maybe just a few names????
mild name-calling???
hee hee <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> That one made me grin ear to ear. The whole post I mean.
OK. Approved names: hosehead, dingus, dork, loser-boy.
If you must.
I know I am shooting your much larger intellect with my pea-shooter .. and I may have to resort to name-calling if I get frustrated
And your just gassing me with that one. There is no doubt in my head that you can go toe to toe with the best. You do have a quality that I highly admire - seeing to the root of an issue in an exchange. I seem to be able to only do that with machines and processes.
weaver: The reader holds any and all responsibility. What you are implying is that the reader is less than the author, so the author has to decide what to write on the basis of the inequality of the reader.
Highly arrogant.
Do they? I mean, yes, we can all choose to read or not to read. But this is NOT a book. A book is a guy who says "I want to write about this topic." So he does. Then a forward gets written, and some copy, and some summary in the jacket flap, and a review. And based on all this and the title, one chooses to read or not.
Here, someone asks a question, and many people write responses. Yes it is written, but more akin to a conversation, albeit not in real time.
At your job, if the new hire comes up and asks a question about something that you are, or near, a subject matter expert, would you say it is appropriate to respond "What are you, stupid?" Or something equally flippant?
If the peers, or cronies are hassling the "new guy," well that is one thing. But if the "go-to" guy (as espoused by everyone else in the organization) does it, well that just kills morale. Isn't it more like that here? Even if the "go-to" guy THINKS it is a really stupid question, it is a bad idea to voice it in such a way. Kind of defeats the purpose of bringing the new guy up to speed.
Even in the book analogy, you may call it arrogant, but how do you know it just isn't choosing your audience? The decision may not be made on inequality, but on knowledge. I frequently adjust what I write in my job based on the audience. Although that is from consideration of knowlege base, and not evaluation of intelligence.
1. who are the some ?
and who decides who some are?
2. what does careful look like? I am not being sly, I do not know what you mean ... careful to what?
3. how do you measure impact on a message board?
And this is where the NCWalker machine breaks down. Just as you (weaver) were likening this (the board) to a book, I was likening it to a conversation. Where in reality, it is somewhere in between.
The
some would be those who are called out specifically for advice. When you are ASKED for advice, the asker has already lumped you in a "different" category.
You know, the threads titled "Help JL, WAT, etc." Well in that instance, the initiator has already assigned (at least in their minds) special significance to JL and WAT. Who knows why?
I have no idea what
careful would look like. Perhaps not hasty. But how many times to you re-read before you submit? That is an excellent question. And mind you, I don't mean to imply that Pep does this all the time. I think it is rare. Which raises the question does one then meter "care" with "effectiveness." That's scary ground. How many hospital patients do you ignore to give the best overall care to the most people? Quick road to the value of a human, that one. Sorry Pep. Don't have an answer for you.
And measuring
impact is impossible. Because it is NOT a conversation where you can watch for widening eyes, intake of breath and the like when you are talking.
I knew this would happen. And I didn't follow my own advice. I did some feeling and mistook it for thinking. I know how her post made me feel.
But lets reverse the logic. The topic on the "Everyone's opinion counts..." at the top of the list touches on being respectful to each other.
Well if the full responsibility is on the READER, then why that rule?
If the reason is because it is not nice to be hurtful, or anything else with an impact, CAN we measure that?
I'll have to think about that. I am not sure if I can resolve the two differences. I mean, the general consensus on that thread is for the writer to "be nice and courteous." All I am saying (I guess) is be considerate of what the others are feeling.
With a twist -
some probably should be more careful.
Are we REALLY going to stand up and take party line and say EVERYONE'S words carry equal weight?
Wonder if piojitos would agree with that.
Longhorn hinted that we can't always cow-tow to making people feel good. And I agree. And I am sure he would agree that there is a difference between not cow-towing and running roughshod on someone.
But isn't saying EVERYONE'S words have equal value cow-towing? I am sure that INTRINSICALLY they do. But we each weigh what others say against who they are. As well we should. Doesn't that mean different values?
And I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick out the
some. There are those who have a consistently big impact. (We all spank out a rockin' post now and then). They would resemble - people who REALLY take time to listen, are most likely out of the mire of their situation and not bogged overmuch by personal feelings, have taken the time to read the materials and study them, and are practiced by giving frequent advice.
Is that really a surprise to anyone, or am I the only one willing to say it?
Granted, we are not counsellors. But we didn't just fall off the turnip truck either. You don't learn everything by degree (study, I mean).
If I had to pick between Pep, or JL, or Mel (well, maybe not Mel as the TX euphamisims would be a little much for my delicate sensitivities <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) and a just graduated psychiatrist where I am his first patient and he hasn't even had the corners on his degree crinkle type individual, well I would pick the former. Degree not withstanding.
Are we REALLY saying ALL the responsibility is on the readers here? Sure, what the reader DOES with the information is fully their responsibility. But is it NOT incumbent on us to consider them when we post? Isn't that kind of how we are to get along? Why is this impervious to stratification?
But here is the rub. And it REALLY sucks. None of the
some have asked for it.
Pep is right in this - you just cannot measure
impact. Look. She posted something that really bothered me. My internalization was "that's not like Pep." And it bothered me. I mean, not to the point where I am going to shun her or anything, it was like hearing a nun curse. She did not meet my EXPECTATION. But it was my EXPECTATION.
And to bring up my OWN point, about identifying the some as those who are specifically asked for help, well in the instance where this ocurred, I wasn't asking.
My estimate, without the research, would be that, and for wont of better wording, I'll just say "misinterpretations from the heavy hitters" occur far less in those circumstances.
I just don't know, friends. I think maybe we loose sight of what is going on sometimes. This place isn't a coffee shop where we are discussing daily tidbits. There is a lot of pain and a lot of fragility.
Do we hold
some responsible? I don't really see how we can. But for some strange reason, it hurts more when
they cross us.
Perhaps it's because we love them so much.
Sorry. Kind of lost where I was going with this. Food for thought though.
NCWalker
