David Gerard wrote:
Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an "attack site" is a necessary move. You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary choices.
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're discussing harassment.
on 10/17/07 1:20 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this discussion with unclean hands.
On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
David, you seem to have a fondness for using the word "idiot" or its variations when responding or referring to another person. This language is uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
Marc Riddell
on 10/18/07 12:08 AM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Let me spin this a bit differently, even...
That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).
If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal. Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general rule.
It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that, because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.
Excellent points, George.
This is to David. This is not the first time your choice of language has been questioned on this List; and each time you have chosen to ignore the feedback. Why?
Marc Riddell