|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I've opened a new thread simply because I'm trying, so far as is possible, to isolate what - to me, at least - is a basic but important issue from any specific disagreement or particular individual.
The semantic distinction between discussion and debate is unimportant; what we do here is talk to each other about a wide range of issues of every description from the banal to the profound. In the nature of things disagreements will inevitably occur - the board would be far duller if this didn't happen. In my view, what matters is that the participants do not resort to invective and insults. Disagreement, of itself, is not in any way harmful - quite the reverse, in fact, since it makes each of us reconsider our thoughts, words and actions.
There are other message boards - some now closed in consequence - which have a sad history of flames, rudeness and generally crass behaviour. That hasn't happened here, substantially because of Timmy's sensible stewardship, but a line of some sort needs to be drawn and consistently applied.
I am making this fairly lengthy post because I would like to explore the issue in some depth in the hope of achieving some clarification, but one significant objective is to look dispassionately and impersonally at the disagreement which has occurred in the last few days. Timmy says that he asked us to be dispassionate, but instead he got 'all sorts of hidden vitriol'. I have read and re-read the posts in question, and I accept that things were said on all sides which perhaps would have been better unsaid, but on the scale of dangerous substances I think we are closer to sodium bicarbonate than to sulphuric acid! If the conversation had taken place in a pub, I can't see that anyone would have walked out as a result.
Timmy said in his most recent post on the 'Dryer' thread: "Because the angry behaviour persisted after I had asked for posts in this thread to be made unemotionally I stopped caring about rights and wrongs. That they are important to the participants is clear, but the behaviour has nullified that in my eyes. I thus no longer care."
I still think that this is a dangerous statement; to cease to care about right or wrong is, I suppose, the ultimate rejection of morality. I can see why Timmy is irritated, but I think that even the use of the word 'angry' overstates the issue. I am also unhappy about the implications of the use of words like 'squabbling' and the allusion to a schoolyard. This was NOT a major falling out, but a disagreement between adults - and, in the main, the exchanges were not unreasonable. The implied comparison with children taking sides and picking fights was at best unfair to those involved.
From my own standpoint, my years of management responsibility and the mistakes I have made and from which - I hope - I have learned have taught me the folly of criticising with a broad brush. Nothing de-motivates people more than being collectively criticised for the sins of a single individual. Hence, I am not at all happy with a blanket injunction which
may or may not apply to me. If I am being criticised, I want to know that 'I' am the subject of criticism, so that I can react accordingly. I do not use the suggestion of leaving as any sort of mantra; I will never again leave of my own volition, but when included in a blanket criticism I need to know whether my approach to the forum continues to be acceptable.
There have been three occasions when leaving has become an issue. The first was in May 2002, when after off-board discussion with several other posters we decided to leave because we had been told to abandon a discussion without explanation beyond the fact that it was upsetting someone. I do fully appreciate Timmy's difficulty here. He provides a lot of off-board advice and encouragement to a lot of people who need and benefit from his help. Someone presumably contacted him by e-mail, saying that they found the content of a particular thread distressing. Timmy prohibited further discussion on that thread. A difficult situation, as I am sure everyone will agree. I doubt, however, whether the reaction was in the best interests of the complainant. The complainant could of course registered under a pseudonym and expressed his view in the thread in question, or he could have asked a third party to do so on his behalf, or he could have simply avoided reading the thread - any of those options would, in my view, have been preferable.
Because I had enjoyed participating in the discussions, I continued as a regular, if not daily, lurker. And so it might have continued, but for a post about the killing of a Brazilian in London in the aftermath of the tube bombings. I felt so incensed by the presumption of 'facts' which were actually unknown, that I resumed posting on 25 July 2005. In parentheses, I have to say that some of the presumptions made by others have proved to be distressingly perceptive.
I resumed regular posting, and in December Brian appeared upon the scene. From his first arrival, I felt an affinity with him in terms of sense of humour and general outlook on life. I did my best to make him welcome, and to 'have fun' in our exchanges, but in February of this year there was a post suggesting that our relationship was in some way inappropriate. I had always regarded it as a 'grandfather - grandson' sort of thing - which might explain some more recent postings - but on that occasion I felt that I couldn't continue to hold up my head in this community without assurances (which I received in huge numbers) that my integrity was not in doubt.
This time the situation is even simpler: I don't see that I have said or done anything inappropriate, and I certainly don't feel able to give any sort of undertaking that I would not do the same again. If that's acceptable, I certainly won't go, because I enjoy this place too much, but if it's not acceptable I don't see that I have a choice.
In short, I repeat my conviction that this is the best gay forum on the internet. I want it to stay that way, and I appreciate that there are occasions when moderation is inevitable - but I insist upon being treated as an adult rather than a naughty schoolboy.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Establishing Standards
By: cossie on Wed, 10 May 2006 01:59 |
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
|
|
|
Brian, you have nothing to apologise for ...
By: cossie on Wed, 10 May 2006 02:30 |
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
By: marc on Wed, 10 May 2006 04:58 |
|
|
Hmm
By: Deeej on Wed, 10 May 2006 09:55 |
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
By: timmy on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:02 |
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
By: JFR on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:32 |
|
|
A little clarification seems in order.
By: cossie on Thu, 11 May 2006 01:20 |
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
By: kupuna on Wed, 10 May 2006 23:12 |
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
|
|
|
Re: Establishing Standards
By: timmy on Sat, 13 May 2006 09:40 |
Goto Forum:
[  ] |
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
