X-Message-Number: 4268
Date: 21 Apr 95 00:51:48 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Learning instead of attacking
IEEE...! (read as: much tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth), how things
can go wrong and be misconstrued when one steps into the middle of
something one does not have time for, does not think is very relevant, and,
therefore, in which one is not really interested at this point in one's
life; yet feels compelled to make a statement of concern about the general
character of the discussion method. Obviously, my point needs much better
elucidation to be understood. But, at least, I now have your attention :-).
Note that I, on purpose, did not send my first message to SCI.CRYONICS, but
since John's reply went there, so also will this. (On second thought, after
just looking at sci.cryonics and seeing -- a mess, I won't send it there.)
1) I thought that I was making it clear from prefacing remarks that I was
not criticizing John K Clark only, but using his post as an example. I will
remark right here that I have the same general feeling of annoyance when I
read parts of the postings of Keith Lynch and Perry Metzger to name two
more who immediately come to mind, and there are others. In fact, I take
the time to comment only because I believe that all of the perpetrators of
the particular discussion methods which I am criticizing are intelligent,
worthy individuals.
2) What is the purpose of this list?
Is it for the discussion of ideas and the sharing of information
concerning the revolutionary and inspiring idea of cryonics and related
topics in an atmosphere of friendly, supportive, sincere, courteous,
intelligent, helpful, cooperative study, and to allow genuine, open
expressions of concerns, aspirations, tragedies and triumphs and their
concomitant emotions, for all of which the end goal is the potentially
boundless extension of our lives?
-OR-
Is it to be a "scholarly" debating society whose topic of discussion -
to make it more interesting and challenging - is the weird notion of
cryonics and related topics, where members can compete against one another
in games of verbal skill and one-upmanship, in an atmosphere of implied
scorn, using cute and caustic sarcasm, nit-picking, verbal riposte, and
one's clearly superior knowledge and mental powers to score points, to
attempt to humiliate one's opponents, and to inflate one's own image of
one's ego, all the while keeping a tight rein on one's emotions and any
authentic expression of one's concerns and aspirations lest one betray the
fact that s/he is a human and not a Turing computer?
3) My post was not even an attempt to be part of "a civilized philosophic
discussion", but instead a sincere, open, outburst of distaste at some of
the discussion methods which are being used on this list. I am sorry if
John K Clark took it as a personal attack, it was only meant to be directed
at one particular and, to me, very unpleasant characteristic that often
glares at me from his writing and that of several others. He, and the
others, may not have any of those attributes which I described colorfully
and passionately for the sake of emphasis, but from their modes of jumping
immediately onto every mistake or weakness that they find in others, it
appears that they do. One of the problems with email and its lack of visual
feedback is one's inability to see the facial/body language that goes with
the words. And BTW, I do not see anything wrong or un"civilized" (a bad
word choice in this context, just think of all the horrors which have been
promoted and perpetrated in the name of civilization!) about using the full
range of language expressions, some of which save thousands of explanatory
words - much like a picture, for the purpose of communications in this or
any other medium, appropriate to the context, of course.
4) The following are some examples of expressions with which to begin
statements in order that they do not appear to be so nasty, or sarcastic:
"I think that you are wrong in", "I believe that the generally accepted
view is that", "I may be wrong in my interpretation of your post, but you
may not know that", "I noticed that you repeated ----- several times, but
isn't it spelled ----?". (Spelling mistakes should generally be corrected
by private email.) I hope that the idea is clear. Proceeding in this way
does not signify that one is unsure of oneself, but instead, I believe,
shows tolerance, maturity, concern, wisdom and good-will. There is a vast
difference between genuine self-confidence in one's knowledge and being,
and arrogant superiority, which is actually its opposite.
5) Please! Having good will and benevolent intentions, giving the benefit
of the doubt (and having some doubt where *any* natural language
communication is concerned), taking time to consider that there might be
some truth to what others are saying instead of immediately jumping in to
ridicule or undercut it, gracefully admitting one's errors and omission's
(most people on this list do that very well), even complementing one
another on the helpfulness or insightfulness of his/her message; these are
the hallmarks of sensible and fruitful discussion. I believe that all of
the people on this list do these things some of the time; most do them,
much of the time; and some, all of the time. I would like very much to see
the few who often do not, try to change. (Yes, even including myself
sometimes.) And in case they did not realize the effect that their words
were having, I have pointed it out. If I had more time to spare then I
would have simply taken individual expressions as they appeared and sent
them privately to the perpetrators with suggestions of changes which would
have made them less incendiary.
In closing, let me say that since my post was not meant to be part of
a philosophical discussion, John's cute, sarcastic reply was, in this
instance, not inappropriate (as well as quite amusing). I do believe,
however, that all minds contain contradictions within them (even that of
Any Rand :), if not of ideas, then among ideas, values and emotions.
Furthermore, I believe that it should be the never-ending task of each of
us to ferret them out and integrate all parts of one's mind into a self-
consistent whole. (This would not, of course, by itself be provably so -
that's why it's a never-ending task :)
And, finally, whatever the response to this message, I will not reply.
I do not have the time for it; I am too busy working with the here and now
of life extension.
-- Paul --
Paul Wakfer 1220 E. Washington St. #24, Colton, CA 92324, USA
238 Davenport Rd. #240, Toronto, ON M5R 1J6, CANADA
Pager:416-446-9461 Phone:416-968-6291
*****************************************************************
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4268