From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!jlgray
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: Re: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
Article-I.D.: ixn5c.516
Posted: Wed Nov 24 11:42:27 1982
Received: Thu Nov 25 08:41:28 1982


After reading the "Emily Post for Usenet" I had two reactions:

  1.  "Finally!" a set of guidelines to allow new and infrequent
      users (like myself) to access a wonderful new media without
      committing atrocities.

  2.  Formal modes of speech, proper spelling, proper grammar and
      references?  I strongly hope you are not serious.

Here we have a new media which is not quite a publication (such as
a memo, book or newspaper), not quite a conversation (there is a
definite time lag between messages), and not quite a "semi-public
forum" as some people would have you believe.  It's a media which
can be restricted to any one of the three by enforcing a protocol.

The one criticism of the paper is that it implied to me that it was
socially unacceptable to use the net conversationally except for
net.misc ( a play pen for the Arbitrary Chat, and the notorious
twin Discussion brothers Frivolous and Rambling), net.jokes (you
don't see many jokes with references), and of course the various
spin off nets.  It's not that I think that these nets aren't
properly used, but rather that the paper implies by its writing
style that conversational usage is of little or no value.

Would you work in an environment where you could not talk or
interact with anyone except at a professional level?  During your
entire work day there would be no idle conversations about your
personal lives or what you believe in and certainly no jokes or
levity of any kind.  Considering for a moment the investment any
company makes in your working environment, and of course you.  The
above environment might result if said company placed the same
emphasis on your "productive time" in your office as they do on
their computers.

My first point is this.  There is a basic need in most people to
communicate opinions, ideas, misinformation, inquiries and most
certainly jokes.  I see absolutely no reason why the Usenet
shouldn't reflect the same percentage of "unproductive time" as one
would find in the average student, technician, engineer or
scientist work place.  How productive were you today, and how come
you are reading this instead of diligently working?

My second point is that one really shouldn't interfere in a
person's grammatical style, spelling, or overall structure when
that person is submitting an entry.  True we can't transmit voice
inflection or hand and other body movements via the console
typewriter but how boring it would be not to try.

An enforcement of etiquette or protocol on a person's style could
limit a person's creativity.  Picture the event of reading
something controversial and getting worked up into creating a
flaming reply.  Do you think that after carefully editing, checking
for spelling and grammatical errors that the author would still be
incensed?  Who would want to submit a flamer without the customary
"You Idiot..." or "You haven't the intelligence of a Jelly Baby
you...".

A person's style is part of his cultural heritage and personally I
have enjoyed seeing it surface from time to time.  Far more
distressing to me is to read a person's apology for a spelling or
grammatical error.  Gag me with a dictionary.

My third and final point is that the Usenet offers a potentially
new form of folklore which is dependent upon points one and two.
Traditionally the study of folklore, has concentrated on the
propagation of stories, rumors, jokes and any other human construct
that is passed on by word of mouth.  Media like the Usenet have
very nearly approximated speech communication in some applications
and offers a new realm of study.  At least I have found it
interesting.  Strict protocol on a "forum" oriented net with
acceptable modes of speech would certainly put an end to this.

My reason for putting this in the net.followup instead of replying
to the author by mail was simply that I've read a number of entries
which hold the same opinion as the author. Why should they be
exempted?

                                     Jerry Gray