[Air-l] null hypothesis

[Sam Tilden]

Dr. Lange,
   
  I read your First Monday paper last evening and found it illuminating. Does your logic extend to "trolls", "trolling", "sock puppets", off topic posting and violations of netiquette?
   
  It seems to me that it would, but I don't want to assume the intent.
   
  In light of Matthew Allens elaboration of posting policy it would seem that misinterpretation of "intent" could get a person in trouble with the AOIR executive committee. History appears to support this.
   
  I suppose I could get removed for this posting if the "intent" is misinterpreted, according to the new rules.
   
  Sam


Patricia Lange <pglange at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Many assume the term is used for relative unknowns
when in fact they may not be as unknown to each other
as the outside researcher might assume--again this is
a major problem with the term and is an empirical
question. 

--- Ellis Godard wrote:

> But the term identifies a notable behavior: harsh
> critique of relative
> unknowns, in a setting in which critique sometimes
> traverses greater social
> distance than FTF communication typically permits,
> and yet in which critique
> of intimates (sometimes even polite but engaged
> critique) is similarly
> likely to be stigmatized - enough so that it even
> has a name, flaming. Using
> that term doesn't assume media-specific differences;
> it encapsulates them.

 
---------------------------------
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low  PC-to-Phone call rates.