Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect
5121 Student 09 (cm315c09@nova.umd.edu)
3 May 1994 15:39:19 -0400
Melanie L Chang <mlchang@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>5121 Student 09 (cm315c09@nova.umd.edu) wrote:
>: Some of these are quite funny, and I took them in good humor
>: because it is, after all, a pretty trivial matter. I am a bit
>: surprised that my own similar posts were not met with good
>: humor. I don't understand why this is such an emotional issue for
>: so many people. I sincerely expected a few clearly deliniated
>: arguements. Thus, the barrage I received instead, caught me off
>: guard.
>
>I understand that, since you are a new poster. But (and the "we went
>through all this AAT crap a while ago" post /was/ me) those of us who've
>been reading this went through a really heated name-calling session about
>a month back, and some of the exasperation is because most of us /really/
>didn't want to go through it again after we'd finally managed to move on
>to other topics. I mean, do /you/ want to do this all over again, now
>that it's winding down?
I believe I see your point, and I can understand why you would be tired
of the topic and the heated name-calling. As to your question, however,
I never engaged in name-calling, and it doesn't really bother me much
that others did. I may be new to this newsgroup, but I am not new to
the usenet, and I have seen /much/ worse in other newsgroups.
I may have this wrong (and please correct me), but you seem to be
suggesting that the topic is the problem, and that we could avoid
all the flaming by simply avoiding the topic. I see no reason to
avoid an area of discussion simply because it is controversial.
>Another interpretation of the silence from other AAT proponents is that no
>one wants to post anything else about it.
I have stated clearly several times that I am /not/ an AAT proponent.
By my count there have been approximately equal numbers of posts by
people wishing the discussion to end and people wishing it to continue.
>Yes, a /discussion/ belongs here,
>but this hasn't been a discussion for some time; it's been an argument between
>you and Phil. That is why I suggested you take it to private e-mail,
>because it really does drown out other discussion, and discourage others
>from reading.
To me, the difference between discussion and argument is the level of
emotion. I welcome a reduction in the level of emotion and have made
repeated pleas for it.
As for drowning out other discussion, I have never really noticed this
phenomenon. Other groups regularly contain on-going flames without
a noticable reduction in other postings. In this newsgroup, however,
I /have/ noticed that there are very few sustained topics. Perhaps
a discussion of the faults and merits of various explanations of human
evolution does not belong in this newsgroup. I haven't actually read
the charter, but it is possible that sci.anthropolgy would be a more
appropriate place for such a discussion.
I am still very interested in a discussion of human evolution. If
changing the name of the topic is sufficient, that's great. If it's
still too controversial for this newsgroup and needs to be moved,
that's fine too. And, if the discussion can proceed without high
levels of emotion, that's even better.
My [still interested] 2 cents.
David Greene
cm315c09@nova.umd.edu
|