Well looks like I opened a can of worms again.
Portia,
I had no idea what your reference to cartoons was. I was unsure whether you were making a straight forward point or whether you were upset with my post and making a sarcastic comment. I didn't think you were being complex and backhanded. I thought maybe you were just being a wise guy. I was simply saying if you were being sarcastic that it was an example of the kind of post I was referring to. I didn't say you were being sarcastic. You say you weren't so that is good enough for me. Simply a misunderstanding.
Ar-gu-ment,
n. a reason or reasons offered for or against something. That is the sense in which I used the word. I didn't mean to insult you by implying you were a lawyer.
I'm sorry that references to God annoy you. However the thrust of my post was not that no one can say anything that might annoy someone else. The point I was expressing was two fold. A
request that people be sensitive toward the tone of their posts. And especiially the tone regarding posts that have little or nothing to do with the point of this board. People say lots of things on here that annoy me. Those are not the things I was talking about. If you want to feel excluded maybe you should try being a man on this board.
I also feel excluded from the vast majority of the threads here because I didn't have N parents nor have I been married to one. But I don't expect everyone to include me in the conversation. My suggestion was not that no one say anything that annoys someone else, or that we all sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya, but that we take into account a little more carefully others positions and attitudes before we post something potentially inflammatory.
I'm not sure why the difference between those two thoughts is hard to see and I'm not sure why a call for
voluntary consideration for others is greeted with hostility. I never mentioned banning anything, nor coercion, nor censoring others.
movinon,
I'm not sure what I said that would give you your impressions of my 'tone'. I don't believe I bullyed anyone, and I don't recall being sarcastic, or condemning anyone. I asked precisely what you asked; that people be RESPECTFUL. I also asked that people consider voluntarily skirting certain issues. Why should that push anyone's buttons?
I'm not angry, nor am I upset. I see an area on the board that I believe could use some attention and I called attention to it. Some of the responses have been angry and upset and I'm actually kind of confused as to why. I don't see why I am being disagreed with in such a hostile manner. It doesn't seem particularly RESPECTFUL to call me judgemental, a bully, condemning etc. In fact its kind of judgemental itself isn't it?
I just went back and reread my posts and while I see many things that someone might disagree with I don't see any of the 'tones' you are attributing to me. Where's the 'stuff'?
Marta,
Glad you reminded me of that previous thread. I guess I never learn. That one went just about the same way as this one now that I remember it. I think my conclusion was then the same as now. Ignore what I said, forget all about it. I said my piece if no one agrees, tough noogies. I may go or come as I please.
I do want to clear up two things.
1) Who the heck is R? Reagan?
2) I don't actually have any political icons that come to mind other than maybe Adam Smith or James Madison or Edmund Burke and I don't recall any of them getting the flame broiled treatment here.
Its not about insulting or mocking icons, its about disrespecting rather than simply disagreeing with another person's viewpoint. I wouldn't even care in the slightest if politics were discussed all day long here if it stayed on the level of a discussion of viewpoints but lets face it, on the internet especially, political discussions usually descend to the gutter in short order.
Its not even a matter of being offended. It is the knowledge of what the board would descend to if people responded in kind to some very strong remarks. I have to say its been kind of tempting, previously, to prove my point by using a different name and jumping into some of the threads and using the same kind of language to describe the opposite point of view. The result would very soon be a bunch of locked threads and a much less useful (there's that word again) board full of animosity and factions.
I'm not against communication and I'm not against the strategy of disengagement. I'm just asking for the sake of the board and each other that we choose our posts carefully.
Its a free cyber world if some people want to listen to me fine, if not that's fine too. I've said it before and I'll say it again, C'est la vie.
mud
