Rick misunderstood my message. I called Michael's messages idiotic fully realizing I
invited the same characterization of any idiotic message I might send. I am pointing
out that is what the free-speech absolutists and the everybody- has- a- right- to
be-heard crowd is taking us.
It is the case that many have tried ignoring him, as is clear from mesages on TIPS
and private ones I receive. It doesn't work. I also use my Netscape to kill his
messages, but the ones in reply to him continue on for ever.
Finally, I know from personal experience that most serious psychologists don't have
the time to waste on this list. I have many colleagues who signed on, only to be
driven away by the drivel one must wade through. Don't ask me why I stay. It may be
the partial reinforcement effect that one learns about in the boring part of
psychology.
BTW, this thread has been taking place under the Subject heading of "Michael
Sylvester's inanities", precisely the sort of header I proposed. Those who don't
want to read any more about him didn't have to. I repeat my suggestion that we reply
to his inane postings with such a header.
I remain, not grumpy, but disinclined to read twaddle.
don
Donald McBurney
Rick Adams wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
> > Sure, call me names if you don't like what I say.
>
> But isn't that precisely what you asked people to do with Michael
> Sylvester?
>
> If it's fair for him, it's equally fair for you.
>
> > If those who believe that free speech means we must listen to
> > endless adolescent discussion, then what is left?
>
> Isn't that what we are listening to from the Michael Sylvester opponents?
> Michael may post a message that offends some people with it's "adolescent"
> overtones--but if a _discussion_ ensues, it isn't Michael talking to
> himself--it's the people on this list talking about the topic as well.
>
> What you are _really_ calling for isn't a limitation on Michael
> Sylvester. It's a limitation on the topics that can be discussed here. You
> want them limited to those topics you, personally, find of interest.
> Sorry, but lists don't work that way. If you have a topic of interest,
> raise it and people will discuss it--without calling for you to be
> silenced because _they_ don't care for the topic.
>
> I'm neither an experimental psychologist nor a behaviorist. As these are
> topics I have no interest in at all, would I be justified in insisting
> that all threads about those topics be labled "Re: Boring areas of
> psychology?" For some reason, I don't think you would agree with that--yet
> your call to label Michael Sylvester's posts is in exactly the same
> category.
>
> > People on this list have tried ignoring him, reasoning with
> > him, admonishing him, and ridiculing him. Any suggestions
> > besides letting valuable discussion about teaching be driven
> > from the list?
>
> In the first place, far from ignoring him, people have been constantly
> posting about him. You, yourself, complain that there is too much
> discussion about his "adolescent topics." If he was being ignored, there
> wouldn't be any at all.
>
> In the second place, I don't recall the election where you--or anyone
> else--was elected netCOP. In other words, why does _your_ opinion that
> Michael should be silenced have any more weight than that of those who
> feel he should be heard?
>
> A list doesn't exist to meet the demands of a limited segment of the
> participants--it exists to meet the needs of the entire group. And that
> means allowing far more freedom of speech than you are willing to grant.
>
> You have topics you are interested in that Michael may not be. He has
> topics he is interested in that you may not be. The idea of open
> communications implies that in order to be free to discuss those topics
> you find important you must be willing to allow Michael (or anyone else)
> to discuss topics of interest to them.
>
> Valuable discussions aren't being driven from this list. They are taking
> place concurrently with the Michael Sylvester ones. A list isn't a
> sequential environment in which one topic at a time can exist, it's a
> parallel one in which any number of threads can exist concurrently. If you
> want a topic to be discussed, raise it. If you don't want to read a topic,
> mark it "ignore" with your email program (and if your software isn't
> capable of that basic a function, either get better software or simply
> ignore the threads when you see their headers). Certainly, if you don't
> start a thread there is no reason to complain that threads of interest to
> you aren't being discussed--that's like complaining that because you
> didn't turn on the tv you didn't get to watch a show you were interested
> in.
>
> > All communities have their ways of enforcing norms. Meetings
> > have chairs; journals have editors; in less formal situations
> > one can raise and eyebrow, roll one's eyes, or simply walk away.
> > Discussion lists don't have these features. Another list I
> > belonged to self-destructed because it was unable to deal with
> > -- sound familiar?-- antisemitism.
>
> Then perhaps you need to learn to use mailing lists.
>
> They DO have the features you want. The primary one is the kill filter.
> If you don't want to read someone's posts, then kill file them and you'll
> never see them again.
>
> A list isn't a community, it'a a resource. Our "chair" is Bill, whose
> sole function is to maintain the list--not to become arbitrator in a
> dispute. If we had an "editor" we would be a moderated list--and 90% of us
> would leave for a more open environment. You "raise an eyebrow," or "roll
> an eye" by the tone of your response to a message to which you reply _in
> context_ (not as a separate thread trashing the poster, as is this
> "Michael Sylvester's inanities" one. And you "walk away" by simply not
> responding.
>
> Which feature did you not find above?
>
> Don, if people here spent 1/2 as much time responding to Michael's posts
> from a professional, interested, and informative perspective--if they USED
> those posts as springing boards for discussion and to illustrate important
> principles--this list would be enormously enrichened. Instead, far to many
> people choose to behave like spoiled children whose "toy" (this list) is
> being used by another kid they don't like. We're psychologists, not Jr.
> High students--it's time to take a mature, professional, attitude toward
> the matter--and a mature, professional, attitude means accepting the
> obvious fact that some of the topics here will be interesting, some will
> be neutral, and some will be offensive--and accepting _all_ those posts
> because we want our own posts accepted as well.
>
> Peace,
>
> Rick
> --
>
> Rick Adams
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Department of Social Sciences
> Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
>
> "... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
> will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
>
> Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
