On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Paul H. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "OT"?! "IMHO"?! Must we be subjected to this slippery slope into stupidity?
Exactly what's so "stupid" about using a shorthand acronym? If you
don't know what it means, learn.
http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/
And when is it really OK to berate someone on list like that?
Bruce
> Isn't the flattening, narrowing and enclaving characteristic of our
> post-political scene enough?
>
> Paul Hanson
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:00:52 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Uses of CRIT-GEOG-FORUM
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Thanks, Matt. Yes, the delete button is amazingly handy and it takes almost
> no effort to use it. Far less effort in fact than writing messages to the
> entire list complaining about what one didn't want to read. And if you do
> find the traffic too much or OT, you have the options of going to
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk and changing your settings to a daily or weekly digest or
> even having it set to online only so you receive nothing in your e-mail
> inbox - it isn't that hard and there are easy-to-follow instructions for the
> technologically challenged - or if you really think something is not on,
> complaining to the listowners and see if they agree with you.
>
> IMHO, I always chuckle when as soon as CGF shows any sign of being used for
> what it is supposed to be used for (critical geographic discussion) some
> people seem to be surprised and object or post public notices of their
> departure. If you wanted the Uncritical and Uncontroversial Geography Forum,
> you were in the wrong place to begin with; the sign on the door is pretty
> clear, isn't it? And to be honest, there is hardly any traffic on this list
> anyway and most of the time it is simply announcements. I remember the time
> back when CGF was really active and argumentative, and believe me, this is
> nothing!
>
> All the best,
>
> David MW.
>
> On 2012-07-20, at 8:33 AM, Matthew Hannah [mch] wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Like most people on the forum, I end up deleting the majority of entries
> without reading them carefully. Few of us are going to be interested in the
> entire range of themes offered up for consideration. There is certainly
> some acrimonious debate, but I don't find it to be dominant in the open
> discussions of the forum itself. As Andrew Law notes, there may be more
> nastiness behind the scenes for those who venture a contestable comment,
> which isn't a good thing. But, as in the present case, the acrimony itself
> usually gets thematised shortly after it appears publicly.
>
> My main reason for subscribing is to keep tabs on this 'semi-public' level
> of geographical debate so that I can suggest particular strands of
> discussion to undergraduates looking for an essay topic. Most of my
> students who have chosen to look at a CRIT-GEOG discussion have gotten a lot
> out of the demonstration that professional geographers are also people for
> whom particular issues or events elicit personal anger, dismay, empathy or
> other emotions. To their credit, they usually don't conclude that
> geographical debate is therefore completely irrational. But it does help
> them to see how reason and various non-rational motivations intertwine and
> inform each other.
>
> Given how thoroughly (especially British) undergraduates are instructed
> these days in the centrality of affect and emotion to human social life, and
> in the role of (ant-)agonism in 'the political', we shouldn't be at all
> uneasy about revealing these dimensions of our own 'shop talk'. If the
> overall benefit of following the forum doesn't outweigh the irritation, we
> are always welcome to follow Phil in un-subscribing.
>
> Matt Hannah
>
>
|