Greg and others who responded to my post: My post was NOT asking Greg to apologize. It simply expressed an opinion of the tone of his post, most specifically where it said, "By the way, my questions are not rhetorical. They are meant to challenge your reasoning and I do expect answers aout of common decency and for the integrity of this discussion. I have repeated questions I asked you that you left unanswered so you have the opportunity to tackle them head-on.". The reason I thought it was rude is because it presents the writer as patronizing and supercilious and the person being addressed as someone who is being spoken down to. If I were to take the tone that Vickie Patterson recommends in her post when she states, "I'm so tired of being PC or being careful what I say, lest someone's feelings be hurt. Be adult, take what is said, learn from it, get over yourself and go ahead on." In that case perhaps I would simply be writing something to the effect "Cut the crap man" and get it over with. If this is how we see ourselves as interacting on a listserv then I would ask Vickie to lead by example. Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it. Incidentally, I bristle at the whole idea of being PC because I think it is pretentious, and puts the onus on correcting problems superficially, rather than addressing underlying and complex issues.
My apology to David was NOT made on behalf of Greg, but simply to call attention to the fact that as a listserv member I was not party to the tone the post took. At the same time, if I didn't say this before I enjoyed the content of Greg's post, and the discussion thread in question. I am with Ann on discussing things in an "open, honest way". But I also believe that the same rules apply here on the internet that apply in everyday life. If in everyday interaction anyone were to tell another person that (s)he was being given the opportunity to tackle issues, or that their questions were to challenge someone's reasoning. It would be reasonable to conclude that the person being addressed was somehow lacking in opportunities to tackle issues, or that their reasoning was deficient such that it needed challenging by the speaker. These implications made the tone of Greg's post personal in its impact, and seemed to be talking down to David and thus - rude. This was the underlying and basic point of my post to Greg. As for Greg's characterization of my post being rude, well if I am considered rude for calling attention to an issue of common courtesy - then so be it. However, I don't consider myself to be a self-effacing Canadian who is all "nicey nice" or anything along those lines. In any case generalizations about behaviour along national lines are an over generalization by any standard. As for vigourous debate, I am all for it. However, I tend to shy away from it here on the listserv because I have done so over the years, and find some of the issues that emerge are often the same ones that were discussed before in some form (even as far back as three years ago) on which I wrote quite vociferously, but now find I don't have the time to do so to the same extent as before. Hope that clarifies my position. Best, Biraj McNeely wrote: > Biraj, I appreciate your feedback, however I do not apologize for my post. > As Canadians, I think we do not deal well with vigourous debate. We must be > able to disagree and to express that disagreement without wasting copious > amounts time gingerly and indirectly avoiding a point we are trying to make. > > Rude? I think you are demonstrating to our American friends one of our main > collective strengths and flaws. As I said above, vigourous debate is not > rude. It is healthy and necessary. We must communicate directly and not > expect people to interpret our implications correctly. > > Yes, I do believ it is expected that we will answer each others questions or > directly explain why we are not. Yes, I couched my demand for answers to > unanswered questions with a provocative term to elicit a response. They > were serious and fundamental questions that were essential to the > discussion. If they were not answered out of a simple debate strategy of > letting them fall aside and be forgotten, the I challenged that head on. > David is obviously a very intelligent person and he rose to the occasion, > which I expressed my respect for and appreciation of. > > I take no offense to your post, but I will say that it was at least as > "rude" as mine. Thank you for that. Decorum and short term courtesy, to > me, is a close second to truth and resolution of problems. > > I once had a classmate who had to come late to a class when I was studying > Carpentry (not OT). He sat down beside me and asked what the teacher was > talking about. I said I wasn't sure. He replied "and your sitting here > like a dummy and not asking". That was pretty rude of him to say, but he > was exactly right. I was wasting my valuable time by not asking a necessary > question. That situation has helped me to obtain clarity when necessary. > As human we make mistakes and employ unpolished dialogue sometimes. To > remove a tumour, often an incision must be made. The incision in isolation > is extremely threatening/damaging, but in context it far outweighs the > damage caused by the tumour. (David, I am not saying your post was > cancerous by the way.) > > If I am wrong, rude or otherwise, I will apologize, I have no misconceptions > about being perfect. But if my writing style offends you, I guess you > probably shouldn't read them. > > With regard to your apology. David seems to be a pretty capable and > understanding of a vigourous exchange of ideas. I won't presume to try to > dictate what you should do about your apology. Feel free to apologize on my > behalf anytime. Sometimes I mess up badly enough that I feel I do need more > than me to apologize for my foolishness. Perhaps the next time I say > something stupid that offends my wife I could call you to apologize on my > behalf as well? As a matter of fact, would you mind sendin me something > typewritten that expresses your sincere apology on my behalf with your > signature on it, but leave the reason blank so I can photocopy it and use it > on various occasions that I may make mistakes. > > Take care, > Greg > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Incandescent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:02 PM > Subject: Re: FIM - OT/ PT and who gets there first > > > Hello All: > > > > This has been an extremely interesting discussion thread and I am really > glad > > that David (Dr. Lehman) has been contributing to it from a PT perspective. > > However, and I say this with due respect to Greg - in my opinion the tone > of > > his long post was extremely sharp, and if I may say so quite rude. > Perhaps it > > is just me, but as someone who has been on this and other listservs for > some > > time now I don't think anyone is obligated to respond to each and every > aspect > > of someone's posting. And even if a response is required I don't think > the > > person seeking answers or responses need couch it in terms of an > expectation of > > common decency. I think we are all entitled to disagree with others > points of > > view, regardless whether they are OTs, PTs or whoever it may be. But I > don't > > think we need to attack anyone and chastise them for not responding to our > post > > in every detail. > > > > I think David has been extremely gracious in his reply to Greg's post. > > Certainly, I am no authority on netiquette, but I did feel offended > reading > > Greg's post and for this reason I would like to apologize to David, and > want him > > to know that his opinions are valued and respected, whether I agree with > them or > > not is altogether a different matter. > > > > At the same time I would like to say that I do not mean any offense to > Greg > > either, however I am calling it as I see it. Hope you won't mind this > feedback > > Greg. > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > Biraj Khosla > > OT - Reg. - (Ont.) > > Canada > > *********��*********** > > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > ** List messages are archived at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > *********��*********** *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ** List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] *********��***********
