First, I apoligize to those of you uninterested in this bickering. But I'm
not going to take it.
And I have *good reason* because this is a list for intellectuals, and the
spirit of intellectualism includes the development and proliferation of
knowledge. Isn't that the purpose of this list? So, I should be able to ask
questions and seek answers without harassment. And if I can't, then I'll do
something about it.
Here's what I'm talking about--
Matthew wrote:
"Here's another odd thing about e-list politics: when someone [he's talking
about me] asks a question and no one gives an answer or a straight answer,
the asker often reacts like s/he's being deliberately snubbed--as if someone
out there must know the answer and they're just not giving it up. Well,
actually
that fits right in with reading with the least charity possible...."
First of all, I was snubbed, at least by you. You say that I feel snubbed
because I believe that "someone has the answer but is not giving it up."
Well, yeah. For example, I asked where the archives are, and you - someone
who has the answer - wrote back a snide remark instead of "giving it [the
answer] up." (I'm thinking you do have the answer, since you seem to know so
much.) Second, if you want talk about e-list politics, why is it that on
some lists there are people like na.devine who insist on being smug to new
members who ask "the wrong questions"?
What's the point of na.devine saying "Read the archives" without telling me
where they are, unless he was being dismissive? And what was the point of
his writing "How many women last the distance . . . ?," unless he was
insulting me?
Also, what was the point of you, Matthew, writing "I'd've thought that
someone who advertises their own webpage in their posts wouldn't have too
much trouble finding them [the archives]" ? Well, excuse me for including my
web page address in my email program's signiture file.
You two are all jeers and no help at all. Tell me again, who is charitable
and who is not?
the message I'm responding to is attached-in-full below--
>
>
>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Mitch Wilson wrote:
>
>> >Read the archives. How many women last the distance in lists like this
>> >one? three over the last few months, here I think.
>> >N. (na.devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>>
>> Whom are you going to slam next - homosexuals, Asians, Catholics?
>
>*koff* Well, there's a perfect example of one of the most obvious elements
>of politics in electronic "socialities": if you don't know someone, read
>with the least charity possible.
>
>> And where are the archives, anyway?
>
>I'd've thought that someone who advertises their own webpage in their
>posts wouldn't have too much trouble finding them. (See, I'm doing it
>too!;)
>
>> By the way, if anyone is curious, below is the question I initially
>> asked which na.devine felt so compelled to not answer.
>>
>> "Any suggested readings/authors on power via language-use in the
>> performances of genders in chat room socialities would be tremendously
>> appreciated."
>
>I dunno, I thought Nesta's answer was pretty much to the point.
>
>Here's another odd thing about e-list politics: when someone asks a
>question and no one gives an answer or a straight answer, the asker often
>reacts like s/he's being deliberately snubbed--as if someone out there
>must know the answer and they're just not giving it up. Well, actually
>that fits right in with reading with the least charity possible....
>
>Matthew
>
>----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster University----
> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
>-----------------------------(Michel Foucault)--------------------------------
>
>
--
Mitchell Wilson
Senior Office Assistant
lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
512-471-5960
Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
University of Texas at Austin
J.J. Pickle Research Campus, Bldg.5, R7500
Austin, TX 78712-1100
not going to take it.
And I have *good reason* because this is a list for intellectuals, and the
spirit of intellectualism includes the development and proliferation of
knowledge. Isn't that the purpose of this list? So, I should be able to ask
questions and seek answers without harassment. And if I can't, then I'll do
something about it.
Here's what I'm talking about--
Matthew wrote:
"Here's another odd thing about e-list politics: when someone [he's talking
about me] asks a question and no one gives an answer or a straight answer,
the asker often reacts like s/he's being deliberately snubbed--as if someone
out there must know the answer and they're just not giving it up. Well,
actually
that fits right in with reading with the least charity possible...."
First of all, I was snubbed, at least by you. You say that I feel snubbed
because I believe that "someone has the answer but is not giving it up."
Well, yeah. For example, I asked where the archives are, and you - someone
who has the answer - wrote back a snide remark instead of "giving it [the
answer] up." (I'm thinking you do have the answer, since you seem to know so
much.) Second, if you want talk about e-list politics, why is it that on
some lists there are people like na.devine who insist on being smug to new
members who ask "the wrong questions"?
What's the point of na.devine saying "Read the archives" without telling me
where they are, unless he was being dismissive? And what was the point of
his writing "How many women last the distance . . . ?," unless he was
insulting me?
Also, what was the point of you, Matthew, writing "I'd've thought that
someone who advertises their own webpage in their posts wouldn't have too
much trouble finding them [the archives]" ? Well, excuse me for including my
web page address in my email program's signiture file.
You two are all jeers and no help at all. Tell me again, who is charitable
and who is not?
the message I'm responding to is attached-in-full below--
>
>
>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Mitch Wilson wrote:
>
>> >Read the archives. How many women last the distance in lists like this
>> >one? three over the last few months, here I think.
>> >N. (na.devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>>
>> Whom are you going to slam next - homosexuals, Asians, Catholics?
>
>*koff* Well, there's a perfect example of one of the most obvious elements
>of politics in electronic "socialities": if you don't know someone, read
>with the least charity possible.
>
>> And where are the archives, anyway?
>
>I'd've thought that someone who advertises their own webpage in their
>posts wouldn't have too much trouble finding them. (See, I'm doing it
>too!;)
>
>> By the way, if anyone is curious, below is the question I initially
>> asked which na.devine felt so compelled to not answer.
>>
>> "Any suggested readings/authors on power via language-use in the
>> performances of genders in chat room socialities would be tremendously
>> appreciated."
>
>I dunno, I thought Nesta's answer was pretty much to the point.
>
>Here's another odd thing about e-list politics: when someone asks a
>question and no one gives an answer or a straight answer, the asker often
>reacts like s/he's being deliberately snubbed--as if someone out there
>must know the answer and they're just not giving it up. Well, actually
>that fits right in with reading with the least charity possible....
>
>Matthew
>
>----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster University----
> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to commit
> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political consciousness."
>-----------------------------(Michel Foucault)--------------------------------
>
>
--
Mitchell Wilson
Senior Office Assistant
lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
512-471-5960
Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
University of Texas at Austin
J.J. Pickle Research Campus, Bldg.5, R7500
Austin, TX 78712-1100