the suspect was wearing boxer shorts and pink bunny slippers

Whistle
1

I don’t think some of the board problems deserve some of the conspiracy theories that are being developed as of late. I think the problems are due to much simpler, and simplistic problems that are part of human nature.

I’d like to take a completely different spin on the “newby v. veteran” conflict that is reported to exist. I don’t think the diagnosis is incorrect. I think the conflict comes from the inherent problems with hastily written and read communications on a message board forum.

What is written on a board represents just a subset of the personality of the author. It also may not contain all of the information the author was thinking. Transmission is not perfect. I am quite guilty of this at times.

What is read on the board is often done in haste. The reader often does not take time re-read the post to clarify ideas that they do not know that were missed during the first read. The reader often develops a perception about what was originally transmitted; often that perception is not related to the intent in the post of the author. Reception is not perfect. I am quite guilty of this at times.

Gary, I’m just picking your post for it’s concise nature, not picking on you in particular. Please excuse this liberty I have taken.

garycrosby wrote:
It seems to me that the so-called old timers no longer have patience for any opinions that differ from their own narrow views.

I think old timers, like everybody else, have some opinions that are probably not going to be changed. I think what they tire of is actually the flame language that is becoming so common in posts that include opinions. I’m not sure why so many folks (an active, but small minority) read an opinion different from their own and set off on a mission to change a person’s opinion or humiliate them in the process. This is what I think people tire of. Who would not get tired of this overbearing and unwelcomed behavior, newby or veteran?

Another thing that I think comes into play is the comfort factor. Most folks have their computers at a location that is comfortable and basically save. From that secure location, someone could sit in a pair of boxer shorts and pink bunny slippers and write a post with a very strong (and often melodramatic) position. I have read a lot of posts (including some I wrote long ago) that includes charged language and alienating statements that I feel certain most people would not use with co-workers, family, schoolmates, and friends. This use of words is often reserved for keeping to your own thoughts; unspoken save for an analyst or counselor (like in the Sopranos television program). This recent media for communication is not entirely as natural as speaking or other forms of writing.

As a result of these inherent difficulties of this communication medium, I think the “newby v. veteran” conflict is actually a misdiagnosis of general miscommunication.


I’ve been on the board since the original, and have got the news letter from the time when Chiff & Fipple was still called “the tin whistle table,” although I never got to see the actual table. That means exactly nothing, except that I can say some things about veteran personality. I think some of the reactions to posts come from individual personalities. (In my examples, I will use the handles of some of the folks I find myself to be fond of for one reason or another; hence I take another liberty with some other veterans) At times I noticed that myself, Loren, Brian Lee, and StevieJ have all been involved in some fairly heated exchanged over time for whatever reason. I have also noticed that Chuck Clark, Tony Higgins, and Grannymouse rarely are involved in heated exchanges. All of these folks have been around since coolboard times or earlier. Given this, I think that lumping veterans into one monolithic group is also a really convenient, yet flawed, inaccurate, and useless way of thinking about miscommunication on the board.

Just an observation. . .

{edited to spell fipple correctly in the title}

[ This Message was edited by: Mark_J on 2002-03-17 22:57 ]

2

Excellent Points Mark.

3

Mark shows his thoughtful intelligence once again.

I’m sure that people fire things off from the safety of their computer and use language that they might not to people’s faces. A corollary - this touches on the imperfect reception part - is that, from the comfort of my computer, I have often made the mistake of assuming that people will realize that since (on my better days) I don’t take myself all that seriously, they should take me with a large grain of salt too.

Also I come from a culture where a little sarcasm is the norm. In Britain, and in Ireland it’s the same, when we tease or even insult people, it’s usually because we like them. In North America this doesn’t go over too well.

So I’ve toned myself down over the years I’ve been living in Canada, and on the board (my first experience of any similar internet forum) I’ve learned to do the same. Believe it or not.

Mark you cite me as an example of someone that gets into little scraps on the board, and I won’t deny it, but you wouldn’t believe how carefully I have taken to wording things these days, even insults! And for every two posts I make, I probably delete one after writing it and thinking, nah, what’s the point.

Constantly having to couch things carefully is a strain and often waters down the force or the humour of what we have to say. Necessary, I suppose. (But I’m buggered if I’ll use emoticons all the time.) :wink:

As regards the way that the printed word, without the benefit of tone of voice, or knowledge of the person, only conveys part of the message: look at Jessie’s “you don’t deserve my presence” statement.

I assumed this was said in a camp, almost self-mocking manner. If I said it, that’s what it would be, anyway. But look how many people said “I can’t believe anyone could write such a thing.” (Then again, maybe it wasn’t self-mocking. Will Jessie come back to tell us?)

I think the point you’re making Mark, and I am too, is that we should always give people the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, always. Except Loren, that is.

4

Stevie

If you recall, Jessie left in a huff once before. My memory isn’t what it could be, but it seems to me you may have been one of the ‘other’ side that time.

I like Jessie’s views, though like some others I think she sometimes takes it too seriously, and I both hope and expect that she’ll be back.

As for the ‘topic’ of this thread, it offers a beautiful way of restraining our more combative sides. Before snapping off a hasty or diabolic respnse to a message or thread, just imagine the poster in pink boxers and bunny slippers. If you can still be too serious while laughing…

5

Stevie J. Wrote:

“Yes, Always. Except Loren, that is.”

Okay, that’s it man: I’m going to hunt you down and beat you to a bloody pulp with my pink bunny slippers.

Loren

6

You guys are funny. (Just to clarify, I mean funny, I laughed - not funny, there’s an error in your thinking).

Speaking of laughing, and more to the topic. Let me give you an example. Most folks are probably familiar with the recent ‘religion’ thread. Well, what really kicked that puppy off to a blazing start was a comment made by Jessie.

It was something like: “I wish I could be deluded, too.” As you can imagine this set of a round off dictionary definitions and offenses that actually still seem to persist across some of the posts today.

The funny thing is that it was primarily directed at me and my previous post and she was just teasing me. We’ve exchanged a couple of e-mails on the topic (and others - I consider us friends to the extent that two people with different veiws on life that have never met each other can be friends). I said, “You know, I laughed when I read that.” She said, “Good, I laughed while I wrote it.” Jessie’s conclusion was that she was being too familiar. Treating folks too much like close friends rather than recognizing that not everyone would know the personality behind it. I suppose that the same could be said for my posts in that thread.

Anyway, just thought that I would relay a pertainent anecdote. Thanks for your thoughtful post, Mark and your reply Stephen.

Erik

[ This Message was edited by: ErikT on 2002-03-18 03:58 ]

7

This is really a nice thread. Of course, you’re right, electronic communication is notorious for depersonalizing the communication and for misunderstandings - emoticons are a poor substitute for seeing if someone is actually on the same page as you and laughing at the ribbing they are getting, as opposed to rolling on the floor in sorrow.

I think the trick is to attempt to develop a robustness in your communication. If someone takes offense to something you said, let them know that it wasn’t meant to cause offense. Similarly, if you take offense and get a “mea culpa” in return, let it go! Also, it’s hard not to try and always have the last word, which in a BBS environment can make a thread go on for ever when all is really sad already.

Everyone who has been on the net for a while has seen the firestorms which come and go in groups. I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to do much about them, but we can at least try and limit them. The only trick I use is to try and stop before clicking submit and read the post from the “outside” - as someone who isn’t in the same room with me seeing my expression - would see it.

Richard

[ This Message was edited by: DrRichard on 2002-03-18 08:08 ]

8

A very wise women once said, “Taste your words before you let them cross your tongue.” I think the same holds true for written communication of any kind.

As someone who makes a living with the written word, I know how hard it can get sometimes to “scrub” your language to its most concise, simplest form, and still convey the vast experience and personality that produces it.