Finally, I know we don't agree. I don't expect you to change your mind and agree with me. Do I have to change my views so that there can be peace on the board? Do I have to acquiesce to the will of the masses so that I can state an opinion and not get hounded, not by reason, but by "you sound like a troll," "you're a troll," or "you don't know what you're talking about"? Almost every time I state an opinion, I can tell you why I feel that way...but I have to disguise my level of expertise in some areas or I'll be "outed" and I cannot afford to be outed as I am without the thin veil of protection that is tenure. Will I change my views? Possibly, but only if somebody brings an argument that is factually strong enough that, after reflection, makes more sense to me than does my original opinion.

DT:

You're argument here is with someone else -- although I expressed some concerns earlier about your status as a legitimate poster, I think my dialogue with you since has been respectful and conducted as one between equals, which I assume we are. If not, please let me know. I continue to pursue our disagreement because it seems profitable for me to try to understand exactly how deeply our differences go because that help me to measure my own subjectivity . . . And also I try to look, now that we have agreed that "style is an issue, to see if there are even deeper disagreements than style. Not such an easy thing to determone when the conversation is stop and start at internet conversations tend to be. But we seem to have reached a point here of diminishing returns.

I'm pleased you read my bio -- one of the "benefits" I suppose, of being "out" on this board. It is sometimes a bit frustrrating to be conversing with people who can use my own publicness to "frame" who I am or what I believe, but I am in turn unable to understand what motivates (or what the level of credibility is) of those with whom I converse. I'd say that this very anonymity and the tendency that true trolls have to smply change identities and never reveal anything substantial about themselves is one thing that makes people on this board (including mself) jumping and quick to shoot at people who jump into a conversation (or start a thread) by asserting really strong opinions . . . . it sometimes feel slike the internet uqivilent of being engaged in a passionate conversation with someone and having a third party come out of nowhere and with no transition at all simply jump into the conversation (this is not intended for you -- I'm simply trying to explain why folks on the board can sometimes seem weary, short tempoered and quick to shoot a new comer down. I've invested some pretty bg chunks of time in discussion with people who, it finally became apprent to me, were not at all interested in a sincere exchange of views, but simply in rattling someone's chain.

I'd caution you to be careful not to assume that someone's area of "expertise" (or at least experience)  is limited to what goes into the official bio alone. Just FYI and to help fill out what the bio does not:I also have a 21-page vita that includes several publications, chief of which is an extensive solicited article published in the Journal of Intelligence Counterintellegience on relationships between the Academic Community and the Intellegience Community, published in 1991. If I told you how I got the experience to write that ariticle, I'd have to kill you (just kidding!)  

 I actually have quite an active history in issues concerning academic governance and academic standards. Not to mention that I not only have a long academic career but one that has been supported by a full range of service on University and College committees in public and private universities, coed and single sex colleges, large universities and small liberal arts colleges, and non-union and unionized faculty environments, etc.  I don't want to overrate that career -- but I feel fairly comfortable with asserting that my career and experience in the academic community gives me a fairly secure spot from which to at least discuss these issues with some degree of knowlege, although I would not claim the title of  "expert" as an adjective myself.

I'm sorry you feel under attack -- but you have clearly taken the contra position on this issue on a board which is quite likely to have far more people who disagree with you than agree. My general sense is that the suspicion that you are a troll has declined in proporation to your willingness to engage in the issue and defend your position. But i am suprised that you feel "ganged up on" -- that simply seems to me to be the simple result of having an unpopular opinion. And you must admit that you seem just as determined to chnage the minds of those who disagree with you as you feel those folks seem determined to change your mind.

As for me, I don't think you will change your mind and that hasn't really been my objective for several exchanges now. I'm actually not interested in peace on the board -- I've never been particularly interested in having a "peaceful" life so this simply isn't an issue.I didn;t go to the university to find peace either. Truth is, that if peace is what you want, the university is absolutely the wrong place to go -- I'm not into reassuring parents their children will emerge unacathed from their university experience, and I'm definitely not in favor of faculty members whose experiences with their students and their colleagues doesn't periodically shake them up. The intellectual life isn't a life built on reassurance or certainty. It doesn't promise that, and people who engage in it should not expect it. The university should be a (if not the) center for intellectual life -- even in an era when we are concerned with how univerisities are producing people "products" for the work force. Especially in America, where we have a pretty thin intellectual life outside the university.

Sorry for the small diatribe at the end -- its a statement of my own belief and is not intended to be positioned as contra your own views.

Best wishes.

stephen judd wrote:

---

Sorry for the typos folks - I just can't seem to get along passage in without a whole mess of them. Too fast the fingers . . . too slow the brain. I'm outa here for now. We finished up the season last night and cleaned up the spaces and put SAT 29 away today. I'm gonna go home and work on my house . . .

---

foot soldier wrote:

---

 Mr. Wonderful, here's another fine nominee.

---

Doubting Thomas wrote:

---

 I know you don't find the letter insulting, but you're an academic! That's really the point, isn't it? We don't automatically think like non-academics because we're not non-academics. And non-academics don't think like us because they're not academics. Somebody has to be the bigger person, so to speak, and all of this "Why should I extend my hand first?" crap is nothing but posturing and is, quite frankly, getting a bit old.

---

For what it's worth, I completely agree with your (DT's) observations about the Green letter.  I too found it to be smug and condescending in tone. Some months ago, long before her letter was published, I attempted to advance some of the same arguments concerning the differences in language and style  employed by academics, as compared to the community at large.  While I was more respectfully treated that you have been, I don't believe I made any inroads. At least I don't recall anyone labeling me as a troll, but that was before the knee-jerk name calling began in earnest. You're more eloquent than I but I fear you won't get anywhere either, which saddens me greatly.