Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!milton!hlab
From: eliot@phoenix.princeton.edu (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: Lack of communication between VR commentators and everyone else.
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.032147.4128@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 91 23:39:48 GMT
References: <9794@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <1991May29.060331.6289@milton.u. <1991Ju
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu (Human Int. Technology Lab)
Organization: Cognitive Science Lab, Princeton U.
Lines: 60
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu



>[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Tom Maddox replies to some strong feelings expressed on
>alt.cyberpunk regarding discussion of virtual reality.  Please excuse the
>base language employed here.  It is necessary to understand the virulence
>of the emotions felt by some.  I hope that the discussion on sci.virtual-
>worlds can be conducted on the plane suggested by Tom. -- Bob Jacobson]


>>
>[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  I absolutely disagree.  There are several reasons why
>alt.cyberpunk is considered trivial; in the opinion of many, choice of 
>language is one of them.  I choose not to import alt.cyberpunk habits to
>this newsgroup.  And yes, I considered Eliot's language quite base, even
>more so in the context of his vindictive attack.  I missed the humor.  In
>fact, I missed most of what Eliot was screaming about until I got past the
>yelping.  Filtering is a moderator's responsibility.  I never cut content.
>-- Bob Jacobson]


Bob,

You write that my article is "vindictive attack," an "expression" of
"virulent emotions"; that it's necessary to understand
 such "strong feelings": and that I "yelp" and "scream".

Bob, you can't possibly know what I feel. You are, quite simply,
projecting.

The "fucks" that appeared in my article had to do with the particular
language-game Tom and I were playing, liberally ironized, partly to
catch out the other language player, who might, erroneously, take
things at face value---an egregious faux pas in literary circles. We
were in our own semantic space, our own virtual reality. There are a
number of fairly indirect constructions in my article, Bob, that
allude to some common interests: Tom understood those references, and
consequently my language.  That you don't Bob, is forgiveable: but
please don't be so adamant in insisting on the universality of your
own reading strategies, which happen to be inappropriate here.

Flexible reading strategies -- flexible strategies of knowledge and
communication -- are, after all, the topic here.


E. Handelman

Cognitive Science Lab.,
Princeton University,
221 Nassau St., 
Princeton, NJ 08544-2093.


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Out of context, the "language-game" did not appear to
be a game and the meaning of the exchange, at least for me, was lost in
the banality of the language itself.  I don't think I'm so unique; the
effect might have been the same for many, perhaps most readers.  If you
guys will practice your context setting, our communications will be much
better all around. Most of us aren't privy to your private dialogical
parries, Eliot.  We do the best with what you supply us.  Thanks for set-
ting the context after, but next time, care before. -- Bob Jacobson]