Hal Finney writes:
>The problem is that these rules introduce tremendous friction when
>operating with someone who does not follow them, which is almost the
>entire world. It means that you are constantly giving offense to
>people, which leads to wasted time on your part as you try to correct
>the misunderstanding. <snip other comments>
I'm in agreement with Hal's comments, but could we deepen this a bit to talk about the underlying basis for this system? When discussing verbal interactions, particularly in the cyber realm, I start from the basic assumption that in most cases words operate in an equivalent fashion to physical actions. As humans move away from physically proximal activities onto the telephone lines and potentially into uploading and other forms of AI, symbolic forms of communication take precedence. 'Taking offense' in this context could constitute a realization that something is awry in the method of communication, something that may indicate potential hostility or perhaps an environment that will not be productive for one's purposes.
So, to draw a metaphor, I view certain kinds of speech as a form of weaponry or intimidation that operates in the same fashion as brandishing a shield, knife or gun. To simply say to everyone: 'OK, everyone must agree not to be threatened by the knife in my hand' simply doesn't work unless you have devised a method by which you can indicate that the knife will in no way be used in a harmful manner. When someone logs onto a listserve, they are figuratively entering a room in which various individuals interact, using words to substitute for body language, actions, and emotions. When all of the signals, symbols and words that constitute action on the Internet signify some sort of hostility or condescension, it seems most rational for the other person to 'take offense' and make some sort of decision based on that.
Kathryn Aegis