the joy of photography

back alley said:
A WORD OR 2 ABOUT COMMUNICATION...

i used to teach classes in communication and problem solving, one of the first 'lessons' i did involved having the people in class sit back, eyes closed and think of their favourite, most comfortable 'chair'.
i asked that they just relax and 'see' the chair and think about how it felt to sit comfortably in it.
afterwards we would have a discussion about our chairs and how the single word chair had many meanings for each of us. i had them describe their chairs to the class. there were rocking chairs, leather chairs, high back chairs, mushy, sink into the cushion chairs...you get the idea.
imagine us having a discussion here about our favourite chair, each having our own vision about what that chair was like.
10 or 20 of us with maybe 5 to 10 to 20 differing 'chairs' but each of us thinking that we 'knew' what the other was talking about becuase we each knew what a chair was.

this is a simple excersize that shows just how easy it is to misunderstand each other while using the same words...
Click to expand...



You left out the 'electric chair' ... the mention of 'old sparky' might bring a few miscreants into line Joe!
 
gdi said:
I'm not hiding, those are my initials! And actually a few of my closest friends call me by them, but most use Gary. Some use my last name - Israel.


Yes an anecdote offered as proof of an opinion may have value to a speaker if the goal is to win over the opinion of a particular group. My statement of the relative value of anecdotes was meant to be in the context of a more formal proof.



I fully acknowledge that to be the case. And I cannot exclude myself as being prone to the peril - it seems it has happened in my previous post or two, which I did not intend to be rude or arrogant.
Click to expand...

Dear Gary,

I am not sure that formal proofs have any place in the subjects we have been discussing. There is only opinion. After all, it might take quite a while to establish objective criteria for susceptibility to insult, or willingness to offer insult.

To quote Cicero (from memory and in translation), "When the law is against you, plead justice, and when justice is against you, plead the law." In law, as in life, opinion is often as important as fact. If I call you a witless buffoon, you may or may not hit me, according to your opinion of the gravity of the insult. If you hit me, I may or may not sue, according to my opinion of my chances of winning. And the case will be decided on the judge's opinion of the gravity of the provocation.

And as you say, it seems it has happened in my previous post or two, which I did not intend to be rude or arrogant. If you and I, both trying to be scrupulously polite, can thus fail, does it not indicate that there are indeed different susceptibilities and assumptions as to what is polite?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
If the discussions and disagreements on RFF could remain this civil, there would be no problems. Too many times the flame-wars erupt, and all-out go for the throat arguments ensue. Permanent damage is done, and often members hold a grudge against others. Some jump in at every chance possible to ruin a thread just because someone that they are mad at has posted in it.

That type of behavior on this forum does occur, and is the problem. It is a problem that can be corrected with enforcing the existing rules using even-handed moderation.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
If the discussions and disagreements on RFF could remain this civil, there would be no problems. Too many times the flame-wars erupt, and all-out go for the throat arguments ensue. Permanent damage is done, and often members hold a grudge against others. Some jump in at every chance possible to ruin a thread just because someone that they are mad at has posted in it.

That type of behavior on this forum does occur, and is the problem. It is a problem that can be corrected with enforcing the existing rules using even-handed moderation.
Click to expand...

not surprisingly, the closet trolls have stayed away from this thread.
 
Two of the greatest male writers, George Eliot and George Sand, believed a person should go out into public wearing their real names. I am sure Isak Dinesen would agree.

I am not sure an avatar is really hiding--it certainly has not prevented personal attacks. The avatar is simply the identity (a rose by any other name...). Think of it as a nickname if you like and it would be rude to try to address someone who has clearly showed how they would like to addressed, even if it is by a nickname/avatar.

Since RFF is a public forum, it may be wise to have some anonymity as you really do not know who you share the forum with--certainly this thread has shown we have had some interesting characters here. Using an avatar should not prevent civil discussion.
 
I have neither a real name or an avatar. Am I evil?

Edit: Oh. My mistake. I added my name to the tagline quite some time ago.
 
Last edited:
I hope that some trouble makers with weak personalities will not make this wonderful meeting place fall apart. When things get rough, having additional moderators is actually a good thing to have.

Still, courtesy to RFF members is essential, even if a moderator feels like kicking some butt to make a point. There is no need to overdo it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom