Where are the rules that govern discourse on this listserv? My poor surfing skills have not revealed them. The public page for subscription http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org has no link to them. The options and configuration page at: http://listserv.aoir.org/options.cgi/air-l-aoir.org has no link to them. Nor does the login page: http://listserv.aoir.org/options.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/wrc@tcfir.org It is laughable that you chide me for violating the rules, when your act of sending the referenced email to executive committee and Jeremy violates the same rule. Indeed you are correct, I did send it to the public list (I had permission) because I saw "Air" and did not read further. Again it was a defensive act after the fact of a misread artifact. Spank me! With regards to Terri's communications, my copies reflect posting to the listserv. More importantly Terri's attacks were with reference to communications that simply challenged the unsupported opinions of other people, not hers. In fact, her posting of early last March was so vitriolic it helped to shape my hostility and defensiveness. It also suggested that personal attacks were the rule rather than the exception. As what appears to be the custom, you have not addressed any of the other points I asserted. Rather you have chosen to attack trivial discrepancies rather that the general sentiment. Most importantly you have ignored the differential application of ethics, rules of practice, anonymous postings, and professionalism. Rasputin certainly demonstrated differential application when viewed against the reaction to KQ-Amazon. I have asserted that these are exclusionary practices that have the net effect of making someone the "nigger" in your country club. (I mean no disrespect to the black members) I use this harsh word to underscore the intent of the practices. I repeat these conflicts say more about AOIR and the "active" participants in the listserv than about me. I have been forced by my nature to examine my role in this conflict. At least one conclusion that I have drawn is that I am reviled not because of what I have said directly but rather that I am "irreverent" to the customs most of you hold dear, particularly the intellectual meritocracy of academia. Certain members will agree that this thread began long before my involvement with AOIR. I have recently read "The New Production of Knowledge" by Gibbons et al. One of their assertions about the rise of Mode 2 research it is a real world reaction to the stranglehold this meritocracy has had on the discovery of and decimation of knowledge. The Open Source Initiative is another. Welcome to the future Reid P.S. I read this book to try to understand what Jeremy meant by "transdisciplinary". We are generating a paper on this subject as the result of the discussion. We will publish it online in our library. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:12 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Cc: wrc@tcfir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] FW: list etiquette Dr. Cornwall's response is in error in at least three ways:
I assert that Terri Senft has been allowed, without rapprochement, to use vulgar epithets and she has done so on three different occasions.
1) To my knowledge, none of Terri Senft's comments have appeared on the aoir listerv.
I assert that Charles Ess as the result of a private communication, by someone else, has labeled me unprofessional and unethical in the public forum.
2) This is false. My communication was posted to the public forum only by you. My communication was to the pseudonmymous Rasputin, copied to the AoIR executive committee (a closed list) and Jeremy Hunsinger. 3) The AoIR guidelines for list etiquette state:
You should reply privately to private email and not forward personal email to air-l without the author's permission.
My email to pseudonym R was private - you have now forwarded it to air-l without my permission.
I don't have to prove any points I have made. They are a matter of the archival record.
These errors of fact and violation of etiquette guidelines are a matter of the archival record. They serve rather to undermine than to support at least these points - which in turn suggests that, in fact, assertions do require support. While intended privately to pseudonym R, I stand by my comments as now made public by you. Unfortunately, these errors of fact and violation of etiquette guidelines are consistent with my comments. - charles ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/