Kicked off a mailing list

[Lan Barnes]

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 01:54:05PM +1300, Stephen Cope wrote:
> Lan Barnes wrote:
> > In the event, the guy in question had had a stroke.  0 --> :-(
> > (That's egg on my face.) Assumption gets me again.
> 
> That doesn't make you wrong, that makes you right.
> 
> You said:
> 
>    ... if he (the moderator) had any special knowledge
>     of why I should cut this person some slack (a broken keyboard, 
>     cerebral palsy), I'd be happy too.
> 
> Shouldn't the moderator have then told you that the person in fact did
> have a disability, and then you could have cut the person some slack.
> 
> The moderator was expecting the impossible to presume you know the
> physical condition of all list posters.
> 

Thank you, Stephen.

The moderator claimed that I should have been able to pick it up from
reading the archives. Again, this point was made quite angrily.

In all honesty, I read *at* the archives for a while, and planned to
return to them later before asking substantive questions. It never
occurred to me to search them for "why does so-and-so type so funny".

I've thought about this whole situation a lot and have arrived at some
conclusions; about me, about moderators, about mailing lists in general.
I'll happily share them -- I hope they're not _too_ self-serving.

*** opinions follow - delete before reading ***

This is not the first time I've gotten in an unintended pissing contest
in email. The other time (I think it's only been two) was with Eric S.
Raymond in a private series of exchanges. It started innocently enough.
I sent him a note praising something he wrote on the economics of open
source, and he was kind enough to respond. We exchanged a couple of
notes that were cordial at first, but he turned frosty -- OK, angry --
when I failed to agree with him on something. I can't remember what, but
I do remember that he was strictly Austrian school (the favorite of
Libertarians), and some of my Georgist interpretations rubbed him the
wrong way. We finally ended the exchange with him in a snit and me a
little confused ("but everything was going so _well_!").

I won't name the moderator on the biofuels list (I wouldn't have named
ESR except many people on this list know him or of him, so it's
pertinent data), but in his field, the guy has the same high stature
that ESR has. In fact, I can say without embarrassment that I admire
both men a lot for their intellect and their contributions. Sheesh, I'd
like nothing better than to have them both like me.

So what went wrong? I don't think it can be _all_ me because I'm able to
get along with many people I disagree with. To pick an example from
around here, Lew and I probably disagree on a metric ton of stuff, but I
have no doubt that if we were to go to lunch together, we'd have a good
time. Perhaps this says more about Lew than me, but the point is, I
trust his ... what should I call it? ... "emotional integrity". OK,
that's the wrong phrase, but I trust Lew (and most of the people on this
list) not to have to despise someone just because he disagrees with him.
Maybe that's more emotional maturity than integrity. I don't know.
IANAP.

OK, that's them: what's my part in it? Well, when somebody does that to
me, I push back, and not always rationally. In fact, my push-back can be
self-destructive -- I once almost got into a physical fight with a guy
who had tried out for the defensive line of the Vikings. As I recall, it
was over some sandwich meats. I just couldn't stop myself. Stupid.

So that's a thing about me. If I feel someone is judging me unjustly
(key word), I become irrational. Ask my wife. It's true.

This is not a good thing. I could use the information on that mailing
list. ESR might make a good and interesting correspondent. I _need_ my
wife. And I don't want to get pounded by large people. We could be
romantic about this trait in me, but I see it as a bug rather than a
feature. 

<note to self> Gotta try to change that.

*** if you've read this far, you have only yourself to blame ***

Now about mailing lists: when they're moderated, it's always a red flag
for me, or should be. It means that at least one person has decided that
s/he knows enough about what's Right and Wrong to interpose him-herself
between the contributors and the readers on the list. And this may be
true ... but it reminds me of the old saw that anyone who wants to be
president probably isn't selfless enough to be qualified.

I have also thought about the nature of people with Causes. We can be
self-righteous bores. We think we see further than everyone else. We get
that condescending tone when we talk about our Big Cause. We're never
wrong.

I do say "we" here because I'm always joining up with Big Causes.
Linux. Biofuel. Georgeism. Life Extension. I'm just one of those
cause joiners.

But I do tend to hang out in the back row of my causes for at least two
reasons. One is that while I can recognize a Big Cause, I rarely if not
never have any Big Ideas myself. I'm one of those cause remoras who
swims along living off the crumbs that the big fish let by. I wish it
were otherwise, because I believe my causes deserve a little more from
me, but I'm just not a very original person. I'm much more useful at
expressing the flashes of genius that other people have.

The other reason is that I have primal doubts. I am rarely certain of
myself or anything over any extended period of time. And this, I
believe, is a feature, not a bug. I really don't trust the judgment of
people who can't doubt themselves.

So moderated mailing lists, especially those with a Cause, should send
me a red strobe flashing "someone here thinks he can't be wrong; behave
accordingly."

On mailing list archives in general, I never find them as helpful as
moderators seem to think they are. Subject lines aren't very good ("Help
me please!!!!!"), topics drift, and open discussion lists have a huge
noise to data ratio. This can be fun when you follow it daily, but a
chore when you're digging for a specific answer.

If I were running a list (and I have too many doubts), I might instead
abstract the best of the posts on a web site with meaningful subject
lines. Like the Kplug wiki, an underused resource IMHO.

So here is my abstract.

*** are you _sure_ you still want to keep reading? ***

I spoke too soon.

There was an inevitable personality clash.

Nobody involved is a Bad Person.

I probably shouldn't moderate a mailing list.

But I still find it baffling that he continued to have a furious
exchange with me (that went on and on and on) when the guy in question
had never actually seen the email the moderator considered insulting.
Doesn't he have any other use for his time?

*** thanks for listening ***

-- 
Lan Barnes                    lan at falleagle.net
Linux Guy, SCM Specialist     858-354-0616