There's been a lesson here for me

[piston]

You can't expect people to change their minds.

You can't interact in a rational way because cultural cognition is so prevalent.

You can't just gravitate to a friendly environment unless you brutally "foe" members.

If you do bow to a person you respect, this person might use this opportunity against you, resulting in less respect.


It just ain't the metaphorical "dinning room."

Try to be playful if you can!


I still believe this board, with all due respect to our honorable hosts, will never measure up to a real community where people do realize that, however much you disagree with one another, you do need to live with one another.

It's not a criticism of CMG! It's a criticism of virtual socialization.

How would you feel, in real life, if a person just didn't respond to your presence?!

But apparently this technology allows people to be anti-social all they want.

Enough said.
I'm disappointed with virtual dynamic. It's less than human.

[Brendan]

Perhaps your expectations may have been unrealistic. The internet, eMail and message fora are not communities, and most online sites have been excuses for flamewar since hypertext and TCP/IP let folk interconnect online. It has helped the decline of manners as much as TV abnd movies, I expect.

I've been ignored in "real life" circumstances as well as online. Sometimes I ignore back, sometimes react (depending on circumstances) to ensure that vermin will never come near me nor speak to me ever again. I can't do that here, so the "ignore" feature is quite welcome.

I would never invite an atheist or fundamentalist or PC propagandist into my home to listen to their ignorant garbage, nor speak to them down the pub except to mock. At dinner parties and barbeques I am as contemptuous of PC cretins (if not more so!) as I am here. Yet I am aware that the afore-mentioned may like Mozart or Bach, so there are bound to be such folk in the non-music area of this forum. And some of the folk I may disagree with concerning politics or religion may actually know a thing or two that I don't about Beethoven, or know of an obscure piece or artist that I do not.

Classical music is our only mutual interest here. Perhaps the lesson is that just because folk can share a taste in music that doesn't mean they are in agreement on any other subject on earth - indeed, they can be quite hostile in opposition to each other outside the realm of music. We have some amazing and peculiar folk here - and I like the broad spectrum of views, even those so radically different from mine I wonder if we are of the same species.

It's up to me how much non-musical tripe I wish to read and whose tripe - which makes it more enjoyable or more relaxing if I so choose.

Cyberspace is what it is, and not reality nor community. An amusement park and shopping mall, for the most part.

[HoustonDavid]

Jacque, why so negative? For one who has posted so often and been around for a while, you
sound more depressed than disappointed. Surely we all share at least one more thing in common
than classical music: for myself, it is the level of intelligence and ability to communicate in actual
written sentence structures, which is not common on so many other blogging sites.

It is certainly easy to find sites where everyone basically says the same things you already agree
with, but I find that exceptionally boring and I suspect you do too. Here at CMG we do indeed have
differences of opinion, and not everyone is always polite about it, but many of us try to have a sense
of humor to go with our barbs of disagreement.

You would be seriously missed if you drifted off into the ether of cyberspace, never to return. I don't
expect we will always agree or expect to find a hint of humor, but you are definately not going to
make my very short list of foes (one).

[MarkC]

.....How would you feel, in real life, if a person just didn't respond to your presence?!
But apparently this technology allows people to be anti-social all they want....
I'm disappointed with virtual dynamic. It's less than human.

I don't know the situation you're referring to, but I think I can comment anyway.

You're absolutely right -- it's not like real life. It is easier to be rude or whatever. I've had similar feelings many times about internet discussions, but it was mainly before I arrived here. My experience on other sites accustomed me to how things are, and I was able to adjust my expectations and reactions.

Still, I feel sort of an obligation to reply to people in the way that you are implying. If someone says something to me, I'll make sure to reply (assuming it wasn't vile). In fact, in such situations I usually feel a bit compelled to keep replying, as long as the interchange continues, or else I feel I'm being rude. Of course that doesn't work, though, because if both people followed it, the exchange would never end -- and in fact, if you keep it going for a while, people will sometimes come in and say you're hogging the thread or something. So, I've learned that we need to use our judgment on these things. But yes -- I feel the same thing you do, and I try to take regard of it in how I reply to others.

While I've mostly gotten to where I don't take it personally or badly if someone doesn't reply, there's one kind of situation where I still do: If someone asks a question, and then I answer it with considerable effort, I'm taken aback if the person doesn't reply or acknowledge it in some way. (And I'll then sometimes make a snide remark about it.)
(Here's an example of where this happened recently on another site:)
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthre ... ost1409459

In my experience this happens very very little on this board. As internet sites go, it's an extremely civil and humane place. But as you said, it's not real life.

[Chalkperson]

In my experience this happens very very little on this board. As internet sites go, it's an extremely civil and humane place. But as you said, it's not real life.

Boy, is that Site ugly...no offense, but, it truly is...

[MarkC]

In my experience this happens very very little on this board. As internet sites go, it's an extremely civil and humane place. But as you said, it's not real life.

Boy, is that Site ugly...no offense, but, it truly is...

(Just to make sure you realize.....when I said "this board," I meant this board, not "that" board.) [smiley suppressed as usual]

[Jean]

Dear Piston,

I have not been a member of this board for very long at all, but I feel compelled to reply.

I have a fascination with the dynamics of online networking and socializing. It was a key part of my prior chosen profession for many years, and I know something of the dynamics.

This has become the only board I belong to because I have found that boards such as this, where the members are adults with life experience and a common love for something, there is indeed a community. Needless to say it isn't the same as face-to-face communities where you also have the benefit of body language, tone, facial expression, and the occassional hug, but there is an effort on members parts to compensate for that with careful language and the occassional apology.

I think it is especially delightful because each member is like a wrapped gift. Through their posts and shared experiences, you get to unwrap that gift a little at a time. Now, it might turn out that you don't much care for what's inside... but that is most certainly true in face-to-face communities as well. It might also turn out that you have found a real treasure.

I do think that there is a small tendancy for folks here to share high-brow discussion and forget to share the little daily things. We should never forget that if someone took the time to write it, it was important to them. We may choose not to respond, but should not ever accuse someone of wasting our time, as I saw in one thread. That isn't right under any circumstances. It is okay though to not respond at all, just as it is okay to listen (and learn) in a group discussion rather than talk. It's also ok to disagree, even aggressively, because that's healthy too. Just, no matter how hard it may be at times, it shouldn't devolve into personal name calling and insults. That's childish...we all do it... and we all resolve to try better next time.

I don't know exactly what has prompted the feelings you have when you wrote this, but I do hope that
the feelings are transitory and that you are not considering retiring from the board. I have enjoyed reading your posts, even if I don't always agree.

Jean

P.S. I avoid saying "real-life" as though what takes place on this board is not "real". It is real, written by real people, sharing things that are real to them and everyone else.

[MarkC]

.......I have a fascination with the dynamics of online networking and socializing.....

And I likewise. I think it's one of the main things that motivates me to be involved in internet discussions. That, plus the fact (I think it's a fact) that the ethic and practice are still very much evolving. We're in on the ground floor, and as such, I feel (maybe delusionally) that we can affect the evolution. In fact, I've sometimes tried actively to have a hand in it. (Not so much on this board, because, as per what I said before, I don't think it needs much 'help' on this.)

.....I don't know exactly what has prompted the feelings you have when you wrote this.....

.....and I don't either. It might help us to know what this is about -- if he doesn't mind telling it.

[living_stradivarius]

Funny how a virtual environment can actually direct us to engage evidence and TRUTH more often than we do in the real world.

[MarkC]

......because it's right there, 'on paper'......

[HoustonDavid]

........and because it's pretty difficult to get people to look at what you have to say
without some "evidence" and "TRUTH"............

[MarkC]

........and because it's pretty difficult to get people to look at what you have to say without some "evidence" and "TRUTH"............

I hope not.
Among other things, how can they tell there's no evidence and truth if they don't look at it?

[keaggy220]

This board is head and shoulders above any board I've encountered. Admittedly, that's not many, but the quality of the posts and the overall behavior is exceptional in my comparisons.

As far as opinions changing - most of us are 40 and older, with a few exceptions, so opinions are not going to change quickly or profoundly. I believe I've actually become slightly more conservative because of discussions on this board. I've found the liberal argument on this board, with a few exceptions, to be highly emotional and lacking good logic. If a conservative politician effectively makes arguments exposing a liberals broken logic than the liberals engage in character assassination instead of engaging in a debate.

Health care is a perfect recent example... There was no real debate. Liberals, like everyone, believe health care for all is desirable, but liberals simply didn't give a rip about the massive burden on our debt or health care system or that their constituents were overwhelmingly against it - all they could see was that it's desirable so we need to pass it. This is why we are in trillions and trillions in debt today - logic has never been used on entitlement programs - just emotions.

[Teresa B]

This board is head and shoulders above any board I've encountered. Admittedly, that's not many, but the quality of the posts and the overall behavior is exceptional in my comparisons.

As far as opinions changing - most of us are 40 and older, with a few exceptions, so opinions are not going to change quickly or profoundly. I believe I've actually become slightly more conservative because of discussions on this board. I've found the liberal argument on this board, with a few exceptions, to be highly emotional and lacking good logic. If a conservative politician effectively makes arguments exposing a liberals broken logic than the liberals engage in character assassination instead of engaging in a debate.

Health care is a perfect recent example... There was no real debate. Liberals, like everyone, believe health care for all is desirable, but liberals simply didn't give a rip about the massive burden on our debt or health care system or that their constituents were overwhelmingly against it - all they could see was that it's desirable so we need to pass it. This is why we are in trillions and trillions in debt today - logic has never been used on entitlement programs - just emotions.

Speaking of the dynamics of boards like this, here is an example of several characteristics of such, rolled into one post:

Opinions which did not change except to become "slightly more conservative"--a reinforcement of already-held beliefs by other super-conservative posters--pointedly not a change of mind or heart.

The usual attempt at invalidating different opinions by claiming they arise from "emotions" and are "lacking in good logic", and claiming the arguments are mostly character assassination. (I have been called bigoted and prejudiced repeatedly by one or two conservative posters when I posted what I thought were quite reasonable and logical comments. Let's not limit the ad hominem claims to one side.)

A claim that there was no real debate on health care because "liberals don't give a rip" about the massive debt. If there was no debate, how would you know the reason for this lack of debate? I don't claim to know why there might have been little debate, but I can say why as a "liberal" I personally would not staunchly defend the overhaul--because I am not enough of a proponent of it--as I suspect most liberals are not. A single payer such as Medicare for all would have been a plan I would have defended strongly.

Piston's comment that no one's mind is ever changed is correct. We view others' opinions though our own lens, and there are valid arguments on political topics on both sides; it would be nice if more of us would concede this and not blindly use the same old tired claims of the other side being bigoted, ignorant, not giving a rip, using emotion and no logic, etc etc.

That said, there are a lot of very smart people of varying political and religious ilk on this board, making it more interesting than most, and much of the discourse is civil. So, are intelligent posters on one side of a political argument working exclusively from illogic and emotion (thus wrong), while those of the opposing side are coming from cool, logical, unbiased fact (thus right)?

Logic would not have it so.

Teresa

[keaggy220]

This board is head and shoulders above any board I've encountered. Admittedly, that's not many, but the quality of the posts and the overall behavior is exceptional in my comparisons.

As far as opinions changing - most of us are 40 and older, with a few exceptions, so opinions are not going to change quickly or profoundly. I believe I've actually become slightly more conservative because of discussions on this board. I've found the liberal argument on this board, with a few exceptions, to be highly emotional and lacking good logic. If a conservative politician effectively makes arguments exposing a liberals broken logic than the liberals engage in character assassination instead of engaging in a debate.

Health care is a perfect recent example... There was no real debate. Liberals, like everyone, believe health care for all is desirable, but liberals simply didn't give a rip about the massive burden on our debt or health care system or that their constituents were overwhelmingly against it - all they could see was that it's desirable so we need to pass it. This is why we are in trillions and trillions in debt today - logic has never been used on entitlement programs - just emotions.

Speaking of the dynamics of boards like this, here is an example of several characteristics of such, rolled into one post:

Opinions which did not change except to become "slightly more conservative"--a reinforcement of already-held beliefs by other super-conservative posters--pointedly not a change of mind or heart.

The usual attempt at invalidating different opinions by claiming they arise from "emotions" and are "lacking in good logic", and claiming the arguments are mostly character assassination. (I have been called bigoted and prejudiced repeatedly by one or two conservative posters when I posted what I thought were quite reasonable and logical comments. Let's not limit the ad hominem claims to one side.)

A claim that there was no real debate on health care because "liberals don't give a rip" about the massive debt. If there was no debate, how would you know the reason for this lack of debate? I don't claim to know why there might have been little debate, but I can say why as a "liberal" I personally would not staunchly defend the overhaul--because I am not enough of a proponent of it--as I suspect most liberals are not. A single payer such as Medicare for all would have been a plan I would have defended strongly.

Piston's comment that no one's mind is ever changed is correct. We view others' opinions though our own lens, and there are valid arguments on political topics on both sides; it would be nice if more of us would concede this and not blindly use the same old tired claims of the other side being bigoted, ignorant, not giving a rip, using emotion and no logic, etc etc.

That said, there are a lot of very smart people of varying political and religious ilk on this board, making it more interesting than most, and much of the discourse is civil. So, are intelligent posters on one side of a political argument working exclusively from illogic and emotion (thus wrong), while those of the opposing side are coming from cool, logical, unbiased fact (thus right)?

Logic would not have it so.

Teresa

Your argument is meaningless and so is mine... It's based on observation... Listen to a leftist radio show and then listen to a conservative radio show. See how the arguments are formed - it's really interesting...

Yes, as I stated before most liberals, with some exceptions, do not use logic and are highly emotional when it comes to certain issues. Health care is a perfect example. Instead of listening to constituents congressional members decided to suspend their representation on this massive issue and vote based on emotion - knowing they would lose everything in order to gain something so absurd as what passed as health care for all.

I did forget to mention that besides character assassination liberals also get good milage out of class, gender and racial warfare with the pretense of being advocates of these groups.

[Teresa B]

Your argument is meaningless and so is mine... It's based on observation...

Teresa

[Barry]

Piston's comment that no one's mind is ever changed is correct. We view others' opinions though our own lens, and there are valid arguments on political topics on both sides; it would be nice if more of us would concede this and not blindly use the same old tired claims of the other side being bigoted, ignorant, not giving a rip, using emotion and no logic, etc etc.

Well it would be nice if liberals came up with a better line than "the other side is heartless" (an obvious paraphrase) repeatedly, for virtually every issue. That's appealing to emotion; not using facts.

And I honestly am amazed that you don't see the irony in your complaint about being referred to as bigoted when that accusation was based on your lumping of an entire group of people into that label based on the actions of a few within their midst. I don't consider that to be reasonable.

[keaggy220]

Your argument is meaningless and so is mine... It's based on observation...

Teresa

Meaningless in the sense that our discussion is a microcosm of the endless debates which happen on this board. Will I ever be able to prove to a liberal, that is a non-logical person, through sound logic, that they are illogical? Maybe, but I don't want to take the time.

On the flip can an illogical person convince a person of logic their position? Doubtful.

[MarkC]

HOW DID THIS THREAD BECOME A POLITICAL MUD-SLINGING THING???

Anyway......maybe someone should fill us in: Was the OP a reference to something from a political thread??
I didn't particularly think so.

If it is and if I had known, I would have stayed out.
Political threads on every discussion board I've ever been on have tended to be.............well...........whatever.
And on this site, it's little different.

And on such topics, it IS just like in "real life," if you have the collection of different views as you do on an internet board. The thing is, in real life usually you don't.

So, I don't "count" the modes of discussion that occur on those threads. If the OP was a reference to one of those, then I respectfully withdraw.

[Chalkperson]

Speaking personally, in real life I am an extremely shy person, sure, I have many friendships formed over the last thirty years, but, I would describe myself as a hermit who downgraded himself to being a recluse, I count all the people here as my friends, and true friends at that, we disagree over Politics and Religion, but isn't that what we were told (as youngsters) not to discuss if we did not want to start an immediate argument, when my building caught fire I posted it here on CMG, Lance was on the phone immediately, it was 2am, and everyone rallied round will support and concern, when my wife was in a coma Corlyss gave me a sticky thread to post my updates and the comments of love, prayer and support puled me thru...is that not exactly what a community is about, would my neighbors not help and support me, maybe Jacques is taking all the negativity to heart, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and many here are not afraid to put that in writing, if the Board has a Conservative bias then it's because many Liberals have stopped posting, CMG has made me a better person, it has drawn me out of my shell, I don't know what I would do without it...

[Barry]

I've read articles in recent years on the notion that people are surrounded by others who share their basic world/political/social views in their every day lives to a much greater extent than was the case a couple generations ago. Fewer areas were as overwhelmingly liberal or conservative as most areas are now. A lot of us also work in a profession where there is a strong slant one way or the other. I know I find this to be the case in my life. I'm in an extremely tiny minority in terms of my political and also some of my social views both in the area where I live and where I work. When that happens, the majority just feel free to talk and act as if everyone feels the way they do or as if it's the natural order of things. A lot of people I've known for years acted like I fell from another planet when they discovered I've grown fairly conservative. It would have been less shocking had I told them I was gay.

Then some of us come on here, and for a change, we're in a much more ideologically mixed environment, and to top it off, we discuss a lot of hot-button topics. Add to that the fact that it's easier to speak freely to someone you disagree strongly with in this type of format than it is in person, and I think it's only natural that conflicts break out. As others have indicated, this board is small potatoes compared to many of the others out there in terms of the degree of hostility. One music board I've posted on periodically for years has no moderation at all and things have gotten out of hand there a number of times in terms of language and tone when political topics come up to a much greater extent than probably anything I've ever seen on this board.

As for putting people on ignore, I think there is another way of looking at it. In the real world, we have the option of avoiding someone we find annoying or people we have been arguing a lot with in some cases (obviously not if you live or work in close quarters with the person, but in most other cases). I don't think it's a terrible thing to be able to avoid someone on here for a period if you think you aren't going to be able to avoid constantly arguing with that person and you feel that's impacting your enjoyment of the board.

[DavidRoss]

As for putting people on ignore, I think there is another way of looking at it. In the real world, we have the option of avoiding someone we find annoying or people we have been arguing a lot with in some cases (obviously not if you live or work in close quarters with the person, but in most other cases). I don't think it's a terrible thing to be able to avoid someone on here for a period if you think you aren't going to be able to avoid constantly arguing with that person and you feel that's impacting your enjoyment of the board.

Or if you're just so sick and tired of the chronic abuse and vicious nastiness that you must choose between ignoring the perpetrators or abandoning the forum completely. I've chosen the latter on a few occasions. It's nice to have the former option as well.

In real life, if I'm walking down a city street and get accosted by some fellow who attacks me verbally, mistaking me for some bigoted stereotype fabricated by his hateful and feverish imagination, then I'm likely to regard him as too deranged for my help and to avoid him in the future. It's no different here. Most folks are pretty civil and make good company. Some have a few rough edges but are easily tolerated and contribute substantial interest to our discussions. A few are crashing bores with their own self-absorbed axes to grind and no real interest in others' points of view. And there is a very small number who are clearly deranged with no real purpose other than spewing venom at their chosen targets; just like their deranged counterparts on the street, they are probably best avoided.

[Teresa B]

Piston's comment that no one's mind is ever changed is correct. We view others' opinions though our own lens, and there are valid arguments on political topics on both sides; it would be nice if more of us would concede this and not blindly use the same old tired claims of the other side being bigoted, ignorant, not giving a rip, using emotion and no logic, etc etc.

Well it would be nice if liberals came up with a better line than "the other side is heartless" (an obvious paraphrase) repeatedly, for virtually every issue. That's appealing to emotion; not using facts.

And I honestly am amazed that you don't see the irony in your complaint about being referred to as bigoted when that accusation was based on your lumping of an entire group of people into that label based on the actions of a few within their midst. I don't consider that to be reasonable.

First of all, if you read my post, you would note I said BOTH sides do the mudslinging and used the "bigot" example as one that was thrown at me repeatedly and not just because I said teabaggers were racists, there were other instances as well.

And I am not amazed that you would not notice that I qualified my comment by saying both sides are guilty of the same sort of tired illogical attacks. My entire point was basically that WE view these things through OUR own lens. And that includes those on this board who are conservative and those who are liberal, and no one has an exclusive claim to being "logical" vs "emotional" in their arguments.

Teresa

[Teresa B]

Your argument is meaningless and so is mine... It's based on observation...

Teresa

Meaningless in the sense that our discussion is a microcosm of the endless debates which happen on this board. Will I ever be able to prove to a liberal, that is a non-logical person, through sound logic, that they are illogical? Maybe, but I don't want to take the time.

On the flip can an illogical person convince a person of logic their position? Doubtful.

Those very endless discussion are the embodiment of exactly what I was saying when I agreed with piston about no one changing their minds. And since I have been accused of bigotry against teabaggers by lumping them into the racist category, I will point out that you just lumped all "liberals" into the "illogical" category, thus displaying your own blinders.

I made a perfectly logical argument when I said that since there are very intelligent posters here of conservative and liberal persuasion, it is highly unlikely that intelligent conservatives are all using logic and equally intelligent liberals all emotional arguments. (And may I add, there is validity to emotion also. I would wager any attorney here could tell you, an emotional appeal can trump a purely logical one in many instances. Whether the outcome is a better on just depends on the instance.)

Teresa

[HoustonDavid]

How interesting that I consider Barry and Teresa among the most reasonable of our
members from two different political persuasions. I would never picture them in a
squabble over who was logical and who was emotional, and which was the "right"
way to deal with differences of opinion.

[keaggy220]

Your argument is meaningless and so is mine... It's based on observation...

Teresa

Meaningless in the sense that our discussion is a microcosm of the endless debates which happen on this board. Will I ever be able to prove to a liberal, that is a non-logical person, through sound logic, that they are illogical? Maybe, but I don't want to take the time.

On the flip can an illogical person convince a person of logic their position? Doubtful.

Those very endless discussion are the embodiment of exactly what I was saying when I agreed with piston about no one changing their minds. And since I have been accused of bigotry against teabaggers by lumping them into the racist category, I will point out that you just lumped all "liberals" into the "illogical" category, thus displaying your own blinders.

I made a perfectly logical argument when I said that since there are very intelligent posters here of conservative and liberal persuasion, it is highly unlikely that intelligent conservatives are all using logic and equally intelligent liberals all emotional arguments. (And may I add, there is validity to emotion also. I would wager any attorney here could tell you, an emotional appeal can trump a purely logical one in many instances. Whether the outcome is a better on just depends on the instance.)

Teresa

Peoples minds are changed, but not in this single discussion. Like I said before, my mind has been changed to slightly more conservative since joining this board 4 years ago.

You aren't the only liberal to throw the racist label around loosely - I think every liberal on this board has done it multiple times. It's just a habit. It's never backed by logic though...

I did lump all liberal in the emotional category because I'm yet to talk to a liberal who has demonstrated otherwise. True, it doesn't mean there's not one out there, i just haven't heard of them.

Emotional appeal is of value when you don't have logic on your side and liberals use emotion to manipulate people very effectively. Unfortunately emotional arguments have passed huge entitlements that have sunk our country into catastrophic debt because the free market is ultimately based on logic.

[absinthe]

......
It just ain't the metaphorical "dinning room."

Try to be playful if you can!


I still believe this board, with all due respect to our honorable hosts, will never measure up to a real community where people do realize that, however much you disagree with one another, you do need to live with one another.

I sometimes think that the early days of the internet (let's say pre-1996 when AOL was the only worthwhile system around in the UK) were the best - when those hooked up were of a different intellectual breed; were more serious on most message boards and serious chat rooms (as these obsolete places were known before they lost popularity with the arrival of the masses).
Now it's essential (the politicians and TV ads assure us) to be on the internet no matter what for - probably for kids to get their school homework done.

Message boards do seem to attract confronters probably unable to exercise their opinions face-to-face; and those who need time to formulate a response. But it also attracts people who'd just like to keep in touch with a subject where their daily activities prevent their practical indulgence. That's how it is. Nothing to do with CMG or any other site.

It's not a criticism of CMG! It's a criticism of virtual socialization.

Yup. Most fora are MILES worse but given the choice of virtual socialisation or meeting and being among people, I'd go for the latter. The problem is partially people's needs to express opinions which are then challenged hopefully to highlight that other views are possible. Some take that action as an insult, it seems.

This doesn't prevent people developing friendships/relationships face-to-face and Chalkie mentioned this earlier: given just a few people on a specialised site or members having face-to-face meets puts a different slant on things.

How would you feel, in real life, if a person just didn't respond to your presence?!

But apparently this technology allows people to be anti-social all they want.

Enough said.
I'm disappointed with virtual dynamic. It's less than human.

Unfortunately overuse of the ignore button is, on the one hand, disparaging; on the other it allows one a greater candour if fairly certain that the person concerned IS on one's ignore list. I had a couple on ignore but reinstated them very quickly. I can skim past their posts but who knows? They may have something to say to awaken interest. About 1 in 15 of my posts is acknowledged so I presume I'm on a few ignore lists! But that's up to people. Some disparity between cultures comes into it but....c'est la vie.

Some while ago I began wondering after sitting on a train listening to various conversations. No eavesdropping - these were conversations made public by their loudness. But was the real question "What are you talking FOR?" rather than "What ARE you talking about?"

[Teresa B]

How interesting that I consider Barry and Teresa among the most reasonable of our
members from two different political persuasions. I would never picture them in a
squabble over who was logical and who was emotional, and which was the "right"
way to deal with differences of opinion.

David, not to beat a dead horse, but you may notice my posts were actually an attempt to use logic to argue that it is illogical for intelligent conservatives to say "liberals all use exclusively emotional arguments because they have no logic to back them" when equally intelligent liberals express different opinions. People of both persuasions, because of their own emotional responses, lump others into categories that may not be accurate, and I admit to being no exception. (One problem is, when you try to admit that yes, you understand your own foibles, your opponent posters ignore that and go on ad nauseum with their own proclamations.)

I was being as egalitarian as I could, with the realization that everyone argues from his/her own views, and we each think our views are correct--liberal or conservative--why else would we hold them? In the end, the outcomes of various actions will determine what was the best policy, no matter what anybody thinks is best. Keaggy says his views have gradually changed, but the truth is, his views were conservative and have not been changed as much as reinforced by those who are more conservative. That is not reflecting on a different viewpoint and coming closer to accepting its validity; that is strengthening one's own position and becoming more polarized and adamantine against the other.

I also said there is no "right" way to deal with differences, as logic is essential, but emotion is an important part of human interaction. Perhaps in my profession I see this more than those in some other fields. In medicine we use logic as a basis for diagnosis and therapy, but without appealing to a patient's trust in us as their physician, we are less successful in getting the outcomes we seek.

Basically, I know I'm not going to become right wing by reading CMG, nor is anyone going to go from right to left wing. It would be nice if posters did not emotionally make blanket accusations against those of opposing views, and conceded that there is validity to them, even if they disagree about potential outcomes.

Teresa

[Prometheus]

While some may see cyberspace as not being real, I see my interactions with all of you as true and genuine. The fact that I am communicating over the computer does not diminish the sincerity of my communications with any of you.

If I find anything disappointing about this board it is the likelihood that I could never meet all of you face to face. I would be glad to sit down and have a conversation with any of you.

I have never been a part of a forum group for any length of time and I have enjoyed my time here and respect the variety of individuals this group is comprised of.

[DavidRoss]

While some may see cyberspace as not being real, I see my interactions with all of you as true and genuine. The fact that I am communicating over the computer does not diminish the sincerity of my communications with any of you.

If I find anything disappointing about this board it is the likelihood that I could never meet all of you face to face. I would be glad to sit down and have a conversation with any of you.

I have never been a part of a forum group for any length of time and I have enjoyed my time here and respect the variety of individuals this group is comprised of.

Amen, amen, amen. And I seriously doubt that anyone here would be as nasty toward me face-to-face as some chronically and unapologetically have behaved on line. I also suspect that those who have a hard time seeing real people behind the text on screen would probably find it much easier to identify in person and establish some rapport based on shared interests, concerns, and values--after which they might be able to give real consideration to diverse points of view instead of just dismissing them by demonizing the people who see things differently.

[MarkC]

BTW.....is it just me, or.........how can we keep talking about this without really knowing what we're talking about........

(Or am I the only one who doesn't know.......)

[piston]

It is not that they are not real, Prometheus; it is rather that they do not strike me as requiring the same protocol as a real (physical) community of individuals who know they will coexist (physically) for the foreseeable future.

Protocol was so important in the past! God! Have you ever read about Mohawk protocol in colonial days? An entire diplomatic encounter rested on the participants' willingness to follow such a protocol. Why? Because otherwise miscommunication, uselesss rhetoric, venting, verbal aggression, etc., were sure to follow.

Three centuries ago, so-called less civilized indigenous people understood a basic, fundamental truth we do not: before you engage in a meaningful exchange of views, clear all your thoughts of grief, anger, frustrations with the other party. They could take a whole week to get there!!!

But forget about this little anthropological "anecdote." As much as people thrive on this new medium I really cannot see how it measures up to a face-to-face interaction.

Actually, we have an ideal perspective here from the folks who gathered on several occasions at NYC! It has struck me how people who were not seeing eye to eye on CMG became so much more civil when they actually met physically., at least based on their own CMG reports of such meetings. There was not a SINGLE negative vibe about these encounters. Everybody had a most enjoyable time, finally meeting and seeing that virtual person in flesh and blood. All about civility and respect and knowledge that if you take a cheap shot, do expect that action entails immediate reaction.

[rwetmore]

Funny thread.

No one ever pays much attention to me (in the real world or online). I've been ignored pretty much my entire life. I might as well be a mute retard as no one ever thinks anything I say has any credibility. I've grown used to it though.

Unlike most people here, I am open to change my mind on virtually anything if sufficient evidence exists and I'm made aware of it. In my mind, I have no allegiance to any political party or ideology. That's just me. Fundamentally, I'm a thinker. I think critically about everything - probably a little too much a times. For example, Piston starting this thread got me thinking: What does starting such a strange thread like this reveal about him? (I won't share my thoughts on that).

I'm not quite sure how I come across on this board. Rude and pompous maybe? I probably should exercise a little more restraint. Part of my problem is I'm the kind of person that is virtually impossible to offend, and I forget that a lot of people are more sensitive. I do mean well though.

[rwetmore]

If a conservative politician effectively makes arguments exposing a liberals broken logic than the liberals engage in character assassination instead of engaging in a debate.

I've observed this too over the years. In my experience, liberals generally don't seem to do very well in discussions of logic and evidence. I've also observed that they often get defensive very quickly - as if pointing out logical flaws or lack of evidence is some kind of attack on their right to believe what they want and want what they want.

Another thing I've observed is liberals rarely ever seem to study what conservatives think first hand - that is by directly listening to or reading them. Virtually everything they know about what conservatives think comes from what their side says about them. Basically, exactly what they accuse Rush Limbaugh listeners of doing is what they do.

[Jean]

I am neither conservative nor liberal. I prefer not to be labeled anything. Neither do I belong to a political party. Some of my views would be considered quite conservative and others very liberal. I have no problem whatever reconciling that.

All this discussion on how conservatives vs liberal make decisions and argue is stereotypical nonsense and amounts to the pot calling the kettle black. There isn't anyone or any "group" uintouched by one of the complaints or accusations made above.

Have I succeeded in offending everyone?

[DavidRoss]

I'm not quite sure how I come across on this board. Rude and pompous maybe? I probably should exercise a little more restraint. Part of my problem is I'm the kind of person that is virtually impossible to offend, and I forget that a lot of people are more sensitive. I do mean well though.

To me you come across as a fact-based rationalist somewhat impatient with those who are a little slower and whose opinions are based on ideology rather than information. You seem admirably direct and straightforward, which I see as a virtue...though I'm well aware that those enmeshed in systems of mutual codependency cosigning one another's bullsh*t may feel threatened by that and might label it rude or pompous in a defensive effort to negate the threat.

As your successive post indicates, you've little respect in general for the intellectual underpinnings of "liberal" positions, but given the painful lack of cognitive content in most posts here espousing such positions, that's understandable--but you should be wary of prejudging future offerings based on past performance. Still, I know from personal experience on this site how hard it is to keep your heart open to snotty jerks who stereotype you and slander you and turn every attempt at rational discourse into a name-calling contest, and who persist in such sh*tty behavior even when they get called on it, often acting as if they are the wounded victims instead of the viciously narrow-minded aggressors.

Sigh.

[BWV 1080]

Funny thread.

No one ever pays much attention to me (in the real world or online). I've been ignored pretty much my entire life. I might as well be a mute retard as no one ever thinks anything I say has any credibility.

or perhaps a slanty-eyed chinaman speaking gobbledygook

or a shifty kyke

[DavidRoss]

I am neither conservative nor liberal. I prefer not to be labeled anything. Neither do I belong to a political party. Some of my views would be considered quite conservative and others very liberal. I have no problem whatever reconciling that.

Welcome, Jean. You are hardly alone in this, for there are several of us here who decide for themselves on the merits of the issues rather than by a pre-disposed ideological standard, though several of the most partisan participants clearly think if you don't agree with them about everything then it can only be because you are one of those horrid moral reprobates from the other partisan camp.

[piston]

What does starting such a strange thread like this reveal about him? (I won't share my thoughts on that).

Go ahead. Isn't it the norm in this "pub"? In fact (you like facts, right?), look at what happened to the strange thread: the same ol' same polarization between the two deaf men -- the liberal and the conservative.

In some community contexts, such as a large wedding, an annual community day (cribbage tournament, horseshoe tournament, races, games and horse rides for kids, etc.), an important but tacit rule prevails: harmony is the order of the day; political rivalry is out for the day.

To view every topic, every thread as yet another opportunity to lapidate one's ideological opponents, or perceived opponents, and to transform every issue into a conservative/liberal dichotomy is, indeed, the very source of this "strange thread."

[Teresa B]

I am neither conservative nor liberal. I prefer not to be labeled anything. Neither do I belong to a political party. Some of my views would be considered quite conservative and others very liberal. I have no problem whatever reconciling that.

All this discussion on how conservatives vs liberal make decisions and argue is stereotypical nonsense and amounts to the pot calling the kettle black. There isn't anyone or any "group" uintouched by one of the complaints or accusations made above.

Have I succeeded in offending everyone?

No, you're saying what I was trying to say, only better.

Teresa

[Teresa B]

Go ahead. Isn't it the norm in this "pub"? In fact (you like facts, right?), look at what happened to the strange thread: the same ol' same polarization between the two deaf men -- the liberal and the conservative.

I am going to put in my bid, as the person who posted as a "liberal", for not being considered a "deaf man". (My actual status being, gratefully hearing, and female. ) And, for the record, I persisted in my comments that those on both political ends of the spectrum are guilty of the same things.

Teresa

[HoustonDavid]

I am also liberal and have said so many times on many threads. By now, most of the loudest
and most profane members of both "liberal" and "conservative" persuasions must be tired of
me complaining about their expletives and name-calling. I've done it on so many threads, that
Corlyss once accused me of changing thread subjects in order to complain about the overly loud
name calling. I will be the first to admit my guilt. Alternatively, I have also complimented many
of those same people when they stick to the facts and take well-reasoned positions, even if I
disagree with them.

There isn't anyone on this board who isn't capable of arguing without name calling and profanity,
and I wish the guilty would tone down their vocabulary and stick to making well reasoned and
documented points. As a former well-travelled Marine, I once bragged I could swear in six different
languages for several minutes without repeating myself. I have since become a professional writer
and choose the dictionary and thesaurus for language appropriate to the discussion. But don't
get me started.....

[Agnes Selby]

I am also liberal and have said so many times on many threads. By now, most of the loudest
and most profane members of both "liberal" and "conservative" persuasions must be tired of
me complaining about their expletives and name-calling. I've done it on so many threads, that
Corlyss once accused me of changing thread subjects in order to complain about the overly loud
name calling. I will be the first to admit my guilt. Alternatively, I have also complimented many
of those same people when they stick to the facts and take well-reasoned positions, even if I
disagree with them.

There isn't anyone on this board who isn't capable of arguing without name calling and profanity,
and I wish the guilty would tone down their vocabulary and stick to making well reasoned and
documented points. As a former well-travelled Marine, I once bragged I could swear in six different
languages for several minutes without repeating myself. I have since become a professional writer
and choose the dictionary and thesaurus for language appropriate to the discussion. But don't
get me started.....

David, I bet you can't swear in Hungarian and yet it is the most
magnificent language for true and significant swearing!!!!
It makes me just to think of those great swear words.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Jean]

You know, sometimes it just feels good to say "Oh ----!"

[DavidRoss]

You know, sometimes it just feels good to say "Oh ----!"

"Fudge" has five letters.

[HoustonDavid]

Who could possible object to a few good Hungarian swear words here, since I'm fairly
certain the number of people offended could be counted on one hand. Nor do I think
most reasonable people would object to "fudge" or "....." or "****" or even the colorful
"@#^%*#%". But there is nothing equivalent to being told how pitiful and small you
really are by someone with a good dictionary and thesaurus. I hope none of us here
ever deserve or experience that kind of tongue lashing.

[Agnes Selby]

I could fully understand what Teresa said in her first post.
But then I am just a foreigner looking from outside into the
vast American complexity.

[MarkC]

.....and I still don't know what we're talking about.

I guess I'm the only one who finds it hard to discuss something without knowing what we're talking about.

Does everyone else know what the OP was about?

[living_stradivarius]

Does everyone else know what the OP was about?

Finding a way to give/receive hugs on an internet forum. Or something like that. Making friends really.

[piston]

.....and I still don't know what we're talking about.

I guess I'm the only one who finds it hard to discuss something without knowing what we're talking about.

Does everyone else know what the OP was about?

Not really, but it did feel good when I first posted it.