> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:07:54 -0400
> From: Isaiah Weiner <iweiner@redhat.com>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 08:43:38AM -0400, Smitty wrote:
> > I reread the comment you cited and that fellow would likely have been
> > un_sub_scribed from the SLUG list for his rude, insulting comments that
> > were not provoked. He appears to be an anti-social personality who was
> > really referring to himself in his description. I was invited onto the
> > ncsu by a sub_scriber. After a few weeks decided that the signal to noise
> > ratio was very low and not worth the bandwidth. The SLUG list is
> > governed by very good policy which keeps it stable and on-topic.
>
> . . . and at the same time crushes the spirit of the movement. You
> *NEED* eccentricity like that in a productive LUG. I've given talks to
> literally dozens of LUGs and ACM chapters all across the country. Those
> that swear, keep the faith. Those that attempt to modify the behavior of
> their members do not benefit the open source community as a whole. You end
> up with a hundred half-hearted people. I've seen it time and time again
> over the last 7 years I've been "on the scene". :P
>
Eccentricity != productivity. Swearing != "keeping the faith". I have no
problem with eccentrics (_obviously_ we have some). Some people would
call me one. What I have a problem with is conduct that isn't civil.
Swearing is not necessarily an un_sub_bing offense on the SLUG list,
unless it's constant and gratuituous, and the person is warned and does
not comply.
Given our recent successes as a LUG, I'd have to argue that our "civil"
conduct on the SLUG list has not made us any less productive.
Fist fights and flame fests aren't necessary to get the job done,
usually. But if people want to have them, here we are on the politics
list.
> > > You're calling something *psychotic*. Do you have ANY idea the gravity
> > > of that word?
> >
> > It may have peculiar connotations for you, Isaiah. I use it per the
> > dictionary definition.
>
> Which dictionary? It's a medical term, you should be using the latest
> revision of the DSM for it. I am.
>
Baruther! You obviously don't know the story of how psychs come up with
stuff for the DSM. It's been likened to the process of ordering
take-out. The psychs demonstrably cannot ascertain psychosis, explain
why it happens, nor cure it. About the only thing they can do is produce
it. According to the "regular" dictionary, "psychotic" is _not_ a
medical term. And were it a medical term, this would imply that it has
some physical cause, which has not been proven, nor will it ever be,
except in a vanishingly small percentage of cases.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:12:00 EDT