Zero tolerance of rude posts

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:39:57 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"] I or anyone, should accept your idea that FAD is actually not an entity and is just a trigger for "stress" hair loss?[/quote]a) I never said that, b) this is not the place to continue that argument but pots and kettles spring to mind there Anthony.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Anthony Todd — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:17:04 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Sometimes those insults result from sheer frustration.[/quote]

I agree, that's the only reason I can think of, and I have tried.

Just refute my argument rather than just getting frustrated and I'll acknowledge your view, and [usually] my error, if I have made one, and we can both move on.

Do you really think, as an example, I or anyone, should accept your idea that FAD is actually not an entity and is just a trigger for "stress" hair loss?

There you go; a challenge without an insult anywhere.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:09:39 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I don't mind being gratuitously "insulted" if there is a reasoned argument with the insult, but when the insult becomes the reasoned argument then it adds nothing.[/quote]Maybe I'm pushing the limit of Arlo's patience here but your turbo posting and single mindedness does mean that you are at times pushing our's. Sometimes those insults result from sheer frustration.

[/quote]

It doesn't matter where they result from. They shouldn't happen. If moderating is too lax, you go and speak to the moderator. I'm probably too PC, which seems to be something ppl despise today. But it pretty much boils to that: an 'ad hominem' insult adds nothing to your argument but it removes respect from the offender.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:52:04 GMT

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Anthony Todd — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:40:06 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Quite possible to have that sort of discussion without calling people a twat [/quote]

I don't mind being gratuitously "insulted" if there is a reasoned argument with the insult, but when the insult becomes the reasoned argument then it adds nothing.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 12:47:05 GMT

Isaac Asimov on a bicycle, can we all just take a chill pill??? :D

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:55:13 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] They could reasonably be expected to see it and think "Jesus Harry H Christ, I ain't going to get involved in this forum."[/quote]On the other hand they could think, 'Wow this is a lively forum not like the usual boring stuff, give me some of this'![/quote]

Quite possible to have that sort of discussion without calling people a twat

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 10:37:22 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] They could reasonably be expected to see it and think "Jesus Harry H Christ, I ain't going to get involved in this forum."[/quote]On the other hand they could think, 'Wow this is a lively forum not like the usual boring stuff, give me some of this'!

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:56:14 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I wouldn't make potentially offensive remarks to anyone else...well maybe DM & JGW, but then again they can take it.[/quote]

Martin, sorry, but not allowing offensive remarks to other members even when you think (or know) they can take it.

The problem is that there are many members who come to this forum irregularly, certainly not often enough to know that the person you've written it to can take it. They could reasonably be expected to see it and think "Jesus Harry H Christ, I ain't going to get involved in this forum."

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Robin Grimmer — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:53:30 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]My favourite style is Martin, he knows he's god, but at least he can 'send himself up' and I enjoy his posts[/quote]Well thanks Neill.

[/quote]

Don't make his ego bigger than it already is! [

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:42:05 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Having been called a "twat" for a post that was both correct, corroborated and impersonal it seems odd that I am the one criticised?[/quote]I guess that was me. Anthony I only called you a twat because you can take it (and quite frankly sometimes you are one) I wouldn't make potentially offensive remarks to anyone else...well maybe DM & JGW, but then again they can take it.

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]My favourite style is Martin, he knows he's god, but at least he can 'send himself up' and I enjoy his posts[/quote]Well thanks Neill.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Anthony Todd — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 12:46:48 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]My favourite style is Martin, he knows he's god, but at least he can 'send himself up' and I enjoy his posts[/quote]

No self-send up in my experience and I'm a "twat" remember....

And apparently there isn't Flea Allergic Dermatitis, it's all just a trigger for "stress" unless he was just winding me up?

I only question posts when they restate, as gospel, anything that is just plain wrong, and substantiate my view, such as the steroid exaggerations.

As I have said, if someone doesn't challenge dogma it becomes fact, and, IMHO, this is one of the disadvantages of accepting posts universally, and possibly of forums.

I have always envied Andrew Kent's knowledge and prose but, as has been seen recently, his view is not always the fifth Gospel, and I would be surprised if he was an expert who didn't admit when he was mistaken.

I'll stop "Geez", "Crikey" et al; might have to revert to "FFS" though.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Neil Wheadon — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 12:31:27 GMT

Less is more

Take Andrew Kent, when he comments I read it, because invariably it's worth reading and doesn't repeat.

If you turbopost and constantly bring up the same arguments, people will tune out and skip over it and even though you think you are making a valid point any good stuff will frankly be drowned out.

In regards politeness, you come across as polite, dogmatic yes but polite. All you need to do in my opinion is try to post less often, avoid the geez... (though that's part of your style) and try not to question everything quite so often.

Overall I feel the level with rudeness is low but can get out of hand, but it's often 'inter-regular'

My favourite style is Martin, he knows he's god, but at least he can 'send himself up' and I enjoy his posts

Neil

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Anthony Todd — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 11:22:12 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Your idea is crap and you are a fool. Full stop.

and

I disagree with your idea for the following reasons [insert reasons here]

or I think your idea is rubbish for the following reasons [insert reasons here]

I think those two words 'I think' or 'I disagree' are underused. With their implicit recognition that what follows is only the author's opinion, they make subsequent criticism seem less arrogant/boorish.

[/quote]

Thanks Dagmar for your explanation but I'm still at a loss as I believe I have never personally attacked any poster or posters, ever.

Having been called a "twat" for a post that was both correct, corroborated and impersonal it seems odd that I am the one criticised?

It does seem, to me, that I am being criticised for disagreeing with a post rather than agreeing with a modvet view.

If posters can bear just to note their disquiet after the offending post and a brief reason [impersonal] then I'll correct my behavior; one star, as I have always maintained, could be directed at the person, not the post, there is no way of telling.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Dagmar Steele — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:31:34 GMT

Anthony, if you read Arlos OP again it is not only about what we have to say, but mainly about how we do it. If you ask the question: Do you need that test? What did you feel when you palpated the abdomen? it is a helpful comment. If you make snarky remarks about modvets not being able to diagnose anything without CT, MRI, Ultrasound and a myriad of blood tests not so much. And it is not about who was right and who wasn't. This part isn't half as important as some people seem to think.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Anthony Todd — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:45:42 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

Can we add to this list scathing comments about modvets, diagnostic tests particularly when someone (often a newbie) is asking a question about a difficult case and we get input from a specialist only to get drowned out in 'noise' and turbo posting. You know who I'm talking about.

[/quote]

Yep. it's me.

Funny really, just had a look at the thread on PABs and I get roundly rubbished on page one but by the end people are sort of agreeing with what I said pages ago and I've yet to read of an adverse anaesthetic event which would have been discovered by a PAB.

Most "specialists" I know can demolish me in a few words if I'm wrong, at which point I always readily concede. They also. without exception, are ready to concede a point, if it is correct, and answer any question.

Some, in any walk of life, and on vetsurgeon, just like to go with the flow and follow any dogma if enough people say it, and nobody challenges it.

Questioning or commenting on any statement is what this place should be about, not silently allowing misinformation and exaggeration to go unchallenged.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Robin Grimmer — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 19:43:17 GMT

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

patrick murphy — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 17:17:41 GMT

I was just bewildered that a small post about this subject created this weird tsunami.sorry.when I first started I got slammed by a few, and I found it quite unnerving, even thought about leaving Dodge, but have stayed around. so maybe harsh comments do need to be watched.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Anthony Todd — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 09:45:39 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] You must be prepared to be challenged. [/quote]

Sure, but, more importantly, an insult, or any personal reference, adds nothing to the argument, which should be the sole reason for the reply.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:53:52 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]I wholeheartedly support you in this Arlo.[/quote]

Thank you Iain, very much.

[quote user="Iain Richards"]Part of that richness is the folk who don't post in case they meet with the same treatment, or don't post because the rudeness makes them think "Meh". That too is a form of censorship.[/quote]

Precisely.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Iain Richards — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:09:21 GMT

I wholeheartedly support you in this Arlo. I equally support the freedom that makes up a rich diverse society. Part of that richness is the folk who don't post in case they meet with the same treatment, or don't post because the rudeness makes them think "Meh". That too is a form of censorship.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 16:57:35 GMT

... just want to say thank you to those of you who've 5 starred or 'liked' my OP, not to mention a couple of you who've sent me such supportive PMs. Means a lot.

I hope everyone will start to feel more free to post in these forums now. You must be prepared to be challenged. But you do not need to worry that there is a risk of being belittled. I'm going to enforce this zero-tolerance thing ruthlessly.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

J G Wray — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:53:02 GMT

Just trying something out:

I think there's some mileage in this from

Ellis, A. J Rational-Emot Cognitive-Behav Ther (1985) 3: 3.

abstract-

"..Intellectual fascism is the arbitrary belief that individuals possessing certain “good” traits (such as intelligence and creativity) are intrinsically superior to those possessing “bad” traits (such as stupidity or lack of artistry). Although it is true that under certain conditions and for various purposes some human traits are more advantageous or “better” than others, rating people as “good” or “bad” on the basis of their intellectual performances is inaccurate and is often as pernicious as is political-social fascism. Moreover, where political fascists at least rate themselves highly while damning and persecuting others [remind you of anyone?], intellectual fascists tend to severely damn themselves (as well as others) when they lack superlative intellectual and artistic traits. According to RET, all global ratings of people tend to be fascistic overgeneralizations. Intellectual fascism is political-social fascism with the trait names changed—the same hearse with different license plates..."

RET = Rational Emotive Therapy. it's another language, I think.

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

J G Wray — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:25:23 GMT

Do different people have different tolerances and values, making up a richly diverse society?

RE: Zero tolerance of rude posts

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 11:49:10 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Didn't he qualify?[/quote]

Can't remember, but this isn't retrospective.