On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Paul Vixie <vi...@isc.org> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:21:30 -0600 > > From: Jorge Amodio <jmamo...@gmail.com> > > > > Among the many wonderful things Internet has created in the past 2+ > > decades, it gave birth to a countless number of "Internet Experts" ... > > for example, some of us got a chance to witness the following. i've > removed all identifying marks. (i was NOT the author NOR the offender, > but the author does read this mailing list, and several of you will no > doubt recognize the flaming style once you consider the time/date stamp.) > > ------- Forwarded Message > > To: ... > Subject: Re: verbal brickbats > Date: Sun, 02 Jun 96 23:37:40 PDT > From: ... > > My guess is that most people just ignore you. Which might be a shame, > because your point of view is different enough from the average member > of the list that you are valuable here just by being different. I think > of you as a pompous egomaniac nut case, but that's just my opinion; I > have no Greek or Latin quotations to back it up and no 5-point treatise > about how some part of scripture says you're a bad person. It's just > what I believe, based entirely on what you've said here. > > In your world you're a fancy professor with power and authority. You're > probably the intellectual terror of [your] postal code. Here in my > world of cyberspace you're just an arrogant twit who knows Greek. If > you want to spend your time making impassioned arguments to the people > who already agree with you, then just keep doing what you're doing. If > your goal is to change somebody's mind about one of the topics that you > address, then you need to learn both some manners and some rhetorical > technique. If you want to teach somebody, to expand somebody's > understanding, to increase the number of people in the world who agree > with you, then please listen to me, because here in cyberspace I'm the > guy with the power and experience and authority and you're just an > insect. ... > > Let me give you a few pointers on being taken more seriously. > > * First, you have the habit of making arguments from authority, rather > than as an individual. Sometimes it is important to establish > your authority in some area, in much the same way that an expert > witness in a courtroom establishes his credibility and authority on the > topic for which he is to testify. > > You may think of yourself as an authority on the matters that you are > expounding on, but we don't yet. Your academic pedigree and your > quotations from ancient languages are just bluster here on the Internet. > > The general principle here in cyberspace is that we participate as > individuals and not as representatives of authoritative bodies. You can > earn the right to wield the authority of some body on whose behalf you > speak, but you don't walk in our door holding that authority just > because you are B.A., M.A., Ph.D. and have a white beard. > > [...] > > If your goal in writing to the Internet is to change somebody's mind > about some topic that you care about, then you really must learn to > communicate in a very different style. > > * Second, you are constantly trying to impress us with how much better > educated you are than we are. This might be related to the first item, > above, since if you're going to be arguing from authority then you > probably need to keep establishing that you have some authority. I > think you'll find that this is a pretty highly educated crowd, but you > don't catch us relying on our academic pedigrees instead of on our > ability to communicate. I am quite certain that I have absolutely as > many degrees as you do, and I am completely certain that I know many > more obscure languages than you do, but if I can't win an argument with > you based on what I say and how I say it, then my degrees are all just > puffery, aren't they? > > But in establishing a precedent of authority and pedigree as the basis > for power, you are treading on dangerous ground. Here in cyberspace you > aren't in your world, you're in mine. If you make the mistake of trying > to establish some ground rules in which argument by authority is the > norm, then you'd better make sure that you don't ruffle the feathers of > somebody who has more of it than you do. I can make the Internet do > anything I want it to do. I can perform the digital equivalent of > heaving lightning bolts in front of your chariot, and rending the earth > beneath your mail reader. I can turn your hard disk into a toad. I'm a > technocrat. But I won't, because we professionals don't act that way. I > don't have to brandish my power and authority and education and > knowledge of arcana in order to get people to listen to me. I try to > make a crisp argument and let my words carry that argument. If I fail, > then I don't go running for some Greek derivation or invoke some > long-dead philosopher. Heck, I don't even go running for analogies from > Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven", which is every bit as fine a piece of > literature as Aristophanes. > > * Third, you convey a complete disdain for your reader. Your writing > style reeks of the belief that your time is so much more important than > the time of your reader that you can't be bothered to write correctly > or to edit what you write. If you'd like to have more readers, then it > would be very worthwhile for you to be more respectful of them. Among > other things, this means that you need to write in a way that makes > it easier for your reader to read: use real sentences with real > capital letters at the beginnings of them, and do try to spell as many > words right as you can muster. > > So mind your manners, learn to communicate better, stop insulting your > readers, and then come back and contribute your intellect to [this] > mailing list. If you keep acting like a jerk I'm going to wake > up some morning, yawn, make a cup of tea, and then vaporize your > mailbox. Sometimes we supremely powerful technocrats just have a bad > day. > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > This is a great email, it belongs on countless blogs. Written back then, still relevant now.
J -- Joel Esler | 302-223-5974 | gtalk: jes...@sourcefire.com
