¬ The "simulated turn-taking"
style: more 'involved', via overt interactivity
ˆ related to the notion of "interrupting" in speech, this style selects for TRPs throughout another's contribution, and simulates turn-taking in order to create the interactivity.
[tvs72.11]
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:18:55 -0700
From: spr@email
Subject: Re: friction, bs meter
[i]Terry,
[S1]
Your post pretty much confirms what I've been
saying. The subject heading is "friction, bs meter" yet you say nothing about "bs meter" -- it just
hangs there in the title like a forgotten angry appendage. Moreover, you somehow manage to post a palpably angry response
to me and still deny you
have any feelings about me or what I've written. Amazing.
[T2]
>You took issue, Stan,
with my occasional practice, early in the list's
history, of expressing my ideas in free verse,
instead of prose. As though I were violating
some discourse rule.
[S3]
The "rule" I had in mind was, and is,
a personal value judgment: that discussants should strive for clarity, not
obscurity. With your verse, and later often with
your prose, you
seem to opt for the latter. I find this habit of yours frustrating and seemingly easy to
remedy if you only chose to do so, thus I comment on it from time to time. If you'd like to argue that my
values are off-base my expression of them pisses
you off
you do strive for clarity but regretfully miss the
mark you *were* clear, and my reading is faulty etc
[S3a] well, I'm all
ears.
[T4]
>We were in mild contention over the con/aff
issue. (I didn't feel very involved in that; I thought it was somebody else's issue, mostly.)
Again, it seemed to me that you were attempting to enforce a particular model of
"how communication should be" on the list.
[S5] Guilty as charged. I
wanted NetDynam to discuss net dynamics, not force-fit a breezy notion of
"community" by promoting gossipy "affinity" posts. Both
camps "attempted to enforce" a particular model of how communication
should be on the list. Again, the difference is, I
cop to it and you don't.
[T6]
>Since then, whenever I mention con/aff, you're moved to refer back to what you see as 'the real meaning of the aff side in the
disagreement'. Suggesting, I think, that I missreport or twist it when I
say "affect".
[S7]
Yes, exactly. For you *do* misreport it. Repeatedly. Best I recall, neither I nor anyone else who favored
on-topic CONtent opposed discussion of AFFect in that context. We opposed a heavy diet of AFFinity posts consciously
aimed to promote "community". Is there some part of this you don't understand? Do you
recall it differently? Do you repeatedly
misreport it in order to express your own anger,
and/or to piss me off? I'm
beginning to wonder.
[T8] >You accused
me recently of attacking Gene and defending Kaylene, "couching my
criticism in sneaky intellectualism." Another disapproval of *how* I wrote. I didn't feel
then like either an attacker nor a defender.
[S9]
As you like. Shall we
pull the material out of the archives and take a vote of the readership? Maybe my
interpretation is idiosyncratic. Maybe you
convey feelings you don't realize.
[T10]
>And now I'm supposed to admit my anger, toward the end of improving our communication. Anger toward whom? You? Again, you attribute
this anger, 'hidden in long paragraphs,' to me
on the basis of a text style of which you
disapprove. (Am I reading you right, here? That you
disapprove of those long paragraphs [...]
[S11]
Long paragraphs are fine with me, Terry. I feel annoyed by
contortions of writing or speech, whether in verse or tangential meandering
prose, that apparently exist to obscure communication, especially of affect.
See the "discourse rule" above.
[T12]
>Mars criticised me
for not turning the anger attribution back on you.
She thought you
were projecting your own anger onto me. Since I can't find
any anger in myself toward you, I wonder if she was right.
[S13]
We'll each
have our own impressions of this. It may
ultimately resolve as an "agree to disagree" thing. If it interests the group to pursue it, I'm
curious how others have perceived our exchanges. I note
that since ND has no gators to fight, our baF tendencies lie dormant and no one has had much to say lately. Maybe this'll
spice it up?
[ii] Stan
=======================
¬ The
"relevance - in" style:
-
references the part which respondent selects as encapsulating original
Addresser's message/ point, or
-references
the point the respondee wishes to address/comment on/ answer, or
-references
the point which the respondee needs to make sense of for listeners, to clarify,
or augment
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:04:22
+0000
From: "simon"
<simon@EMAIL>
Subject:
Re: "Just Say Delete" (Was: Re: a last bouquet)
John:
> The analogies of "diner/coffeehouse"
and
>"informal seminar" are both ways of
> representing the importance of informality and
a social > side as opposed to a complete task focus.
>
> Some years ago I did some research for a minor
thesis
> looking at the effectiveness of task groups
within three > organizations.
Two of the factors influencing the
> effectiveness of the groups were Task
Leadership and
> Socio-emotional Leadership.
1
The concept of "task," has a rich history here. 2
Not only is there a common sense meaning of task as the job to be done, but it
is a technical term in Bion's group psychology. 3 I have been one
to see task as analogy -- harking back to its roots in "tax" or an
onerous tribute to be paid. 4 In Bion, it has more positive
connotations, and being a work group in accomplishment of a task is not only
healthy but morally good. 5 It is hard to mesh all this. 6
I set out to work at the warehouse this morning. 7 I will have a
task, I suppose, or various ones. 8 I must unload some trucks. 9 I must aid the company in any legit way to help it make
a profit. 10 I must fit myself into the sometimes odd social scheme
there. 11 My goal, however, for this day is to have as pleasant and as
delightful a day as I can -- to tell no lies, hurt no one on purpose, and be a
good citizen while squeezing the best out of whatever situation I may
encounter. 12 Out of this fluid plan for the day, one that will most likely
materialize, which activities constitute 'tasks.'
13 On email the concept becomes
even more difficult. 14 We must converse in writing, I
suppose. 15 Maybe it is our job to survive, but it is hard tosee why that
would be all important. 16 We ought
to address things like the net, or groups on the net, or groups in general or
ourselves on the net. 17 So if the posts are like that are we
on task. 18 I wonder if it is not in the nature of 'task' to create a
certain ambience -- use academic words, or technical words, or words which are
culturally associated with "work" and pain and paying our dues. Seminars, maybe, instead of
diners. 19 But then at my company, the management meetings are held in
diners. 20 Attending a seminar would be viewed suspiciously as a waste of
valuable company time while being part of the collection in the diner across
the street is considered a promotion earned by keeping ones nose to the
grindstone.
21 Netd has often been "taken
to task" for not sticking to its task. 22 Yet in many
ways we are quite productive. 23 If one considers the work of our
members to be partially group product, we produce academic papers, we have an
extensive web page to orient interested folks to our customs and history, we
have a private IRC channel to meet in real time, and we produce a large data
collection for use in psychological and socio-linguistic research. 24
I know groups who accomplish, in some sort of objective sense, far less,
yet would be held up as paragons of staying on task.
25 I
wonder if "task" is not a bit like the physicist's "force"
or Sandra's "power." 26 "Force" has its roots in
the action of human muscle and is one of the base analogies of science that
defies definition except by pointing at resultant circumstances (ie, the cup
fell and is now on the floor - thus the 'force' of gravity). 27 Or maybe as our quiet emlove suggests, it is like
'power' and arguably pornography -- everybody just knows what it is and if we
follow Wittgenstein and just use it correctly all will be well -- thereby
suggesting discussion of task
can never be on task.
28 Oh
well. 29 I can still resolve to
enjoy the day and squeeze the most out of the hours providence has
provided. 30 So off to the forklifts.
Simon
<email>
<website>
===========================
¬ The
"post that motivated me" style
-
I hit reply and just started typing, then sent.
-
I don't know whether the relevance of this will be obvious to all if I don't
include (some of) the original at the end.
[gen02.7]
Date:
Sun, 3 Feb 2002 04:19:09 -0800
From: harry
< harry@email >
Subject:
Re: Excuse me but I couldn't resist!
Aggression? poll after poll show tit for
tat, more than that, response is what the public hankers for, thinks is right
& just. Aggression is key. Aggression is cool. Bomb *them* and let god sort
em out.
You're
right, Sandra it's not funny.
And yet
using the innocence of small children as a rouge is a stock device of humor.
Violence is a stock device. Surprise^, too.
It seems
to work at about stage one-two of Kohlberg's morality stages or whatever, e.g.
pre-adolescent socializing!
Since
everyone went through those stages incorporating "other" into their
worldview, we've mostly experienced it and can respond from it very easily,
which, as I say, the American public seems to want to do.
That's
not funny.
Little
kids w/ eyes to blow something to smithereens -- that's normal!
Sandra < ---@--- > wrote:
>Dan,
unsurprisingly, I don't find this at all funny.
>Starting
from here:
>
on
2/2/02 9:14 PM, Dan M H-- at < dan@email > wrote:
>>
>>d."
>>
>>You
see, I don't think the problem is that the >>individual called Osama bin
Laden doesn't know how to >>love people.
>>d
>
>I
detect a considerable amount of aggression, you could >call it hate, in that
punchline. I don't think bin >Laden's the only one with an emotional
problem.
>
>Sandra
=====================================
¬ The "non-indicated" (I don't need to indicate relevance - you find it) type
ˆ this style points
to a more dialogistic orientation
rather than a less interactive one: there is less simulated dialogic
interactivity, but relative 'involvement' may be higher.
[gen02.12]
Date:
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:14:19 +1100
From:
Rob W- < rob@email >
Subject:
Why the joke isn't funny
It ain't
the hate. If jokes weren't largely about aggression, why call it a "punchline"? It's the lack of wit - where wit is partly in the structure
of the joke, partly in the parting of the veil at the end of the joke to
reveal, or better, imply, the true nature of the hate.
I don't
think the joke's about hating Osama. It doesn't
argue his hatefulness or even assert it
- it's just assumed from the beginning of the joke. Try substituting
Hitler, Arafat or Farrakhan for Osama and see how much the joke is changed.
The
question is, what's wrong with young David? In relation to hatred, who whom?
I read
the beginning of the joke as establishing a problem:
why does
a Jewish boy want to send a valentine to Osama?
Would
God mind? Of course not - God is love, the God of those namby-pamby
peace-marchin'. tree-huggin, feminist- marryin' jews who think Arik Sharon is a
war criminal.
But if
you even thought of asking the true G*d for permission to send a valentine the
next seven generations of your offspring would get boils and bad breath.
The
tension in the joke stays hidden, which is one reason the joke fails. It's a
political joke about the hatred of the G*d-
fearing for the god-loving.
Rob
=====================