[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[Marc Riddell]

on 4/13/07 10:27 AM, Sean Barrett at sean at epoptic.com wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Marc Riddell stated for the record:
>>> On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
>> on 4/13/07 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman at gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody
>>> voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the
>>> opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be
>>> "non-sequitur".
>> 
>> Thanks, Ron, and you're right. Some may see this as nitpicky, but this is a
>> crucial distinction. "Worthless" is a powerful word when used in reference
>> to any aspect of a person.
>> 
>> As to your example, their response of "Scorpio" in that situation could be
>> met with "huh?" :-)
> 
> Okay, let's get nitpicky.  If we assume for the sake of discussion that
> their response of "Scorpio" is not worthless, we are assuming that it is
> worth something.  What exactly would such a response be worth?  What
> value would it have?
> 
> For the record, I maintain that it would add nothing, would contribute
> no value, and would be, in fact, worthless.
> 
And also for the record, it is still my belief that every opinion - like
every person - has some value. And to use the word "worthless" in any
reference to any aspect of a person is hurtful.

I'm simply trying to advocate caution when using the word. It is rhetoric
like that which can harm relationships and make productive communication
impossible.

Marc