Over the last while I observed, that discussions got into a pattern of ending in personal remarking, discrediting the integrity of members.
I want to share my views on this phenomena.

There are essentially two things which can be discussed:
Facts and Opinions.
If I state something, I say,: this is fact, not opinion.
Statements describe facts like: B. did,,that,,.
Statements are up for discussion, and if someone can show evidently, that B. did ,,not do that’’, we all can learn by widening our knowledge.

Opinions are my own judgmental views, of which I can change/ dismiss/ hold onto, for whatever reasons, or without reason. I also can chose to not have an opinion on whatever matter. These opinions can be discussed.

This all sounds pretty straight forward and should not lead to any personal frictions.

The problem starts, when opinions are presented as facts, but not clearly earmarked.

Then, if that:’’fact’’ is shown to be nonfactual, even to the point, that the opposite is fact, not only the truth has come out, but also the pretence of the former, where the member has called something a fact, which in reality was an opinion/ view held . And suddenly the whole discussion becomes a personal issue of : I am wrong/right. IE. A case of survival—

It seems that the polarity good –bad has entered the discussion on the issue of true-false, in a way: trueth=good, non-true=bad, person speaking the truth=good person, person speaking lies= bad person.

To bring back the discussion in non-polar mode it would be necessary for the person who called something a fact without being so, to come forth and admit the mistake, ie re-instate creditability.

If, instead of that, the member who made the misconception evident is attacked personally by the member at fault, then the discussion becomes meaningless.

A good moderator sees these things and would recommend the cause of action, necessary to bring the discussion back into non-polar mode on the personal levels.

In my view:
---history creates facts, but the opinions of our wishful thinking don,t change them.
Our interpretations do not change the information they are based on. The Organon does not rewrite itself according to our own wishes.

---It will always be an incomplete and cumbersome undertaking to form an opinion from hear-say, on face-value, believe, and then afterwards try to back this up by facts. It is --in my opinion-- much easier to gather first all relevant factual information and then place an opinion on it.

Any views on the subject for a more positive tone?

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath
homeopathy study guide: http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity....hy-study-guide

I think we should follow the example of Native Americans. Before speaking they say to ask: 1) Is it truthful?; 2) Is it kind?; 3) Is it necessary?; 4) Is it helpful?.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Thanks Shirley, good advice!

Snoopy

Hi,
A friend told me some time ago that, when she became Queen of the World, she was going to pass but one law.......everyone must be kind. Thought her somewhat simple minded and fanciful at the time. Not about the Queen thing but the kind thing. How could I ever be kind to people who did.........but wait......if they lived according to the new Queen's Law, they wouldn't be doing the things that make me so unable to be kind! Decided I'd vote for her next time the Queen of the World position has an opening.

Shirley, re your Native American example.......would #3 really have to be part of it?

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

Yes, #3 must be a part of it. This is the reason that when they live according to native tradition, they are not prone to idle chit chat, gossip or catty remarks. My son in law is Apache and he can be very quiet, but he also explains that necessary includes small talk if that will help relax a person or saying things that are appropriate to the time and place. If you went to a cocktail party and didn't share in the 'small talk' you would be a poor guest. So 'neccessary' has to be interpreted in lieu of the circumstances.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

To kindness I would add respectful, though perhaps that is already implied. I began my career enamored of deep psychotherapy and abstract theory, and remain so. But with this as my foundation, it amazes me that I have had some of my best, even sweetest successes in therapy through the 'simple' tactic introducing "good manners": if a family is willing, and a strong enough kernel of love remains, this means simply changing the "family culture" by eliminating insults, and adding words like 'please and thank you' and the like, habitually, every day. This can make an amazing difference in their relationships, and from there in their individual sense of well-being.

One other thing: a strong message is not made weaker by kindness; a weak message does not carry more weight by being spoken in an insulting or sarcastic manner.

I confess, as some of you know already, to being pretty sensitive, or oversensitive, to negative remarks - perhaps a reason why I value kindness so highly. Beyond that, however, I believe that most people, even professionals with whom I strongly disagree, are well-motivated, believe in their work, and can point to successes in their practices that I would be pleased to have counted as my own. Even when I'm right about a case, it doesn't mean someone else, with another point of view and another methodology, could not have also been 'right,' that is, could not have also had a good outcome with the same patient.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

bwv11

See, if you really think about the simple little word "kind" it covers everything. You wouldn't have to be "mannerly" because it's built into "kind". Mannerly could be false but kindness can't be. The things that most infuriate me in the world are generally about animal cruelty. If "kind" was law, I wouldn't have anything to be unkind about anymore! No one would beep the horn the moment the light changed, or before the light changed.....just think about it. No one would be pretentious nor lord over others. No one would steal, lie, interrupt, say malicious things behind another's back. We wouldn't condemn another for not understanding our view or say they hadn't answered according to point. No one would step on a bug. No one would pollute the earth. No one would drive gas guzzlers or spray chemicals on food for it wouldn't be kind to the earth. No kittens would be homeless. No terrorism. We wouldn't even have to work on civility, politeness, holding the door....it is all covered by that one little word.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

Hey Snoopy, come on down to sunny south Jersey and I will fill the house with leaves, just for you. Actually, I do do that. (How's that for an intelligent sentence?) I bring leaves and branches in the house all the time, to put in the house squirrels cages! Please don't think these poor animals are confined to cages all the time, they are allowed to run loose in the house (supervised!).

You would not step on a bug, I know you wouldn't! Cockroaches are different. They will inherit the earth, you know. Where is Leo these days? PBS just isn't what it used to be.

Excuse me, all, for being just a bit silly, I'm coming out of a funk and will revert back to my usual, reserved self very soon.

Hans, this was an important topic and I am sorry to have turned it otherwise. Forgive.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

Pals!
If we analyse, the questions that lead to mud slinging and name calling debate, arise from questions put up by certain quaters only. the questioner is generally well informed and probably comes up with such questions just to provoke. I guess its easy to identify such questions from the way it is posed (bold typeface -seeking attention) and the usage of words.(many will read between the lines) and WE GOT TO AVOID THESE PITFALLS, the questioner when ignored will repeatedly beg a reply in a very 'trumphetous' manner.
By the way, if i am not mistaken the Rotary International have adopted the native american saying that shirley is referring to.

__________________
Here is the test to find whether your mission on earth is finished: If you're alive, it is'nt.

I'm afraid I would be the one stepping on the bug.
Unlike Chris, I'm not truly accepting of flying cockroaches.

I sure miss Leo Buscaglia.

Snoopy