This has to be the weirdest thread of the year. What’s upsetting is that I was away for a few days so I missed the contentious thread(s) which were removed so I can’t see what all the fuss was about. But I’m left with two main thoughts. First, I thought Steve’s earlier comments were particularly thoughtful, mature and reasonable. They also deeply reflected the seriousness which he takes in his role here as co-founder and moderator. Good job Steve.
Second, it really baffles me that we can’t be more like gentlemen at all times. In fact, its OK for gentlemen to disagree. And when they do, it is only proper for a certain decorum to prevail in the language we use between the disputing parties. In short, its OK to disagree and call someone an idiot. But how it’s done is the difference between civility and chaos. As an example, I edit a very prestigious scientific journal. Let me provide an example of a typical response that we might see in print among colleagues who have a fervent disagreement, while at the same time, provide a “street translation” that everyone really understands when they read the formal reply. It might go something like this:
“We read the article by Jones with keen interest. We respectfully point out that had Dr. Jones performed his analysis using a second order function instead of a first order function, his conclusion may have been different. In fact, we suspect that he would have agreed with us that the data do not support the presence of a quantum based force field on the planet Krypton. Perhaps Dr. jones wishes to repeat his calculation in which his mistakenly used Avagadro’s number in error which prompted his ill-advised consideration for performing a first order analysis.”
That’s how it’s done politely, and in a socially acceptable manner. What the author really means however, is this:
“We suffered through that piece of crap article by Jones only because we had to so we could respond, which we are doing out of the obligation we owe the scientific community to expose Jones for the fraud that he is. Jones shows us clearly that he is nothing more than a idiot by making assumptions and performing calculations that any third grader would know is totally incorrect. And this guy is a tenured faculty member at Harvard? Gimme a break. And no need to respond to this letter Dr. Jones. We really don’t care what you think anyway.”
So next time you want to write a letter telling us how you really feel, I would encourage you to please consider Steve’s advice and reply to each other as gentlemen. Cordial discussion is the key as Treitz suggests.
Marty
