🚀 go-pugleaf

This is terrible!  <-_+>
Background:  I probably come down more on the rationalist end of the scale.

I *want* to agree with Nick, because I agree with many of the premises
that he states or implies.  On the other hand, I don't want to,
because he annoys the h--- out of me, because of the assaultive emotional
content with which his messages (in this thread) are fraught,
despite his assertions that emotional baggage is bad for arriving
at good solutions.

I much prefer reading, say, Alan's messages because they are much more
neutral in tone, despite his assertions that emotional content is 
important and that this medium strips out huge amounts of emotional content.
On the other hand, it's Alan's msg (to which this is a direct followup)
that prompts me point out that *neither* of you (or anyone else in this
thread) is providing *raw* facts (in Alan's words) for the rest of us
to use.

Nick, you're arguing as emotionally and fluffily as anyone else around
here.  Alan, you've done no better.  Perhaps you could be excused because
your platform is that emotional content is better.  However, you cut
your own feet out from under yourself by invoking the need for "raw
facts" that are lost because we keep only written records rather than
sound, video, etc.  (at least up until lately).

Keep smiling, both of you, no harm done nor intended...
I'm not going to present any good raw data here either.

By raw data, what I would hope to see would be actual studies,
numbers, graphs, etc showing emotional/rational content of communications
and the results that ensued.  

I feel the need to interject that there's a red herring in here...
I'm confused about how it came about, or who introduced the notion,
but there seems to have arisen in this thread the idea that *anything*
that isn't text is emotional, and subject to the argument at hand.
I disagree.  I think graphs, charts, even full-resolution pictures
could constitute "raw data" for the purposes at hand, and could and
should be communicated via e-mail, e-news, or any other groupware.
It would (or at least could) still be contributing only to the technical
content of the communications.

On the other hand, emotional content can be conveyed in words, written
or otherwise, as I indicated in the first couple of paragraphs of this
message;  or in ASCII-only non-text, as the crude "emoticons" that have
been in widespread use in this medium (but not in this newsgroup!!!!!?)
for many years;  or in detailed, hi-resolution, frequently-updated
emoticons;  or in the tone of voice and facial expressions in full-
motion video with sound.

So, part of what I would wish for would be increased bandwidth so as
to accomodate graphics and perhaps even sound and video, but that 
somehow discussions could be carried on in a rational way, regardless
of the medium.

I *have not* read any studies of this stuff, nor have I conducted any,
so perhaps by my own dictum I should stay out of this discussion.
Having given that caveat, I will sally forth with the following:

I think that one of the features of a piece of groupware that contributes
to rational results is a built-in *memory* of what's been communicated so
far, so as to at least help avoid degenerating to "You said X!"  "No I 
didn't!"  "Yes you did!"  "I did not!" and so forth.  Where the system
has a memory, the participants can, at least, go back and *check* what
was "said".  I think that the lack of this features is a weakness I see
in e-news as implemented on UUCP et al, and a strength of more centralized
systems such as CoSy and Participate (tm's as appropriate).

A second thing I think is true is that it would be bad (by which I mean
"unfruitful") to have a system which did not *allow* for free-form
contribution as we have it here, but I think that it is equally bad
to have a system which does not *facilitate* more structured forms
of communication that make it easier to avoid emotional traps.

But now I've rambled more than I wanted.
Take heart, Nick, Alan, and the rest...
I continue to believe that this is a worthwhile thread,
and quite relevant to the discussion of groupware.
I think it would be more worthwhile if (a) the contributors made their
contributions with higher fact/fancy, rational/emotional ratios; or
(b) the software supported fruitful discussion better; or
(c) both of the above.

-- Kenn Goutal
...!linus!intrbas!kenn
...!uunet!intrbas!kenn