Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!igloo!learn From: learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: sci.psycoloquy.moderated Summary: the personal axe is almost always sharp Keywords: psychology, scholrly-discussion, Bitnet-Psychology-Newsletter Message-ID: <1559@igloo.scum.com> Date: 23 Jan 90 04:28:25 GMT References: <13106@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1990Jan21.072353.17735@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Igloo, Public access Unix, Northbrook IL Lines: 83 In article <17735@agate.berkeley.edu> Gene W. Smith writes: > In article Peter da Silva writes: > >[ Gene thinks the proposed moderator is likely to be a problem because he > > has irrational responses to scatological language. ] > Of course, I have a personal grudge which I should be up-front > about. Harnad's writing to the sysadmin here at Berkeley, > complaining that insane street people were posting from Berkeley > accounts, led to me having to convince people that no, I wasn't > breaking into other people's accounts nor forging letters, > despite whatever it was Harnad was saying. The truth, Gene, is that there is a poor creature, lacking many of the emotional abilities we take for granted, posting from Berkeley. And that person has been declared incompetent from time to time through her life, and locked away in mental institutions, and lived on the street, as stated by this person themselves. Further that person had been thrown off two systems previously, and left several others in a fit of personal pique totally unwarrented given all the surrounding circumstances. Whatever the internal politics of the circumstances you are mentioning are strictly a local problem. Internal Berkeley problems are hardly a net issue, even if the trigger invoking a manifestation of internal strife happens to come from the net.at.large. Ultimately, Harnad lost control. Happens to all of us, if pushed too far. And I'll tellya first hand that the Berkeley client is capable of bringing out the absolute worse in anyone, almost on demand. It seems that you are experiencing very much the same feelings towards Harnad that many many usenet folks have felt towards that Berkeley client. > His behavior was irresponsible, libelous and contrary to the spirit > and best interests of the net. This line was the one that got my atention and prompted me to respond. If this weren't actually a serious statement, it would be really funny. Some of the best contributors to the net can easily be, and regularly are, classified as irresponsible, (they) make libelous statements, and behave in wasy contrary to the spirit and the best interests of the net. And so went the focus of the infamous Brahms gang, among others. But damn, we had fun... And were we to include the overkill in the attacks on PORTAL (tm) users, and the results thereto, we could make quite a similar case for one of the most missed of all usenet notable persons. > I do *not* think he should be allowed to moderate a newsgroup. Most certainly you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your stating it with such elegance. I do not, however, believe any of the reasons you've stated present a sufficient cause to dismiss the individual from consideration for the position. I am not personally involved sufficiently to be aware of all the ins and outs, those nitty gritty details which keep the soap-opera atmosphere of certain aspects of the net going. But I do wish to offer the following generalities for consideration in this matter. Given that you consider the individual to be a troublemaker, there are two schools of thought regarding the best resolution. One is the aproach you have taken, that being to excise as much as possible the source of trouble from the media. One might note that the Berkeley client discussed as part of these proceedings was similarly though much more severely excised from the net on more than one occasion, yet came coming back again and again, till a solution was achieved with an account that was totally secure against further actions. And that person has as much of a free run with words including whatever venom is desired as any sentient creature, in spite of the history of hatred so well entrenched. The aternative solution, working well in a majority of cases, is to give the troublemaker a helping hand and some responsibility. I'll gladly send you the name and phone number of an individual who has historically had splendid success in many such cases. On the individual and the assignment, I have no particular commentary in terms of a "vote." But I saw your notes, Gene, and I felt it necessary to comment, while offering you a compliment on your forthright candidness regarding the circumstances and the individual. It was an exercise in honesty I would like to see repeated much more frequently on the net. Bill.etc | Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has | always been the systematic organization of hatreds. | - Henry Brooks Adams