4.0063 Humanist Structure (189)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Wed, 16 May 90 17:56:02 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0063. Wednesday, 16 May 1990.
(1) Date: Tuesday, 15 May 1990 18:08:03 EDT (11 lines)
From: "Patrick W. Conner" <U47C2@WVNVM>
Subject: 4.0049 Humanist Structure
(2) Date: Tuesday, 15 May 1990 8:05pm ET (8 lines)
From: "Sheizaf.Rafaeli" <21898MGR@MSU>
Subject: Humanist Structure
(3) Date: Tue, 15 May 90 22:49 -0300 (18 lines)
From: DENNIS CINTRA LEITE <FGVSP@BRFapesp.BITNET>
Subject: RE: 4.0049 Humanist Structure
(4) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 00:45:40 CST (14 lines)
From: Natalie Maynor <MAYNOR@MSSTATE.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.0049 Humanist Structure
(5) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:03:12 BST (41 lines)
From: MFZXREP@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk
Subject: Splitting of Humanist
(6) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 08:15:00 EDT (17 lines)
From: Randal Baier <REBX@CORNELLC>
Subject: HUMANIST as Techno-wonder
(7) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 08:37:39 EDT (17 lines)
From: Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: survival?
(8) Date: 16 May 1990 10:05:16 CDT (11 lines)
From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen" <U35395@UICVM>
Subject: split this list?
(9) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:28:20 EDT (12 lines)
From: Skip Knox <DUSKNOX@IDBSU>
Subject: Humanist Structure [eds]
(10) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 10:21:24 CDT (12 lines)
From: Norman Hinton <SSUBIT12@UIUCVMD>
Subject: 1 tier, I hope: ... [eds]
(11) Date: Wed, 16 May 90 13:30 EST (21 lines)
From: "Peter D. Junger" <JUNGER@CWRU>
Subject: Subject of Humanist
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 1990 18:08:03 EDT
From: "Patrick W. Conner" <U47C2@WVNVM>
Subject: 4.0049 Humanist Structure (179)
The assertion of power often begins by making rules about what should and
should not be said in a given context. Indeed, that's one of the major
agenda of kindergarten teachers and drill sergeants. I am not interested
in much of what comes over HUMANIST, but I am less interested in Jane
contexts which would make some topics illegitimate. I want to continue
to be able to glom onto this and that as it appeals to me; after all
it's a doddle to delete what's not of interest.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------16----
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 1990 8:05pm ET
From: "Sheizaf.Rafaeli" <21898MGR@MSU>
Subject: Humanist Structure
Clearly the most parsimonious solution would be to eliminate suggestions
about metacommunication. Esp. those that suggest elimination.
Sheizaf
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------23----
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 22:49 -0300
From: DENNIS CINTRA LEITE <FGVSP@BRFapesp.BITNET>
Subject: RE: 4.0049 Humanist Structure (179)
Since everyone seems to be flaming on the subject either of getting rid
of the computer nerds or of segregating the humanist nerds in their own
litle corner, let me throw in my own morsel into the fray. I find most
humanist mailings fascinating, although they do take up more of my time
than I realy should be dedicating to them. Although I ocasionally grow
bored with some of the subjects flamed over, I can always not read them,
seeing that the editors do such a good job in segregating the subject
matter and informing us about what to expect in the "subject" heading.
If you don't like the subject, by all means don't read it, but don't
take away the opportunity of others having the chance of reading it.
Let's have a bit less chauvinism in this list.
Ciau
Dennis
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------19----
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 00:45:40 CST
From: Natalie Maynor <MAYNOR@MSSTATE.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.0049 Humanist Structure (179)
Although HUMANIST is the very first list I subscribed to, I've been
considering dropping it. It's not because the contributions aren't
interesting. It's because I hate wading through many things that are
not of interest to me in order to reach one item near the end of the
chunk. Has HUMANIST ever considered going the un-moderated route?
Although automatic lists usually involve clutter of various kinds
(including misguided messages saying things like "review" or "sub"), I
prefer them to moderated lists. The dialogue moves more quickly, and
it's easier to delete unread the threads of discussion you're not
interested in. Natalie Maynor (nm1@ra.msstate.edu)
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------51----
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:03:12 BST
From: MFZXREP%cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK
Subject: Splitting of Humanist
I have been following the discussion on the splitting of Humanist into
sublists for *techies* and *non-techies*. A sublist in any form would
really constitute a totally new discussion group and as such would, in
my humble *techie* opinion, defeat the object of Humanist as I see it.
Discussion between members of any community are generally far ranging,
this suggested split would probably cause those members who are
interseted in computing as a tool for research/education/communication
to receive predominantly from the suggested sub-list. Many of the
problems faced by subscribers with software/hardware which are at
present aired within the Humanist group would be routed to the sublist
even though these subscribers are in general recipients of the
*nontechie* material.
This, given the editorial practice of selective grouping of topics, would
be detrimental to the growth of Humanist, and to some degree the growth
of Humanities computing as a whole. After all, if we are not aware of
methods and practices within other institutions, does it not negate one
of the major pros of groups such as Humanist, and also, why should those
amongst us who wish to further develop computing usage within the
community while continuing to be active members of the community at large
be relegated into a subset of Humanists.
Humanist is at present highly commendable both in editorial policy, and
content. I do not read all the items, but by simply locating the subject
line of each group listing, read those in which I am interested.
Generally a blend between subjects falling into both the *techie* &
*nontechie* categories. I see no reason why Humanist should in any way
change its present form, and feel that those who wish it to do so should
perhaps contemplate on how the split within the Humanist community would
affect both the nature of Humanist and the progress of unified Humanities
progress in computing as the *techies* who contribute to other topics
could, if they become a subset, merely continue with the present form of
discussion leaving those who wish the changes made, with an incomplete
discussion group made up of those who have little or no interest in the
medium they are using to communicate.
(6) --------------------------------------------------------------25----
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 08:15:00 EDT
From: Randal Baier <REBX@CORNELLC>
Subject: HUMANIST as Techno-wonder
I am glad that HUMANIST remains both a discussion for technical,
computer related issues in the humanities as well as more traditional
humanitistic concerns. The concept is iconic in that we use the tools
to discuss and advance them within the discipline. In order to
understand how to use, e.g. cross-national electronic concordances, we
need a certain level of technical instruction and awareness.
I think the headings that group messages together are adequate for
browsing the list. One can then delete them if they are not relevant to
one's interests.
Randal Baier
Cornell University Library
(7) --------------------------------------------------------------28----
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 08:37:39 EDT
From: Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: survival?
One question in my mind is, will Humanist and things like it survive
their own success? If the New York Times were to get wind of this
seminar, and if the editor of that section were to become interested
enough to get a reporter to write a story, and this story were to make
it into print, then I guess we would find out.
Another question is, will such seminars survive improvements in the
technology? What would happen if audio and video signals were to be
added?
Is more necessarily better?
Willard McCarty
(8) --------------------------------------------------------------20----
Date: 16 May 1990 10:05:16 CDT
From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM>
Subject: split this list?
homo sum; nihil humanum mihi alienum puto.
Split this list and I'm gone.
Michael Sperberg-McQueen
P.S. me too -Lou Burnard
(9) --------------------------------------------------------------31----
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:28:20 EDT
From: Skip Knox <DUSKNOX@IDBSU>
Subject: Humanist Structure [eds]
I would like to add my voice to those urging that HUMANIST stay in its
present format. I agree that one special attraction of this list is the
wide-ranging nature of the discussions, and that it is precisely this
quality (along with a welcome and judicious moderation by the editors)
that makes of this list a genuine community.
When I tell professors about Bitnet, one pitch I use is that it is the
closest thing we have to the faculty club or faculty lounge, and it is
HUMANIST in particular that I have in mind when I say this. Were the
list to be segregated it would lose that quality of community and become
like so many other lists on Bitnet: a useful place in which to ask a
specific question but otherwise arcane and uninteresting.
Skip Knox
Microcomputer Coordinator (cum) Medieval Historian
Boise State University
Boise, Idaho
DUSKNOX@IDBSU
(10) -------------------------------------------------------------31----
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 10:21:24 CDT
From: Norman Hinton <SSUBIT12@UIUCVMD>
Subject: 1 tier, I hope: ... [eds]
1) I hope HUMANIST will not try to distinguish discussions by tiers:
I very much like the variety of notes, and I can dispose of those I
don't want to read...I'm as interested in computer hardware questions
as I am in etymologies, etc. It might be too much to claim that
HUMANIST is as varied as life itself, but it comes close on occasion,
and that's one of the best things about it.
... [eds]
(11) --------------------------------------------------------------27---
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 13:30 EST
From: "Peter D. Junger" <JUNGER@CWRU>
Subject: Subject of Humanist
Humanist would be worthless to me without the apparent digressions.
Humanists are humanists (and human) while computers are computers; the
intersection of interesting matters relating to the two very different
types of critters is inherently fuzzy. Most of the interest, however,
resides in the fuzz. Let those computers and their wetware imitations
who cannot glom onto this fact subscribe to ADVISE-L.
To have any understanding of the not wholly harmonious relations that
exist between the Humanities and the Computer, one has to be eternally
aware of all the issues that are not in practice--and perhaps not in
theory--computible.
I also believe that Willard was right in requesting us to identify
ourselves in out signature lines, although moderation is in this area--as
in most others--something to be desired.
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve Univ. Law School--Cleveland, Ohio