Civil

[ornamentalmind]

Even though some of the other mods don’t appear to be overly (if at
all) concerned, I’ll at least bring attention to this topic again.

And, while there are numerous meanings associated with the word, I’ll
assume that most of us know it in the current context as follows:

Civil – adj.
Polite or courteous

Synonyms:
respectful, deferential, gracious, complaisant, suave, affable,
urbane, courtly. Civil, affable, courteous, polite all imply
avoidance of rudeness toward others. Civil suggests a minimum of
observance of social requirements. Affable suggests ease of approach
and friendliness. Courteous implies positive, dignified, sincere, and
thoughtful consideration for others. Polite implies habitual
courtesy, arising from a consciousness of one's training and the
demands of good manners.

Antonyms:
boorish, churlish.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil


Admittedly the notion of being civil can mean other things too;
however, the above needs to be addressed again.

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:39 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Admittedly the notion of being civil can mean other things too;
> however, the above needs to be addressed again.

Hi OM,

What specifically are you thinking needs to be addressed?

Regards,

Brock

[atypican]

Unless one of the owners is interested in moderating then I think we
should we just ban people who can't seem to "get it"?





On May 24, 7:39 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[e_space]

i realize that i am most likely the source of this thread, but please
take the time to look at what i am responding to ... i typically get
painted as the bad guy, but i personally think that is unfair ... i
simply ask pointed questions that some have a hard time answering ...
this seems to elicit the barrage of uncivil behavior that you are
currently reading ... if you feel i am being uncivil, please give me
an indication of a post that you consider fits this description,
keeping in mind the post i am responding to ...

On May 24, 10:39 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[e_space]

according to my analysis of what you deem civil, taking that action
would leave you and orn to have this forum to yourselves ... in other
words, it would cease to exist ... if you think it is currently
uncivil, maybe you should post "civility" guidelines, such as "no name
calling" etc. ... that sure wouldnt be a problem for me ... if you
include "no asking pointed questions", "no asking for evidence to
support factual sounding claims that are based entirely on faith" that
would definitely put the kibosh on my participation ...

[atypican]

Look e it's real simple. Address the subject of discussion and not the
personality of your opponent. The asking of pointed questions is
great. If your questions are avoided then you should trust that it
will be apparent enough. The back and forth childish bickering that
almost always results, makes the threads something that people like me
can barely even stand to read, much less participate in.

So if you think X about an opponent, save it unless the subject of the
thread is the opponents character, habits etc..

This is expected of everyone who wants to post here. It's obvious we
don't demand perfect adherence but when the forum is looking like the
opposite of how it was intended, we have to do something. I'd rather
have everybody affirm that they agree to make effort to avoid
discussing the personality of opponents, unless a posters personality
happens to be the subject of the thread.

Question: Do you understand how ad-hominem comments reliably distract
from the subject being discussed?

[e_space]

Answer: Yes

Question: Do you have an example of where I have used one?

[atypican]

Answer: Yes, I have several to choose from at this point

I am willing (despite how annoying it is to do so) to go to the effort
of cutting and pasting instances where you speak to the character of
your opponent as opposed to simply discussing the issue at hand. I
will also in the interest of fairness present instances where others
have done the same. (including myself)

No ones perfect, but there's a point where childish bickering becomes
the norm, and that paints this group as a bunch of hypocrites.
As I see it we might as well delete this group entirely if we can't
progress beyond that.

So bear with me while I busy myself with the petty, in the interest of
the serious. (examples will be in my next post)

[14SM.jcil]

On May 25, 2011, at 17:56, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Answer: Yes, I have several to choose from at this point
>
> I am willing (despite how annoying it is to do so) to go to the effort
> of cutting and pasting instances where you speak to the character of
> your opponent as opposed to simply discussing the issue at hand. I
> will also in the interest of fairness present instances where others
> have done the same. (including myself)
>
> No ones perfect, but there's a point where childish bickering becomes
> the norm, and that paints this group as a bunch of hypocrites.
> As I see it we might as well delete this group entirely if we can't
> progress beyond that.
>
> So bear with me while I busy myself with the petty, in the interest of
> the serious. (examples will be in my next post)

It's lamentable that such effort is necessary, atyp, but I applaud your patience and forbearance to do so. Kudos.

You can find several examples of 'what not to say' among my recent posts too. Let me know if you can use my help to cull through the threads.

[e_space]

is it petty of me respond to your charges of incivility? if you think
so, dont bother looking ... iyo, its always me that causes the
problems, and no words of admonition to those who refer to others as
"incapable" "intellectually challenged" "sad" etc, etc, etc, etc?
["add your contribution of petty"] ...

imo, the use of such adjectives is substantially less civil than
anything i say ... in fact, i dont consider myself uncivil at all ...
im direct, especially when avoidance mechanisms are being
employed ...

demanding civility, while not applying it, doesnt make much sense to
me ... maybe the title of this group should be edited, if those
running the show cannot abide within the rules they are enforcing ...
i await the examples of my bad behavior ... i would appreciate it if
you could also post the thread i am responding to, you know, just so
we get to see both sides of the story ... ;-^)

[e_space]

its lamentable that you are talking down at me, while demanding i be
civil to you ... it is also very lamentable that you have taken this
acid stance, while not clearly responding to my simple questions about
your belief ... instead, you have resorted to flinging adjectives
around like the animal house food fight on steroids ... [well, maybe
slightly exaggerated ;-^]

why dont you pay close attention to your own words? ... imo, your
demeaning language exceeds incivility, its almost vulgar coming from
one who claims to be so pious ... i use none of the personal
adjectives that your posts of late are jam packed with ... anger drips
off you, like blood off the incisors of dracula in heat [well, maybe
slightly exaggerated ;-^] ... yet you consider me uncivil? lol ...
let the beast out of the cage did i?

On May 25, 7:21 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

is it petty of me respond to your charges of incivility?

I think the point being made is that on numerous occasions previously, the forum has already provided you with the examples you claim you need.  Why should the moderators expect that you'll respond any better when the examples are provided for you this time?

[SM]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:26 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

its lamentable that you are talking down at me, while demanding i be civil to you

 

Even now you mischaracterize what's going on here.  You are not the victim of baseless attacks.  The intent of confronting your conduct is not to hurt you.

[Mardi]

hello all, I'm dropping in (and probably out again!) briefly after
being overwhelmed by life for some time now. Taking a few days
vacation from work to attempt to clean up the yard, clip and wash the
dogs, get the winter clothes and shoes put away and the summer ones
out and check the current conversations here.

Space dear, I do understand and have noticed that often in responses
to you, along with their very measured and carefully civil postings,
your fellow writers do also drop in demeaning references. But I think
your co-writers are just feeling frustrated and annoyed and not always
being careful to edit out the feelings when they post.

From your side I don't think you are aware of how you sound sometimes.
I think that you have a style of writing that I'm sure you think of as
clever. And when used with those who agree with you, I'm sure they
think it's clever too. But unfortunately it can also come across as
ridiculing those who disagree with you. There's a lot of emotion in
your writing that can feel to your readers that you are shouting at
them. You probably don't intend that, but it can be emotionally
exhausting sometimes trying to read your posts.

Here's the thing, it appears from my reading of your writing that you
think many of the things Christians believe are irrational,
unsubstantiated, unverifiable and even ridiculous. It also seems that
you may believe that not just some things but everything they believe
is irrational. That may not be the case, but that's how it seems.

You don't ever say, "you're all such idiots", but that's how it can
sound. And challenging things that people deeply cherish and value,
and doing so in a tone that seems to express a feeling that these
ideas are nonsense, only annoys them, it doesn't convince them of
anything. So it's unproductive as well.

Can you not find anything in Christianity that you can support? I know
I was very angry at Christians in my teens and twenties. Then in my
30s I moved out into the regular world and was much happier. Then in
my 40s I found a spiritual path that allowed me to see Christians in a
new light and in my 50s, though I did not re-join them, I re-gained
the ability to appreciate and value many things about them.

Do you think that you could, for the time being, engage in a few quiet
conversation, without any underlying emotion, using carefully
constructed language that is intended to convey acceptance and
tolerance in order to repair bridges. It might help if you could find
something you could feel accepting and tolerant about! And then do
what I do when someone says something I think is way out in left field
- I ignore it!!

And maybe write shorter posts with just one or two thoughts. It's
easier to read.

I know a lot of folks really get into the whole debate thing in this
and other forums, arguing their point of view, and all that. But like
rough housing on the playground, sometimes someone inadvertently hurts
someone else

I really do see and understand everyone's frustration on both sides.

best wishes friend

[ornamentalmind]

Mardi, may your life situation improve.

I did want to take the time to commend you on your well balanced
advice… the style is seldom used here these days and I, for one,
appreciate it greatly!

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 26, 8:11 pm, Mardi <mardimcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> hello all, I'm dropping in (and probably out again!) briefly after
> being overwhelmed by life for some time now. Taking a few days
> vacation  from work to attempt to clean up the yard, clip and wash the
> dogs, get the winter clothes and shoes put away and the summer ones
> out and check the current conversations here.
>
> Space dear, I do understand and have noticed that often in responses
> to you, along with their very measured and carefully civil postings,
> your fellow writers do also drop in demeaning references. But I think
> your co-writers are just feeling frustrated and annoyed and not always
> being careful to edit out the feelings when they post.

That's what I'm talking about too. You're exactly correct on the above
statements Mardi!

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Mardi <mardi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I think
> your co-writers are just feeling frustrated and annoyed and not always
> being careful to edit out the feelings when they post.

Hi Mardi,

I hope your advice is helpful to e_space. I thank you for your
perspective; but I don't consider it is accurate in one respect:
Folks on this forum have as a generalization taken great care in
keeping their responses civil and productively focused, and have set
aside animus in responding to one who, tragically, may only seem to be
interested in eristic provocation. :(

I am thankful for such a group, and don't take it for granted. For
two specifics, SM and atypican have been great examples of kindness,
civility and willing to be communicative in their interactions with
e_space, even though e_space receives such interactions as an
annoyance or offense. In short, both worked very hard to build a
bridge of communication. And at each and every point, both were
rebuffed and their attempts to find common ground belittled, ridiculed
and made out to be an offense.

Such is a reminder to me that healthy boundaries in relationships
matter, and a bridge of communication isn't any stronger than that
which BOTH parties bring.

Regards,

Brock

[Mardi]

Brock, yes, I really appreciate the level-headed, thoughtful, and even
compassionate way that writers have worked with e_space. I also know
the power of a single word to derail the intent of the most carefully
crafted piece of writing. As part of my job, I proof-read the emails
and memos written by my boss so I can specifically identify any
potentially inflamatory words that might catch at the emotions of the
reader causing them to focus only on that and completely miss the
actual message.

In fact, e_space did completely latch onto the single words he felt
were "talking down" to him and was then not able to calmly absorb the
actual message. I had myself, when reading those same posts,
registered an "oops there" when I read those words.

I was not criticizing the other writers. They seem like the type of
thoughtful people who will not feel criticized when someone notes a
small glitch in their approach that might be more productively worded.
My boss always recognizes the problem of particular words when I point
them out to her. Of course she also expresses frustration that she
WANTS to send that subtext! But she also recognizes that the
satisfying zing can sink the actual intent of the message.

I think that one of the difficulties of online forums is the lack of
face-to-face interaction. So much of a conversation is communicated
through non-verbal facial cues and body language. When devoid of those
moderating super-texts, the words put out there just by themselves can
easily run amok... emoticons can only go so far!

best
Mardi


On May 27, 3:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mardi! You've spoken well here. :)

Regards,

Brock