Re: Moderated Sci. Newsgroup? THE OLD FARTS CLUB
Philip Deitiker (pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu)
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:25:45 GMT
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>profner@mulberry.com (Peter Rofner) wrote
>to sci.archaeology:
>>Dan Ulln <dan.ullen@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>>I just want make people aware that there is a moderated archaeology
>>>group. Ed Conrad can be quite amusing at times, but I hate having to
>>>wade through all of the speculations and paranoia here to get to the
>>>good bits. So please, join me as I abandon this group for
>>>sci.archaeology.moderated.
>>>Doug Weller, please keep knocking the nutties on the head, you rather
>>>seem to enjoy it, but do come over for a cup of tea at
>>>sci.archaeology.moderated once in a while.
>>>
>>>Dan Ulln
>>>Stockholm
>>>Sweden
>>Bravo Dan!
>>Yes, Ed and the other nuts can be very entertaining and have certainly
>>brought life to sci.arch. However, once having our attention, the nuts
>>fail to appease the appetite with intelligent discussion.
>>See you in sci.archaeology.moderated
>>Peter
>===========================
>Dan:
>How long will it take you to realize there's considerable truth in
>that old saying: ``The grass is always greener."
>You can pack your bags and head to sci.archaeology.moderated
>but don't think for a moment that you're going to be THAT happy.
>I've been there -- for a look, since they won't let me in --
>and it reminded me of a bunch of old farts sitting around
>the reading room at the Old Men's Club around 5
>in the afternoon.
>Science, if you really want to know, was never intended to
>be stuffy and stagnant. It's supposed to be be exciting, invigorating,
>laden with controversy and definitely full of pep.
>It's for people who THINK young, even though some may have
>a foot in the grave.
>Science, meanwhile, isn't the place for people who hate
>controversy, especially if they believe that the only right
>answers are their's.
>Sure, I've been ruffling a lot of feathers and pissing people off.
>But that's only because various scientific disciplines -- especially,
>anthropology (Who we really area and how we got here?) -- had
>reached the point of total stagnation and dishonest decay.
>All I've been doing, Dan, is put some of the the vim and vinegar --
>honest investigation -- back into science, which is something that
>has been too long overdue.
I see that the stuff in sci.archeology.moderated goes over your head,
Ed. Just because its highly technical does not make less innovative.
I recommend you spend some time there and try to read what those folks
are talking about. Take some notes on _style_ would be really helpful,
then you might actually find a [very small] handful of folks who
appreciate you. I noticed you've already tee-ed off the moderator
there. Ed, I think the point needs to be made, that I haven't see
made here before, which is you're strategy for communicating your
ideas is like getting a forty thousand watt stereo and deafening your
audiance...... eventually your audiance becomes deaf to your ideas,
and you've wasted alot of energy in the mean time, and when you turn
the volume down to normal levels your audaince is still deaf and will
never hear you. Remember the saying in the bible 'Don't throw pearls
to the pigs' if your audiance is not receptive to your pearls of
wisdom, why do you keep throwing them, if it is not for the sake of
your cause then it must be for your ego's sake.
Philip
|