random thoughts... - 02/13/02 06:33 PM
...or a Lurker's Lament (unaccustomed as I am to public speaking)
warning possible high rant content
When I started looking in here a few months ago I thought to myself: here's something unique -- adults talking to other adults about language. I was much impressed with the erudition and scholarliness of those such as Bingley and NicholasW; with the net finesse of many here, providing links to fascinating sites I'd never even dream of looking for; with the seemingly genuine companionableness and open friendly manner on the part of almost everyone. Then of couse there are the wits. You all recognize I suppose that the true wit still has a modicum of the child in him. Ah, and here's the rub.
I'm going to assume that most of you are old enough to remember when Transactional Analysis was a Big Thing. According to TA, the ideal communication state, that in which the most effective transactions can take place, is Adult to Adult. But when a Child is present, there is a strong urge to resort to Parent-Child communications. And what we seem to have had come out here is an Alpha Parent who wants to control all the unruly Children.
So we have been presented with a Code of Conduct. And guess what? All of the other Adult/Parents feel constrained to chime in -- and the Child(s) has another good laugh at their expense.
---
Everyone here shares a certain (sub)set of interests, but not the same value set. To take a trivial example, but one which certainly has manifested itself here: the emoticon. We have some who shun its use altogether; e.g., wwh and Faldage. (This could well be the onliest thing that they will ever agree on.) We have others who use it liberally. It's usually just a matter of style -- I've talked to people about this and some feel that attaching a laugh to a post is like laughing at your own joke. And, I think, there are some who seem to believe that they can say almost anything and it's OK as long as they attach a smile.
Anyway, my point would seem to be that it's generally fruitless to argue about values, be it religion, politics, or the latest test match unless it's just for the sake of argument, which is in the room down the hall. If the group is large enough there's always going to be someone who takes the whole thing personally, can't detach themselves enough to be objective.
---
Here's a petition for you all:
I solemnly swear that I will continue to read these posts objectively, searching assiduously for content and not seditiously for intent, and if I can no longer manage to do this to my own satisfaction I will quit this place forever.
warning possible high rant content
When I started looking in here a few months ago I thought to myself: here's something unique -- adults talking to other adults about language. I was much impressed with the erudition and scholarliness of those such as Bingley and NicholasW; with the net finesse of many here, providing links to fascinating sites I'd never even dream of looking for; with the seemingly genuine companionableness and open friendly manner on the part of almost everyone. Then of couse there are the wits. You all recognize I suppose that the true wit still has a modicum of the child in him. Ah, and here's the rub.
I'm going to assume that most of you are old enough to remember when Transactional Analysis was a Big Thing. According to TA, the ideal communication state, that in which the most effective transactions can take place, is Adult to Adult. But when a Child is present, there is a strong urge to resort to Parent-Child communications. And what we seem to have had come out here is an Alpha Parent who wants to control all the unruly Children.
So we have been presented with a Code of Conduct. And guess what? All of the other Adult/Parents feel constrained to chime in -- and the Child(s) has another good laugh at their expense.
---
Everyone here shares a certain (sub)set of interests, but not the same value set. To take a trivial example, but one which certainly has manifested itself here: the emoticon. We have some who shun its use altogether; e.g., wwh and Faldage. (This could well be the onliest thing that they will ever agree on.) We have others who use it liberally. It's usually just a matter of style -- I've talked to people about this and some feel that attaching a laugh to a post is like laughing at your own joke. And, I think, there are some who seem to believe that they can say almost anything and it's OK as long as they attach a smile.
Anyway, my point would seem to be that it's generally fruitless to argue about values, be it religion, politics, or the latest test match unless it's just for the sake of argument, which is in the room down the hall. If the group is large enough there's always going to be someone who takes the whole thing personally, can't detach themselves enough to be objective.
---
Here's a petition for you all:
I solemnly swear that I will continue to read these posts objectively, searching assiduously for content and not seditiously for intent, and if I can no longer manage to do this to my own satisfaction I will quit this place forever.
