h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This thread is *also* an *extreme* case.

Someone posting that kind of gibberish (I mean that postmodernist load) either (a) really believes the sh*t or (b) is very naive / has been brainwashed or is just ruminating on something he/she learnt without switching the brain on.

OK, so FM was being rude. Maybe because he was the only one to understand and care about the contents of that Entry. If the Entry was about a topic we - as common human beings - could relate to better, stating unbalanced controversial stuff about religion / abortion / feminism (etc.) maybe we would understand his reaction better.

Fact is, that the Entry in question is so unbelievably biased, and still you have people stating 'we want to have this in the guide, but you have to change something' - people actually who clearly seem not to have the faintest clue what the Entry is *about*.

FM's first comment in that thread:

"My only exposure to Baudrillard's work has been through the book 'Intellectual Impostures', by Alan Sokal, but even this admittedly vignetted treatement has convimced me that most of his work was an obfuscatory load of bullsh*t. This entry appears to be true to the spirit of that work."

is valid. If anyone cared to read A2671733 they'd understand. Also in that vein, I expect that someone posting an Entry to the Guide understands what he/she's writing about. This seemed not to be the case. Instead of looking up what FM meant by referring to Sokal's work, everybody got up in arms because he used the word 'bullsh*t'.

FM could have formulated the same thing in a less rude way, OK. But then again, so what? Someone posting this kind of stuff - as stated before (a) either knows what he/she is doing - and probably knows how to take an argument or (b) has no clue what he/she wrote - and should know that the stuff they wrote can lead to reactions like these.

Suggestion... Let's stop talking about these *extreme* cases. I think 99% of PR threads are nice and fluffy enough.

HELL

>> FM could have formulated the same thing in a less rude way, OK. But then again, so what?

*sigh*

I refer the honorable member to my answers previously given in posts: F2269809?thread=809371&post=8928227#p8907999 and F2269809?thread=809371&post=8928227#p8908612

Head...

Brick wall....

Head...

Brick wall....

Head...

Brick wall....

Ben

Yah... I *know* B.

But this is an *extreme* case.

Like - if someone wrote an Entry on 'Why The Pope Sucks' no-one would wonder if he/she got a rude answer from someone in PR. Even if his feelings are hurt, or if he didn't know what he/she was posting.

BTW, You also have to understand FM's point - I wonder, since you claim to care so much about other people's *feelings*. It's always easier (and more fun) to bash the bear.


HELL

>> Yah... I *know* B.

As one of my more irritating exes used to say "To know and not to act is not to know"



>> But this is an *extreme* case.

Ok, that's ok then

What on *earth* does the 'extremity' of the case have to do with it? (Another not-rhetorical question).



>> Like - if someone wrote an Entry on 'Why The Pope Sucks' no-one would wonder if he/she got a rude answer from someone in PR. Even if his feelings are hurt, or if he didn't know what he/she was posting.

Why is it ok to be rude about that?



>> BTW, You also have to understand FM's point - I wonder, since you claim to care so much about other people's *feelings*.

Sorry - that sentance doesn't make sense - what exactly do you wonder?

Interesting use of the word 'claim' to undermine what I say, btw. Nicely dropped into the thread there.



>> It's always easier (and more fun) to bash the bear.

Um. Am I bashing the bear? I have asked him to explain more about what he thinks and why he thinks it, and in return I have explained where I am coming from. Does that count as 'bashing'?

Personally I think giving people the chance to explain themselves, and showing that I have read and understood the answer, explaining which bits I accept and which bits I challenge shows more courtesey than responses such as "Yah... I *know* B."


Ben

"quote from previous thread"

I disagree, so

"another quote from another previous thread"

I agree wholeheartedly

another previous thread's author

Repeat and fade to end / mod

Making some attempt to put this thread out of my misery:

* How I will behave in future is not what I will think
* What I think is that one should put a greater value on clarity, rigour, quality and balance than the feelings of Researchers. That the Guide is bigger and matters more than any one person's feelings.
* I believe if some people who have had a very rarefied existence, whether through education, upbringing or religion, want to post material to the PR forum then they must expect that others may well take them to task over their views. If someone posts over-reverent treatments of philosophical heroes then it might be a rude awakening to be told that their academic career to date has been built on sand, but so be it. If they can't or won't defend their viewpoint then quite simply the entry should NOT be in PR.
* I also believe that this kind of discourse is no worse than might be found in some highbrow journals. If you want an example in the same vein, read http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n14/stur01_.html then read the letters that follow. Nobody writing any of these letters gives a sick dog's dump about what Sturrock might be *feeling*. Now, I happen to think that if someone goes to University to study philosophy then they should be prepared to expose themselves to this level and intensity of debate, *regardless* of whether it's in the SCR or in hootoo's PR.

I don't think for a minute that the EG is served by always valuing feelings over rigour. I also think that if people post stuff to PR then they should expect to have all sorts of stuff thrown at it. They can always give as good as they get.

OK. B. Sorry. I'll (try to) explain what I meant.

"What on *earth* does the 'extremity' of the case have to do with it?"

Feelings. If a case is extreme I don't expect everyone to be objective and react calmly. If I post a load of biased rubbish to PR, I won't wonder if someone overreacts.

"Why is it ok to be rude about that [Pope sucks example]?"

It is not OK. It is traceable, understandable, even predictable.

"'BTW, You also have to understand FM's point - I wonder, since you claim to care so much about other people's *feelings*.' Sorry - that sentance doesn't make sense - what exactly do you wonder?"

FM overreacted in that thread. I think his position is comprehensible. You said elsewhere that you care more about feelings and less to what people say. I wonder that you didn't capture FM's feelings in that thread but seem to take side with the author. It's the author who said something (his Entry), and FM who felt something (huge irritation with contents of said Entry).

"Am I bashing the bear?"

No. I apologize, I was overinterpreting.

"...more courtesey than responses such as "Yah... I *know* B."

I was just in the vein of "Head...Brick wall...."

HELL

>> * What I think is that one should put a greater value on clarity, rigour, quality and balance than the feelings of Researchers. (FM)

Personally I think that there is no contradiction in valuing them equally, because they are not on the same scale. If you adjust the colour contrast on your tv it does not affect the volume. However you've stated your viewpoint on this one two or three times, and if I am entitled to my opinion you are entitled to yours.



>> * I also believe that this kind of discourse is no worse than might be found in some highbrow journals. (FM)

I am not a regular enough denizen of either to comment on this opinion, but to quote my grandmother again 'the fact that he does it is not a reason for you to do it'. An irritating woman, at times, my grandmother.



>> I don't think for a minute that the EG is served by always valuing feelings over rigour. (FM)

Who is suggesting that feelings should be valued over rigour? I have suggested that it is possible to accomodate both, and Mikey has demonstrated how to do so in the previous LED.






>> >> "What on *earth* does the 'extremity' of the case have to do with it?" (Ben)

>> Feelings. If a case is extreme I don't expect everyone to be objective and react calmly. (Hell)

All the more reason to try being objective and to react calmly, surely? No-one said it was easy....



>> >> >> "'BTW, You also have to understand FM's point - I wonder, since you claim to care so much about other people's *feelings*.' (Hell)

>> >> Sorry - that sentance doesn't make sense - what exactly do you wonder?" (Ben)

>> FM overreacted in that thread. I think his position is comprehensible. (Hell)

I haven't had the chance to read the whole of that thread, or the entry itself. I have only commented on the bits I've read. I'll tackle the rest of it later today.



>> You said elsewhere that you care more about feelings and less to what people say. (Hell)

Ummm.... No, I didn't.

I said that I care more about how people feel than what they think about me, which is is a very different kettle of bicycles.

I value the truth highly, and care very much when what people say abuses, distorts or damages the truth.

I care when what people say hurts or damages other people.

I am fascinated by what the things people say show about how they think, what they think, and whether in fact they do actually think.

You probably picked up the fact that I'm not as bothered about what people say about me.



>> I was just in the vein of "Head...Brick wall...." (Hell)

Fairy nuff.



If I had to sum up what I am asking for in four words it would be "not only, but also". "Not only the truth, but the truth offered politely and courteously".

Colour me dumb, but I still don't see the problem with that.

Ben

Me neither.

I just don't wonder when stupid stuff is put up for PR and someone says it straightly that the Entry is not good.

Heck, there's a lot of cr*p in PR... It is irritating to spend time wading through PR and being nice and polite to people who didn't even care to read the guidelines. If you're too nice to them other people (who didn't read the guidelines) will follow. Now if the occasional bear kicks their butt some might think it's a good idea to read the guidelines first...

I, personally, very often make use of the 'return without saying anything' button.

HELL

I am really not getting my point across, am I?

Firstly, I am, in accordance with the wishes of others, going to refrain from being brusque, rude, blunt, whatever you want to call it, in PR.

Secondly, this is nevertheless a review forum. If someone posts the germ of a good entry in good faith then I will try to make sure that it is supported through the PR process. If, however, someone posts a warmed-over jargon-ridden term paper which makes sense only to a few congnoscenti then it's not surprising that up to now I and others have responded brusquely. Likewise if someone were to post semi-literate drivel.

Now I don't know these people. People who do know me generally know that I don't tend to respond in this way as part of a normal conversation with others. These are however my RL friends and colleagues, and I have a lot more to lose with them were I to be brusque with them. All the same, if I and others feel should feel inhibited about expressing our opinions in PR, then I'd like to ask: 'where are we supposed to express them, precisely?'

>> Me neither.




>> there's a lot of cr*p in PR... It is irritating to spend time wading through PR and being nice and polite to people who didn't even care to read the guidelines.

Well it is a long time since I've been in PR, but I did once go through the AWW and read *every single entry* in there. I think there were between 350 and 400 at the time. If you think the cr@p that's in PR is cr@p, you should have read some of the stuff that was in there. Really. So I do know about reading and responding to cr@p.

However, my comments were never *ever* rude.

- I did comment on quality.

- I did comment on where entries could be improved.

- I did say where I felt that things were not up to the standard of the workshop itself and where they should be removed.

- I valued rigour.

- I valued quality of thought.

- I valued quality of expression.

- When something was badly thought out or sloppily put together I said so.

But I was never *ever* rude.

I concentrated on providing contstructive criticism - criticism which would help the writer improve their writing, and not criticism which might put them off altogether. Who the bleepetty bleep am I to do that to somene else?



>> If you're too nice to them other people (who didn't read the guidelines) will follow. Now if the occasional bear kicks their butt some might think it's a good idea to read the guidelines first...

Hmmm.... The head / brickwall sensation is familiar all round, isn't it? But I still advocate saying "read the guidelines - here's the link" rather than anything more agressive. It is their first transgression, even if it is your N00th time. (No wonder god gets a bit peevish every once in a while).


Question for y'all:

What is your relationship to the people who put entries into PR, and what is their relationship to you?

Are you advisers?

Are you mentors?

Are you teachers?

Are they customers?

Are they juniors?

Are they punters?

How do you see yourself, and how do you see them?

Just askin'.

B

They are part of hyperreality.

Now, does that answer satisfy you?

Simulpost.

FM, I am reading your posts, and thinking about what you are saying.

You mention posting an entry in PR in good faith, and that is a really interesting concept, and one I want to think about a bit more. The majority of entries in the AWW are posted in reasonable faith, but I can understand the irritation with what appears to be deliberate disingenuousness.


>> Now I don't know these people. People who do know me generally know that I don't tend to respond in this way as part of a normal conversation with others. These are however my RL friends and colleagues, and I have a lot more to lose with them were I to be brusque with them.

I think this is the nub of my problem. As I was trying to say to oojakapiv on the previous LED, how can it be ok to be nasty to people you don't know just because you don't know them?



>> All the same, if I and others feel should feel inhibited about expressing our opinions in PR, then I'd like to ask: 'where are we supposed to express them, precisely?'

Once again, I am not suggesting you don't express your opinion, I am asking that you do so with courtesy and consideration. Yes, every now and again one needs to vent about a particular thing that winds one up, and since you ask the direct question about 'where?' I would suggest that you should vent in the Scouts email group, or in the PS of a fellow PRer, or in your own journal, or in an email. The Scouts group and the email are obviously favourite, being offsite.

What is hyperreality?

But are they really real?

Yes

ty

np

"I would suggest that you should vent in the Scouts email group, or in the PS of a fellow PRer, or in your own journal, or in an email. The Scouts group and the email are obviously favourite, being offsite."

Been there. Done that. Got told off all the same. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, eh?