Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ladcgw!frank From: frank@ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Debate on USENET Message-ID: <1989Sep27.175601.5363@ladc.bull.com> Date: 27 Sep 89 17:56:01 GMT References: <35033@apple.Apple.COM> <46115@bbn.COM> <35037@apple.Apple.COM> Reply-To: frank@ladcgw.ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar) Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc. Los Angeles Development Center Lines: 61 In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >To be really, really brief (if that's at all possible for me), here are the >keys to avoiding flamewars: >o Discuss the posting, not the poster. >o Stick to the discussion. >o If the discussion isn't getting anywhere, then drop it. >o If it's already been said, don't say it again. >o If you're the minority viewpoint and you're not going to persuade people, > then be gracious and get out of the way of the majority, even if you know > you're right. You will then be able to say "I told you so" when they go > off and do it and it blows up in their face (and you can quietly slip into > the darkness if it doesn't...) "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt." (One of the reasons I try not to open my mouth too much. :-) Certainly we all have egos, and it's sometimes difficult to admit that we're wrong. And it can be even more difficult to step back and let the argument drop, when we know we're right. The advantage to doing that though, is that when we do, we decrease the noise level of the discussion (opening the possibility of injecting new facts into it) and we might even learn something. Even when we're right, it's possible that we don't have all the facts, and that in a larger context, our individual viewpoint may be incomplete, or even completely inaccurate. And if that's not the case, then (as Chuq says above) when it becomes obvious that we _were_ right, we are then able to rub our opponents' faces in it. And that's certainly good for our egos. :-) Only when we remove our egos from our discussions can we accomplish any meaningful, beneficial dialog. This is true whether we're talking about the color of the sky or the morality of abortion. When we let our egos get involved, the noise level goes up and any real communication stops completely. Another gain from removing our egos from our communications is that, by doing so, we can gain the respect of the people we communicate with. Usually, those individuals that respond to a posting they disagree with with an ad hominem attack, don't really know what they believe, nor why they believe it. And no one respects them for their behavior, since it "removes all doubt." The people that are respected are those whose postings are well thought out and informative, and who seem open to new ideas. People whose egos are not tied up in what they say or what they believe. I won't name names, but you know who you are. :-) Of course, nobody's perfect, and we all f*ck up at times. The point is to try to follow the rules, and to do our best to remain open to new, possibly contradictory, ideas. Usenet should be a thoughtful medium, since we are forced to stop and think about what we are typing. It's sad that there are people using Usenet that aren't interested in being thoughtful or considerate. Remember the number one rule of Usenet ettiquette: Think before you post! (Too bad rn or inews isn't smart enough to reject an article based on [lack of] content. :-) Anyway, that's my $2.95 worth. Your turn. -- Frank Mayhar frank@ladc.bull.com (..!{uunet,hacgate,rdahp}!ladcgw!frank) Bull HN Information Systems Inc. Los Angeles Development Center 5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA 90045 Phone: (213) 216-6241