Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION.scat: sci.psycoloquy.moderated
Keywords: psychology, scholrly-discussion, Bitnet-Psychology-Newsletter
Message-ID: <1990Jan22.095847.15384@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 90 09:58:47 GMT
References: <13106@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1990Jan21.072353.17735@agate.berkeley.edu> <13144@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 83
In-reply-to: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. R. Harnad)

In article <13144@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, harnad@phoenix (S. R.
Harnad) writes:

>>His behavior was irresponsible, libelous and contrary to the
>>spirit and best interests of the net. I do *not* think he should
>>be allowed to moderate a newsgroup.

>opening line that caught my attention at the time was "You have
>shit for brains," not "fecal"; the topic of discussion was gender
>in Urdu...

  Dear dear, such naughty words. I think anyone who would "make a
clinical diagnosis" on such a basis is a quack, and is also
indulging in libel. In case anyone is interested in Mr. Ellis'
sanity, he often posts to talk.philosophy.misc, alt.individualism
various other groups. You will find he is a "computer
professional" who happens to have a considerable knowledge of,
and interest in, philosophy. And you will find he is entirely
sane and rational, and not generally given to scatological
outbursts.

>I rightly surmised at the time that someone may have been using an
>account illicitly at Berkeley for those postings, and the sysadmin
>confirmed it, saying the real poster was not the name that
>appeared on the login; he had previously had his posting privileges
>revoked and was using someone else's userid.

  This is incorrect. He was using the student account (with
permission of that person, but not of the department) of someone
who had graduated.

>And that should have been the end of the matter. But look, the
>population of the Net, like every population, is a Gaussian
>distribution, which, as we all know, has tails at both ends. Instead of
>letting the matter drop, a vocal minority called my response an attack
>on free speech and demanded that *my* userid be revoked!

   It was and remains an attack on free speech. Incidently,
Michael Ellis is once again a system adminstrator, and has been
posting right along without causing any particular problem. The
fact is, you acted badly and still won't admit it.

>For a while, the net, and even moreso my email, became like a
>global graffiti board, with these people demonstrating their
>right to be as coprolalic as they pleased.

  Poor baby. You libel someone, and get their posting access
pulled, and people take exception. (By the way, I was not one of
these naughty people who filled your mailbox, etc. But I know why
they were tempted to do so. Do you?)

>Now it may come as a surprise to some that I have no allergy to
>four-letter words -- I use 'em myself, and sometimes even in writing,
>but not in learned journals or scholarly correspondence.

  I take it your position is that you my do so with impunity, but
if someone else does, then you may make a professional "clinical
diagnosis" on their sanity. Have you ever heard of practicing
medicine without a license, Dr. Quack?

>Now you make your own decision: Smith's posting has put the proposed
>psycoloquy group at a symbolic crossroad, just as scholarly skywriting
>itself is: We can allow the discussion to be diverted to whether or not
>everyone should be allowed to say shit-fuck-piss to anyone he likes,
>whenever he likes, on the net, or we can turn to more serious questions
>about ways to allow this remarkable new medium to move on toward
>realizing its vast unexplored potential.

  My point is not that it would be awful if shit-fuck-piss is
disallowed, my point is that your judgement has historically been
so poor that you do not seem to me to be a suitable choice as
moderator. I will add that anyone who thinks "psycoloquy" and
"scholarly Skywriting" is good style has a bad ear for language,
even when the language isn't bad language.

>One last point. I did make a clinical diagnosis at the time (though I'm
>no clinician), and I think subsequent events confirmed that I was right
>about that too.

  Care to elaborate on this, Dr. Quack?
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!bosco!gsmith            "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."