Wow,
Let me whore it up a little here.
I think the challenge made to post whores should be "garbage poster". there are a lot of people who have high post counts and most of them have value. A few that come to mind are AVB, Wilkey and Blinded By Science (sorry for throwing you under the bus guys). Most of thier posts add value, should these guys cut back? I for one don't think so.
Only "most?" I guess I'm going to have to try harder then.
I'm being facetious, of course, but value
exists when value is
perceived. One difficulty in this whole situation is that there is more than a single standard for what counts as having value. Since this is a free and open community, this is
exactly as it should be.
First, there is the community-wide consensus of what constitutes value and
values. You can see aspects of that embodied in axioms such as
"read more, post less." By the nature of it being an axiom, it can only serve as the most general of practical guidelines.
Second, we each have our own individual beliefs and perceptions regarding what has value and what does not. Part of the friction that perennially arises on CP comes about as a result of a gap between the consensus and individual beliefs. Some of us hew more closely to the consensus while others differ in some ways. Again, this is exactly as it should be. It is not the
fact of having a differing view that is the cause of strife, but rather
how that difference is acted upon and reacted to.
I am not traumitized at all. It all comes down to repect. We all deserve it automatically until we deserve not to have it. I did not deserve disrespect and in my opinion it is a matter of pricipal.
No, Paul. Respect is earned over time. Much like trust. You get in the door for free, but becoming a respected member takes time, participation, and respect for others and the established methods and practices. Saying "things have to change" isn't a good step on that path. You have to start there with nothing in your "bank account" and build respect over time.
B.B.S.
Let's be just a bit clearer about what is being talked about in these two quotes. The language used may seem precise but I believe we are talking about two different kinds of respect.
In Paul's quote the "respect" talked about seems to be of the
civility and tolerance variety. From this perspective, I completely agree with Paul. We all deserve to be treated in a forthright and dignified manner
appropriate to the community's customs. I see that Paul later clarified this in post #10 and it was echoed in post #12. On some smokers' forums, "I disagree" could be considered fighting words, while on others, "F**K you and your horse" might be equivalent to "Morning, Bob. How's tricks?" The context, customs, and an understanding of the speaker's mode and intent are essential in properly decoding what might otherwise be an ambiguous statement.
Note: mode refers to a characteristic style or method of communications, for example street-speak versus boardroom-speak.
In B.B.S.'s post, the "respect" talked about is
esteem, regard, and admiration leading to
earned deference and consideration. This seems to be the variety identified in posts #13, 14, and 20.
When you split the word into the two different senses and meanings, the contradiction that was there simply evaporates...except in one crucial case. This is the problematic situation where an individual construes
esteem-respect to be
included in a package with
civility-respect and in so doing ignoring the community's mechanisms for achieving the esteem variety.
So where am I going with all this?
1. Paul and Neal were not on the same page as far as matching modes of communication. As a result, miscommunication occurred and so an apology for "inappropriateness" is not warranted. What
would be helpful would be for Paul to come to grips with Neal's mode with the intent of better understanding his future communications. Why not the other way around? Simple. Because Neal has more "credits" along the lines of earned deference and consideration.
2. The community has an overall "feel" to it; an atmosphere if you will that determines one's general satisfaction and comfort in being a member. Along side of that, there are pockets of more raw as well as more polite discourse. These spice things up but may also be flashpoints as we have seen here. The overall feel allows us to call a place home. The other things are things that we will seek out or make allowances for if we choose to make a place home.
3. Paul, you have earned respect (at least from me) for raising the points you did and in the manner that you did. You had an issue of conscience and exercised the courage to voice it. That is more than many others would have done.
I do hope you can sort out where Neal's coming from. To tell you the honest truth, when I first got here, I was rather put off by how Neal and others spoke. In time, I came to understand them
(as much as anyone can come to understand another on an internet forum) and came to accept the positive aspects of their approach. If I had not been able to do this, I would not be here today.
Regards,
Wilkey
Note: Why do I write such long and analytical posts on issues that seem to many to be "givens?" One reason is to work out the logic of it for my own benefit. The more I understand things, the better I am able to help others. A second reason is to make my thought process explicit and transparent so that readers will know exactly where I'm coming from and how I get there. IMO, it's not enough to simply have the end result, the process is arguably even more important.
