What we say and how we say it

[Beavah]

Some recent quotes....

 

After readying many many of [name]s post, I am very confident that my Troop when I was Scoutmaster was more boy run than any troop he will ever lead.... from what I read, [he] doesn't understand heart of the program, only the written facts and details. I remember reading somewhere, I don't remember where, that Badon Powell had the same worries and problems with adult leaders. Many of them were very self-serving and there wasn't any real solution to prevent it.

*****

This is the third time that you have insisted that the two programs "have basically the same mechanics," but you never respond to the "written facts and details," do you? Perhaps if you debated the details rather than bragging about your superior "understanding of the heart of the program," you would not have to fashion such purely personal attacks in your attempt to say something hurtful.

*****

I dont trust you [name], because...

*****

Excuse me, but what a bunch of hog wash!

*****

[Name],....All of that is explained in the SM HB - again I ask, do you even have a copy?

*****

What you are doing is called "projection," [name], or as kids say "It takes one to know one." .... People should be asking themselves "Why exactly is [name] so obsessed with [name]?"

*****

Hmmmm, cheap shot, but I'll answer anyway..... [2 paragraphs of puffery].... Maybe now we can move on to something other than questioning my reading ability.

*****

[name], Congratulations on your large collection. Me, I go for quality, not quantity.

*****

 

 

FRIENDS AND FELLOW SCOUTERS,

 

I had promised to come back occasionally on forum courtesy. I offer the above quotations as a sample, with the simple question

 

Are we living Scout Spirit the way we want to?

 

And, if not, what will we do in the future to do better?

 

 

I would suggest two simple things. The first is to avoid you and name. Its just too easy in print to read those incorrectly as addressing a person, rather than an argument or idea. When we find ourselves slipping into a public version of BLANK is wrong or YOU blankety blank", its a good flag to cause us to stop and reflect.

 

The second comes from tracing back some of the heat to a posters very reasonable request for help with a troop issue she was struggling with. This was a response she got:

 

Start by telling this problem Scout the truth: a BSA Troop is NOT "boy-led," it is adult-led. BSA adults do not believe in B-P's Patrol System, so they took all the evaluation powers away from the Patrol Leaders and gave them to themselves. BSA leaders call their Patrol Leader powers "Adult Association."

 

I didnt read this as a helpful or friendly response to the question. It seemed to me to be (at best) more appropriate as an invitation to a row over in the issues forum, eh? Others must have read it the same way I did, by their responses, and the thread departed from there.

 

Even in da issues forum, the difficulty with proposing theory from BP or anybody else is its way too easy to misinterpret words or have them viewed through different color glasses. And, too, whenever any of us proposes one right way or that all "BSA adults" believe something, its bound to raise the hackles of everyone else who has been successful doin it another way. Heck, I have a hard time even suggestin' there's more than one right way, because people read that as a personal criticism.

 

Id suggest that its easier to say Heres how Ive done it/seen it done, and how I think about it. Thats an invitation to someone to consider an idea from your point of view, rather than a statement that the theory demands a particular action. For example, I would love to have Kudu describe his real-life troop and what exactly he does to live the BP way successfully, and where he struggles. That does a lot more for me than quotin books, new or old, in a quest to claim "authority" over a topic.

 

I freely admit Im personally not always da best at that, especially when someone else starts out with one right way. So I will join the group in tryin to do better.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

Not a problem Beavah, I'll take my 2 paragraphs of puffery elsewhere.

 

Happy Scouting!

 

Stosh

[evmori]

I've always been one of those "I ain't dancing around, I'm going head on" people. And that is usually the way I post. If I don't like something or I think you're full of horse stuff, I'm gonna tell ya. Is that not being courteous? Maybe. But it is being honest.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[CA_Scouter]

Beav, it it was 'what we say' things would be much different around here. Lemme explain...

 

The problem here is the anonymity of email. Persons feel emboldened to write things in an email they wouldn't dare say to your face. I get this all the time at work, and I'm sure many of you all do too. Its just too easy to flame someone via email when you don't have to look them in the eye when you say it.

 

I'm all for Beavah's suggestions, and many moons ago I posted these same or similar comments here as well. We are all Scouters and should be courteous and kind.

 

Ed, I understand where you are coming from, but in my mind it doesn't excuse being discourteous. If you had a scout violating one of the Scout laws, you would deal with him on it, so the same should apply to the adults.

 

oooh... I feel a scoutmaster minute coming on....

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I have always chafed at someone telling me how I am to express myself. I thought that was the biggest knock against Political Correctness. That in trying so hard not to offend, the message gets lost. Ed and I have had several disagreements over many issues, but I know with Ed, I never have to wonder "What does he mean by that?" I know. That is not to say one has license to be crude, obscene or vulgar either. One can call a spade a spade without calling it a @!#%!? shovel.

 

We had a poster here who often said that a poster's message was as often conveyed by his style as well as what he said. I think that to be true.

[evmori]

I'm not gonna call a pig a swan. I will tell it like I see it. I'm that way in person, too. I was always taught honesty is the best policy. Sometimes, ya gotta toss diplomacy out the window! And ya always have to toss political correctness out the window!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[BadenP]

Beavah,

Have you ever thought about being a minister, eh?

I admire your approach your scouting, even though you can pontificate at times as much as Eamonn, just kidding. Honestly I like people to be themselves rather than being dictated to as OGE suggested. I am sure all of us can be kinder at times, but we let our emotions take over instead. Quite honestly though it really does liven up the conversation, a little debate is good once in a while.

 

Beavah, keep up your movement for more integrity in our posts.

[Beavah]

I admire your approach your scouting, even though you can pontificate at times as much as Eamonn, just kidding.

 

Yah, thanks there (I think) .

 

Seriously, though, I'm an old dog and the net is still a new trick. So if yeh catch me soundin' pontifical, send me a private message with the quote. It's hard to "hear" your own typed words da way others hear 'em, eh? And I could use the feedback more than anyone.

 

Besides, I certainly don't want to get as bad as Eamonn :).

[gwd-scouter]

Being a female, I suppose most people expect me to be a bit more circumspect in things I say, but I'm afraid I'm a product of my parent's very stoic and formadibly honest upbringing. Most people (especially here in the South) are a bit put off by my blunt manner.

 

That being said, one of the greatest compliments I've ever received was from one of my best friends and most ardent oponents in almost every area of debate - "at least with Karen, she's honest. You may not like what she says, but at least she gives you the opportunity and has the forbearance to hear your side. Most of all with Karen, what you see is what you get."

 

My husband says he'd like that put on my tombstone.

 

 

[Eamonn]

"even though you can pontificate at times as much as Eamonn,"

"Besides, I certainly don't want to get as bad as Eamonn"

Who ME??

Pontificate?

Hey!!

I thought I was wrong once -But I made a mistake!!

Eamonn.

 

[AntelopeDud]

Geez Beavah, and just who do you think you are dictating morality - telling us how to act and how not to act.

 

Just Kidding Beavah ...

 

I have to agree with Beavah. This is a great place to agree to disagree and have discussions with different points of view. But being polite is being polite. Sometime, I cringe to think what our kids would say if they read some of these posts, which I know some of them do.

 

It such a great place to bounce ideas, but I have seen personal attacks that aren't fair and cause me to take a hiatus from the forum from time to time.

 

-AD

[fgoodwin]

Incivility Creep(s)

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2114711,00.asp

 

When it comes to what's wrong with the Internet, incivility is second only to spam (you idiot).

 

By John C. Dvorak

04.16.07

 

Don Tennant, editor of Computerworld, missed the mark when he left the "s" off the title of his recent editorial, "Incivility Creep." It should not be about creeping incivility but about the creeps who seem to relish it. In fact, when it comes to what's wrong with the Internet, incivility is second only to spam.

 

This became a topic of debate recently when the unique blogger and insightful savant Kathy Sierra got what she interpreted to be threats on her life in various comment forums. Why she got these in the first place is a mystery to me, since she is strikingly inoffensive. But she did, and because of these threats, she canceled a public appearance at a Tim O'Reilly event. In response, O'Reilly declared that there should be a blogger code of ethics . . . as if that would help. (Check out O'Reilly's draft of his Blogger Code of Conduct.)

 

Nastiness is an earmark of many bloggers, podcasters, and members of the herd; a few insane people; and those who feel that being an out-and-out mean and profane presence on the Internet is cool or funny. The level of nastiness that floats around the Net in various forms, forums, and Web sites is incredible. When O'Reilly first proposed his rules of the road for bloggers, I thought it was silly at worst and wishful thinking at best. Nothing would come of it except a debate and various columns like this one and the one from Tennant. The thinking is that once all this is brought to light, maybe people will rethink the way they act online.

 

It's hopeless. Nothing will come of it. After the Kathy Sierra thing blows over, the meanness will continue unabated, with all sorts of dispossessed and borderline psychopaths blowing off steam online in one way or anotherusually by calling people names or being hypercritical. This seems to be a reflection more of society as a whole than of the psychological problems of a few individuals. There are too many people who go online searching for validation of their life choices. Anytime they run across anything that questions or counters their decisions, they see it as a personal attack, and they'll often strike back, attacking the perceived "enemy" in a personal manner. It all seems so ridiculous, since these people likely don't know each other at all.

 

Tech columnists like me run into this all the time from computer-platform adherents such as Mac users or Linux mavens. The worst of the lot always seemed to be the old Amiga folks, who were generally over-the-top fanatics. The fanaticism seems to worsen during moments when a platform is waninga permanent situation for the Amiga. The users lash out at anyone they think may be contributing to the demise of their beloved platform. Validation is what they are looking for, nothing else.

 

At the end of the day, all this online invective becomes like a high-school debate over Ford versus Chevy, with nothing really hanging in the balance. The world of computing wouldn't change drastically if Linux took over the desktop or the Mac supplanted Windows. Of course, at this stage nothing can change too dramaticallythe market is too huge and slow-moving.

 

But the fanatics see a faster pace and threats all around them, so they lash out in every way they can to protect themselves from the dreadful possibility that they made a wrong decision or are wrong in their thinking. Online this phenomenon covers everything from politics to platforms, from restaurants to restrooms. I myself get irked when one of my favorite restaurants is condemned by a reviewer. The guy is obviously an idiot, and I might write that down as a comment.

 

Aha, there is the problem. Long ago it actually took effort to do that. Now you click "comment" and type your response before you even realize that you are the idiot for letting the review get to you. Maybe you are protecting the restaurant, the OS, or the Amiga, but can you do it without calling the reviewer an idiot? I doubt it, since I'll probably be typing the same thing myself. Of course, I'll be "Charles T. Williamson III" when I do it. And I won't be including death threats.

 

But no matter, the whole thing is hopeless. Let's just go back to work.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Coming in third is probably copyright infringement.

[SWScouter]

Touche Merlyn. What an idiot. Scouting really is for wooses now that those morons got rid of skill awards. Now I feel better. Oops I didn't mean to click on submit...

[scoutldr]

One of my favorite people was Harry "Give 'em hell, Harry" Truman. He said, "I don't give people hell...I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell!"