HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 30, 2005 As much as I hate to repeat myself, a recent email and Dr. Mick’s post, "Liberal Venom", have, again, inspired me to post an article on the proper techniques for reasoned, logical, fair, and respectful debate. As the wise Doctor documented, intelligence among Internet critics is in short supply and many prefer belligerent ranting instead. Now, I don’t get quite the volume of email that the Doctor suffers through, but I’ve received a few and one this week, in particular, exhibited the same mindless sputtering to which I was subjected by Sher Zieve in the past. My post, "I’m the Victim of Sadistic Assaults" resulted from those frustrating conversations and is a necessary read for an understanding of this post. An anonymous contributor (signature – clwseattle) wrote angrily after reading my post this week – "Alzheimer’s Strikes Down a Beloved UK Contributor". Strangely, his/her (I suspect female and will use that gender herein) objections were not against my treatment of Mr. Hughes (who could claim it wasn’t deserved?), instead, she wrote that the article was "disgusting and an insult to every member of every family suffering along with loved ones who have Alzheimers (apostrophe omitted by her). You should be ashamed and quite franky (her misspelling) banned from posting articles." Naturally, I understood her disgust thinking that she abhorred any connection between those stricken people and Mr. Hughes, but…. "Was that what she really meant," I wondered. Could my words have somehow insulted that group regardless of Mr. Hughes’ connection? After a re-read of my post offered no clue, I responded – "I'm sorry, what was disgusting? I should be ashamed of what? Could you be specific, what words of mine insult the families of Alzheimer's patients?" I’ve proceeded to exchange three other emails with this frustrating person, receiving new and different insults each time, but never have gotten an answer to any of my questions. Her next email tried to hide its evasion of my questions by switching topics to the propriety of "brawling" through posts on UK. Apparently, she disapproves of online debates except on a "real time blog"(??) While I agree with her regarding "brawling," I believe UK is a very appropriate site for debating – unfortunately, in our exchange she was the one brawling, and in my exchange with Mr. Hughes’ he started the brawl in his delusions of persecution. In fact, that is the essence of this post – don’t "brawl", debate instead. Of course, I replied by again asking for an explanation of her first accusation, and then, addressing the second email, by asking what she would do if someone attacked her on UK without provocation as I was. From her email, it could be assumed that she would invite that person to join her at some real time blog for a virtual a@@ whooping. I questioned that option since it would not provide the opportunity for others, who had read the post insulting me, to learn the actual truth from my post. Alas, no answers again. Her next email escalated the name-calling but never answered any of my questions. At that point, I bailed in favor of bashing my head against the wall and counting sand grains. People, I have admitted mistakes on this site many times and in private emails when accused – if those accusations are accurate (such as Mr. Hughes’ note of my grammar mistakes). All I ask is that the writer clearly state their objection and document my erroneous words if they were not obvious. If I dispute the accusation, simply provide clarification that (importantly) refutes my defense. I am not unreasonable or so ego-driven as to think myself infallible. Or, leave me out of it – when you disagree with anyone, make sense. And give them the respect of answering their questions. Even if your target deserves no respect, if their post was so blatantly false/prejudiced/inane/mean-spirited that you feel justified in ranting, you are still better served by levying your disgust in a logical, reasoned, and respectful style. Do not lower yourself to their level. I used this approach with Ms. Clwseattle and she finally crawled back in the hole from which she appeared. For instance, I’ve asked Mr. Hughes to explain his ongoing statements that I’ve "said I was smart", "said I was smarter than him", etc. Knowing that such words have never, and will never, cross my lips or keyboard, I demanded proof from him. Never has he offered any, yet he still makes the accusation. Of course, I suspect disease to be the cause of Mr. Hughes’ disrespect, but that same technique is used frequently by those too stupid to persuade (can you say clwseattle, or Sher Zieve?). My point is that these techniques fool no one (unless they are just as stupid). They only serve to make your accusations ludicrous and you to look like a child repeating, "Yes, you are. Yes, you are. Yes, you are," with hands over their ears. As much as I love debate, I refuse to participate with these people any longer. As much as I respect the lessons learned from my mistakes and eagerly await the next opportunity to be shown my errors, I cannot deal with those who accuse without substance or evidence. So, Ms. Clwseattle, until you gain the intelligence to provide a sane rationale for your accusations, please direct your anger at the others in your kindergarten class – just don’t let the teacher hear you! ------------ About the author: Ron Lewis is a software salesman extraordinaire, albeit habitually unemployed, with no significant accomplishments at age 47 other than two wonderfully talented children who take after their mother. All his friends note his keen insight, bad eyesight, doggedly jaded disposition, and rugged bad looks. A third person seems to recall that he talks too much. Email: grnacres@direcway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
