Hi, Rasha (and company) -- Since I was one of those who responded with an objection to your original request, let me pipe up to say that I appreciate the grace and courtesy with which you've responded below -- and to assure you that I, at least, took no offense to said request. So, IMHO, no apology on your part is actually necessary. I'd extend my earlier objection a bit -- in a friendly and respectful fashion, mind you -- by noting that the specific desire you express below ("to know more about the people posting messages," which is a pretty open-ended sort of curiosity) is different from your original request (wanting people to cite their credentials, which privileges a fairly narrow range of information about those people) in some pretty crucial ways. And I can appreciate the former much more than the latter. I certainly can't claim to know you well, but I suspect that I have a much better sense of who you are from seeing how you respond to the people who responded to your posts than I do from the fairly cold and impersonal facts that turn up in your signature. To be sure, there are contexts in which those sorts of professional facts will matter a great deal. If, for example, I'm trying to convince my department chair to pay for you to come to my campus and give a talk, for example, the credentials on your c.v. will matter much more than whether you can compose witty and charming emails. But I'm not sure this listserv is necessarily (or even usually) such a context. Moreover, what you call "public" settings (and, yes, it's a matter of debate whether this listserv is truly "public") are arguably *less* likely to be places where such credentials are routinely shared -- or where they matter. On a street corner, in a cafe, on a city bus (etc.), you're not likely to know the professional credentials (or even the names) of most of the people with whom you share those spaces. You can (and presumably do) still interact with many of those people on a regular basis -- and if you happen to share professional (or personal) information with one another, it's presumably only because it somehow matters to the immediate context of your specific interaction ... but not because there's some general rule that you can't trust your seatmate on the bus until you know where they went to school, where they work, and so on. If anything, I'd argue that it's actually *private* spaces where the "right" to have detailed information about other people's identities and backgrounds is more likely to come into play. If you surprise me by showing up unexpectedly in my kitchen, for example, I don't think I'm out of line to demand to know who you are and why you're rummaging through my freezer. But if you surprise me by showing up unexpectedly (from my perspective, anyway) at the corner of Washington and Cedar Avenues, I've got no inherent right to demand that you identify yourself and explain your presence. :) cheers gil Dr. Rasha Abdulla wrote:
Ok, folks, you've made your point. I've obviously stumbled on a beehive of some sort. All I meant was I'd personally appreciate it if the person talking to me (among others, I know) would let me know a little bit about who he/she is, if only for the sake of including folks like me who might not be lucky enough or experienced enough or have been around enough to know most people on the list. I apologize if I have offended anybody, that certainly wasn't my intention, but I still stand by my point that, personally, I'd like to know more about the people posting messages on a "public" listserv, and I don't think that's too much to ask (and yes, Jeff, knowing that you're a parachutist bungee jumper is actually interesting and gives me more perspective on who you are. At least I'll remember that next time you post a message since I haven't had the priviledge of meeting you personally yet). Of course we can argue for ages about whether this list is public or private, but that's another topic of discussion.
I thank the few who sent me private messages of support, and the many who disagreed with me publicly. That's what the list is for, I guess. I'll continue to sign my full name and title/link/description/whatever, and I appreciate those who do others that courtesy and certainly now understand why others who don't don't.
All the best. Rasha
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Jeff Jacobsen <cultxpt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd rather put my life-experience qualifications. Doesn't that count?
Jeff Jacobsen Mine Explorer Bungee Jumper Parachutist Anti-cult Activist
See? Much more interesting...
On 8/18/09, Dr. Rasha Abdulla <rasha@aucegypt.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I've been wanting to ask this of the list members for a while, but was afraid it might be offensive to some. But I'm increasingly convinced that it's important.
Could list members please list their full names and titles as a signature
to
their messages? It may not make much difference if you're asking a
question,
but it certainly does when you're providing an answer or even making a comment. I think it adds to the credibility of the message, and gives
other
list members a chance to assess such credibility.
Thank you. Take care. Rasha -- Rasha A. Abdulla, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Journalism and Mass Communication The American University in Cairo www.rashaabdulla.com
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/