Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 513
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 25 2003 Volume 01 : Number 513
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] LEAVING THE LIST
[netz] (offlist) soap opera
Re: [netz] (offlist) soap opera
[netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
Re: [netz] problems?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] LEAVING THE LIST
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Dan Duris wrote:
> I don't understand your reasons, I guess.
>
> I don't think anybody was confronting you with something unpleasant.
>
> dan
This is some of what is frustrating about what has happened on the
netizens list.
Perhaps Dan doesn't see what is unpleasant for Lou.
But he doesn't ask Lou
And instead Dan, you just say you don't see any problem.
That is different from what should be happening on a netizens
list.
If someone says he is having a problem, and feeling attacked,
it is important people ask why. It doesn't help to say
they don't see any reason for the person to feel this way.
If one wants diverse opinions, then one welcomes them and
tries to understand the difference and learn from them.
One doesn't try to drive them away.
Lou has cherished Michael's contribution to the world of the
understanding of the netizen.
Lou tries to carry on the support for the netizen.
If he has found it too difficult to be on the netizen
list, the netizen list has a problem, not Lou.
I am sorry I wasn't able to offer more help.
This is a very busy and difficult time for me.
But I would hope those on the netizen list would pitch in
and try to help as well.
This hasn't happened in this situation.
That is important to understand why and to understand what
is failing about what is going on on the netizen list.
I have due dates for several papers at the moment so I can't
contribute right now.
I will try to contribute as soon as I can.
Meanwhile I would hope that the Netizen list would take seriously
that Michael did something that the world online recognized and
valued.
It isn't every user who Michael recognized as a netizen.
It was those who were helpful and welcoming and particularly
those who helped new or newer users to learn the collaborative
spirit and ways of being online.
That isn't now happening on the netizen list.
How to change this I don't know at the moment.
But hopefully people will consider my post as something constructive
and try to understand how to make the netizen list into something
that indeed is worthy of its name.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: [netz] (offlist) soap opera
Howard,
I give up. I tried a few responses, but it's all so stupid, what can one say?
If Ronda and Jay are going to sulk over how mean we were to Luis, maybe we can
just ignore them and see if we can have a little fun with Dan and Greg.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:33:03 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] (offlist) soap opera
Ha! I made the oldest mistake in the book. (The Webmail interface
often trips me up.)
Really, when I allow myself to take it seriously, it's frustrating to
think about why Jay considers Howard's questions about how many post
Luis gets as inappropriate, but apparently sees nothing offputting or
unwelcoming about rhetoric like "McCarthyism." And I don't want to feed
a discourse of competing victimization narratives.
Mark
lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>Howard,
>
>I give up. I tried a few responses, but it's all so stupid, what can one say?
>
>If Ronda and Jay are going to sulk over how mean we were to Luis, maybe we can
>just ignore them and see if we can have a little fun with Dan and Greg.
>
>Mark
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:36:10 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] problems?
RH> And instead Dan, you just say you don't see any problem.
Yes, I don't see any problem, except that many people on the list are
passive and some of you are off topic too often. Although when Howard
tried to propose some guidelines for netizens, you haven't replied to
it. I think you ignore many of his constructive proposals. And that's
very, very sad.
When Howard asked about number of emails Lou was getting daily, I
didn't see any problem there. But Jay certainly did. I clearly
understood why Howard was asking that, since if you (and Jay) had
been reading his past emails carefully you would have probably noticed
that he was getting hundreds of emails (he repeated that a few times).
So I understand why he doesn't want to spend time on netizens if
nothing really important is going on here. And when finally someone
tries to be productive, others talk about different things and nothing
going to be finished. I checked two months of emails back and there is
very little concentration on important issues.
I am not angry, but disappointed with this list. I awaited much more
from subscribers and I think that technical background should be one
of the priorities of this list. Because when technology doesn't meet
increasing volumes of everything on the net, that means there won't be
any future for internet. I think everybody would welcome further grow
of the internet. But it surely depends on technology. If there is no
new technology or proposals for standards on this issue, there won't
be any further grow. From what I have read internet is being
continually overloaded, so this is important. Howard can say more
about it, if anyone's interested.
PS Luis have been often very clear about his views. I liked that. But
sometimes he proposed space without limits - that's an anarchy and not
responsible democratic society. And that's what makes difference. I
don't want to read 50 emails a day because someone HAS TO reply to
every email on the list. I just don't want to spend so much time
by reading emails in Netizens folder...
Howgh.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:58:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Dan Duris wrote:
> RH> And instead Dan, you just say you don't see any problem.
>
> Yes, I don't see any problem, except that many people on the list are
> passive and some of you are off topic too often. Although when Howard
Who has decided what is off topic? I didn't see an agreement from
those on the list in general.
In fact I originally tried to take into account what Howard felt he
was uncomfortable with, and the result was that I found myself *not*
posting what I felt relevant to the list.
> tried to propose some guidelines for netizens, you haven't replied to
> it. I think you ignore many of his constructive proposals. And that's
> very, very sad.
I have said a number of times that this is a very busy and difficult
time for me and that I am not able to participate actively often
in the list right now.
I have had three papers due very close together and then invited
to a workshop in Europe to present one of them.
I didn't expect to have them all so close together but this has happened.
I have also had to stop writing for some of the online newsletters I
write for.
And an important anniversary is coming up for the concept of netizen
that Michael contributed to the world and I want to be able to
have something to help to honor that occasion.
I have a number of disagreements with the way that I and others
have been treated lately on the list when others do make the effort to
post.
Our posts are treated with disregard (or ignoring them as Mark's
"offline" email admitted).
There have been other means of discouraging posts by people with
any difference of view -- and when these are brought to the attention of
the list, there have been various ways to make excuses rather than
to try to understand what the problem is.
>
> When Howard asked about number of emails Lou was getting daily, I
> didn't see any problem there.
I realize *you* don't see any problem with the question. But if
Lou or Jay did, an appropriate way to respond would have been to
try to understand why there was discomfort with this type of question.
>But Jay certainly did.
Why then didn't you try to understand why Jay did have a problem with
this?
> I clearly
> understood why Howard was asking that, since if you (and Jay) had
> been reading his past emails carefully you would have probably noticed
> that he was getting hundreds of emails (he repeated that a few times).
>
Yet Howard has a great deal more experience online and on the Internet
than Lou does. And the whole point when I originally got online
on Usenet was that people found ways to be helpful to me, and
they encouraged me to make my contribution to the Net.
I have done so and have tried to encourage others to make their
contribution.
I don't feel such actions have been going on on this list lately.
I have said that I would expect to have more time to discuss this
actively, when I am done with the obligations I have ahead of
me. This would likely be the end of May.
> So I understand why he doesn't want to spend time on netizens if
> nothing really important is going on here.
This is the easy way out isn't it.
Instead of encouraging something worthwhile to happen, by supporting
and encouraging posts, there is the claim that one will leave
if what that person feels is important isn't happening.
But the point of the Net is that there is interactive and collaborative
modeling.
That means that it isn't what the one person feels is important,
but that there is a need to find how to be welcoming toward the
differences, how to explain in a welcoming way if something seems
a problem, but also encouraging others and asking why they are
saying what they have to say.
That hasn't been happening.
That will not be likely to encourage others to participate.
Nor will it help anything "important" to happen on the list.
> And when finally someone
> tries to be productive, others talk about different things and nothing
> going to be finished. I checked two months of emails back and there is
> very little concentration on important issues.
The point is to explore what are the important issues, not to
declare them.
And if some people have differences, it is to try to understand
the nature of the difference. This has *not* happened.
> I am not angry, but disappointed with this list. I awaited much more
> from subscribers
I am taking the time to repond, time I don't really have,
but I am pessimistic that it will be treated with any
seriousness or welcoming.
> and I think that technical background should be one
> of the priorities of this list.
But this is the netizens list. There are many lists that have as
their priority the technical background.
This is a list that has grown out of the human-network-citizen
connection that is what netizen is about.
Yet it is these posts that have been ignored or said are *not*
appropriate.
The whole effort to claim that the Net cannot scale has long
been referred to as "Imminent death of the net predicted"
(see chapter 12 of Netizens)
The collaborative process means that the Net does scale.
A commercial process has a different nature.
> Because when technology doesn't meet
> increasing volumes of everything on the net, that means there won't be
> any future for internet.
This, however, is, as I point out above *not* a problem.
What will be scaled is the question?
Is it the continued interactive collaboration and resource sharing
nature of the Net and the people on it?
That is what needs to scale.
We have lots of tv all around the world, but that doesn't help
if it scales.
> I think everybody would welcome further grow
> of the internet.
Not if it becomes like tv and the other commercial media
are in the US.
>But it surely depends on technology.
It turns out that it is dependent on continuing the human-computer
symbiosis that has made the Net what it is today. It depends on
continuing the human-human network facilitated collaboration.
That is what has made the Net what it is.
It is not that it is the technology that is the secret.
But if you don't know about the origins and development of the
Net, it is difficult to understand this.
>If there is no
> new technology or proposals for standards on this issue, there won't
> be any further grow.
There have been many many proposals for standards on many issues.
If there is no understanding of the vision guiding the development
of the Internet, and of how it has been developed,
the standards or proposals for standards can end up being useless.
I have been to a few IETF meetings. They have become dominated by
different big corporations. And a friend I had who was part of
a European academic community submitted a proposal for a standard
to a group in the IETF and it was ignored, while proposals of
certain big corporations were what were considered.
I don't know how widespread this is now, but there is this problem
with the encouragement of a commercial network.
> From what I have read internet is being
> continually overloaded, so this is important.
I don't know what you read.
The point is that there are those campaigning to introduce classes
into the Net. Where email messages will be second class, and there
are those who will be able to purchase first class service. This
means that first class will be out of the reach of most people.
>
> PS Luis have been often very clear about his views. I liked that. But
> sometimes he proposed space without limits - that's an anarchy and not
> responsible democratic society. And that's what makes difference. I
> don't want to read 50 emails a day because someone HAS TO reply to
> every email on the list. I just don't want to spend so much time
> by reading emails in Netizens folder...
You don't have to reply to every message from the Netizens mailing list.
No one said you did.
Also you can read the ones you choose to read.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
Ronda,
> Our posts are treated with disregard (or ignoring them as Mark's
> "offline" email admitted).
Granted that you have enormous time constraints, I think the record will
support that you have ignored more posts than I have. The record will also
show that I have spent a great, possibly ridiculous, amount of time trying to
contribute to mutual comprehension on the list -- and at this point, I don't
even know if the Haubens comprehend why the term "McCarthyism" might be
construed as insulting, never mind whether we've made an iota of progress on
anything else. So yes, I won't put any more time into threads with you that
are likely to get dropped, and I won't torture everyone by offering
explanations that go nowhere. Maybe things will go better when your time
commitments have eased.
> There have been other means of discouraging posts by people with
> any difference of view -- and when these are brought to the attention of
> the list, there have been various ways to make excuses rather than
> to try to understand what the problem is.
I don't know whether this agentless passive voice is supposed to be tactful.
It isn't. This really does verge on a McCarthyite sort of tactic: how can I
defend myself against an accusation that you're not even quite making, much
less supporting?
So, you see my dilemma: if I try to respond to your post on its intellectual
merits, I'll just spend the next three hours rehashing everything that has been
written, explaining how angry I am about how much of it, erasing most of the
angry parts, and accomplishing nothing. Some conversations are best walked
away from, at least for a while.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:25:32 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
Mark,
Was this Re: Problems actually a response to a message by that title?
If so, I didn't get it and would appreciate seeing it. It sounds as
if you are referring to Ronda's "Leaving the List."
I agree there are massive mismatches in communicative styles. Were I
Ronda and Jay, and approaching this in an intellectually open manner,
I'd ask why there seems to be so much conflict, rather than simply
saying general things about this not being Netizenship as Michael
defined it. I'm not even saying Michael's definition is wrong -- but
perhaps it needs to go to another level of detail.
I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place.
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:35:37 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
Howard,
> Was this Re: Problems actually a response to a message by that title?
> If so, I didn't get it and would appreciate seeing it. It sounds as if
> you are referring to Ronda's "Leaving the List."
Yes [to your question, not your last sentence], my Re: Problems is a
response to Ronda's response (I see a stamp of 4/24 9:58 PM) to Dan's
post which I believe was first in the thread of that name. I'll forward
it to you.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:24:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
on Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:25:32 -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com>
wrote:
>I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place.
We all seem to agree about something at last. Perhaps this is a
helpful starting point.
How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list
given the clear differences among the people posting at the current time?
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:50:55 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] problems?
>on Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:25:32 -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I do agree that very little useful communication is taking place.
>
>We all seem to agree about something at last. Perhaps this is a
>helpful starting point.
>
>How do we have meaningful communication happen on the netizens list
>given the clear differences among the people posting at the current time?
Perhaps we can stop "talking past one another" by recognizing there
are different yet complementary areas of interest and expertise. For
example, Jay posted on the rights of Netizens. I felt I was being
responsive to that issue by asking how some of those rights could be
implemented [1] and also by posting a suggested code of conduct for
information providers.
[1] I directly replied to Jay, and felt that the response was simply a
condemnation of any commercial interest, as well as great confusion
over conflicting definitions of privatization. To get away from that
conflict, I then posted several technical ways that access could be
improved, through cheaper access technology, understanding what the
workload imposed by users would be (so the network can design for them),
and finding synergies among noncommercial, regulatory, and commercial
interests.
This was intended to extend the discussion and find solutions, but I
felt it was ignored. In my opinion, just stating rights isn't enough
until we find a specific way to pay for them. I'm not objecting to the
rights, but I want to see how they can be implemented.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #513
******************************
