Harristotelian Logic

In looking over posts in reply to me, of which there have been a lot in the last few days and months, I noticed quite a few people seeming to feel a right to request specific behavior from me in terms of how I post, what's in my posts, and how I respond to replies to my posts.

As that defies in my mind a central principle of Usenet, it seemed easy to just shrug it off and consider these people to be anarchists in an unusual sense.

Then I thought of my own charges against various posters who I think have behaved in a way that violates social norms in their replies to me, including behavior that I've labeled newsgroup stalking, which basically means that when I post, they reply, often negatively, having mangled the content of my original post in various ways, and they simply track me, making sure to post in reply to me. I've seen this behavior in my case go on over a period of years. As for violating social norms, I'm talking about posts where in being negative they cross into areas which I thought were taboo, like racism.

So now I was stuck with the general principle, and my disdain for people trying to manage me and get editorial control over my postings, along with my sense that there were limits which people should not cross, and if they did then they had to pay consequences, including dealing with complaints that could reach outside of Usenet.

It seemed to me that it made more sense to toss it out there as a roundtable discussion than to sit and mull it over in my own mind, where I have vague ideas about what that means, as the hope is that the thread won't degenerate into a couple of people in a flame war.

For instance, the first round could be replies to this original post, which could sit for a while, then people could reply to those replies.

That is simply a general idea, and is not, of course, a rigid instruction.

My rational for making this post, which some of you may simply think is ludicrous because Usenet is Usenet, and nothing I've brought up seems pertinent to you, is that I see myself as an independent researcher who somehow attracts a lot of negative attention.

As one person I find my threads often swamped by people who seem to be getting better and better at overwhelming my message with the volume of their posting, and continued false assertions.

That is, for the person who can attract a lot of attention over a long period of time, the current state of laissez-faire leaves you open to what I see as gangs of people quite willing to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to control your message, often with success in hiding it which I feel has to be taken into account.

My hope is that these issues can be resolved to some extent through Usenet's strength: Discussion.

Obviously, whatever anyone says, when it comes to posting, people can still toss anything they want out there, but I think it might be nice if there was some hammering out anyway of what behavior is considered outside of Usenet norms.

(Ok, some of you may think the Answer is already out there, so yes, feel free to post your links.)

Ok, a synopsis of the things I've brought up:

1. Editorial control: Should I listen to others telling me what to post?


2. Control of posting volume or number of threads created: Should I listen to others telling me how to post?


3. Newsgroup stalking: Does it exist?


4. Complaints: Is it ever justified to go outside of Usenet with complaints about someone's statements on Usenet?


5. Basic social norms: Are there any on Usenet? For instance, should we care if posters find enjoyment in tormenting someone who posts who is obviously actually mentally ill?

What if someone posts sensitive information about their personal lives like about their divorce or problems with their children, is it anything goes, so that we should sit by when other posters attack them with the information?

Of course, feel free to add your own, as I'm just tossing out a few things that occur to me now as I sit and type up this post.