Split from: Are you AFRAID to Post?

[DCBC]

Honest concerns and meaningful discourse are never a problem. The problems start when two things happen:

1) when exchanging stand points begins to substitute meaningful discourse. (in other words, all talking and no listening).

and

2) when one or both parties are not willing to reconsider any aspect of their point of view regardless of evidence, sometimes very convincing evidence, that what they're saying is not accurate.

(and maybe #3): When the message becomes, "I am right and you are wrong and that's all there is to say."

In other words, absolutely no progress can ever be made about some issues because people have simply decided that they are right and everyone else is wrong, no matter what is said.

In that case, saying anything at all is completely pointless, isn't it?

I don't think that the discussion is off-topic. Post #1 of this thread introduced the term POV Warrior. The thread was placed in the Site Support / Feedback sub-group and titled Split from: Are you afraid to post. At no point did I start a PADI conversation, nor have I reflected anything negative about PADI on this thread.

To respond to your comments, talking and not listening in a conversation is not restricted to one side of the conversation. In-fact effective communication ceases when one (or both) sides to the discussion do this.

One party can feel their argument is ironclad and the evidence is overwhelming, while the other side feels that they have no evidence at all. If you are walking in a park in-which no motor vehicles are allowed and get hit by a car, I'm afraid you wouldn't listen to the police officer saying: "It couldn't have been a car, they're not allowed in the Park." You have direct experience and know better. "Evidence" including pictures of signs saying "No vehicles allowed" isn't evidence at all.

In this analogy, no one could blame the policeman for feeling that the pedestrian is mistaken, but you can't blame the pedestrian; afterall he was the only one that was there at the time. It would take more than speculation to change his mind. Times change, but failing indesputable evidence, it's logical for the pedestrian to think the potential is still there for him to be hit by a car, should he walk on that path again.

Having had some experience with various people on this site, it's easy to presume what they will say before they say it. I attempt to not jump the gun or bring up old conversations on new threads unless I'm attacked. It's too bad that some others don't feel that way. The height of rudeness is to talk about someone behind their back. We've had this conversation before, so I need say no more.

For better or for worse, Pete coined a term for people who do this. But him giving it a name doesn't change what's happening. It just gives it a name. That's all.

I gave making-up names for people who disagreed with me in grade 3.

 

[Walter]

I'm not a mod so I probably lack wisdom in these matters but could this be moved to the instructor forum?

It has no place in the Instructor to Instructor forum.

For better or for worse, Pete coined a term for people who do this. But him giving it a name doesn't change what's happening. It just gives it a name. That's all.

The ironic part is he is blissfully unaware that he is the biggest offender.

You know, Walter, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

What is inaccurate about it?

Wow. Sounds like a threat! Who's the bully? This effectively ends our discussion.

bul·ly   [bool-ee] noun,plural-lies, verb,-lied, -ly·ing, adjective, interjection
–noun
1.
a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Ah, come on Pete, that is obviously not a threat. Pete, you and I have had lots of heated exchanges here on the board, but we've never had a single cross word in all the many, many times we've been face to face. That's the concept to which he was obviously referring. You are a very different person face to face than you are online. I've been told I am as well. I don't see anything threatening in what he said, I see that he would expect your manners to be close to perfect, as they always are, in any face to face meeting.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Nothing is black or white unless you make up the rules and can interperet them in a way that suits your own needs.

EDIT

I will clarify that me referencing this applies to not just SB.....since I do not believe the "name calling" part of the TOS is being applied evenly, I just felt it fit.

 

[The Chairman]

Ah, come on Pete, that is obviously not a threat.

Funny, but he did not disavow that publicly or apologize for any misconception when he had the chance. Consequently, I have taken precautions to keep my interactions with him to a minimum.

 

[The Chairman]

EDIT

I will clarify that me referencing this applies to not just SB.....since I do not believe the "name calling" part of the TOS is being applied evenly, I just felt it fit.

This is indeed true. Mods are not allowed to edit posts that criticize me or call me names. This excludes obscenities, but most of those are auto censored out.

If a person steals and you call him a thief, are you calling him a name or merely labeling him?

If a person lies and you catch them in it, are thy not a liar?

If someone wages a constant assault against an agency are they not a basher?

Perhaps you think stealing, lying and bashing are acceptable in today's society and we should not point out these types of behaviors. In reality, they harm our community and need to be dealt with. That entails pointing out the POV Warriors.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I have refrained from getting into this Pete because Walter has been saying all that needs to be said. You will not see the light as others do so it boils down to "Do it your way or bugger off". I will follow along and simply agree with everybody else on this topic.

This is indeed true. Mods are not allowed to edit posts that criticize me or call me names. This excludes obscenities, but most of those are auto censored out.

If a person steals and you call him a thief, are you calling him a name or merely labeling him?

If a person lies and you catch them in it, are thy not a liar?

If someone wages a constant assault against an agency are they not a basher?

Perhaps you think stealing, lying and bashing are acceptable in today's society and we should not point out these types of behaviors. In reality, they harm our community and need to be dealt with. That entails pointing out the POV Warriors.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

If a person steals and you call him a thief, are you calling him a name or merely labeling him?

I had someone call me a thief not too long ago because of his views on how I use my time at work.

Was he calling me a name or merely labeling me?

Depends on your point of view.

Pete, whether you care to admit it or not ... you very much fit your own description of a POV Warrior. There are way more constructive ways to disagree with someone.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Chairman]

You will not see the light as others do

I'll agree with this, and note that I enjoy a completely different perspective on the community as a whole than anyone else in this thread. As for "My way or bugger off...", I am sure that the lack of that attitude is reflected in the number of users we have here.

 

[ScubaSteve]

As for "My way or bugger off...", I am sure that the lack of that attitude is reflected in the number of users we have here.

Yes but Pete, like it or not, not every user is treated equally so this is not entirely true.

 

[The Chairman]

Yes but Pete, like it or not, not every user is treated equally so this is not entirely true.

How are they being treated so differently? I think the slights are more imagined than real. So spell it out.