Re: Rules of Engagement?

["Scott K. McGrath" <mcgrats@ix.netcom.com>]

  Chuck; Do whatever you want... I tried to get you to write clearly and coherently
  and failed miserably.  Thus, I called you a pompous ass, IMHO, a title you richly
  deserve.
  
  Didn't anyone ever tell you in any of your writing classes that the purpose of
  writing was to communicate your thoughts clearly in a manner which all people, not
  just your anticipated audience, will understand?  To put it plainly, know the big
  words but use the little ones?  Hell, I learned that from my 11th grade English
  teacher, Mrs. Clare Dalmas.
  
  I guess you never learned this...
  
  BTW, don't -ever- makes threats online you're not capable of backing up. In the
  words of the famous ex-pitcher, Jim Bouton... "Ya gotta consider the source."
  You're now in my "Kill File", as it were... I'll simply push the Delete key on
  your posts... You're not worth my time or trouble to do anything else.
  
  Regards,
  
  Scott K. McGrath
  mcgrats@ix.netcom.com
  
  charles mueller wrote:
  
  >         The rules of engagement on Net discussion lists seem to vary rather
  > widely from one to the next.  What are the rules on this one, if any?
  >
  >         I've been called some unpleasant names in a couple of recent posts
  > and have, so far, refrained from responding in kind.  For me, this is
  > seriously out of character. As I've mentioned before, I'm a battle-scarred
  > veteran of the Washington political wars and quite at home in this kind of
  > verbal hand-to-hand combat.  Next year, 1998, will mark my 40th year as an
  > antitrust professional--15 years with the FTC, 10 of them as an aide to a
  > chairman and 2 commissioners, primarily writing antitrust decisions. An
  > editor in the field now for over 2 decades, I've read thousands of such
  > opinions. As I think I've also mentioned before, I compose at the keyboard
  > at the same speed I type, up to 100 mpw on a reasonably good day.
  >
  >         In other words, if the rules of engagement here are no-holds-barred,
  > sling all the mud you want, meet reasoned propositions with schoolyard
  > name-calling, personal insults, attacks on your opponent's intelligence,
  > education, character, mental health, and the like, I won't exactly be at a
  > disadvantage.  I have to modestly admit that, when push comes to shove, I'm
  > no slouch in this kind of slash-and-burn debate.  So far, I've been thrown
  > off several lists--ideologues on both the right and the left seem to be
  > similarly incensed by my advocacy of effective competition in all capitalist
  > markets--for, in effect, 'unnecessary [verbal] roughness.'
  >
  >         Join a half-dozen or so lists and you quickly learn the root cause
  > of name- calling, namely, ideology.  Who complains about the poster who
  > agrees with them?  Anyone who posts as much as I do--for me it's both easy
  > and fun and productive (my posts ultimately go into my printed journal)--can
  > expect critics. I rarely respond, since many of them have nothing to say
  > that requires a response.
  >
  >         There's amazing vigor on both extremes of the ideological spectrum,
  > say the 5% or so of the U.S. population on the far right (laissez-faire) and
  > the equivalent 5% at the other end, the far left (socialists/collectivists).
  > Unless you agree with them, you have a serious PERSONAL defect--which of
  > course accounts for the name calling.  Every ad hominem attack I've
  > experienced online has come from someone who, it ultimately turned out,
  > abhors my blunt advocacy of Adam Smith's prescription for tough, 20-firm
  > price/quality competition in worldwide capitalist markets.  I've not always
  > been especially tolerant in my responses.
  >
  >         So why am I being so mannerly now?  I'm experimenting.  As an
  > empiricist, I see the key question as, does it work?  Do verbal brawls--no
  > matter how much fun they may be for some of us--advance the values and
  > policies that I happen to think are important for the world's 200 countries?
  > Or is more progress made by keeping the egos in check, hearing out the
  > follies of the other side, and responding civilly, even graciously, to them
  > ("Will the Learned Gentleman yield for a moment...)?  If there is such a
  > thing as a 'model' Net discussion list, what would its rules of engagement be?
  >
  >         I think what I'd really like to see is a list where there were, in
  > effect, at least a couple of responsible members who would promptly and
  > firmly reply to the first incidence of name-calling, carefully and
  > specifically defending the victim and taking to task the user of the
  > offensive language.  'John has used words that are offensive and uncalled
  > for.' These remonstrances should be sharp enough--and specific enough--that
  > the VICTIM HIMSELF FEELS NO NEED TO RESPOND.  He has been vindicated by the
  > group and therefore has no urge to defend himself by replying in kind.  A
  > potential brawl has been nipped in the bud.  (The criminal law serves a
  > similar function:  When the sheriff and the prosecutor do their jobs, the
  > victim and his friends have no need to seek private vengeance.  Justice has
  > been done and the matter is ended.)
  >
  >         Fuel has been added to the fire, though, when list members jump in
  > and say, 'Now boys, tut, tut,' piously blaming the victim as well as his
  > attacker.  This typically happens on a list, of course, as a result of fear,
  > a reluctance to criticize a bully who has shown his willingness to verbally
  > abuse any who oppose his views. Confronting bullies is not for the faint of
  > heart--which of course explains why it rarely occurs on discussion lists.
  > Rather, list members typically advise the victim, onlist or privately, to
  > 'ignore' the insults, no matter how scurrilous.  Absorb it, 'take' it.
  > Heroic souls do indeed sometime manage to turn the other cheek--accept the
  > blows and abuse without counter blows (passive resistance,etc)--but human
  > nature isn't really programmed that way.  Self-defence trumps self-sacrifice
  > for most of us.
  >
  >         No one in this group seems disposed to challenge the two members
  > who've engaged here in the lowest form of name-calling against me.  The next
  > time it happens, then, will be pay-back time: they won't like the reply
  > they'll get from me.  And any member who has kept quiet during the
  > name-calling against me--but presumes to tut-tut me when I lower the boom on
  > the guy who attacked me--won't care for my answer to him either.
  >
  >          Charles Mueller, Editor
  >         ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
  >         http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller