None the less, I can think of a time when you and I interacted, and some strange miscommunication took place. It was regarding the decor of the Madonna Inn in San Louis Obispo. If you and I had been discussing it over a beer, I'm sure the miscommunication would have never taken place.
I surely wasn't implying I have a total lack of crazy ;-)
Crucially, it was a brief disagreement and not one either of us wanted to spur on. You're right, miscommunication happens. Backing away from trivial misunderstandings, as we did, is the smart move IMHO. Sometimes explaining one's motivations or responses can cause a cascade of miscommunications that makes things worse.
The sad part comes when this natural bump and grind of discourse spirals, as you say, into lengthy, heated grudge matches that result in lasting antagonism (although without this, I doubt Usenet would have lasted so long ;-)). That is what's really worth avoiding. The natural bump and grind of textual discourse? It keeps things interesting, if we let it.
Everybody has their moments, myself included. Even the "public" types
who always try to carefully word everything have their moments.
I agree with you about how the presentation of differing views is what
keeps things interesting, but the ability to realize a discussion has
gone off the rails and ought to be dropped (rather than a
"clarification" that makes the situation worse), is often in short
supply.
Pre-web Usenet (1980's and early 90's) along with open mailing lists and
BBS's were interesting and a lot can be learned from the interactions.
Initially, there was a barrier to entry, namely it took some technical
skill just to connect and participate, so there was a degree of self
selection happening. As things progressed, the barrier to entry
decreased (the earliest being university students gaining access), and
discussions changed accordingly. The ever receding barrier to entry to
text communication enabling the masses (for the most part) to take part
in discussions has continued to change the nature of discussions. The
only people left out of discussions these days are the poor, since
having a computer and connection really are privileges of the
comparatively wealthier people/nations on the planet.
Like yourself, I've been watching the gradual changes for decades, and I
think they are just fascinating. As always, we've got to take the good
with the bad, and not all of the changes are good, but it does remain
interesting.
I don't interact much with others, so possibly, I'm too indifferent, but
over time I've learned how my own opinion isn't particularly important,
and I can live happily without voicing it. Like your strategy of just
grinning in silence, I'm perfectly content without "winning" a
confrontational disagreement. The tougher question is, would discussions
still be interesting if there were more people like you and me around?
The people who quickly say, "this is going all wrong, let's drop it and
move on." --As you mentioned, part of the "fun" of Usenet was watching
others have it out.
From the stuff I've read of his over the last decade, PG has put a whole
lot of thought into the matter of discussions, and has done his best to
formulate HN so the discussions here are beneficial. In spite of the
growth in popularity of this site, it still mostly works as intended.
Though I've also thought about it for a long time, I've come to the
conclusion that I may not be smart enough to design a "better" forum.
As much as I hate to admit it, a "better" forum might be a whole lot
less entertaining.
You bring back memories. There was a fellow associated with Dartmouth who called himself Archimedes Plutonium and would hijack many of the mail groups with what most classified as bizarre and off topic posts. IMHO, his posts never generated useful discussion (they were always off-topic) but instead caused a lot of spam in the newsgroups. It was about this time that the term "don't feed the trolls" became popular :)
I surely wasn't implying I have a total lack of crazy ;-)
Crucially, it was a brief disagreement and not one either of us wanted to spur on. You're right, miscommunication happens. Backing away from trivial misunderstandings, as we did, is the smart move IMHO. Sometimes explaining one's motivations or responses can cause a cascade of miscommunications that makes things worse.
The sad part comes when this natural bump and grind of discourse spirals, as you say, into lengthy, heated grudge matches that result in lasting antagonism (although without this, I doubt Usenet would have lasted so long ;-)). That is what's really worth avoiding. The natural bump and grind of textual discourse? It keeps things interesting, if we let it.