Funknet

Spike Gildea spikeg at OWLNET.RICE.EDU
Wed Feb 23 14:56:23 UTC 2000


Thanks for your follow-up posting, John.  I can see I need to address a
point regarding FUNKNET procedure, as apparently this is not clear to
everyone:

>If you don't like my postings, Spike, you're in charge here, bounce them back.

Actually, Michael and I are "in charge" only in the sense that we respond
to technical difficulties as they come up and that we can remove
individuals from the list and prevent their re-subscription (something we
have done only once in our nearly five years).  We do not see any postings
before they become public -- this is not a *moderated* list (like, e.g.
Linguist List).  Were this a moderated list, we would have the option of
bouncing messages back to senders, but frankly we don't want to be the
"conscience" of the list, or to put ouselves in the position of deciding
what people do and don't get to say on FUNKNET day in and day out.  When we
find the tone of postings moving in an uncomfortable direction, we send
private messages in the hope of pre-empting scenes like the one yesterday
(and I understand that others in the community do this as well).  Hopefully
the personal stuff can stay in private messages from here on out.

One more word on empirical accountability.  I find myself wanting to be
convinced by what John has to say about jibun; the first two paragraphs of
his last posting were really clear and pursuasive.  The only missing step
is some idea where I would go to read data and arguments for those
extremely plausible-sounding conclusions.  I remain serious that empirical
responsibility includes providing some *evidence* (or references to
published evidence) that "there is no formal account of Jibun", or that
someone is identifiable as a "crackpot" -- without evidence, these remain,
respectively, empirically empty assertions and namecalling.  I am familiar
enough with John's work to trust that there is substance behind these
assertions (notice that nowhere in my postings have I defended the
empirical reliability of the work under attack, nor suggested that his
analysis is wrong); I just want to know where the substance is so I can
verify my gut-reaction with my brain.  That's the standard I would like to
see on FUNKNET, and in linguistics in general.

Spike



More information about the Funknet mailing list