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