no worries, IADad, it was genuinely asked and, I believe, genuinely given. I do not perceive this as an attack at all, and I appreciate the discussion and feedback.IADad said:First please understand that this was not meant as an attack. I addressed it to youbecause you asked, but then I tried to accurately use "we" whenever I thought I was making a global suggestion all of us would bear well to be reminded of.
Sadly, this happens quite often, especially when emotions are high.IADad said:I'm not going to dig through to find a case and point, but I believe posts have been made where someone's words are take and then used to pigeon hole them.
And I am sure I am also guilty of this in some instance, and if I have done so, then I hope whoever was on the receiving end will know I am sorry of it. I wish I could get the same curtsey from those who used this tactic here.
I wholeheartedly agree.IADad said:I realize the importance of writing carefully, esepcially on such hot topics, but I think we're all better served when we try to understand what the other mean, rather than trying to catch them at a misstep.
IADad said:We can't all be Gov Romney, you know...(sorry, little political joke added there...)
[/QUOTE]IADad said:Surely, <U>we</U> can accept that someone else forming an opinion is not necessarily an idiot because they happen to disagree or have come to a different conclusion than me.
You are right, you were using the "we" you are mentioning above, and I took it personally as if it was only directed at me. My apologies for this.
I want to state for the record that I have never implied or said that anyone here who does not agree with what I write is an idiot.
And I appreciate that you are not taking that stance. The fact is, however, that PL got -200 reputation now despite having 60+ gentle, loving and helping posts in this forum and several months of contributions; I myself received negative rep in this thread despite the unwritten nettiquette that negative rep should be kept for trolls. Hence the feeling of the ganging up.IADad said:There's been a lot of finger pointing, and frankly I don't like being characterist as part of a group of veteran's ganging up on you. I've tried to write clearly, and respond to you directly when I have a comment directly for you and generally when I have a general comment.
For the record, I was not thinking of you when I wrote that.
I wholeheartedly agree. But on the flip side, as I was pointing out in my last response above to singledad, there is a limit to what can be debated without looking at the <I>process</I> of the debate. There has to be a minimal respect for all participants, even when they say things that are difficult to read or to accept, for debate to happen, otherwise it's not a debate anymore, it's a witch haunt. When it is explicitly said that my entire professional field is and will always be wrong regardless of what I say (not to mention "sick"), it tends to end the debate. As I said, it does not leaves me many options here, or much voice for that matter.IADad said:My point is that we aren't serving the purpose of the discussion if we are debating the debate.
Thank you for your post, IADad. I appreciate its respect and openness.
Last edited: