Inflammatory emotional charged phrases

[NormF]

couple of observations ...

I considered weighing in on this thread early on, then thought better of it. Glad now I didn't. The rest of you have motored on quite nicely without me. For example, years of being on the receiving end of counseling have convinced me of the importance of "I" statements and owning my feelings, and avoiding "You" statements, especially the ones defining the way I'm "thinking" for you or labelling you. You <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> have figured that out very well indeed. There's probably a message in this for me.

The exploration of inflammatory and perjorative words is another - what they are, what makes them so, and why context matters. Again, just fine without me.

Looks to me like this thread deserves a long life; it's already developing a fruitful one. Shane, in my book, your honesty is contributing hugely to that. You started it, and difficult though it may be, you are following through with what you proposed to do. I say three cheers!

parting thought ...

Bravus mentioned Westerns a while back. Reminds me of a famous line from the Virginian. It involved an inflamatory, oft-repeated word, in the West, and in the world in general. I shan't repeat it, but the Virginian's reply to Trampus' use of it was dead center on the mark:

"Smile when you call me that, mister."

Am thinking that if nothing else that's probably a call for greater yet use of emoticons here.

Regards,

Norm <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Looks to me like this thread deserves a long life; it's already developing a fruitful one. Shane, in my book, your honesty is contributing hugely to that. You started it, and difficult though it may be, you are following through with what you proposed to do. I say three cheers!

---

The long life of this thread goes to....Shane?????

Excuse me...But what am I? Chopped liver????

Thank you so very much for the pat on the back, Norm....I appreciate it.

[cricket]

Here's a partial score: Shane 22, Neil 16.

Good job, Neil!

[Amelia]

Dont you think this has gone on long enough? It's a draw. Can I close this thread now?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Dont you think this has gone on long enough? It's a draw. Can I close this thread now?

---

I don't think so, Amelia...

There are some things that are being done and discussed here.

Plus, I am attempting to point out that there is a type of post that actually mirrors bullying that is occuring in this forum. I am attempting to point out that this sort of thing needs to be pointed out and discussed, both for the victim of bullying and for the bully.

[Dr. Shane]

Would this be bullying?

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

You have just legitamized the reasoning for Japan's expansion of it's empire that eventually lead to the bombing of Pearl Habor!

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

Or is that just mischarachterization? Or perhaps an honest statement by someone who really was confused <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

What about this?

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

Still legitamizing Japan's rising sun empire, I see.

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

Or is that just more confusion <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Oh and by the way... don't forget to smile and not take things so seriously <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

There is a phrase about dishing it out. It goes something like this: "[Fill in someone's name here] sure can dish it out, but [he/she] can't take it." Generally this phrase is in reference to name-calling, poking-fun-at, bullying and the like.

Sometimes, when one takes to leading by example, others fail to follow: all the while those who should be following complain that there is no leader.

And, sometimes, even when a neon light jumps out of the page and hits the reader in the face, he/she fails to read it and just picks up the work where he/she left off.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Would this be bullying?

Quote:

---

You have just legitamized the reasoning for Japan's expansion of it's empire that eventually lead to the bombing of Pearl Habor!

---

Or is that just mischarachterization? Or perhaps an honest statement by someone who really was confused

---

Shane, it was a statement. It was looking at your principles that you had expoused and applied them to other wars. In this case, your princple was that to go to war for oil is a legitament reason for authorizing action against another country. Granted, you were talking about the US, but I applied your principle to Japan and found that it also legitimizes Japan's agression during WWII.

It was a logical application of your prinicples to another country. Hence, you legitimized Japan's entry into expanding it's empire from the Island that it currently occupys to the forages into China and the pacific Islands.

[Neil D]

OTOH, this is bullying....

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Have some respect for yourself and the rest of us, Neil.

---

I am gonna ask for help here. Someone tell me ... does the above come accross as a bullying statement? I am probably too close to this to be able to say so I am asking for help here to decide if this is a bullying statemnet

---

Dream sequence:

Mommy, mommy! He told me to respect myself!

Why, the unconscionable bully! How dare he?!! You don't have to respect yourself if you don't want to, no matter what some cruel bully says to you.

End dream sequence.

---

[cricket]

LOL

[NormF]

It appears to me that you're a little piqued at the moment, Neil.</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Thank you so very much for the pat on the back, Norm....I appreciate it. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

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

... And first here, I'll grant you, there's that word "you" in there in my opening line. My point above in this thread was that I thought Shane was coming from further back, so to speak, with a longer, harder row to hoe than you. Yet, in my opinion, despite that, he's doing good work in this thread. For that, I think he deserves an attaboy, maybe even two or three.

I realize that left you out. Why did I do that? Well, for starters, at this point, it seems to me that we could do well to all take the best of Shane's efforts and emulate them in our own doings. So I concentrated on that. And too, Chrys is not out in left field with her color analysis (to steal a sports' line). So he got the call so to speak, and I didn't mention you.

So now what? Let me put it this way: I feel uncomfortable myself with some of the posts I've read under your nick in this thread. Perhaps because I expect more? ... I dunno. Whatever... However, I'm willing to let that pass. Why so? Because I've seen many other posts of yours that are really commendable. I like reading them. I don't think those discomforting posts are typical of you. It's the good ones that are.

To me it appears that when the heat of the fray cools, your vision widens and your rhetoric cools and you write some pretty good stuff. Those strongly worded posts of yours are the exception, not the rule. And I think that's the overall tendency too - they keep getting better, the heated ones fewer. Realizing that that's the case, I'm willing to wait it out, knowing "this too shall pass." In fact, so you'll know, I've repeatedly supported you privately on this very basis. And I'm likely to continue defending you too, unless you turn on me now and try to lift my scalp or something. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I guess what I'm trying to say is I like you, enough to go out on a limb defending you. Including here and now. I don't think you'll let me down. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now then, Amelia... Please be patient with us; we will sort this out. It's just, sometimes we play a little hard, that's all. OK? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> And thank you for not pulling the switch yet ... really. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> This is not an easy topic, but under the circumstances, I still believe some real progress is being made.

To all of us, let's keep our eye on the ball and focus on where we want to be: good writing that we can be proud of. You know, "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed"?

Regards to all,

Norm

[Dr. Shane]

I hope all my little graemlins revealed I was using humor to make a point. I didn't take Brother Neil's posts as those of a bully. However someone with thinner skin could have.

I would caution against accusing anyone of being a bully as it will only serve to put them on the defensive. When someone hurts our feelings, we can simply say something like, "That post hurt my feelings. Please try to use more sensative words to convey the message."

[Neil D]

Just so I don't spoil the thread, I brought your reply over here, Ed.

Quote:

---

When requiring someone to be respectful--to himself-- becomes "bullying," we've gone completely through the looking glass.

---

Ed, in reality, what type of sentence is "repect yourself" except as a way to put someone down. Surely, you, a writer knows this better than anyone. If you don't, let me inform you that I, at least, concider it a form of put down. Surely, as SDA brothers, you can respect my wishes in not putting me down, can't you? If so, what is the big deal in respecting those wishes? Is what I am writing here, so offensive to you, that you simply refuse to respect my wishes in no further putdowns? How could I have reworded it so that you would not take offense to that request and still maintain my self respect without groveling?

Quote:

---

I have engaged in neither name-calling, nor any type of assault.

---

I never said that you participated in assault on this forum. In fact, I specifically said that that sort of behavior is not in question. What I did say was that, according to the National Crime Prevention Council, and thier definitions, you were bullying. Bullying, according to them, specifically INCLUDES the emotional/social aspect of bullying,..that is, gossiping, name-calling, PUBLIC HUMILIATING THE VICTIM or convinceing others to reject or isolate the victim. Your posting regarding the dream was supposed to be humiliating, I suppose...wasn't it?

Quote:

---

Just declaring something to be so, doesn't make it so.

---

I agree, and that is why I provided quotes from the NCPC. and am now showing you where you are using tactic that are described as bullying tactics and saying to stop do that.

Quote:

---

You're attempting to make something look absurd, by your claim that the war was started over a single unmanned aircraft.

---

No, that is not so. But so as to clarify, Shane said that the plane was shot down and neglected to say that it was an unmanned aircraft. Later he clarified that the aircraft was unmanned. I used the absurdity of the statement to show that the origional reasons for the war is just as absurd as going to war over an unmanned aircraft.

Quote:

---

My dream sequence just pointed out that your claim of bullying is absurd.

---

hmmmm... Well, I took it as an attempt to humiliate.

Quote:

---

I've worked with legislatures, governors, universities, consulted with business. [snip] Look, Ed. I have pointed this out to you before, and others have also pointed this out to you before. If a person write like they got a chip on thier shoulder, and they put others down, and in general, act like a jerk, it doesn't matter if they are the nicest guy in the real world. In here, IF one act like a jerk, one is a still jerk. [please note, the "you" word is missing, deliberately]

Quote:

---

I'm happy to discuss the evidence and the logic concerning the Sheehan case, Neil.

---

The honest truth of the matter is that you come accross as one who is not happy. Perhaps I am misreading your posts and I have always said so, but you consistantly come accross as abrasive and deliberately out to humiliate others. As a Respiratory Therapist, I have several ways to achieve the desired goal in my therapy for a patient. Surely, as a professional writer and teacher and principle, you also have several ways of writing that can achieve the same goals, cant you? [i ask, because except as a writer, my wife is a teacher and a principal and has many ways to achieve the same goal in behavior. Surely, you have that ability too, don't you???] Then, I suggest that you loose the the abrasive and humiliation in each post. It would go a long way in begining to restore trust in you.

Quote:

---

But we have to discuss the evidence and logic coherently and respectfully, or there's no discussion. We can agree to disagree, or we can move forward, but simply shouting the same argument, over and over, is not progress.

---

I agree, and that is why I can not get past your posts that have the same arguement coupled with the humiliation and degrading posting.

[there buster]

Actually, you only brought part of it over here, and that not without running commentary from you.

Quote:

---

Surely, as SDA brothers, you can respect my wishes in not putting me down, can't you?

---

I have not "put you down," Neil, I have dissected your statements.

Quote:

---

Is what I am writing here, so offensive to you,

---

If by "here" you mean generally on CA, yes, some of it is quite offensive. But I have not taken you to task because it was offensive to me. I have taken you to task because it was, to use Mortimer Adler's phrase, "repugnant to reason."

Quote:

---

I've worked with legislatures, governors, universities, consulted with business. [a lot of self accolades removed]

---

Interesting characterization. And an interesting omission. on your part.They were not "accolades," since I never spoke of either praise or awards, only job assignments, which demonstrate my knowledge in this very field. You may not like them, but they are verifiable facts.

Quote:

---

Look, Ed. I have pointed this out to you before, and others have also pointed this out to you before. If a person write like they got a chip on thier shoulder, and they put others down, and in general, act like a jerk, it doesn't matter if they are the nicest guy in the real world. In here, IF one act like a jerk, one is a still jerk.

---

Yes, you keep making the same groundless accusations. I have not characterized your writing motivation (see, "like they got a chip on their shoulder"). I have not characterized your conduct ("act like a jerk"). You just did those things concerning me. Not only that, you moved beyond characterizing my behavior, to characterizing my existence. ("one is a jerk).

I may think you have written foolish things, but I have never presumed to declare you to be a fool.

Quote:

---

The honest truth of the matter is that you come accross as one who is not happy. Perhaps I am misreading your posts and I have always said so, but you consistantly come accross as abrasive and deliberately out to humiliate others.

---

The honest truth of the matter is simply that that is your evaluation (read "opinion"). I have neihter the desire nor the intent to humiliate you. If you are embarrassed by my analysis of what you post, quick remedy is at hand, and totally in your control. Indeed, that was the purpose of my exhorting you to respect yourself and others. If you write poorly reasoned and combative posts you should not expect to be exempted from opposition.

You speak to me of abrasive, yet you accuse me of bullying, which I have never done to you; you use the word "jerk" concerning me, which I have never done concerning you; you call me abrasive, which I have never done to you; you accuse me of things in fromt of others, including hijacking my posts over here and asking for a verdict for others; you accuse me writing abrasive words, yet your every post carries your sig line which equates George Bush with the personification of evil; you quote me out of context in the post I'm replying to; you characterize my recitation of work experience as "self-accolades," which language I have never used concerning you.

I have disagreed with you. I have demonstrated that some of your arguments are specious. In return you have accused me of many things, and attempted to brand me publicly.

I have no need to do anything but present the facts, and, as Paul said, "Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind."

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Actually, you only brought part of it over here, and that not without running commentary from you.

---

And your point is...????? This thread is to deal with the behaviors from various members of this forum.In your case, the bullying that you are doing. Since I did not want your obvious bullying reactions to taint the other thread further, I brought it here...an appropriate place. Don't you get sick of seeing a thread with a great discussion and with valid points go sour over the bickering over the "you said I said" scenerio? If so, good. Then we agree on something. If not, tough it out, Ed.

Quote:

---

I have not "put you down," Neil, I have dissected your statements

---

Quote:

---

I have not characterized your writing motivation (see, "like they got a chip on their shoulder"). I have not characterized your conduct ("act like a jerk"). You just did those things concerning me. Not only that, you moved beyond characterizing my behavior, to characterizing my existence. ("one is a jerk).

I may think you have written foolish things, but I have never presumed to declare you to be a fool.

---

Now the above is manure for your garden, Ed. Let me quote you from recent posts...

Quote:

---

If your neighbor kept dumping garbage on your yard, and had been doing so for years, eventually you would go to the police or to court, or whatever you needed to do to get relief. It wouldn't be for the last single episode, but for the continual violations.

This would be obvious to any 7th grader who wasn't just having a tantrum.

---

Here, you call me a "7th grader" apparently have a tantrum.

Quote:

---

Any 5YO can ask why? why? why? and refuse to credit the answer. It proves nothing about the evidence, but quite a bit about the questioner.

---

Now I am a 5 year old.

Quote:

---

Don't tell me what I need to do. I don't take instructions from those who refuse to accept basic facts.

---

Now I can not accept basic facts.

Quote:

---

I have neihter the desire nor the intent to humiliate you. If you are embarrassed by my analysis of what you post, quick remedy is at hand, and totally in your control. Indeed, that was the purpose of my exhorting you to respect yourself and others. If you write poorly reasoned and combative posts you should not expect to be exempted from opposition.

---

Now I write poorly, combative posts and now you have "NO INTENTION of humiliating me"...And yet you mock me-

Quote:

---

Dream sequence:

Mommy, mommy! He told me to respect myself!

Why, the unconscionable bully! How dare he?!! You don't have to respect yourself if you don't want to, no matter what some cruel bully says to you.

End dream sequence.

---

I have presented to you just SOME of the obnoxious bullying tactics that are defined by National Crime Prevention Council. They have said-

"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 assume that all bullies have low self-esteem and try to feel better about themeselves thru agrressive behaviors."

I have cut and pasted from YOUR posts, bullying tactics. Since you are so sure that you know what 'civil' is, I am AGAIN requesting from you to show some of that in posts directed to me.

[LynnDel]

Teacher with soft but meaningful voice:

I don't care who started this, but it has got to stop right now. You go into your corners, and come out when you're ready to apologize and get on with something important and worthwhile.

Teacher out.

LD

P.S. The principal's office is next.

[Stan]

LynnDel is such a 'keeper'

Rumors are, the Principal believes in corporal punishment, and calls the parent in...

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This would be obvious to any 7th grader who wasn't just having a tantrum.

---

Here, you call me a "7th grader" apparently have a tantrum.

---

No, if I wanted to call you a 7th grader, I would have said, "You're acting like a 7th grader having a tantrum." (See below, where you make the case that omitting "you" is significant).

I assume better of you. You are not a 7th grader, and I don't know whether you're having a tantrum. Since "it would be obvious. . .etc." I believed you were just being stubborn.

By the way, I have never characterized your posts as manure, either, which you just did to mine.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Any 5YO can ask why? why? why? and refuse to credit the answer. It proves nothing about the evidence, but quite a bit about the questioner.

---

Now I am a 5 year old.

---

That's as may be, but not any claim of mine. Your claim was that you kept asking the same question, without getting an answer. I simply pointed out that doesn't prove anything, and gave an example of how that is true.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Don't tell me what I need to do. I don't take instructions from those who refuse to accept basic facts.

---

Now I can not accept basic facts.

---

Yes, I made that claim and backed it with examples, as demonstrated. We can discuss that, but it's a long way from name calling.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have neihter the desire nor the intent to humiliate you. If you are embarrassed by my analysis of what you post, quick remedy is at hand, and totally in your control. Indeed, that was the purpose of my exhorting you to respect yourself and others. If you write poorly reasoned and combative posts you should not expect to be exempted from opposition.

---

Now I write poorly, combative posts and now you have "NO INTENTION of humiliating me"...And yet you mock me-

---

Quoting out of context is in fact a form of deception. I did not say you "write poorly." I said "if you write poorly reasoned posts."

Once again, if saying a statement is "poorly reasoned" is bullying, then every teacher I had in SDA schools from 6th grade on up was a bully, as well as quite a few of my fellow students in the Seminary. I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Dream sequence:

Mommy, mommy! He told me to respect myself!

Why, the unconscionable bully! How dare he?!! You don't have to respect yourself if you don't want to, no matter what some cruel bully says to you.

End dream sequence.

---

If you're going to make the outlandish claim that asking you to respect yourself and others is bullying, it's fair game for me to demonstrate that it's a ridiculous claim.

If I had said, for example,

"Mommy, mommy, he said my words were manure, and called me a self-congratulatory jerk," --

--my dream sequence wouldn't have been funny. That's the whole point. Real bullying, real name-calling, isn't funny.

Anyone reading this thread can see who used such terms.

Here are some interesting quotes:

Quote:

---

"Jerk" is an emotionally charged word. Source: Neil D. #184555

---

Quote:

---

Look, Ed. I have pointed this out to you before, and others have also pointed this out to you before. If a person write like they got a chip on thier shoulder, and they put others down, and in general, act like a jerk, it doesn't matter if they are the nicest guy in the real world. In here, IF one act like a jerk, one is a still jerk. [please note, the "you" word is missing, deliberately]

---

Why keep telling me ("I've told you before") unlesss you intend it for me? And with "you" missing, does your previous statement about the word "jerk" being "emotionally charged" become "inoperative?"

And here we have an interesting situation. If omitting "you" from the sentence absolves one person, why doesn't it absolve the other? The only places I used "you" was in "respect for yourself," and "if you write poorly reasoned posts."

And again, "If you write poorly reeasoned posts" is, by your account, bullying, but saying "if a person act like a jerk," is not.

Quote:

---

If I could only get [name removed so as not to compound the name calling] to be a bit more creative in HOW he says things, and not so

lazy

. . . Source: Neil D. #182596 (emphasis supplied)

---

I think most people would consider "lazy" emotionally charged. But if I read you correctly, you would prefer I call your posts "lazy" and talk to you about "acting like a jerk, rather than using the term "poorly reasoned." I doubt many would share that view.

If I had the time to spend on this, and access to some threads which have been removed from the public space, the case could be made even more clearly.

You can keep quoting committee reports if you like. I'll just keep quoting you.

And, please believe me, I have neither the intent nor the inclination to humiliate you. I appeal to you to let it go now.

[cricket]

[student from the back of the room raises her hand.]

Teacher: Yes, [fill in name of student here]. Do you have something to say?

Student: [in a whining, complaining voice] Teacher! The boys are doing it again. They're throwing things at each other in the corner and they won't stop whispering.

Teacher: Thank you [fill in student's name]. There will be no tattle-telling in this classroom.

Student: But...

Teacher: Now, now. You've heard what I've had to say in this manner. I will take care of it from here.

Student: But they're...

Teacher: Enough!

Teacher: [Calling attention to the boys in the corner.] Boys! You've received your warning. It's off to the principal's office you go!

[boys exit the room. Grumbling as they walk out the door.]

[there buster]

For you, Christine.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

By the way, I have never characterized your posts as manure, either, which you just did to mine.

---

Oh, this is classic bullying, Ed. Here, you state that I characterized your POST, ie the whole post and everything in it, as manure. Whereas, what I said was-

[:"green"] Now the above is manure for your garden, Ed. [/]

You forget that my wife is a teacher and a principle. She is on board with a program going thru the Oregon Adventist Education system that talks about bullying. We are NOT talking about the physical aspects of bullying, as I have stated so many times, but rather the bullying that is prevelant among girls and now gaining acceptance among the guys. It is one that is talked about in the NCPC, and it is called social bullying. I find that a lot of it happens here among SDA bulletin boards. The above is a good example of it. Overstating something in order to make yourself look good, in this case, you over characterized my statement. And in someways, you mistated me, implying that the WHOLE POST was foul. So, Let me make this clear...I never said your whole post was manure. I did say that the paragraphs that I had cut and pasted were less than truthful. [which was followed up with examples].

Quote:

---

If you're going to make the outlandish claim that asking you to respect yourself and others is bullying, it's fair game for me to demonstrate that it's a ridiculous claim.

---

So, are you willing to say that tellling others, in the midst of a discussion, to "respect yourself and others" is a form of putdown? A type of eroding the self-respect of others? I do. Except for those who are mentally incompetant, who does NOT respect themselves? [Rhetorical question here]. So, in light of what I have said here, I expect a clarifying answer to this question- Do you say that telling others, in the midst of a discussion, to "respect yourself and others" is a form of putdown?

Quote:

---

Why keep telling me ("I've told you before") unlesss you intend it for me? And with "you" missing, does your previous statement about the word "jerk" being "emotionally charged" become "inoperative?"

---

To your first question, you and I have had this conversation before. We have history. My point then, is still the same now. Your posts [maybe not you, but definately your posts] come accross as abusive. You have claimed to be a proffessional writer, siting many articles from various Adventist sources. My expectation of you is that AS A PROFESSIONAL WRITER, you can circumspect the communication problems and achieve your communication goals. Does that mean that I hold you to a higher standard on this board? Yes, it does. But even holding you to just the same standards as everyone else here, your posts have come accross as belittling and abussive. I am sorry to inform you of this, but I have a tendancy to inform people rather bluntly when they do this. Concider Shane... I have been on his case for over 24 months. I site this as an example of being a bit tenacious over this. So, if your posts continue to be abusive, you can expect me to make mention of it.

Quote:

---

You can keep quoting committee reports if you like. I'll just keep quoting you.

---

"committee reports???" Are you implying that there are others here on C/A who are advising me?? Are you implicating others here on C/A ? Please clarify that comment and those words "committee reports". What was meant by that?

Quote:

---

And, please believe me, I have neither the intent nor the inclination to humiliate you.

---

I find this hard to believe. You searched out my comments over Shane and made a big reply to my post. Therefore, my conclusing is that you do have time to spend on this.

Where as I don't have the inclination to do tit 4 tat stuff.

However, there is this comment on " neither the intent...to humiliate you"...Your post demonstates otherise. You are definately a connudrum. You say one thing but do the opposite. In my book, actions speak louder than words. So, give evidence of your intent. Be positive about it, and I can let this go.

Quote:

---

I appeal to you to let it go now

---

I note the word "now". This may be taken as NOT an appeal, but rather a command which is more in line with your less than stellar posts. I am vacillating here...

Why should I assume that this is a true appeal? I have shown that your posts are abusive/bullying...intelligent, but nevertheless of less than stellar characterization than what we have come to expect here at C/A. Why should I take you up on this appeal?

Is this the closest thing to an appology that I am expected to recieve? If so, I believe it falls far short of an "I-am-sorry-that-you-have-recieved-a-different-perspective-than-what-I-intended." appology. Surely, one who was a former principal understands the necessity of an appology and consequnces of continued aggression toward another? After all, it is the 'civil' thing...to do.

[cricket]

Ed, Neil, Shane, myself, others:

We have explored the ideas of inflammatory emotionally charged phrases/words/posts/et cetera to a lengthy degree. Sometimes, to an emotionally inflammatory degree; have we not?

Let us learn from our mistakes. Just as Jesus urges us to love one another even as He loves us, let us love one another in brotherly love.

There is not one person who has posted within this thread that does not have brotherly love for the others. There are several, however, that have not shown that love to others for a while.

I encourage you to let this thread end and let the new thread begin: Loving, Emotionally Charged Phrases

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I have a tendancy to inform people rather bluntly when they do this. Concider Shane... I have been on his case for over 24 months. . .

---

Quote:

---

. . .continued aggression toward another. . .

---

Quote:

---

Where as I don't have the inclination to do tit 4 tat stuff.

---

[Neil D]

Lyndell was known to have said-

Quote:

---

The principal's office is next.

---

Sorry, Lyndell, Stan, Christine....et al. who may be offended by this thread. I am hoping that things can be worked out. However, I am realistic and realise that it is a small hope. As to going to the principals office, sorry, but we are allready there and are hashing this out. It has to be or you will see this thruout the board in various forms.

What amazes me is that many here quickly attempt to become "peaemakers", in attempting to ask others to take a time out. All the while, this does not truely solve the problem, but rather causes avoidance in discussing the real issue that is bothering the conflicting individuals. The result is that there is a tension that continues whenever two individuals show up on a forum. I would hash it out publically here on this forum with the results of aome sort of convenant rather deal with the tension that would show up on various other forums. At this time, liking

Ed is definately out of the question, but if respect can be acchieved, but I am willing to risk it.

Lyndel, Could you look over the posts on bullying and make comment on this from a professional point of view? I would like to see if there is some overlap of incidences regarding school children actions and posts here on C/A.

To all,

Please be patient with Ed and myself. God is not thru with this incident yet.

[Neil D]

So, Ed, what are you willing to do to rectify this situation?

To continue to quote things that bother you and make no comment is not seeking a solution. And you know that I will not let go of this until a solution is found.

What are you willing to do?