On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On 17/10/2007, Will Beback
<will.beback.1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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(a)gmail.com wrote:
It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this
discussion with unclean hands.
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
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.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com