3.980 support, tongue-checking, and so forth (47)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Tue, 30 Jan 90 20:43:38 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 980. Tuesday, 30 Jan 1990.
(1) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 22:28:34 EST (16 lines)
From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler)
Subject: Re: Provosts finding computers dehumanizing
(2) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 20:45:19 EST (11 lines)
From: Natalie Maynor <MAYNOR@MSSTATE>
Subject: Re: 3.974 tongue-checking applauded (57)
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 22:28:34 EST
From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler)
Subject: Re: Provosts finding computers dehumanizing
I suppose the proper counter argument is that of assuming
the devil's advocate position of noting that typewriters were
a hugh dehumanizing influence when they replaced quill pens.
If we'd all return to using quill pens, there would be so much
more humanness in the writing and consequently in the use of
language. Calligraphers would become valued members of society
again, preparing all manner of official documents....
Of course, adds and drops were a technological advance many years
in the future at that time. One probably waited in lines to
tell a clerk something which was then painstakingly written in
a huge ledger---How did one register for courses in the 19th century?
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------21----
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 20:45:19 EST
From: Natalie Maynor <MAYNOR@MSSTATE>
Subject: Re: 3.974 tongue-checking applauded (57)
Jim O'Donnell asks, "But why this attitude [that computers are
'de-humanizing'], which is not fear so much as it is an utterly
off-the-wall snobbishness?" I contend that it *is* fear of the
"strange machine." But would a provost (to use the example
given -- this fear is not limited to provosts) want to say that
he/she is afraid of computers? It's easier to say that computers
are "de-humanizing."