[Geysers] A little more on "rude" gazers...

[Whitledge, Vicki M.]

I agree with many things that David said, but would like to add some
more.  I hope that the moderators will allow this topic to continue for
a little while because the topic of "rudeness" has some impacts.  I
believe that some people do not report any information about geysers to
anyone because of experiences that they have had. This decreases the
information that we have as a group.
 
I agree that it was very wrong for the letter-writer to single out an
easily identified group for specific criticism.  Especially when many
members of that group contribute to our knowledge in many ways.  I was a
bit surprised by that part of the letter and that has not been my
experience.  Unfortunately, rudeness takes many forms.  I have witnessed
rudeness by all "types" of gazers and the recipients were not just
visitors or casual gazers, but sometimes well-known gazers.  The mild
forms of rudeness which David mentioned (curtness and unwillingness to
answer questions) would not have prompted me to respond to the original
letter to the GOSA Press.  I was mainly thinking of behavior where the
term "rude" is an understatement.  There are, unfortunately, some who go
out of their way to behave horribly to others.  Introducing oneself and
being polite will not work with those cases.  One reason to talk about
this is to acknowledge the situation and encourage people to not behave
that way. For the worst cases this won't work, but it gives others
warning that they may encounter someone like that.  If a person wants to
merely be left alone, that is their prerogative and we should try to
remember it.
 
It was good to see an explanation of why a person might not want to
answer questions.  It is also good to understand someone else's point of
view.  Along these lines, I would like to point out why people might
expect others to welcome questions.  As David mentioned, GOSA's purpose
is to collect and disseminate information about geysers, but anyone who
is aware of that purpose is probably also aware that GOSA is a
non-profit scientific and educational corporation.  A reasonable person
seeing that GOSA is a educational corporation may expect those who are
associated with GOSA to act like educators.  They will also probably
treat those associated with GOSA as educators.  This means they will ask
a lot of questions (many of which they should know the answers to), they
will ask the same questions repeatedly (having either not listened to or
forgotten the answers) and most of them will not thank you.  After all
this, they will assume that you got a lot of personal fulfillment from
sharing your information (or as David put it: being an "information
dispenser").  Of course, being associated with GOSA does not obligate
anyone to be an educator, but no one should be surprised when others
make that assumption. 
 
What can be done about this?  I think David has it right when he says
that we should discuss GOSA's purpose every so often.  We should add in
reminders that not everyone is an educator, nor wants to be treated like
one, and pleas for people to avoid unnecessary rudeness.  This
discussion should never be cast as telling people what to do, but just
pointing out some things that people might want to remember.
 
Will this keep people from annoying others with questions or behaving
rudely?  No, not completely, but maybe it will decrease the annoyances
and rudeness and at least give those of good will a fair warning that
not everyone welcomes their questions.
 
Vicki Whitledge
 
 
 
David Schwarz wrote:

   Just a couple of other points on this subject.

   First: The letter in question was addressed to the GOSA press and
membership.  As such, it is clearly intended for publication.  While it
doesn't explicitly name names, it might as well, since it indicts an
easily identifiable group of people, many of whom are among the most
dedicated and productive in terms of the collection of information about
the geysers.  If you're going to do that, then have the courage and
decency to sign your name.  It adds credibility and context to your
complaint, and it places you on even footing with those who you have,
for all intents and purposes, named.  Not to do so is, well, rude.  

   Most respectable newspapers and journals won't withhold names or
publish anonymous pieces unless there is a compelling reason, such as a
credible threat to life and limb.  I'd encourage the GOSA press to
adhere to such a policy. 

   Second: The letter writer has implicitly brought up the question of
GOSA's purpose.  
This is a topic that should probably come up every so often anyway.  The
stated purpose of GOSA (the store, press, board of directors, and other
official entities) is something along the lines of "The collection and
dissemination of information about geysers."  Not to act as a social
network.  Not to answer every question of every visitor or fellow gazer
who walks by all summer.  Not to act as ambassadors for the park or Park
Service.  Anyone who wishes to interact with other visitors and other
gazers is free to do so.  Anyone who prefers not to has a right to make
that choice without being anonymously attacked in a public forum.  As
the writer accurately observed, we are all nothing more than perennial
visitors. 

   As a long-time GOSA associate, the letter writer must surely be aware
that some of the people they're complaining about are sending regular
reports to the listserv and The Sput, entering a detailed record into
the Old Faithful logbook, and writing research articles for The GOSA
Transactions.  Though their efforts are apparently largely unappreciated
_they_ are collecting information about geysers and making it available
now and for the historic record, and I guarantee that they have
benefited countless visitors, including many of you reading this forum.
Can our anonymous letter writer say as much? 

David Schwarz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20060803/7c0f360b/attachment.html>