________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2, ISSUE 4 THE INTERPSYCH NEWSLETTER MARCH, 1995 ________________________________________________________________ SECTION H: LETTERS COMMENTS ON "KILL ME - I'M USEFUL! RECONSTRUCTING THE REAL WORLD IN CYBERSPACE" (IPN Vol.2, Iss.3) LETTER #1: Somehow I got lost in the discussion of the boundaries and function of these lists, super- and sub-. I joined four lists, some of which produce redundant messages; but the value I get from "reading my mail" is a sense of collegiality that is impossible to obtain on a regular basis outside of an academic or large hospital/clinic setting. I would hate to lose that in the name of "science" or other construct. I do believe I am bright enough to sort through the "junk" and pull out the gems. It's easy enough to skip messages that are either redundant, silly, boring, or whatever. Please, I don't know any of you well enough to want you to be the arbiters of my associates. Div12net has established credentials; the other lists limit membership somewhat by virtue of their topics. The traffic in joining and leaving seems equally balanced. Those who wish to include erudite scientific articles are free to do so. Those who wish to comment from experience, wisdom, or curiosity add spice to the mix. Leave this part the way it is. If you wish to establish an elite list with limited membership, please feel free; but don't hinder my opportunities to converse on topics of interest to me as a professional and a person. I am sure we can all behave civilly LETTER #2: Thank you for your interesting editorial. I too wondered about the policy of excluding certain populations, particularly if people simply wanted to lurk and learn. Seems to me that (just as in the real world) if a list moderator considered a certain person's questions or input as irrelevant to the level of discussion, s/he could just say so. That would be punishing enough to stop most unwanted behavior. How might novices learn from the pros if they are excluded? List-owner's suggestion to start a grad-student/intern discussion group was not useful: that's who we talk to all day long, except in consult with our elders. Those of us who want to learn more, respectfully, are frustrated at every turn. So OK, I guess we have to make up the knowledge among ourselves as we go? As for scholarliness--sometimes one's credentials in psychology do not reflect the level of scholarly attainment or involvement in general, the level of understanding of scholarly endeavor or process. I, for instance, have a doctorate in an unrelated field (1981, U/Cal) and have been involved in academic research, writing and editing for 20 years, off and on. But it was always interdisciplinary and in the humanities, for the most part. The ability to find information, critique reasoning, match levels of discourse appropriately, follow schools of thought and give credit where credit is due is not diminished by having returned to school in middle age to obtain a "mere" MA in therapeutic psychology. In fact, I've added a fair smattering of critical thinking with regard to ideas expressed statistically. It hurts to be excluded from a list for lack of academic probity, in this case. On the other hand, if a list-owner can't judiciously control the level of discourse except by exclusion of potential contributors (even those who do not intend to activate that potential), maybe said list is meant to be a playing field for the old-boy system, and would be of little interest to anyone else. (Yes, that *is* a sour-grapes attitude. I'm not proud of it...). Madelon Bolling (mbolling@seattleu.edu)