Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 11:15 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
moment.
An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN

That's just it. I am not making my assessment from a single
personality. I am making it based upon ratios. I look at the number
of people who behave a certain way, versus the number who do not, and
make my determination. For example, I mentioned sci.crypt as a group
where people are more or less civil. But in that group, there is an
individual widely regarded as a kook, an ocassionally, people there
attack him. But overall, the group is far more civil, IMO.

You can of course make a generalization this way using pure ratios based
on cold research. This will of course generate a "number", but this
approach might not reveal what is really desired; that being how a group
and a specific individual interact together and more importantly, WHY
any two individuals interact in a specific manner.
It's all in what you hope to produce in defining your answer. If the
purpose is to paint a general picture of a group personality, I feel the
raw data might not be complete, as the actual reason for a dispute or
negative interface between two individuals is highly subjective to
individual interpretation. My experience is that this "interpretation"
can be seriously flawed.


Comparatively, the ratio of ad-hominem attacks to genuine debate here
is several times larger, IMO.
A perfect example of individual interpretation. For example, I've been
posting on his forum for 10 years. Although I have been the recipient
and the initiator of personal attacks on occasion, my personal
experience would indicate that the reverse is true. The overall ratio of
my posting experience would indicate a high degree of positive result vs
a fairly low amount of negative interaction with other posters.

personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
that same group.
The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
asshole the saint.

I guess that's true. I have noticed that few ambivalent individuals
will vacillate between genuine debate and ad-hominem attacks, as if
they cannot decide which attitude is most appropriate for the
particular conversation. I feel that person's disposition toward the
conversation should be a reflection of what is being said, not of who
is saying it.

This is true enough, although again the negative responses could very
well be prevoked rather than self initiated.

And if what is being said is go against dogma, that is not a
justification for personal attacks, IMO.

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. Other than that, you
have an interaction that is subject to interpretation.
In other words, what one poster calls personal attack, the next will
call defensive response. It's a never ending cycle where we always come
back to the term "individual interpretation".

Vigorous refutation, yes. Personal attacks, no.

I like that approach. Personally, I have come to think of Usenet
response as answering a post in the manner I am approached.
Some here view me as helpful. Some view me as an ego driven idiot.
Neither know me at all. All are simply posters on a screen to be dealt
with as they deal.
Usenet is Usenet. That's all it is and that's all it ever will be. To
take it seriously instead of just accepting it as it is and dealing with
it might be time better spent doing things more constructive :-)

-Le Chaud Lapin-


--
Dudley Henriques