Inflammatory emotional charged phrases

[Dr. Shane]

From what I understand, they now have the 4 alledged bombers that didn't get it right. Now these 4 alledged bombers may have information that would be useful.

The US has been accused of sending suspected terror suspects to other nations that use torture in order to get information out of them. So with a tongue-in-cheek style I made the comment that the UK could ship their bombers off to Gitmo (a US base) to get information out of them. Get it? The UK could ship them off to a country that uses "torture" - that country being the US. Hahahaha.

It's not so funny when I have to explain every detail <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Clio]

For someone who is very concerned about inflammatory phrases, I find Shane using them consistently. And it's very concerning because I have come to the conclusion that he is often inflammatory and judgemental on purpose. I would love to be able to place him on ignore, be certain he can't read posts in private forums and so forth, but it's not possible because he's a moderator.

I can give a current, and specific example. In the "Meat Thread" started by David McQueen, there are some interesting health topics inherent in his original question. Shane responded and tagged this phrase on to his response.

Quote:

---

for those Christians that wish to dispose of the Old Testement.

---

The only thing lacking in this pointedly inflammatory statement was someone's name and quotes around Christians. And no here needs them because of his consistent and vocal judgemental attacks on other people's walk with True Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I don't think it's enough to list inflammatory phrases to be avoided. I think we need to remove inflammatory attitudes. It's not up to any of us to police anyone else's walk with Jesus.

And for the record, if all anyone ever was exposed to was the New Testament, and they walked it out to the best of their understanding, in sincere love and gratitude and praise, they will be saved. The New Testament is the New Covenant, given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews and is far far superior to the Old Covenant under which the OT writers lived.

Clio

[Jeannieb43]

You're right, Clio.

Inflammatory attitudes abound.

Sometimes even the Ignore button can't squelch them.

[Dr. Shane]

I have stated that if I offend anyone they are welcome to let me know so that I can reword things as not to offend anyone and hopefully avoid making a simular mistake again. I am curious why I am here being publicly rebuked when the matter has not been brought to my attendtion privately. Instruction on how to handle those that offend us are found in Matthew 18. [:"blue"] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more , that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. [/]

I am more than willing to reword my post if the time period has not expired.

[Clio]

Shane, what is so discouraging is that it HAS been brought to your attention over and over.

Bashing me over the head with scripture telling me how to manage this is not relevant. For one thing, you've had it pointed out to you before. For another, this was not anything done in secret or that anyone here would not have deduced on their own.

You have lots to say. And you put it out with great authority.

I will not stand idly by any more and allow you to be harsh, critical, sarcastic, and judgmental without saying something. To not say something is to condone your attacks.

I will not make generalized statements, but will support my point with specific examples each time. Perhaps after enough examples, you will recognize the pattern you put forth.

Much of what you have to say is of value. But treating others who do not agree with you, as you do, is verbal abuse.

You do not come across as a kind person, or one whom I would like to know in 3D living. I cannot put you on ignore, so since I can't ignore your words, I will no longer condone your harsh, judgmental words.

If the mods choose to censor me, so be it.

Clio

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I will not stand idly by any more and allow you to be harsh, critical, sarcastic, and judgmental without saying something.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

One thing we have pretty much agreed on is that the word "you" is an inflamatory, emotionally-charged word. I have been proof-reading my posts in an attempt to not use it. Often times in forums like this we type stuff off the top of our heads and it comes accross much different than it would if we were in person.

Those that know me well, like my secretary and others I work with, have told me I am one of the most humble people they know. I do have opinions and when I present them it is in a take-it-or-leave-it manner. My opinion is my 2¢ and nothing more. In my line of work I am often asked for my opinion but always present it in such a way that I invite the one asking for it to consider if he agrees with it or not. I do not simply conclude that since it is my opinion it must be right.

Now I am a sinner. I am not perfect. That means I need a church that welcomes sinners. I need a church family that will accept me as I am and help me grow spiritually closer to Christ. That means if I do not come accross so well in this written media, I need loving Christian brothers and sisters to help me along. I think constructive criticism in private will go a lot further than public ridicule.

Rest assured I have at no time tried to provoke anyone to anger. I am not a mind-reader so unless I am told what words are inflammatory it should not be assumed that I already know. Don't give up on me, God isn't finished yet.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

If the mods choose to censor me, so be it.

---

I wouldn't worry too awful much regarding moderators censoring you at this time...Usually, there is a moderator for each forum and since this forum has no moderator, it is up to each person in here to moderate themselves.

While I am not privy to the moderator's forum, having been one in the past on another board, I can guess what is going on. Granted, this is only rumor and I don't want to give any impression that I know something that is not there, but suffice to say [!], there is or will be some discussion on this matter within the moderator's forums. What is being said among the moderator's is anyone's guess. Trust me on this one little part....It is a goood thing that there is silience from them on this...

For all I know, I will be asked to leave for opening this can of worms...But I will have to be happy, if asked to leave, in knowing that this problem will continue to come up. I to wish to pass on to you all, that the Administration has been really generous in reviewing this in the past and seeks a welcome course for all concerned. They don't want to loose anyone, and troublemakers [such as the likes of moi] tend to leave of thier own violition after a few months of not gettting thier way or everyone complaining about them. I don't recall too many ever being asked to leave by the administration....

In Shanes case, I would not want him to leave. As much as I disagree with him, he does bring to the forum the other side of the spectrum and as much as I do complain about his tactics, there are points that are valid.

And from me, that should say alot. If I could only get Shane to be a bit more creative in HOW he says things, and not so lazy that he resorts to abusive "hate" language, and to improve his posts to allow us to understand when he is joking and when he is serious, it would go a lot further in the communication and the passing of ideas here....

Just my opinion...

[Dr. Shane]

Have you ever seen the A&W commercial where a guy is being interviewed and pronunces the boss's name spelled D-U-M-A-S as "dumb" "ass"?

Well that is me sometimes. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I can have a thick head and things don't sink in. For example, many here would tell me that "Bush Hate" was provocative. I disagreed with them that it was provocative because I hear it on the TV and radio all the time. I use it in my face to face discussions with liberal friends and none have ever get upset. In fact, they get a chuckle out of it. So when some on this forum told me it was provocative I thought to myself, "Yea, right".

However when someone said to me (I believe it was Brother Bravus) that it pushed his buttons, a light went on. Ok, I thought. If it makes you upset I won't use it.

Sometimes we can say something and the person we are speaking to doesn't hear what we are saying. That is why I have requested that if I offend anyone they can send me a private message and I will do my best to avoid doing it again.

Of course I expect I will still be able to disagree with others politically or doctrinally without being asked to "shut up". I believe it is just the way I sometimes write or the words I may use to express my opinion that rubs some the wrong way.

I also hope that all of us here can try to be equally considerate. I am not the only one at C/A that rubs a few people the wrong way. If we can't get along here, how are we going to do it in heaven?

[Clio]

Neil -

I do not object to Shane making his points. I do object to the way in which he makes them, with the added cachet of authority of moderator rights.

To appear to condone his harsh speech, as well as others who do so on this board is to appear to condone the slandering of True Jesus and His character. By claiming to be His and then treating others as they do through their language, they represent Him as being harsh and unloving.

Those who tend to speak harshly here are also those most likely to be trotting out Scripture and EGW in support of their harshness. The Bible and the character of True Jesus is in no way harsh. But their representation of it, in harsh, judgemental language presents it as such.

True Jesus is nothing like that. He met people where they were, engaged them as friends, and never attacked them. He healed them, met their needs, shared what He had, and taught through gentle parables, in word pictures anyone could understand.

He didn't berate, castigate, inflict sarcasm, insinuate, manipulate, or condemn.

He told us Himself, He came to save, not to condemn. How can we do any less?

I am going based on the assumption that Shane truly means well. But every time I notice he inflicts harm, I'm going to gently point it out, with an explanation as to why it's harm. He has good points that are lost to us because of their presentation.

Clio

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

However when someone said to me (I believe it was Brother Bravus) that it pushed his buttons, a light went on. Ok, I thought. If it makes

you

upset I won't use it.

Sometimes we can say something and the person we are speaking to doesn't hear what we are saying. That is why I have requested that if I offend anyone they can send me a private message and I will do my best to avoid doing it again.

Of course I expect I will still be able to disagree with others politically or doctrinally without being asked to "shut up". I believe it is just the way I sometimes write or the words I may use to express my opinion that rubs some the wrong way.

---

Fair enough Shane. I had missed your request for a private email. but if you put something hurtful out in public, expect to get challenged on it in public.

I do.

I have perhaps hurt your feelings in this and I am sorry your feelings are hurt. But ill-considered words can wreak more havoc, do more damage, and destroy more wounded spirits than anything else.

I hope you are not in that category, because you have much to say, and very valid points to make. It is your presentation, and resorting to harsh, critical, narrow-minded stereotypes that prevents some folk from hearing you.

Clio

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Intelligent Design does NOT solve the SDA dilemma

Quote:

---

I believe this thread is about Intelligent design and not the SDA dilemma.

---

---

Quote:

---

Many public creationist advocates are either (a) liars, or (

incredibly self-deluded.

Quote:

---

Maybe it is just me, but these seems to be inflamatory, emotionally charged language.

---

---

Since this thread is already about 'emotionally charged phrases, I thought that this belongs here rather than in the thread itself as it changes the tenor of the thread and places the thread at risk of becoming a 'tit 4 tat' free for all. And too many people really dislike it when a thread deteriorates....

Regarding the above comment....many times a poster will post an emotionally charged comment and the natural reaction, as exhibited above is the "knee Jerk " reaction, which causes a thread to deteriorate. It is best to ignore these commnets, if possible.

However, if one must reply to those comments, what is best in replying is to reply with facts and your conclusions, rather than another emotionally charged statement or saying that the above is "emotionally charged", as these type of statements tend to deteriorate the quality of the posting of the thread and side track [aka high jack] the thread. It is best not to flame people, but to post a calming reply..Remember the "a gentle answer takes away wrath..." or some sort of phrase....

And if SDAs are "absurd", at least, let's not be too absurd in our replys and fan the flames of emotional abuse...

[Dr. Shane]

Understood. Just to clarify, I was referring to the word "liar". In my experience, calling people liars is normally quite inflammatory.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Don't believe everything you hear on Fox News.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think we concluded that using the word "you" is inflammatory emotionally charged language. I hope we can play well together and avoid such words.

BTW: I don't believe everything I hear and only half of what I see. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I think we concluded that using the word "you" is inflammatory emotionally charged language. I hope we can play well together and avoid such words.

---

I am sorry, but this rule is a "cop-out" to the very principles that we are attempting to establish here. [i think that Clio suggested it, but YOU insisted upon it.] When problems arise, I suggest that you use an old conseling techinique that really seems to work.

It is advocated in counseling to begin dialogue with the words - " I really dislike it when you [describe the offending behavior]" because it makes me feel [describe how you feel].

>Shane, I really don't like it when you use the above

>sentence to your own advantage because it puts everyone at

>an unfair footing to discussing fair practices within this

>forum.

The above sentence where the {>} are preceding the sentences show a constructive way to identify the problem by the offended party. This sets up a structured dialogue and communication is what we are all about here, right?

I think that Clio would concur that using the word "You" is NOT in this case inflamatory, but rather constructive in sorting out the problem.

And Shane, for future reference, I will continue to use the word "you" in this mannor and NOT feel it is inflamatory. However, "you" will be concidered inflamatory if used in an accusatory sentence, as in "You are a jerk".

[Dr. Shane]

Actually in my business communications class that I took some ten years ago we were taught that one of the keys in effective communication is not to put the person we are talking to on defensive. So when others tell us what is inflamatory emotionally charged language to them we can either repect that and avoid useing such language or we can continue to use language to that offends them.

An example is the term "Bush Hate". I can either make my case why I don't believe it is offensive and not inflamatory or I can respect the wishes of others that have expressed to me that is offensive and inflamatory to them. If I am going to play well with others - I will respect them when they tell me what is offensive to them. I don't get to choose what offends them and what doesn't. They tell me and I choose to either respect them or continue offending them.

If one reads through this thread they will discover that more than one member finds the word "you" to be inflamatory, emotionally charged language. Now we can either respect those members and refrain from using it OR we can continue offending them because we think we are right. It isn't about who is right, it is about getting along with one another in a civil manner.

[Neil D]

Please note, I omitted a phrase in my last post. I think by adding this phrase "because it makes me feel..." is an important additive to the discussion.

[Bravus]

I accept the overall point you're making here, Shane, and agree with it, and am really impressed with how hard you've worked and are working on the whole 'plays well with others' thang - I'm trying to follow you in that example.

I think we do need a little context more than just the word 'you' though: for example, I used it three times in the above (sincere) paragraph of praise: presumbly that's not offensive!

[Dr. Shane]

Let's look at this quote:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Don't believe everything you hear on Fox News.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think it was Sister Jeannie that posted it but that doesn't matter. I honestly do not believe she was trying to offend me. However when we use the word "you" we can easily offend others even though we didn't intend to.

This quote makes ME to be the problem. The "problem" isn't whatever issue we are discussing. The "problem" is that "I believe everything on FOXNews". By using the word "you" we can easily come accross as if we are attacking the other poster - even when that is not our intention.

I think we have grown a lot in our communication and we just need a membership drive to get more in here participating. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

This quote makes ME to be the problem. The "problem" isn't whatever issue we are discussing. The "problem" is that "I believe everything on FOXNews". By using the word "you" we can easily come accross as if we are attacking the other poster - even when that is not our intention.

---

Hmmmm...that not how I took it...

I took it as a recommendation to YOU...and that the problem is NOT you, but rather the problem is FOX News...

Implied is that FOX NEWs has been feeding the public erronious misleading biased news to the public.

Which as an outlet for the Republican Party, is true

Now, if I had said that you bought it "hook line and sinker", then YOU would be a problem.....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Hmmmm...that not how I took it...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Thank you. You make my point well. When we use the word "you" others may not take it the way we do. While we may not be intending to offend anyone, others are often offended. Trying to explain to someone that has been offended why they shouldn't have been offended is often an impossible task. It can be much easier to prevent offending them in the first place when we know what is offensive to them.

The word "you" is often an emotionally-charged word - even when it is not meant to be.

Let's consider compliments, as Brother Bravus mentioned. Even in the context of a compliment the word "you" is emotionally charged. However in the context of a compliment they are positive emotions. Like when I say to Brother McQueen, "You are an asset to Club Adventist" that should cause him to feel a good emotion. While it isn't inflamatory, it is emotionally charged.

Our words are like dry leaves in the wind. Once they are out of our mouths we have no control over them. We can chase them around and try to control how others precieve them but we can never again gain control over them. So it behooves us to choose them wisely. When someone advises us of something that is offensive to them, that gives us serious reason to pause before letting the wind carry our words to and fro.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The word "you" is often an emotionally-charged word - even when it is not meant to be.

---

I am sorry to point this out to you, but this is simply not the case.

"Jerk" is an emotionally charged word..."Right" is not. By using the partical phrase "You are..." and adding either word, an emotional statement may or may not be created.

Basic communication is broken down into 3 parts...1]The sender 2] the reciever and 3] the message itself. At any point, communication can be broken down. The reciever and the sender each have thier own way of communication, that is, they have their own little phrases that have meaning to them,.... coupled that with non-verbal communication, and you can have lots of differing inuendo with those phrases. The sender and reciever can have emotional baggage that affect/disrupt the communication.

Quote:

---

Let's consider compliments, as Brother Bravus mentioned. Even in the context of a compliment the word "you" is emotionally charged. However in the context of a compliment they are positive emotions. Like when I say to Brother McQueen, "You are an asset to Club Adventist" that should cause him to feel a good emotion. While it isn't inflamatory, it is emotionally charged.

---

Past history of a sender can affect the recieving of a communication. Heavy handed compliments from a person with a past history of sarcastic or negitive posts can have a negitive effect. The use of familiar religious terms can also have the same effect, ie "brother".

Quote:

---

So it behooves us to choose them wisely. When someone advises us of something that is offensive to them, that gives us serious reason to pause before letting the wind carry our words to and fro.

---

While I can agree with the sentiment of this statement, I guess what I am wondering about is the intention of the sender when they let go with thier words. Is the sender out to build trust or pass information or seeking to put down? You can get that general sense thru the post, if the message is clear. If poorly worded, or not punctuated correctly, the message itself can be lost on the reciever.

Right?

Right!!!!!!!!

[Neil D]

I would like to point out some other tactics that are currently being used on this forum and others as well.

This post is on something called "social bullying" and it is defined as "aggression in which one poster or group of poster engages in unprovoked and repeated ...social or emotional harm against another over a period of time. Bullying differs from other forms of conflict in that bullies seek to gain power over thier victims. Because of this power imbalance, victims may have less abillity to talk with the bully about the problem and are more in need of intervention."

"Bullying is a continuum of behaviors that rages from name-calling to assault." While there is the physical bullying that is familiar to all, there is another type of bullying ..."Emotional/social bullying includes gossping, name-calling, publicly humiliating the victim, or convincing others to reject or isolate the victim."

"Bullys value aggression and the rewards that it brings, lack empathy, like to be in charge and are easily provoked. While some bullies may act out of feelings of insecurity or loneliness, it is incorrect to assuem that all bullies have low self-esteem and try to feel better about themeselves thru agrressive behaviors."

"Work to prevent bullying by:

# developing a clear, publicized, anti-bullying and sexual harassment policy for the" forum. " Take action immediately when an act of bullying or horassment occurs. Send a strong message that mistreatment of others is not acceptable."

"Help the bullies by :

#taking action immediately when an act of bullying occurs. Send a stong message that mistreatement of others is not acceptable.

#helping them take responsiblity for thier actions and understand the pain that they cause another person

# giving them positive, socially accceptable strategies for meeting tier needs for control and attention. "

[:"blue"]Adapted from the National Crime Prevention Council: Get the Message! McCruff's tool Kit to Keep Children Safe [/]

I have seen what I would term as "bullying" here on C/A. This post is for the moderators and administration to concider in dealing with bullying.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"Emotional/social bullying includes gossping, name-calling, publicly humiliating the victim, or convincing others to reject or isolate the victim."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is common among teenage girls <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

This is common among teenage girls

---

According to my wife, this is not just TEENAGE girls, but girls in general. AND boys are increasingly noted to be doing this as well.

And as I have observed, this is being done here at C/A by one or two posters.

[Michelle]

Neil--I'd say more than one or two!

M