Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 What just happened is that I deleted approximately 7 messages from 3 CHA members. I have them stored if we need to retieve them if someone can convince me that it is necessary. Why? I love a spirited discussion and I found nothing in them that was particularily scandelous nor libelous. However, there were comments within them that are best directed in personal emails and will gain nothing by being on a public forum. In short, there was no way this exchange was going to go anywhere except into personalities. I assume that a lot of these posts were seen by the parties involved as well as some of the rest of us. For those who missed it it was an exchange prompted by a post by Bob Felt which remains posted and then several exhanges from others. I believe all posts had valid and vital points to make but also contain angry tones that could only further digress. What I can do... If all parties would agree then I would like to edit the posts in a way that others can join in the discussion without stepping between warring parties and the passions will be directed at the issues not at the personalities. If this is not acceptable to the posters then I suggest you try to repost. I think you understand the parameters I am trying to maintain here. Again, I have no interest in shutting you guys up, you are welcome to go at this off-list and I assign no blame. I have utter respect for all of you but lets discuss the issues. love, doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I've read this list for a few years. It's meaningful to me. I don't contribute often because I don't have much meaningful to say. I think you did a disservice by deleting any content or messages regarding the translation debate. I think these are healthy " personalities " engaged in a debate that affects all of us, and I request that you do not manipulate by editing content. This discussion is particularly valueable to those of us who teach. I've learned more from Eric Brand's posts than in many textbooks, and there are many points in Jason's posts that I agree with, so please let the discussion continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Doug, Since I don't think any of my posts were among the deleted, I have no personal axe to grind about those deletions. However, I do question the idea that debate should not/cannot include ad hominem arguments. Please note I did not say ad hominem " attacks. " Name-calling is an attack. However, pointing out the possible underlying reasons a person may be holding the opinions they are may very well be germane to a larger understanding of the debate. As I have written before on this list, many professional communication gurus say all opinions ultimately are emotional biases rooted in the personality of the one who holds them and that all " evidence " for those opinions are merely rationalizations. If this is true (as my experience suggests it is to me), then it also seems to me that all debate eventually comes back to the biographies and personalities of those who are debating. On the one hand, the debate is not likely to change the minds of the debaters themselves. On the other, the debate may help clarify the minds of those listening who may not have such strongly held preconceptions. What I mean here is that the debate may be most valuable to those who are merely listening and not actually taking place in it. Thus to stop a debate because it has become " personal " may deprive those listeners of vital information for judging what they are hearing/reading. Just something to consider. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Hi All, I think debates are definately educational. I have to agree with Doug, that getting angry doesn't lead to more of the same. What could be helpful is to state things, ...... " In my experience.... " format, that keeps the ideas flowing and avoiding the bigger banging that can start to develop. However, a warning could have sufficed. It has been pointed out to me, that the word 'discussion' has the sub term in it 'cussion' which means to strike. And I believe it is a good source word. Dialogue on the other hand, as in it, a shared river of ideas flowing between two people and the words and ideas flow between them to clarify the world view on a subject. Discussions and debates polarize an issue and that is where we start to miss the yin and yanging and turn to black and white. Maybe this is useful as an insight, maybe not. It is just what I think. Sincerely, Rozz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Bob, these are interesting ideas. I would reframe it by saying that people are motivated by their " self-interests " and in the best of times by " enlightened self-interest " which encompasses the group or situation so that all may have a satisfactory outcome. I've been around these internet boards long enough to hear the tones of a debate and when they are useful and when they aren't and when they are best expressed in private emails between the individual parties. doug , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > Doug, > > Since I don't think any of my posts were among the deleted, I have no > personal axe to grind about those deletions. However, I do question > the idea that debate should not/cannot include ad hominem arguments. > Please note I did not say ad hominem " attacks. " Name-calling is an > attack. However, pointing out the possible underlying reasons a person > may be holding the opinions they are may very well be germane to a > larger understanding of the debate. As I have written before on this > list, many professional communication gurus say all opinions > ultimately are emotional biases rooted in the personality of the one > who holds them and that all " evidence " for those opinions are merely > rationalizations. If this is true (as my experience suggests it is to > me), then it also seems to me that all debate eventually comes back to > the biographies and personalities of those who are debating. On the > one hand, the debate is not likely to change the minds of the debaters > themselves. On the other, the debate may help clarify the minds of > those listening who may not have such strongly held preconceptions. > What I mean here is that the debate may be most valuable to those who > are merely listening and not actually taking place in it. Thus to stop > a debate because it has become " personal " may deprive those listeners > of vital information for judging what they are hearing/reading. > > Just something to consider. > > Bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.