More bandwidth on the Controversy

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ronn Dula: "R. Johnson Brouhaha"
• Previous message: Carol McDavid: "Robert Johnson -- are we his study population?"

I admit to being of two minds on the RJ controversy.

On the one hand, I think the "censorship" charge is spurious. We all
censor every day; it's politely called "filtering". The question is
whether a given poster's contributions fall outside the filter we have
accepted.

On the other, someone can truly deserve being kicked off, re: Gil
Hardwick. Once upon a time, folks tried to get Daniel Foss removed, too.
Now, Robert Johnson. To be honest, the venom directed against him is
beginning to appear like something of a lynch mob.

Back to the other hand, as much as he was totally in the dark about
anthropology, he knew enough to push some buttons, buttons that needed to
be pushed. For example, Mike Salovesh's responses fit in perfectly with
the discussions on applied anthro. I would suggest that the facile charge
of "censorship" deserves some anthropological deconstruction, too.

Yet, on the other hand again, he really was a jerk, a Lenin wannabee.

But, he never attacked anyone personally. I am reminded of Gil's
postings, and find RJ far more acceptable.

In all, I would prefer that we discipline ourselves and not invoke LIST
rules/procedures to do it for us. We can reply to substance and not to
RJ's style.

Cliff

• Next message: Ronn Dula: "R. Johnson Brouhaha"
• Previous message: Carol McDavid: "Robert Johnson -- are we his study population?"