Re: Ad Man

Hongjie Wang (hwang@MOOSE.UVM.EDU)
Sun, 6 Nov 1994 13:02:53 -0500

COME ON......, Danny. Why keep sucking age-old fodders from trough when even
formulars on the shelves are becoming outdated. Aron Fox and John Mcreery
have long declared this topic of THEIRS a dead horse half million
Internet years ago by apologizing/explaining/deciphering to each other
and the whole group. But now you dig it up again and try to sling it around
in the universe of ANTHRO-L. Drop it, will you?

Hongjie Wang

On Sun, 6 Nov 1994, Danny Yee wrote:

> Someone who thinks highly enough of anthro-l to post to it but not
> enough to read it writes:
> > A flame, in the spirit of the new bourgeois public sphere (the info superhiway)
> > The reason I don't subscribe to ANTHRO-L anymore is because it so often
> > resembles a USENET newsgroup rather than the kind of thoughtful and
> All I can say is that you obviosly haven't read many USENET newsgroups!
> Apart from a few moderated groups, and the occasional group that is
> so technical it attracts little attention (e.g. some of the bionet
> groups), I don't think there are many newsgroups that come close to
> anthro-l for intelligent, constructive debate.
> > professional forum that disciplinary mailing lists usually provide (anybody
> > out there get LINGUIST-L, for example?). A friend passed John Mcreery's
> > message (Oct. 5) on to me today, and there couldn't be a better example of
> > what I resent about the latest pop expansion of the bourgeois public sphere
> > (can adver-tizing on the NET be far behind? Time to find a new secret
> > hangout for those ofus who resist). JM's corporate newspeak would be much
> > more appropriate on a USENET newsgroup, where people speak without any
> > sense of obligation to a discipline or a profession or to an intellectual
> > community or, it seems to me, to a better, more humane and diverse world.
> John McCreery's viewpoint is certainly *different*, but some of us find
> it interesting for that very reason; I think he's one of the more
> valuable contributors to anthro-l. (Since you don't think highly enough
> of the list to contribute to it yourself you are hardly in a position to
> throw stones, anyway.)
> > "As a biz-ness person," why don't you go join a USENET newsgroup (there
> > must be a "sci.anthropology" group) where ignorance of (or at least lack of
> > serious personal commitment to) the subject under discussion is a virtual
> > pre-requisite for participation?
> sci.anthropology does exist. I don't think it would appeal to you
> somehow, but there are "real" anthropologists (even by your criteria)
> participating.
> So only "real anthropologists" making a living as professional
> anthropologists have anything worthwhile to say about anthropology?
> What about the people you study? Do they get to "participate" in
> any way or do you do your best to keep them from contributing to
> anthropology too?
> Danny Yee.