List metaphor

[GulPlum]

David said (inter alia, and parenthetically):

>thank you Richard for the suggestion of the letters page of a newspaper - 
>oddly enough that's how I see *this* list, but not the main list.

I'm curious about the basis on which you make that distinction. My gut 
impulse is to assume that you consider the topic of "editorial policy" to 
be the natural topic for a paper's "letters to the editor" page. (And thus, 
this list having been established for the purposes of discussing our 
perceptions of the list and how it's run, this list mirrors that function).

As it happens, a closer look at any periodical would show that this isn't 
the case. If a reader questions editorial policy, the usual course of 
action is to stop subscribing to or buying the periodical in question. Even 
if a reader writes to explain their stance, such  letters are exceptionally 
rarely published. Not only because the publishers are unlikely to want to 
draw attention to their shortcomings, but because, well, they don't really 
consider that's what the letters page is for.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't differentiate between the functions of the 
various HPFGU lists (and whenever I talk about "HPFGU", I mean the *family* 
of lists rather than the Main List. If I ever mean to refer to one list in 
particular, I specify it by name). They are, ultimately, just different 
venues for us to communicate with each other. I actually think that 
attempting to split their functions (as opposed to their subject matter) is 
unhealthy.

I'd like to add something to what I said about mailing list metaphors, 
which I'd forgotten to say. It's an unpopular attitude in general, but I 
think it needs saying, despite what the authors and creators of modern 
communications technology would have us believe. That is that there are 
fundamental differences between written and oral forms of communications. 
This community operates almost exclusively by way of the written word, and 
looking for metaphors which rely (solely or mainly) on face-to-face contact 
is dangerous.

I make part of my living as a translator and interpreter. The two skills 
are very different (even discounting the further differences between 
different kinds of translations, such as I don't, for instance, undertake 
the translation of fiction or other "literary" writing because my own 
literary skills aren't up to it) and I am conscious of those differences on 
a daily basis. I wish to dwell on only one, which I think has a MAJOR 
impact on the way any mailing list community works.

Written material *should* be deliberate and considered (in the sense of 
"considered opinion"). Too much writing on the internet (and regrettably, 
on HPFGU) doesn't get a great deal of thought put into it, and ideas and 
words are just tossed onto the electronic page without any premeditation. 
Perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills here, and the degradation of written 
communication is inevitable, but I will continue to fight for the right to 
expect that when someone writes something, they have actually put some 
thought into it.

I don't expect every written communication to be in a formal style (far 
from it!), and that's not what I'm getting at. But I find a heck of a lot 
of gut reactions on HPFGU, written in extremely poor English (and I'm 
talking about native speakers here)  which could gain a great deal from the 
authors putting a little more effort into what they're writing, and where 
necessary, understanding the post to which they're replying. (I don't deny 
that I myself am guilty of doing that on occasion.)

On that latter point, there are some people around here who appear to be 
willing to read everything anyone else says in the most abrasive and 
offensive way possible. I doubt that anyone on HPFGU *intends* to belittle 
or preach to anyone else, so I get very concerned when some people get very 
hot under the collar and write overtly abrasive messages taking offence. 
I'm sure that if some of these people took the trouble to re-read the posts 
to which they're replying, they'd realise that they're mis-reading the text 
or reading too much between the lines (or, on occasion, not reading between 
the lines enough and taking things too literally!).

I'd like to draw attention to the "GU" part of our community's name. We're 
not meant to be kids, we're meant to be adults who can behave and converse 
in an adult fashion. I fully appreciate that some people have difficulty 
communicating in written form (and in English), for whatever reason, but I 
find that the people with a genuine reason to have difficulties, and are 
aware of those difficulties, put effort into making themselves clear, and 
spend time on their contributions. It's those who seem to think that their 
abilities are adequate who cause the problems.

A separate issue is the fact that (quite understandably) there's an 
unspoken "competition" to get one's comment in first, to answer a question 
before anyone else. This results in something that's plagued Usenet since 
day one, namely multiple responses. The encouraging thing on HPFGU is that 
established members generally don't bother answering the straightforward 
queries, but the downside is that people not-long off moderated status fall 
over each other to get in first, and we end up with three or four answers 
to the same question, of which typically one will be wrong in some detail. 
(I suspect that the Mods end up discarding several responses from moderated 
members, and thanks to them for that!) There's no way to "legislate" 
against this, apart from appealing to people to think twice before clicking 
on that "send" button.

I brought up that subject deliberately, because to end this (massive?) :-) 
missive, I'd like to appeal to all members to think about their own 
postings, re-reading their contributions and spending a little more time 
crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's, and perhaps even reconsidering the 
wisdom of posting something in the first place. I know for a fact that 
most, if not all, old-timers do this a matter of course, but perhaps it's 
worth repeating.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who's sure that *someone* will take umbrage at 
something said above or the way it was said.