My, Joli.  For not wanting to start a thread of "attack and defend",
it sure seems like you're itching for a fight.  Well, congrats.  You
got one.
 
>I honestly didn't mean to start a thread of "Attack and Defend Bob C."
>My intent was simply to point out that derogatory remarks are not
>conducive to objective discussion.  I observed silently a recent...
 
Similarly, I'm not attempting to defend Bob.  He can do that quite well
himself.  Instead, I am crying foul at the tendency of some list members
to automatically take offense at the slightest hint of impropriety.  We
need to stop reading offense into every post.  If you yourself were not
offended, why did you post?  There's a name for that, and it's called
"fanning the flames".  Whether or not Bob's comments were proper,
pointing out the opportunity for offense was unnecessary.
 
>thread in which Mr. Church participated and I witnessed the posts
>degenerate into him maligning and insulting the second party (who,
>I might add, remained dignified and respectful throughout).
 
It's been my observation that many on this list consciously or
unconsciously choose sides and thereafter see what they want.  It's
rarely so clear-cut that one side is "correct" and the other "in the
wrong".  It's clear to me by your use of this example that you're
*expecting* Bob to cause offense; you're looking for it.  That pretty
well supports my argument (keep reading).
 
>Unfortunately, much useful knowledge was lost because of nothing
>more than his evident inability to refute an argument without
>becoming abusive.
 
Again, you see what you want.  Once again, I am not trying to defend
Bob but remain *objective*; I have seen several others attack Bob's
every post with unsubstantiated opinion.  Is that constructive?
 
>I was hoping a repeat of that incident could be avoided this time.
 
Then why call attention to it?
 
>Bob Church has a wealth of knowledge that we could all benefit from, if
>only he knew how to share it instructively instead of destructively.
 
Ah, sage advice.  How did a few closing comments detract from the
knowledge imparted by that article, praytell?  Furthermore, when a person
is repeatedly attacked for posting, what do expect but response in kind?
Have you notice that there are very few vets who are members of this
list?  The ones who have joined in the past have gotten tired of the
occasional vet-bashing that goes on.  Rather than respond in kind, they
left.  Perhaps on that basis we should praise Bob for being thick-skinned
enough to stick around.
 
>Since you felt the need to defend his tone, however, please allow me to
>point out the flaws in your argument. :)  You stated, "Shoot, *I*
 
Oh, yes, please do.  Let me point out again that I am not defending Bob -
I am protesting the propensity to take offense at the slightest comment
around here.
 
>ability[.]"  This is true, BUT (and it's a big BUT lol) you left
>out the rest of Bob's comment ("or perhaps the basic ability, to
>safely maintain their ferrets on a homemade diet") which DOES in
>fact flat-out state exactly what you said it did NOT imply.
 
Oh, then let me point out the flaws in *your* argument.  Pardon me for
not feeling the need to dissect Bob's words one by one the first time
around.  First, you will note that the two phrases are joined by an
"or".  "Lack of disciple" does NOT imply lack of ability, nor does this
statement explicitly say it does.  That little "or" makes the two phrases
exclusive.  Second, consider how many list members frequently complain
about chronic pain, or back problems, or confinement to a wheelchair or
bed.  Consider how many members are not so vocal who have similar
problems.  I would certainly say that many of those people "lack the
ability" to do many things.  This is not a mark of shame, nor is this a
reason for offense.  This is simply a fact of their lives.
 
I am maintaining that Bob's words were not intended to be inflammatory
at all, but that you are finding offense there because you *want or
expect* to.
 
>Furthermore, you completely ignored the second comment of his that I
>found to be inflammatory rather than objective.  Why is that?  Could it
>be that his statement, "As far as I am concerned, if you can't have your
>preconceptions challenged without getting angry, you are too immature to
>debate anyway" was such an inflammatory comment that you couldn't bring
>yourself to call me "touchy" for objecting to it?
 
Did I?  Did I completely ignore it?  Since you seem to be so interested
in word-smithing, perhaps you will have noticed that my first comment
included "and I am MATURE enough not to take offense".  Perhaps I did not
call explicit attention to the comment, but I certainly alluded to it.
Should I point out once again that I was not attempting to defend Bob's
every word, but was instead discussing some members' tendencies to take
offense at anything and everything posted?
 
As far as it goes, I happen to agree with him on this.  I'm a bit tired
of reading the angry rebuttals that follow his posts, simply because
someone's preconceptions have been challenged and they choose to take
offense rather than objectively defending their position.  *I* don't see
the comment as inflammatory in that regard, except perhaps to those it is
intended for in the first place.  However, those who refuse to have their
preconceptions challenged will not be picking up any information from
these posts anyway - so nothing is lost after all.
 
>What you did was use partial quotes out of context to make a point.
>Unfortunately, you also seem to have entirely missed MY point;
> "DEROGATORY REMARKS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO OBJECTIVE DISCUSSION."
 
Oh yes, very adult remark there.  Simply because I did not wish to write
a thousand word essay on the topic, I am "using partial quotes out of
context".  I ask you to substantiate that remark.  I did not explicitly
answer every one of Bob's words, true.  At risk of repeating myself once
more, I was not defending his words - I was answering your offense.
However, you claim I took words out of context.  You have not
substantiated that claim.  What was the original context and what context
did I use them in instead?  This is typical of the word-twisting that
goes on on this list.  Since I choose to disagree with you, I must be
ineffective at argument.  I must be missing the point.  I must be missing
the context.  I quite well understood your point the first time, thank
you.
 
And I counter that you have entirely missed my point.  I do not believe
the comments were meant to be inflammatory, but you *choose* to take
offense at them because you expect them to be.  If you will, I take
offense at your offense.  THAT is MY point.
 
>I was not offended, nor did I take personally, what Bob said.  I am
>simply VERY interested in learning more about the topic and feel that
>a MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL atmosphere is the best environment for an open,
>honest dialogue.
 
Then why the hell did you respond in the first place?  Attacking his
closing comments, whether they were proper or not, hardly seems like
MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL behavior to me.  If your admonition was needed at
all, it could have been handled off-list.
 
>As a matter of fact, I began acclimating my own ferrets to live feeding
>months ago, as evidence from other sources convinced me it's ...
 
Good for you.  I agree with you that it's the best for them.  I have
not yet gotten so far with mine.  They aren't done rearranging my life
for me yet.
 
>Ok, I'm done beating the poor dead horse LOL.  Thank you for taking the
>time to express your opinion and listen to mine.  Please feel free to
>email me privately if you wish to continue this discussion.
 
Unless BIG calls foul, I'm afraid it's a public matter.  I am (again)
responding to the tendency of some members to take offense at the
slightest comment.  This is not a "personal attack against Joli", but
a general comment.
 
Here's my admonition to the list.  If you see an opportunity for offense,
read the rest of the posts.  Then and only then come back and reading the
offending message again.  If it still offends, ask yourself what you have
to gain by responding.  If you still must respond, ask yourself whether
you are personally offended and can reply privately or whether it really
requires a public post.  Put yourself in the other's shoes and realize
that what we may *read* as offensive is most often not intended that way.
 
Finally, for what it's worth, let me point out that attacking a person's
ability to argue is not "objective debate".  The first time you say "you
missed the point", you have left the realm of the objective and have gone
straight into the personal.  If you want an objective discussion, answer
the person's arguments, NOT his or her words, intelligence, or beliefs.
 
roger & the fuzzies
missing bear
 
[Moderator's note: Well, I AM about to call foul -- it's a little silly
for people to be arguing about Bob C's intent when Bob C. himself is on
the FML and perfectly able to defend himself if he chooses.  Let's cool
down on this topic and enjoy Bob's posts for the info they contain even
if some people question his methods.   BIG]
[Posted in FML issue 3947]