Split from: Are you AFRAID to Post?

[MXGratefulDiver]

I am wondering if there is a difference between people who regularly defend a specific POV when reacting to an opposing POV and people who initiate their POV by making new threads or intruding that POV into an unrelated thread.

For example, as someone whose primary profession over the last 1.5 decades has been the development of online education theory and practice, I have often stepped in when people have made inaccurate and ignorant statements attacking online education in general. I have never initiated such a thread.

Does that make me a POV warrior for online education? Are people not allowed to react when someone else expresses a POV to which they are opposed?

Advocating a point is one thing ... being dismissive or attaching perjorative terms to someone who advocates a difference of view on that point is something else altogether.

People will only learn ... or even listen, for that matter ... when the perspective being offered is based on its merits, rather than on the perceived lameness of the other person's view.

I've never seen you take the latter approach ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Walter]

You forgot your [/drama] tag at the end.

Are you not able to answer the question? Other than tangle with those who wish to bash an agency (or more), who do I "war" with?

Damn Pete, once again you jump on others for doing exactly what you've done. When I read ScubaSteve's post, I thought to myself, that sounds just like Pete's PM.

 

[ScubaSteve]

NVM....figured it out.

 

[ScubaSteve]

You forgot your [/drama] tag at the end.

Are you not able to answer the question? Other than tangle with those who wish to bash an agency (or more), who do I "war" with?

Have you REALLY missed every post in this thread where several posters have indicated that you are doing exactly what you claim to be wrong? Do I really need to point out that by you calling people names, you are breaking the very rule that you claim to be upholding.

 

[The Chairman]

I can think of a couple, Pete ... your views on tables vs dive computers ... and your rather vocal perspective on anyone who still considers stand-up training to be a valuable way to teach scuba.

Really Bob. Have I ever suggested that tables rot your brain? Has someone asked a question about how to do something and I jump into the discussion with: "If your instructor had only taught you how to use a PDC instead of tables..."

You are confusing impassioned opinion with being a POV Warrior. I enter these debates when that is the subject at hand. I don't attempt to steer other discussions back to them all the time. Someone recently asked in a thread about what can be found in a thrift stores and had a specific question about a tank. The first response was "You should re-evaluate your training..." Wow. Simply stunning.

While embracing new technology and techniques has advantages, it also has disadvantages that you very much refuse to acknowledge.

How does this make me a POV Warrior for PDCs? It's not that I am anti-tables. I just firmly believe that an instructor should teach their students to use the gear that they will be diving with. You won't find me turning every thread I am in into a discussion about this belief.

In that respect, you are as much a POV Warrior as I am, and I don't consider you one. When it comes to PADI though, which four peeps would you consider the most anti-PADI? Be honest, and no, you don't have to name them. Strong opinions are great, but the incessant bashing is not.

We had one user a few years ago who delighted in bashing Leisure Pro. Why? Because of their race/religion. You might have even been a mod back then. He quickly realized that we would not tolerate such bigotry so he changed his tack. Sorry, but we could see his subterfuge pretty quickly.

Well the bashers have changed their tack as well and have become more subtle. Rather than comment on what THEY teach and why, they wage a subtle war on training agencies and make people embarrassed to admit who they were certified with. It's a shame.

 

[ScubaSteve]

You are confusing impassioned opinion with being a POV Warrior.

Or are you? Is the other person confusing it simply because you make the rules?

 

[The Chairman]

Are you not able to answer the question?

Have you REALLY missed every post

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[ScubaSteve]

While the wording may be different, this is just a couple posts from this thread only that show what you seem to have missed. So Pete, the answer is NOT No....but thanks for trying to talk for me.

I agree completely. Calling people names like "POV Warrior" is counter productive.

... which only encourages others to consider perjorative terms an acceptable way to address those with whom they disagree.

I agree with Walter ... as the Chairman of the Board, you need to set a better example.

In some sense, we're all "POV Warriors" ... if we weren't, we wouldn't be here ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Not really, it's just that I believe it violates ScubaBoard's TOS.

Terms of Service (ToS)
This is a friendly forum based on mutual respect......insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here........there is never a reason to resort to personal attacks.




Attacking training agencies? I've not seen that. I have seen people express disagreement with the standards of some training agencies.

Attacking people who don't dive like them? I haven't seen that in years. There was once a little of that going on between the DIR and the antiDIR crowds, but that's long gone now.

I thought that was why the "Report Post" button was there.

Seriously, if "someone" calls you a "POV Warrior" that someone would be you, Pete. You're the only person I've seen use the term. When you use it, it is to attack people with whom you disagree. When you use it, you are doing the very thing you claim they are doing.

Calling someone a POV Warrior is bad. Misreopresenting how you use the insult would also be bad. I haven't seen anyone do that.



Using labels on people dehumanizes them. It's never a nice thing to do, even if it's only done to a few.

Pete, when I disagree with people, I believe I should either discuss the points with them or I should ignore them. I do not believe labeling people with whom I disagree is ever constructive. I've done it in the past, but it's always been a mistake. I try not to repeat that mistake.

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.



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

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)

Even a "slight" as you call it show the inability of people to "accurately" define the TOS. Look how much time has been wasted trying to show you how you are in fact what you are calling myself and others.......you are being called a POV warrior yet you refuse to see it. Tell me why I would waste my time trying to convince you of anything else. Time and time again you have proven that discussion is worthless.

I come back to the fact that you are going to interperet the TOS however you want and there is nothing that anybody else can do about it. Hey, it is your sandbox.....your right.

 

[The Chairman]

While the wording may be different, this is just a couple posts from this thread only that show what you seem to have missed. So Pete, the answer is NOT No....but thanks for trying to talk for me.

Steve,

You still haven't answered my question. WHAT am I warring for? If I am a POV Warrior, then what am I fighting for?

I get that when I point out a problem with most of the people you quoted that they merely throw it back in my face. That's to be expected and it fits their personality. They contend that I am a POV Warrior, and other than Bob, no one has told me what I am warring for. Who am I bashing? Who am I denigrating?

 

[DCBC]

Dude... you should practice what you preach with EVERY post. You don't, but you should! We would be a better forum for it. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of people who simply do ignore you. You do have some fans, but you could learn from Thal and Walter about toning down your anti-PADI rhetoric.

I made no comment whatsoever about PADI on this thread, or the original one. When anyone starts lecturing a person on something that's unrelated to the thread being discussed, they obviously have unresolved issues. Rather than sending me a PM to discuss these, Pete just decided to launch another attack.

I interpret that these actions are against the TOS and feel it's a form of bullying. I don't believe that Pete would speak this way in-person, but I personally don't find his internet manners or his interactions as "the owner" of this Board very encouraging. If anything, he should set an example, yet time and time again he enters the conversation with a chip on his shoulder and ruins the discussion. At least this seems to be my interpretation of the situation. I stand to be corrected.