Gregg's e-mail . . .

Gil Hardwick (
Sat, 14 Jan 1995 00:17:00 GMT

> As you well know I am not American. The problem which you
>would like me to identify is quite straightforward. Simply put, you
>are "flaming" in a newsgroup. The reason this is a "problem" is that
>it takes away from the purpose of the newsgroup (to provide a forum
>for _academic_ discourse). If the flames were of an academic nature,
>such as a dispute over theory, I would not have a problem with them.
>They are however of a personal nature. They belong (as this
>discussion does) in e-mail.

First, I have no idea that you are not American. How would I know
anything about you at all apart from that you are mailing to me from
North America. Where are you from then? Africa? The Cameroons or

Or maybe Canada has simply floated again off to the Galapagos . . .

Second, had you in fact been around awhile you would know that some
of us have done a lot of work trying bring sci.anthropology out of its
narrowly self-righteous, moralising North American mindset to consider
how we away around here at the other side of the planet think about

What is "academic"? What you only want to think about?

No. What we have had here is a long history of you Americans laying
dowto like you. How many
more of these stupid, high-handed stunts are you mob going to pull?

Why don't you lot get your heads out of your arse and have a good
hard look at the real world out here. Then have a good hard think
about what other people are trying to say to you about it. Then we
might have something further to discuss.

> The operative factor here is that I have offended you and you
>only. This is the reason for the use of e-mail for flames (which my
>mail to you is). Were I to use the newsgroup, the potential for
>others to be annoyed at our behaviour would be significant. Being the
>civil individuals we are however, we you e-mail. Get it?

No, you are not civil at all. You pretend to be nice and polite in
public, while privately you take it upon yourselves to abuse people
you don't even know. In the end I simply e-mail to the rest of the
group what sorts of people you are in fact, with your hypocritical
double standards.

Why would you want to e-mail me at all? Why me and me only? If you
have a problem why don't you discuss it even passing intelligibly and
reflect somehow the education you are supposed to have enjoyed.

When pressed, all I get from you is "Yada Yada Yada, You're an idiot."

Like you're some pre-primary child lacking a higher vocabulary.

And you want me to respect your idea that this is an academic forum?

> I can tell you about when I started using global networks and
>electronic mail (some twelve years ago) and was informed that the use
>of public discussion areas for disputes of a personal nature was
>inappropriate. My reaction at that time was much like your own - I
>was indignant about the whole thing - everyone was ganging up on me.
>But after some time, their point was well taken. The simple fact is
>that if our endeavour to create a true "unregulated" "Global Village"
>is to succeed, we must undertake to self regulate _on an individual
>level_ our use of the said networks.

But nobody even asked me whether I want this "Global Village". That
is just your ideology, isn't it? Your dream of Utopia, which you then
seek to impose on everyone else by privately abusing them by e-mail
while doing nothing to upset the dream in public. You're all mad.

Nutty as a fruit cake.

How about we all simply use the Internet as a communications medium,
available to everybody, American and non-American alike, without all
the moralising hype and self-righteousness from your end. There is
enough of it coming from our eastern states now from the sycophants
who actually believe in your American dream, and join you in abusing
people (quote) In Principle!

We do not have to like one another, why should we? The least I had
expected that my arguments might have been taken into account, and
my own field evidence presented here in their support.

Nah! Reality wakes people up out of their dream, eh? Makes them feel
uncomfortable, and actually obliges them to THINK.

> I have a tit for tat approach to net-discourse. While I would
>concede that noting that you were an idiot may have been
>inappropriate, I would hope that you could concede that I have a point
>regarding newsgroup vs. e-mail use.

I know you have a tit for tat approach. A number of you do, reserving
all the while for yourselves the right to define the TIT as an excuse
to unleash the TAT. Excuse me that others out here are disgusted by
your arrogance, and seek to defend themselves.

No, you have no point regarding e-mail use. Abuse is abuse is abuse,
directed at me or anyone else on the Net. How about y'all simply
stop doing it, yes?

> I mail you because I believe that it is the responsibility of
>those who have used the networks for quite some time to play a part in
>its continued viability.

What you believe, and what others believe are plainly two different
things, old fruit. This being an international forum, one would
expect that first their might be some sort of leeway in comparing
beliefs to see where they clash, lest it all bog down in more war.

Hasn't there been enough? Seems not. Seems far more important that you
remain free to adhere to your beliefs and hang everyone else.

Net anthropologists, interestingly, by far among the worst offenders
of other nations. No wonder people like Turnbull take refuge in a
monastery somewhere, while people like me stay out in the desert
away from you all, merely trying to keep in touch with others of like

Without having to cop abuse from the likes of you, at all.

No worries, Gregg, just keep it up. You want flame that's exactly what
you've been getting from this end.

Integrated Whole Farm Planning in Western Australia
+61 97 53 3270