Posted by BBob on June 28, 2000, at 18:14:46
In reply to Re: Civility?, posted by Dr. Bob on June 27, 2000, at 22:19:09
Dr. Bob's refereeing in this thread is somewhat balanced, though he still fails to consistently call every foul commited against his self-imposed standard of civility. To his credit, in other threads he has mentioned the limited time he has avaiable to ref the site, and the tendency for others to say what needs to be said.
As the paragon of netequette (LOL!), I feel entitled to say that in my "bothersome post" reply I treaded the intricate line of critiquing the style of lostboy's post without counterattacking.
Lostboy incorrectly presumed that I posted because I disagree with him. Rather, I posted because generalizations coupled with obscenities failed to inform me why lostboy opined that the named therapies did not work. I expect discussion of the particular merits, contraindications and falacies related to various therapies. Such information provides substance for thought. An object of consideration that does not present substantive material for more detailed analysis tends to frustrate cerebral processes. Frustrated cerebral processes sometimes seem to causally correlate with emotional excitation.
This reader has a broad tolerance for divergant opinions, but is bothered by sentences that do not convey information to explain those opinions and that are littered with irrelevanet terms (such as obscenities). Of course, I am only bothered in as much as I let myself be bothered. There is plenty to do besides reading this site and trying to make scientific sense out of the random musings reflected here. I would just like my limited time here to be somewhat informative, and don't mind advocating against ill-contrived attacks. Put some mental uumph into it if something is really worth attacking. A well conceived logical presentation can present a formidable challenge.
Another poster aparrently sympathized in part with lostboy, but could not restrain himself from slandering (for the umpteenth time) my board name. Perhaps that reader does not read every post on the board, or he would find that others seem to find my posts at times informative, educational and supportive. In fact, none less than Doctor Bob himself has acknowledged the helpful nature of some of my posts. The Society for the Beafication of BBob, et al, has downloaded a copy of that historic Dr. Bob post to be placed in a prominant location in BBob's Museum of Iconoclasism soon to be opened near Times Square.
The licensed pharmacist from Canada who replied to unspecified postings of mine as "derogatory tripe" would do well to site the particular passage that he critiques. My recollection is that the most potentially derogatory personal assessment for which I have been chastized is one in which that I used a standard common to the Department of State, that of FUNDAMENTALISM, to describe my impression of a particular person. I should have analyzed the position as such, rather than the person, and would have been better protected if I had defined fundamentalism in the context in which I used the term.
Oh, I forgot - there was that one exchange with Dr. Bob when I shared my analysis of his aggression. That could be construed as derogatory, I suppose. Of all I have tried to discuss on this board, it strikes me as odd that the only information some can recall is how I sometimes have reacted when challenged. It is because of this tendency toward stereotyping that I resorted to using other names when I have valuable information or want to share a personal perspective - I don't want to be discredited simply because if the four letters I attach in the name box.
One of the early lessons I learned as a journalist was that it is never safe or fair to attribute motive. When we don't waste time speculating about why somebody did something we don't understand, we have more time available in which to try to understand what they did or said. If we care enough to want to understand....
BBOb
> > > Please be civil. Maybe when responding to the style, rather than the substance, of someone's post, it would be a good idea to count to 10?
> >
> > When that style is abrasive and threatening, how can anyone respond to the claims without feeling that he or she would be the next victim of a verbal assault...
>
> Maybe it would be better just not to respond?
>
> Bob
poster:BBob
thread:37944
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000619/msgs/38614.html