Is there something specific you object to in what I did in that thread?

It has always been clear that you, Greg and DuWayne (and I suppose a very few others.)have this way of communicating (in the “meta-strata!”) that is exclusive of the rest. I imagine it feels nice and everything but “obnoxious as hell” doesn’t really come close.

Enjoy yourselves.

Well, and also because I have a comment in there about the fact that I was deliberately reflecting tone back at the people I was talking to. You may feel differently (and have every right to), but I think it’s worth noting that I didn’t ever get carried away in that thread. Everything I did and said was calculated. Nothing written in anger. It’s obnoxious as hell and should probably carry a warning label, but it’s as much a meta-conversation as anything else. Or at least it was for me. I noted a couple of times that that was what I was doing, but I think only Greg and DuWayne joined me in the meta-strata.

Only kidding.

A lot of that thread ended up being about the culture of Pharyngula, as told to us by people who participate in that culture (or at least a subculture?). (It made me realize that there is a third stakeholder at the the table in the “civility” discussion.) I think there is a way of conversing/arguing that is exemplified in that thread, and that is highly developed in that culture (but obviously not originated there) and that is a perfectly good way to communicate if people want to.,. Such a strong willed in your face way of arguing may not always be welcome, and people need to realize that if they are told to shove off by someone who does not want to hear it, that they need to listen.

(learning to take what one dishes out is also not a bad idea.)

So I don’t want to denegrate knock down drag out repartee if people have fun doing that. And I want people who wish to engage in that sort of discussion on my blog to feel like they can do it.

However, I really do think that there is a fundamental flaw in the method, if the method really does involves (as it seems at least for some) insisting on manufactured post-hoc meanings and won’t stand for correction in that regard. It’s great to have the objective to come to the table knowing you are right and to fight it out no matter what else is said. Nobody worth their salt on the debating team ever changed course in mid debate. But the kind of conversation I am talking about here is a very very different thing. There are no winners, and even having oine person at the table who wants to be the winner makes it impossible. That is probably why most (all?) of my conversations like this are priave and one on one.

The pleasure and productivity of this approach has been proven to me time and time again during my various roles as teacher, advisor, and mentor. It is probably not the only way to do it, but …

Besides, Greg asked people to come here and comment on this post. Now you want me to go back there?

Man… ask a simple question.

Greg,

I enjoyed this post. I believe it to be totally sincere.

After witnessing the back and forth in the thread that apparently led to this post, though… I wonder how you and Stephanie would rate yourselves regarding the above quote. And how you would rate the others. Did anyone live up to this sentiment?

I hope to be that secure and in that good a place when I grow up.

I hope everyone can.