and so funny that she leaves me in awe. I may be blunt,
but I envy her wickedness.
>
> > Where does that come from? I know that sometimes I have to wait
> > before I send off a post and reread it with a cooler head. Some
> > topics get me going. I guess I expect newsgroups to be less
> > explosive than real-time dialogue, because you do have that
> > cooling down period. OTOH, the distance and anonymity in the
> > medium makes a punch in the nose a lot less likely.
> >
>
> Yes. So the non-nose-punchers no longer have to be silent out of
> fear.
>
> > It seems odd to me that people sitting in front of a monitor and
> > keyboard can get an adrenaline rush from a comment made by a
> > stranger half the world away. I wonder why it matters enough
> > for us to get angry.
> >
>
> It's odd, isn't it? But if we didn't engage enough to respond with
> an adrenaline rush, I guess we wouldn't bother to do it at all.
>
Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to
participate in a discussion. I don't care enough about time
measurement. I care too much about women's "role." Genderless
pronouns, evolution of language, and the English as the official
language (that one was borderline) are issues I care about that
do not make me foam at the mouth.
Jane
Pk2222
Jane wrote:
> I'm
>always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant
>slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan
>Ackroyd fans left on USENET.
I'm one, but the more I thought about your post, the more I think that so many
posters are guilty of the Emily Latilla syndrome - you know - "We need more
violins on television!"
Because I'm studying (in mid-life of all things!) to be a teacher, I've been
asking persons who are responsible for large groups of people (like our bishop,
etc.) what children require that they do not currently learn in school. One
answer was "discernment." I found it disarming until I picked up C.S. Lewis'
"The Abolition of Man." I laughed aloud on the commuter train on reading about
Gauis and Titius. A fellow rider (well heeled and purportedly the recipient of
*some* education), looked down at the book and said "What's funny about
slavery?" Then I wanted to cry.
Opinicus
>unpleasant business. I am trying to imagine the cyber
>equivalent of a knee to the groin.
file 22,459,771 bytes long and line noise irreparably scrambles
it.
Bob, speaking from experience in
Istanbul
---
To reply by email, dot the dash in doruk-net.
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Charles Riggs (ri...@anu.ie) wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 1998 21:07:16 +0100, $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen
>> Mizzell) wrote:
>> I must disagree. How you say it is more important than what you say.
>
>No.
Just my opinion.
>> This comes right out of the Buddhist tradition
>
>Cites, please?
No, I won't get into Buddhism here with you: alt.religion.buddhism or
one of the others is the better spot for that. I won't beat my head
against a wall trying to explain an involved topic like Buddhism, as I
understand it, when I got nowhere with a simple topic like the
measurement of time. We never even broached the interesting aspects of
time, as I would have liked.
>You may believe it, but your style of posting is far from Buddhist,
>as I understand Buddhism. Would you like me to supply quotes from
>your previous posts in support of my statement?
No, because I agree and I admit I am far from being the Buddha.
>> I think we have to ask ourselves, what is the main
>> purpose of using news groups?
>
>Why?
Now you are simply being argumentative for the sake of it.
>> If it is for enjoyment then profanity
>> and name-calling should be strictly out;
>
>Some people enjoy profanity and name-calling.
I think you would profit from going to a pub every now and then. They
are the more appropriate places for such talk than alt.english.usage.
I'll pay.
>> if it is merely for
>> informational purposes then I would suggest a person is far better off
>> consulting an authoritative source in the library or at a WEB site.
>>
>
>Usenet is an endlessly rich source of information. I never stop being
>amazed by the willingness of others to share their knowledge. You do
>have to discriminate, of course; which is another way of saying, you
>can't believe everything you read -- on Usenet, or on the web, or in
>the library.
Here, I agree with you completely.
>> >I was shocked by that thread, not because of namecalling (of which
>> >there was really very little)
>>
>> Why have any at all? It's never needed by a clever person.
>>
>
>"Needed"? Needed for what?
For discussion, of course.
>> Now, if
>> it is my INTENT to anger the person, that is child's play and can be
>> easily done at any time. I take it the same way on the Internet. When
>> someone insults me I figure it is his or her intent to anger me
>
>Yes, it's plain that that's the way you interpret it, but you're
>often wrong. Many posters are not at all concerned with the person
>whose post they're countering -- they're concerned only with the
>subject in hand.
That is a very unfortunate fact.
>For example: when I called one of your statements meaningless, you
>interpreted that as an attack. According to *my* brand of
>netiquette (and rules for RL debate too, for that matter), the
>sensible response would have been to examine the statement I was
>challenging to see why I called it meaningless. If you couldn't
>see any grounds for my calling it meaningless, then you get to
>ask for clarification. If I wasn't able to provide a rational
>explanation for my use of the epithet, then ipso facto you've
>won the day and I've made a fool of myself.
I defended my statement and fully explained what a "day" was several
times to you. Everyone else on this group appeared to understand it
but you were too busy looking for a way to argue it than to take the
time to read it and understand it.
>If, on the other hand, I do explain why I consider your statement
>meaningless, you get to counter my explanation. In that way,
>those who are reading but not participating are able to hear
>arguments from both sides and make up their own minds about the
>subject under discussion. I might end by accepting your counter-
>argument, or you might accept my point of view, or we might agree
>to disagree.
Now that sounds fair enough. Why don't we simply do that next time?
>Similarly, when John referred to you as an ignoramus, you interpreted
>it as an attack. But John's concern, as I thought and as he's confirmed,
>was to correct what you had said, not to launch a personal attack on
>you. You were in the wrong and (again according to my rules, which
>aren't really "mine" but are in fact part of a code which has developed
>amongst the users of Usenet from its very earliest days) your best
>course at that point would have been not to rage at John for "insulting"
>you, but to accept the criticism, apologize meekly to Stefan and
>everyone else reading the thread, and retire chastened to study the
>various meanings of the word "inform". Yes, I know you did
>eventually apologise for your error, after you'd been told to do
>so in a way you found acceptable. But why should you need to be
>asked nicely, when you're in the wrong?
My dear, even when a person is wrong, and I later admitted it in this
instance, he never deserves to called a "total ignoramus" because of
the error he has made. God, mine was a slight one in this case
compared to some of the others I've made in life!!
>You don't agree with these rules, because you think (according to what
>you've said) that how something is said matters more than what is
>said. That is a point of view, but not one (IME) widely held
>by users of Usenet. Some mailing lists adopt it in an attempt
>to foster universal harmony. I doubt if I need to say that IMO
>such attempts are misguided.
Clearly, I was stating my opinion and not a widely held view.
>> and he
>> can expect reprisals - generally they will be of a more violent nature
>> than I received for that is only human nature I think. However, that
>> violates the tenets of the treatise on Internet behaviour that Jane
>> sent me, so perhaps I should mollify my responses.
>
>Not exactly Buddhist, either.
Admittedly so, but we can only try to be perfect. :-)
>As I don't advocate a Buddhist approach to Usenet, I see nothing
>wrong with fighting back when you're attacked, but I think you do
>need to be sure that "attack" is what's happening. A justified
>criticism is not an attack. You have a duty to God to consider
>whether a criticism is justified or not, before treating it as
>an attack.
I accept your later apology in regard to what my duty to God is or
isn't. Actually, as a Buddhist, I don't believe in a supreme being, at
least not in a God as most would define him.
>I would also suggest that "reprisals" is a misleading word. It's
>worth remembering that, just as names can never hurt you unless you
>decide to let them, so they can never hurt the person you're
>hurling them at, unless that person decides to let himself/herself
>be hurt. If you opt for being hurt, while the other person opts
>for not being hurt, then you're on a losing wicket. SWIM?
What's a wicket? I've heard of these "sticky wicket" things from
Englishmen, but what exactly are they?
>> >I hang out in one or two newsgroups where insulting is an art form.
>> >It doesn't happen often, but when it does no punches are pulled.
>> >I've been reduced to a moaning wreck, tears running from my eyes,
>> >almost unable to breathe for laughing. I keep my mouth shut, you
>> >bet! not because I'm afraid of being insulted, but because
>> >I know I wouldn't be able to rise to the expected level of insult
>> >in return. :-(
>>
>> That's fine, if that is their purpose. As I understand it, this is not
>> the purpose of either a.e.u or a.u.e.
>
>I don't think it's the purpose of any newsgroup, although now you
>suggest it I immediately suspect I'm probably wrong. Let's see....
>yep. A quick grep of active reveals both alt.insults.gangbang
>and alt.insults.gang-bang. What they're about, I've no idea.
There are a whole bunch of them I noticed as I ran down the list of
some 32,000 news groups.
>To get back to what I was saying -- insults aren't the purpose
>of the groups I mentioned, it's just that those groups happen to
>be inhabited by people (mostly techies) who have shared values
>(truth and accuracy), and who take pride in doing well whatever
>they undertake to do, whether it's writing code for an OS or
>insulting the pants off each other.
Writing code for an OS? I had no idea you were into that sort of
thing. I learn something new every day though.
Charles, who managed to use no profanity in the above discussion,
Riggs
Charles Riggs
>
>Jane wrote:
>
>> I'm
>>always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant
>>slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan
>>Ackroyd fans left on USENET.
>
>I'm one, but the more I thought about your post, the more I think that so many
>posters are guilty of the Emily Latilla syndrome - you know - "We need more
>violins on television!"
>
>Because I'm studying (in mid-life of all things!) to be a teacher, I've been
>asking persons who are responsible for large groups of people (like our bishop,
>etc.) what children require that they do not currently learn in school. One
>answer was "discernment." I found it disarming until I picked up C.S. Lewis'
>"The Abolition of Man." I laughed aloud on the commuter train on reading about
>Gauis and Titius. A fellow rider (well heeled and purportedly the recipient of
>*some* education), looked down at the book and said "What's funny about
>slavery?" Then I wanted to cry.
How about that paper by Swift "A Modest Proposal" which had me rolling
on the floor laughing with his discussion of how the children of
Ireland could be reduced in number if the English would only serve
them for dinner. I suppose that train rider would ask "What's funny
about cannibalism?" It's all in the way it is done I suppose. Some
people have learned the art of insult or the art of the ludicrous and
can cause the reader to laugh rather than turn to anger.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>I don't making an angry reply, but my reasons are less credit-
>worthy than yours. I feel degraded when I lose my temper. I
>think one should be able to deal with even the worst threads
>without flying off the handle, and if that becomes impossible
>the dignified course of action is to fold one's tents and silently
>slip away, if possible on the wings of an urbane quip. Unfortunately
>I don't always live up to this plan, though.
Are we seeing a newer, gentler Ellen?
>Yes. Sometimes you just have to put it down to testosterone.
>Sorry, boys, but it's true. You're all prisoners of your
>hormones. <stifling childish mirth>
We have that indeed, sometimes in excess, but don't you girls (read
women) have your particular hormones as well? :-)
>> I agree with Charles that if I feel
>> attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in
>> swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is
>> what makes me feel attacked.
>
>What does it take -- an AK47? (My instinct is to stick in a
>smiley there but I'm repressing it out of respect for your
>feelings. Is that not civilised?)
Yes.
>The length of the day, on the other hand..... :-)
Oh no, not that!
Actually, I rather enjoyed our little discussion. It is one subject I
can talk knowledgeably about at great length, even all 86400 seconds
long day. :-)
Charles
Charles Riggs
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I do find, though, that some of the ASCII-graphic smiley faces becoe
>distorted beyond recognition when displayed in a proportional font, and
>that some newcomers to the 'net (I hate "newbie" even more than
>"emoticon") fail to understand what they are meant to be. That's why I
>tend to use <smile> or <grin> instead of ASCII "art" (a habit I picked
>up, I think, in my days on CompuServe before starting to use a _real_
>ISP <wink>).
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
I like smileys and find them useful and I just hate that word "newbie"
as well. I don't know yet about "emoticon"; I'd never heard it until
Jane used it the other day.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>Well, judging by the responses to my post, I have stirred it all
>up again, nonetheless. Enough!
This was an excellent, humorous and to the point post and though I
wanted to quote it all, that would have been "against the rules"!
>Even at that, name calling is just the most understandable
>trigger for the flash fires that catch me off guard. Any
>disagreement or confrontation can do it. I see it everywhere.
>All of a sudden two or more people take off on a tangent. To me
>there is a difference between threads that evolve into
>discussions of time, politics, or religion and threads that end
>up in a personal battle. I agree with Charles that if I feel
>attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in
>swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is
>what makes me feel attacked.
I simply don't feel that in the majority of cases it is necessary or
desirable if it's conversation, humour or the exchange of information
we are looking for. There are a few exceptions. If I were to say that
such and such a race of people were stupid, dirty animals who didn't
deserve the full rights of citizenship then anyone would have the
right, the duty even, to respond that I was a no-good racist.
>Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to
>participate in a discussion. I don't care enough about time
>measurement. I care too much about women's "role." Genderless
>pronouns, evolution of language, and the English as the official
>language (that one was borderline) are issues I care about that
>do not make me foam at the mouth.
I agree and hope we can get back to these subjects. Lately this group
has nearly make me desert to alt.usage.english (Ellen, LOL and saying
"Please do!")
Charles
Pk2222
Charles wrote:
>How about that paper by Swift "A Modest Proposal" which had me rolling
>on the floor laughing with his discussion of how the children of
>Ireland could be reduced in number if the English would only serve
>them for dinner. I suppose that train rider would ask "What's funny
>about cannibalism?" It's all in the way it is done I suppose. Some
>people have learned the art of insult or the art of the ludicrous and
>can cause the reader to laugh rather than turn to anger.
Nope. My tears here were reserved for the ignorance of the common American
reader.
Being Irish, (once upon a time), I'd *hate* the idea of being eaten....but
wasn't Dr. Swift particularly skeptical regarding man's ability to supercede
his lower nature? Wasn't that also the point of the Hwynyms (sp?) and of
Gulliver's reluctance to rejoin his family?
My commuter would have whipped out his cell phone and rung up his bookie for
the latest odds on the Cubs making the World Series.
pk
Pk2222
Ellen asked:
>Can the panel please consider this question: were the skits on TV and
>radio wittier at one time or am I suffering from when-I-was-a-lad
>syndrome?
Absolutely the former. (How could you ever have been a lad, Ellen?)
Above my desk hangs the script from Monty Python's "Norwegian Blue" script. My
son is dressed for Hallowe'en as a Saturday Night Live "Killer Bee", complete
with Eric Idle's guitar.
I contend that one has to know words, their origins and appropriate
applications to adequately mangle them.
pk
janelaw
>
>
> Pity there isn't a Deja-TV.
>
> Can the panel please consider this question: were the skits on TV and
> radio wittier at one time or am I suffering from when-I-was-a-lad
> syndrome?
>
> of with might be linked to a widespread decline in verbal facility.)
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
Actually, sometimes I watch SNL and find the skits as funny as
they ever were. Last year they had Bill Clinton, Monica
Lewinsky, and Saddam Hussein on a conference call. Bill and
Monica were trying to convince Saddam to start a war so that
they could spend more time together. Then there was the time
Bill was trying to sell Paula Jones depo transcripts from a 800
number.
Then there is the show Frazier. Niles, the brother, kills me.
There's other stuff, too. You just have to take it where you
find it.
Jane
janelaw
>
> janelaw wrote in message <3611B854...@excite.com>...
>
> >need MORE violins on television. My favorite was when she went
> >off about the song "I Will Swallow Him." Funny how timely
> these
> >topics are today.
> LYRICS?
>
> Bob
> Istanbul
>
The actual song was "I Will FOLLOW Him."
It goes something like:
I will follow him,
Follow him wherever he may go,
There isn't an ocean so deep
A valley so wide it can keep
Keep me away,
Away from my love...
IIRC, this was one of the songs Whoopie Goldberg brought to the
choir in Sister Act, too. The nuns all sang it about God, like
a girl group from the '60's.
Jane
janelaw
>
>
> snip
>
> > Which brings me to the manners issue. I don't think I agree
> > that there are matters of principle or fact more important than
> > manners. After all, if you didn't want to scream "Idiot" at
> > people, there would be no point in having conventions for
> > getting around it.
>
I think we have rules of etiquette to bridge gap between what we
want to do and what we want done to or for us. It's like a
codification of the Golden Rule. No one wants to write
thank-you notes, but everyone wants to be thanked for their
gifts. No one wants to get up out a seat, but everyone wants to
be offered a seat when they are elderly or pregnant.
I think that sometimes everyone wants to call another a nasty
name, but that no one really likes being called names all the
time. Of course, there may be mutual consent. A rousing rank
fest, dis match, or insult gang bang can be both intellectually
stimulating and a great stress reliever.
>
> more snipping
>
> >
> > I agree with Charles that if I feel
> > attacked personally, my gut reaction is to jump right in
> > swinging. But I don't think that swearing or name-calling is
> > what makes me feel attacked.
>
> What does it take -- an AK47? (My instinct is to stick in a
> smiley there but I'm repressing it out of respect for your
> feelings. Is that not civilised?)
LOL. Thanks for your restraint.
It's not that it takes MORE to make me feel attacked. It's a
shift toward me personally. I can't really think of a good
example. I feel attacked when the discussion shifts from an
objective topic like genderless pronouns to a subjective topic
like whether I am a feminazi. There doesn't have to be any
swearing or name calling. All the next poster has to do is
start with, "Of course, the radical, lesbian, lunatic fringe
always thinks...," and I automatically start thinking, "Of
course pompous, narrow-minded, bigoted cretins like you would
say that." Even a subtler categorization of me as individual
could set me off.
> snip
>
> >
> > Personally, I seem to need a middle level of involvement to
> > participate in a discussion. I don't care enough about time
> > measurement. I care too much about women's "role." Genderless
> > pronouns, evolution of language, and the English as the official
> > language (that one was borderline) are issues I care about that
> > do not make me foam at the mouth.
> >
>
> I'm just the opposite. I try hard to avoid threads about gender,
> including allegedly-but-not-really genderless pronouns, because
> I know I'd soon lose it. But also because I've spent so many words,
> and so many years, talking about those issues and listening to
> others and reading the books and talking and talking and talking.
> I've worn out my words on the subject of gender. Just tell me the
> jokes, I'll let others do the arguing. Same with anything political.
> I'm too tired to say it all over again.
I don't think this is opposite. I know exactly what you mean.
>
> The length of the day, on the other hand..... :-)
>
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
janelaw
>
> Jane wrote:
>
> > I'm
> >always surprised that people don't say, "Jane, you ignorant
> >slut!" when they disagree with me. Maybe there are no Dan
> >Ackroyd fans left on USENET.
>
> posters are guilty of the Emily Latilla syndrome - you know - "We need more
> violins on television!"
>
> Because I'm studying (in mid-life of all things!) to be a teacher, I've been
> asking persons who are responsible for large groups of people (like our bishop,
> etc.) what children require that they do not currently learn in school. One
> answer was "discernment." I found it disarming until I picked up C.S. Lewis'
> "The Abolition of Man." I laughed aloud on the commuter train on reading about
> Gauis and Titius. A fellow rider (well heeled and purportedly the recipient of
> *some* education), looked down at the book and said "What's funny about
> slavery?" Then I wanted to cry.
I realize this is not a charitable thought, but have you ever
noticed that some people are just thick as mud? I'm not sure
discernment can be taught.
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Charles Riggs (ri...@anu.ie) wrote:
>>
>> I think you would profit from going to a pub every now and then. They
>> are the more appropriate places for such talk than alt.english.usage.
>> I'll pay.
>>
>
>Send cheques c/o Fleece and Firkin, St Thomas St, Bristol.
ROTFL. All right. So I'll know the proper amount, how much does a
pint, or a drink if that's your preference, cost in Sterling and how
many of them do you drink at a sitting?
Charles
Charles Riggs
>
>It's from the original Saturday Night Live. There is a spoof
>news segment on the show. Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin were the
>anchors back then. Gilda Radner played a variety of eccentric
>characters. Emily Latella was my favorite. Her whole bit was
>always an editorial based on a stupid pun, but she was so funny
>you could cry.
>
>PK is referring to the night she got all upset about people
>complaining about violence on television. She insisted that we
>need MORE violins on television. My favorite was when she went
>off about the song "I Will Swallow Him." Funny how timely these
>topics are today. Anyway, Jane Curtin (the aforementioned
>ignorant slut) would get all frustrated and yell at her. Then
>Emily would say, "Oh. Never mind."
>
>I guess you had to be there.
>
>Jane
I was there and the "more violins on television" skit was riotous.
Wasn't it Gilda Radnar though who would always say "Oh. Never mind."?
She was my all time favourite female comedian. I'll never forget her
skit about the princess who married the prince with the "tiny, tiny,
tiny" this and that.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>Nope. My tears here were reserved for the ignorance of the common American
>reader.
Well, I don't believe the common American is all that bad. He gets a
lot of undeserved bad press I think.
>Being Irish, (once upon a time), I'd *hate* the idea of being eaten....but
>pk
Well that was one of the points of it. Have you maybe lost your once
upon a time Irish sense of humour, pk?
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Can the panel please consider this question: were the skits on TV and
>radio wittier at one time or am I suffering from when-I-was-a-lad
>syndrome?
In my opinion, there were indeed wittier in the earlier days. Where
have the great comedians gone? Is there a Jack Benny, Gilda Radnar or
Groucho today?
"Friends" is funny and so is "The Simpsons", but they're no where near
on the level of "Cheers", "Fawlty Towers" (my favourite) or the early
"Mash" episodes I think.
Charles
Daniel James
> I defended my statement and fully explained what a "day" was several
> times to you. Everyone else on this group appeared to understand it
> but you were too busy looking for a way to argue it than to take the
> time to read it and understand it.
>
I don't think that's quite fair, or quite correct. What "day" means
depends on the context in which you use it, and I didn't understand why
you were sticking so rigidly to the "dictionary" definition of "24
hours, as measured by the clock" and refusing to consider alternatives
or enter into Ellen's astronomical dicussion of different definitions
of day and year.
On the other hand, in a.e.u not sci.astronomy.chronology (which I just
made up, so don't go searching for it), so maybe you were doing the
right thing....
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> The more I think about this, the more I suspect that people's
> posting style does not necessarily reflect their style of
> interaction in conversation. My new theory is that people post
> the way they drive.
>
Hmm. My posting style certainly doesn't reflect my style in
conversation - if only because it's so difficult, in conversation, to
go back and delete the previous paragraph before saying it! I suspect
that the same argument applies to driving style, however.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Jeff Chapman
>Yes. It seems to me that humour today relies much more on situation
>and visual cues than in the past. If you read the script of a Seinfeld
>show you'd only find it funny, I suspect, if your imagination supplied
>the body/face language to go with the extremely ordinary dialogue.
While I do love reading Monty Python scripts (online or in books), I
think this is because I've seen all the kits and I can perfectly
picture the frustration and confusion each of the Pythons brought to
their lines. I think excellent screen comedy writing should take full
advantage of the visual medium. There really shouldn't be any
additional pride in a sketch being 'inherently funny on paper',
because sketches aren't written to be read.
I agree with the earlier poster who defended the Saturday Night Live
of today -- that show can still be very funny, and when I watch old
reruns from the 70s I'm often not very impressed (disclaimer: I'm only
25). Although it relied too heavily on recurring characters, Kids in
the Hall was the best sketch comedy show on TV until it was cancelled.
Mr. Show (on HBO) is utterly brilliant, probably the best sketch
comedy show on the air today. Bob Odenkirk and David Cross are
incredibly talented writers and performers.
Jeff (aka Ninj)
http://www.infiltration.org
Robert Lieblich
>
<snip>
<responding to janelaw>
> I was there and the "more violins on television" skit was riotous.
> Wasn't it Gilda Radnar though who would always say "Oh. Never mind."?
> She was my all time favourite female comedian. I'll never forget her
> skit about the princess who married the prince with the "tiny, tiny,
> tiny" this and that.
The performer was Gilda Radner (sic). The character was Emily Litella.
In the portion of Jane's posting I snipped, she said this.
Nothing else was quite as funny (to me) in its own way as Dan Aykroyd
saying "Jane, you ignorant slut." The whole editorial debate between
the two of them had its roots in a pre-Andy Rooney feature of "60
Minutes" in which Shana Alexander and James J. (Jack) Kilpatrick had at
one another on topics supposedly of current interest. Kilpatrick took
pains to show his disdain for Alexander, and Aykroyd was caricaturing
that. I think the Alexander-Kilpatrick interlude on "60 Minutes" was
named "Crossfire." It preceded the current CNN show of that name by at
least a couple of decades.
Someone (sorry, can't remember who) wrote a very good book about the
first few years of what we now call "SNL." The name of the book is
*Saturday Night*, and one of the points the author makes is that
everyone associated with the show in its first years called it "Saturday
Night." That's because Howard Cosell had attempted a live prime-time
variety show that same year and called it "Saturday Night Live," so the
late-night show was officially "NBC's Saturday Night." No "live" in the
title. The original title is perpetuated in the opening shout: "Live,
from New York, it's Saturday night."
Years after Cosell's show went defunct, the producer of the late night
show (I don't think it was Lorne Michaels as the time) asked Cosdell if
he minded if they called it "Saturday Night Live." He said okay, and
it's been SNL eve since.
Bob Lieblich
JUST AN H
>>Nope. My tears here were reserved for the ignorance of the common American
>>reader.
How snobbish. I get so tired of hearing Brits bashing Americans.....
Original poster: You come from a land whose empire once encompassed a good
percentage of the globe, but which has shrunk back to an island about the size
of the state of Oregon in the north Atlantic. Your country had a lot of
influence in its heyday, but is now little more than a socialist welfare state
whose biggest tourist draw is your castle ruins and a silly little monarchy who
plays its role like something out of "Dynasty."
Oftentimes, I wonder if the standard British put-downs of Americans isn't borne
on feelings of envy? After all, you might have your Shakespeare and your
perfect English and your Victorian sensibilities and modern day radicalism and
historic cities and villages and memories of when you ruled the world ... but
Americans have so much more. We don't have as much history as you do, but what
little we have is important to us. More importantly, however, is the fact that
here in America, we work hard and play hard and are able to enjoy freedoms you
don't have in effete Great Britian. Here, we live in large houses and drive
large cars, we eat well and as much as we want to, we keep our houses warm and
take unlimited heat and hot water for granted, put our children through college
& university on our earnings (or scholarships if needed) and vacation around
the world. (Should an American decide not to travel beyond our borders, then
there's unlimited wilderness here to explore.)
So.....dry your tears, you arrogant Brit. There may be ignorance here in
America (just as I imagine there to be in good ol' England), but we here in
America have a lot more opportunityt and freedom than you'll ever enjoy. Save
your tears for yourself.
Charles Riggs
>
>>>Nope. My tears here were reserved for the ignorance of the common American
>>>reader.
>
>How snobbish. I get so tired of hearing Brits bashing Americans.....
Snipped the part bashing Brits...
When I lived in America I often bashed the Brits as you have in your
post and though much of what you said I agree with, it was only after
meeting a number of the English while living here in Europe that I
came to change my opinion of the people. They often have a wonderful
sense of humour and it is a real pleasure to converse with that person
who does. I think it is time for Americans and the English to put away
the muskets, the war is long over, and appreciate the virtues and
respect the differences between our two peoples.
A point often made here in Ireland is that while one may hate some of
the awful things England has done in the past, that is no good reason
to hate the individual Englishman.
Charles
Charles Riggs
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <361df6fa....@news.anu.ie>, Charles Riggs wrote:
>> I defended my statement and fully explained what a "day" was several
>> times to you. Everyone else on this group appeared to understand it
>> but you were too busy looking for a way to argue it than to take the
>> time to read it and understand it.
>>
>
>I don't think that's quite fair, or quite correct. What "day" means
>depends on the context in which you use it, and I didn't understand why
>you were sticking so rigidly to the "dictionary" definition of "24
>hours, as measured by the clock" and refusing to consider alternatives
>or enter into Ellen's astronomical dicussion of different definitions
>of day and year.
>
>On the other hand, in a.e.u not sci.astronomy.chronology (which I just
>made up, so don't go searching for it), so maybe you were doing the
>right thing....
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
Perhaps I was being a bit harsh there. I agree of course that day can
be defined in several different ways and the group discussed solar and
sidereal days (I think it was you who defined them for us). It just
seemed to me that Ellen was unwilling to accept the definition of my
"clock" day, the one we generally use. I particularly objected to her
use of the phrase "variable day", which I believe she left undefined,
since this implied to me that the length of the day couldn't be pinned
down at all.
Charles
Bill McCray
>
>>>Nope. My tears here were reserved for the ignorance of the common American
>>>reader.
>
>How snobbish. I get so tired of hearing Brits bashing Americans.....
>
Interesting. You seem to think he has bashed all Americans. Note that
he said "common American reader". Many Americans can't read, so they're
excluded. Many of those who can read are fairly ignorant, but those of
us who aren't ignorant are also not the common American readers. So the
writer has properly characterized them and laments that ignorance. So
do I.
I also feel sorry for you. It must be very hard to live with all that
hatred and anger.
Bill
P&DSchultz
>
> On 2 Oct 1998 03:34:47 GMT, jus...@aol.com (JUST AN H) wrote:
>
> >
> >>>Nope. My tears here were reserved for the ignorance of the common American
> >>>reader.
> >
> >How snobbish. I get so tired of hearing Brits bashing Americans.....
> >
> Interesting. You seem to think he has bashed all Americans. Note that
> he said "common American reader". Many Americans can't read, so they're
> excluded. Many of those who can read are fairly ignorant, but those of
> us who aren't ignorant are also not the common American readers. So the
> writer has properly characterized them and laments that ignorance.
I agree. I know or have known thousands of American readers, and not
one of them is or was common. So he was talking about people none of
us has ever met or heard of. So it's ok.
//P. Schultz
David C. Jack
> snip
> Here, we live in large houses and drive
> large cars, we eat well and as much as we want to, we keep our houses warm and
> take unlimited heat and hot water for granted, put our children through college
> & university on our earnings (or scholarships if needed) and vacation around
> the world. (Should an American decide not to travel beyond our borders, then
> there's unlimited wilderness here to explore.)
>
If think that this is a global picture of the USA, try travelling
to the inner cities instead of the wilderness - it may come as a
surprise.
Dave
Pk2222
Ellen asked:
>I have to ask a prosaic question here. Why is your son dressed for
>Hallowe'en on 30 September?
Please forgive the delay. Dan is an incredibly methodical child, very unlike
his mother. He likes to *plan*.
pk
Pk2222
Ellen asks <yet again....will no one of us answer?>
>But what effect, if any, does this shift from verbal to visual humour
>have on verbal facility among the population?
I believe that the shift from verbal to visual humor *represents* the withering
verbal skills of the herd. <love that term, thanks!> In every class I take and
every class I teach it seems that expressive skills decline. The reasons?
<pause for a station break, thanks to our sponsor Janelaw....>
My reasons are most uncharitable. Sloth. Ignorance. The elitism of ignorance
among the herd. Utter lack of taste. Paucity of imagination. Privity of
culture. Primacy of culture. The list goes on and on.
The aforementioned ante-Hallowe'en costumed Dan proclaimed at dinner last week
"At least I'm not a prisoner of my own vocabulary."
<and now, back to our regularly scheduled programming......>
pk
Pk2222
Oh my! I was the aforementioned original poster.
I offer my most humble apologies to any whom I've offended.
1. I am American. It says on my passport that I was born in Gary, Indiana,
steel capital of the universe <afawki>.
2. I am a snob. I wholeheartedly admit it! I fume on a daily basis about what
I consider to be absolutely avoidable ignorance. It's one of the reasons I flee
on a semi-regular basis to this NG oasis in this midwestern desert of language
and urbanity.
3. Being of Irish and English extraction, albeit American-born, I have all the
history Justan cites and all the advantages he sees today. I'm a lucky girl!
Here's where I have trouble and where I reserve the right to criticize
ignorance:
1. I think it's an American tendency to ignore the languages and cultures of
other people. I am consistently amazed and embarrassed by my own friends who,
when travelling in Europe or South America *will not even attempt* another
language or sensibility. MAKES ME CRAZY.
2. Our American system of education seems to be hell-bent on weeding out the
great books of our literature. If it keeps up, we'll soon have no basis
whatsoever for conversation and will be forced to talk about <groan!> baseball
or, even worse <blush!!!> politics.
3. <to Charles...> I deny having lost my sense of humor. I was just leaving
out the emoticons for Jane's sake. <grin>
Have your pound of flesh, Justan! I will defend to the death your right to seek
it.
pk
<arrogant American intellectual mode temporarily off>
George F. Hardy
>
>It says on my passport that I was born in Gary, Indiana,
A two sentence oxymoron.
GFH
Pk2222
But George!
They were separated. Order should count for something.......unless of course
one can never transcend one's origin.
Besides, the whole premise was ridiculous. Why not the answer, too?
pk
JUST AN H
>Have your pound of flesh, Justan! I will defend to the death your right to
>seek
>it.
I think this whole thing is getting out of hand. When I posted that message, I
honestly believed I was responding to *one more* arrogant attack on Americans
by a Brit. Worse, I had logged on after a lengthy phone conversation with a
British friend of mine living in Boulder, and was seething at his not too
subtle put-downs of Americans.
I don't mind criticism of Americans by Americans (I make a lot of observations
myself), nor do I mind criticism of Americans by French, German, Italian,
Latvian, Icelandic or Dalmation people. There's lots to criticize in America,
and most critics have valid points. What irks me is British criticism, which
seems rooted in pure arrogance. That we don't speak the King's (or Queen's)
English here, that many of our people live in trailer parks instead of groomed
manors, etc, etc, matters much to these effete snobs. That's why I bristle
whenever I smell British criticism of our country and our people.
J.
Charles Riggs
>
>Oh my! I was the aforementioned original poster.
>
>I offer my most humble apologies to any whom I've offended.
Not I madam.
>1. I am American. It says on my passport that I was born in Gary, Indiana,
>steel capital of the universe <afawki>.
>
>2. I am a snob. I wholeheartedly admit it! I fume on a daily basis about what
>I consider to be absolutely avoidable ignorance. It's one of the reasons I flee
>on a semi-regular basis to this NG oasis in this midwestern desert of language
>and urbanity.
I would move. (Well, actually I did.)
>3. Being of Irish and English extraction, albeit American-born, I have all the
>history Justan cites and all the advantages he sees today. I'm a lucky girl!
>
>Here's where I have trouble and where I reserve the right to criticize
>ignorance:
>
>1. I think it's an American tendency to ignore the languages and cultures of
>other people. I am consistently amazed and embarrassed by my own friends who,
>when travelling in Europe or South America *will not even attempt* another
>language or sensibility. MAKES ME CRAZY.
This makes me MAD AS HELL too. It's largely a fault of our educational
system I think. I was not even exposed to European history or culture
in H.S. and didn't learn anything of it in college either since I
picked up engineering instead of liberal arts. A foreign language
wasn't required in H.S. as at least one should have been. Nearly all
Europeans, I find, speak several languages quite fluently.
>2. Our American system of education seems to be hell-bent on weeding out the
>great books of our literature. If it keeps up, we'll soon have no basis
>whatsoever for conversation and will be forced to talk about <groan!> baseball
>or, even worse <blush!!!> politics.
Baseball - UGH! That's all some people were able to talk about back in
awful Bangor, Maine.
>3. <to Charles...> I deny having lost my sense of humor. I was just leaving
>out the emoticons for Jane's sake. <grin>
I see you have one after all. Sorry.
>Have your pound of flesh, Justan! I will defend to the death your right to seek
>it.
>
>pk
><arrogant American intellectual mode temporarily off>
In Ireland, arrogant me has learned a bit about being politer and
quieter. I still receive the occasional complaint however. :-)
Charles
Charles Riggs
>I don't mind criticism of Americans by Americans (I make a lot of observations
>myself), nor do I mind criticism of Americans by French, German, Italian,
>Latvian, Icelandic or Dalmation people. There's lots to criticize in America,
>and most critics have valid points. What irks me is British criticism, which
>seems rooted in pure arrogance. That we don't speak the King's (or Queen's)
>English here, that many of our people live in trailer parks instead of groomed
>manors, etc, etc, matters much to these effete snobs. That's why I bristle
>whenever I smell British criticism of our country and our people.
>
>J.
I find that the English, not so much British, occasional arrogance is
not reserved for we Americans alone. It's all right. They can't help
themselves it seems.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In article <19981006152734...@ng155.aol.com>, pk2...@aol.com (Pk2222) says:
>>
>>It says on my passport that I was born in Gary, Indiana,
>>steel capital of the universe. I am a snob.
>
>A two sentence oxymoron.
>
>GFH
You're rearranging her words and taking them out of context to make
your unfunny point. That's hardly fair.
Charles
janelaw
>
> Oh my! I was the aforementioned original poster.
>
> I offer my most humble apologies to any whom I've offended.
>
> steel capital of the universe <afawki>.
...not Louisiana, Paris, France, or Rome....
>
> 2. I am a snob.
It's purely in self-defense, I'm sure.
> snip
>
>
> 2. Our American system of education seems to be hell-bent on weeding out the
> great books of our literature. If it keeps up, we'll soon have no basis
> whatsoever for conversation and will be forced to talk about <groan!> baseball
> or, even worse <blush!!!> politics.
Well, I can certainly identify with this. I was at a party
Saturday. All anyone seemed to talk about was baseball.
Someone turned on The Game on a huge tv dominating the living
room. It was some sort of post-season play-off game.
Desperate, I drank too much wine and found myself discussing
politics out by the pool. <blush> I live in one of those
states where gubernatorial candidates argue about who will
execute more criminals if they are elected. I have to get a
life (or at least see more movies) so that I will have more to
talk about at these events.
>
> 3. <to Charles...> I deny having lost my sense of humor. I was just leaving
> out the emoticons for Jane's sake. <grin>
>
>
I'm going to pay for that confession for a long time, aren't I?
Pk2222
Charles wrote:
>It's largely a fault of our educational
>system I think. I was not even exposed to European history or culture
>in H.S. and didn't learn anything of it in college either since I
>picked up engineering instead of liberal arts. A foreign language
>wasn't required in H.S. as at least one should have been.
Since American education is community based, I think requirements are different
in almost every state. In Illinois, (yup, I've moved), we were required to have
at least two to three years of a foreign language. The core curriculum for
science, mathematics and engineering majors at my college also required two
years of a foreign language - it was probably revenge for requiring economics
and science of the liberal arts students.
Three things seem to govern the American choice to learn other languages -
interest, attitude and need. Our language avoidance almost resembles the
francophone Canadians who prefer not to speak English even though they suffer
twelve to thirteen years of bilingual education.
It would be wonderful if proximity to speakers of other languages would goad us
into learning a few ourselves. Tamil looks interesting!
pk
JUST AN H
>Three things seem to govern the American choice to learn other languages -
>interest, attitude and need.
I can understand the American aversion to languages other than English. We
really are isolated here from the rest of the world in this huge country of
ours. Lots of Americans travel to other countries across the Atlantic and
Pacific but, because of our isolation, the average American isn't bombarded by
different languages in their day to day lives like Europeans are.
I took 14 years of French and grew up speaking German. I never lost those
languages ... indeed, I still dream in them. A lot good that does me out here
in Colorado, though. Here, nobody but nobody speaks French or German as their
first language. I should have learned Spanish instead. Then, I'd be better
able to communicate with the janitors who clean our office building.
George F. Hardy
no intent to use it in the near future is wasting his time.
Not my thought, but the comment of a foreign language professor.
GFH
Bob Newman
> >Have your pound of flesh, Justan! I will defend to the death your right to
> >seek
> >it.
>
> I think this whole thing is getting out of hand. When I posted that message, I
> honestly believed I was responding to *one more* arrogant attack on Americans
> by a Brit. Worse, I had logged on after a lengthy phone conversation with a
> British friend of mine living in Boulder, and was seething at his not too
> subtle put-downs of Americans.
>
> I don't mind criticism of Americans by Americans (I make a lot of observations
> myself), nor do I mind criticism of Americans by French, German, Italian,
> Latvian, Icelandic or Dalmation people. There's lots to criticize in America,
> and most critics have valid points. What irks me is British criticism, which
> seems rooted in pure arrogance. That we don't speak the King's (or Queen's)
> English here, that many of our people live in trailer parks instead of groomed
> manors, etc, etc, matters much to these effete snobs. That's why I bristle
> whenever I smell British criticism of our country and our people.
>
> J.
I nominate the above as the most arrogant, offensive posting I have yet seen to
this or any other newsgroup.
Bob Newman
Petibacsi
>to
>this or any other newsgroup.
>
>Bob Newman
Obviously you haven't read too many newsgroups yet. :)