>perhaps you can't understand that some people find you intimidating.
>This intimidation prevents them from sharing their own opinions and
>knowledge for fear of verbal retribution.
 
I think that is a valid point.
 
Actually, I think that since no one can get into anyone else's head
it's pretty well impossible to know how wording may backfire.  Something
which feels humorous to a person who just point-blank accepts an argument
could easily cause someone else to feel condescended to, intimidated, or
insulted, ESPECIALLY if that person has something to add to the
discussion but fears being slugged.  IN that way it limits discussion and
everyone suffers from the loss of important information.
 
I recently found that someone thought that a general statement I'd made
was directed against him.  It confused the heck out of me and I worded my
reply badly due to that confusion, but he really did feel that way.  It's
pretty well impossible with thousands of folks here to know what can be
taken a different way than it was meant.  (BTW, I did later send an
apology if I inadvertently somehow caused that hurt, though it still
confuses me.  Both of our sets of feelings are valid ones.)
 
For that reason I do NOT think that it is appropriate to say to someone
that a person wasn't being condescending, because that statement itself
ALSO negates the person's rights to her own thought, opinions,
conclusions, and feelings.  I've heard from others who found some of the
wording both from the original poster and from the person who replied to
her to read that bad way, and I did myself question some of the words and
phrases used in my own head when I read them, though I avoided saying so
till now.  (The reason I am saying so now is because it seems that folks
are negating others' rights to their own feelings.) It can sometimes be
best to be more careful than many of us (including me) are here on-list.
It's very hard to know how things which may be seen as a joke among those
who are in agreement might instead truly hurt -- sometimes badly hurt --
someone who would otherwise have a very important new thing to add to the
discussion, or who might be doing an alternative approach which is every
bit as safe and good.  As a result, it deprives everyone, and does so
needlessly.
 
Roger and I were actually recently discussing a related topic privately.
I was telling him how I tend to hate it when folks call me an expert on
the list, and he agreed from his own viewpoint with further additions
to why it can be so very bad to have folks automatically accept what an
"expert" says.  I live in very true fear that if folks think that and
take what I say for granted that I may word a thing badly, or be unaware
of new research or of related research that changes approaches and
outcomes.  Even a typo could be dangerous *IF* a reader doesn't then say,
"Well, that sounds interesting *SO I WILL CHECK ON IT*."
*****NO MATTER WHO IS TALKING FOLKS DO NEED TO CHECK WHAT IS SAID.*****
 
The idea of "expert" can be very dangerous because it leads too often to
blank acceptance.  There are so many points that it are so easy to miss
in any argument or discussion.  For example, the fact that complex
starches and simple sugars are treated so differently as Linda Iroff who
does have a related advanced degree pointed out yesterday, or that the
temperature that different foods are cooked at affects how the body
treats some starches as pointed out by a write-up of Tom W. who has a
doctorate in that topic, or that glycemic indices vary among starch types
as was incidentally pointed out in materials from ferret-specialist vet,
Jerry Murray in the fish quotes on the omega fatty acid discussion.
CHECK!  VERIFY!  DO NOT ACCEPT THINGS AT FACE VALUE, especially when a
person is speaking outside his or her area of expertise.
 
We are all human.  We all miss very valid points, we all have less
info than we could use -- especially outside our individual areas of
expertise, etc.  *****No one here has the infallibility of a god or
even of a demi-god, so CHECK, VERIFY, LEARN, ADD, and BE FRIENDLY, and
always know a hypothesis from a fact because by definition a number of
hypotheses -- even ones that look very promising -- will fall flat on
rigorous testing.*****
 
*****There are too many things that alter arguments when folks don't
check for accuracy, and there are too many things that alter arguments
when folks accept things at face value and thus fail to see how wording
that can be insulting or demeaning can reduce the chance to acquire
important pieces of any puzzle -- which would have increased
accuracy.*****
[Posted in FML issue 3949]