Rudeness tax

RE: Rudeness tax

Anthony Todd — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:28:57 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Repeatedly saying the same thing in consecutive posts/threads when you have already made your point.[/quote]

But, if I don't challenge a point, which I can back up and which is never even disputed then, unfortunately, it is taken as gospel, and "steroids always causing diabetes" is the usual example.

If I'm wrong, which I have been, I accept it, and do not ever advance that opinion again as do most of us on here, but if my view is not proved wrong, just conveniently branded as "turbo-posting" what do you suggest, [presumably] as an open-minded scientist.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]saying the same thing in consecutive posts/threads when you have already made your point.[/quote]

Er, that's because the same untruth is also [quote user="Martin Atkinson"]saying the same thing[/quote].

It is surprising to me that modvets, y'know "EBM", are not as ready to accept contra opinion to the accepted mantra, even if there is massive supporting evidence.

RE: Rudeness tax

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:05:40 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]If a post states what I know, and can show, is wrong, and it is something I have challenged before, why can't I challenge it again?[/quote]Because quite honestly Anthony, I'm reluctant to say that you're nearly always wrong, but you nearly always disagree/have a different opinion to the rest of us which is as a consequence of not being as in touch with modern methods/knowledge as us. Dare I mention the S word?

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]ie how is "turbo-posting" defined?[/quote]Repeatedly saying the same thing in consecutive posts/threads when you have already made your point.

RE: Rudeness tax

Anthony Todd — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:43:17 GMT

As a sort of aside, I get into all sorts of ordure and insults for turbo posting [which I am trying to curb].

If a post states what I know, and can show, is wrong, and it is something I have challenged before, why can't I challenge it again?

ie how is "turbo-posting" defined?

RE: Rudeness tax

Anthony Dennison — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:32:44 GMT

I'll have to come clean, I've been using a fake name to hide my real identity.

I'M SPARTACUS.

RE: Rudeness tax

Bob Russell — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:12:05 GMT

I try to say only things I stand by and would do so in public. I have to admit that is pretty much what I do in 'real' life! (Echo's of my late father there!).

If a comment shows disrespect, don't say it. If it is rude or aggressive, don't say it! We have clients to do that for us!

I have had a hiccup or two over the years and said things when I probably should have stayed quiet but generally consider the whole site to be a safe place full of people I feel I know quite well despite never meeting!

Don't care whether real names or nicknames are used. It is what is said that matters. Even more important when someone facing problems starts a thread.

RE: Rudeness tax

Anthony Todd — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:02:09 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]we might have worked in the same practice but I was never your employee![/quote]

What a vital career, and professional enhancing, opportunity you missed!! [BANTER]

RE: Rudeness tax

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:53:06 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I use my real name because I stand by what I say and will support what I say if challenged or worse.[/quote]5 stars and a like from me (for this and the subsequent post) just to show I don't always disagree with you. And we might have worked in the same practice but I was never your employee!

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Several good reasons have been very well explained in the posts above from 'Ruths' and 'Wren'.[/quote]They may be good reasons but I still think full accountability outweighs those reasons on a forum like this unless an individual's identity is revealed in their profile. My entire life history is in mine!

RE: Rudeness tax

Anthony Todd — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:46:53 GMT

If you allow pseudonyms, and therefore anonymity, you will get irrelevant posts on a forum which is supposed to be for professionals and of their professional relevance.

Banter [which is different from abuse] is still fine, and hopefully easily recognised, just real names please.

RE: Rudeness tax

Niall Taylor — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:00:17 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Can't see the point of pseudonyms unless I am disclosing secrets or posting abuse.[/quote]

Several good reasons have been very well explained in the posts above from 'Ruths' and 'Wren'.

In a reasonable world it would be fine to use one's own name all the time but there are some fairly obsessive and extreme types out there (arguably encouraged by the rapid/instantaneousl to and fro of internet exchanges) who can make life difficult for folks both on line and in the real world regardless of whether any particular post is disclosing secrets or is abusive.

Like it or not it is part of the online culture for many to prefer anonymity whether it's because of a perception of personal safety or just a bit of fun. It's not the crime of the century and I don't think it says anything about the self-confidence of those who use aliases.

The above notwithstanding I would like Mr Guthrie to create a safe space for me and to provide tea and cakes and/or beer and crisps while I'm in it please.

Niall (or IS it..?)

RE: Rudeness tax

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:57:13 GMT

[quote user="Wren"]it's not as though I hide behind it to dish out abuse[/quote]

That's an important point.

[quote user="Wren"]Anyway, I've defended my decision to do so on several occasions and I do not wish to do so again.[/quote]

Absolutely no need to!

[quote user="Wren"]Your comments both to myself and others about 'safe spaces' are frankly patronising.[/quote]

That was my reading of the comments too. Under 'zero-tolerance' it should lead to immediate suspension, but it was a bit borderline. I thought perhaps it wasn't meant that way. So I tried to give some opportunity for clarification.

It would have been so easy for the OP to say 'sorry, didn't mean that to sound patronising, what I meant by 'safe space' was ..."

That has not been forthcoming, but I think on this occasion, it's a case of the horse has bolted.

Some posts are obviously plainly bloody rude. They're easy. No discussion. Just immediate removal of the ability to post in the forums.

Others, like this, are more borderline. I think in future, if there is any possibility of crossed wires, and the intent being misread, I'll give the OP (any OP, not just this one), 24 hours to come and clarify / apologise if needed. If they don't, the assumption will be that offence was meant, and the account suspended.

[quote user="ruths"]if the site insists that we give our correct names[/quote]

Naaah.

RE: Rudeness tax

Anthony Todd — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:34:59 GMT

I use my real name because I stand by what I say and will support what I say if challenged or worse.

And, yes, I have personal attacks because of that by ex-employees.

Can't see the point of pseudonyms unless I am disclosing secrets or posting abuse.

RE: Rudeness tax

ruths — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:49:27 GMT

I have different names in different places.

It's not meant to be rude, it's just what it is.

RE: Rudeness tax

Wren — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:17:27 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]

I signed up really early on in the process with this site and picked a

nickname becuase, erm, thats what you did on an Internet forum.

I am on various other sites with various other names as that has been the convention on all of the other sites I frequent. Some of the people have become real life friends and they know my name, addrsss etc.- and which gin I prefer ;-))

I didn't stay here long but returned sometime later and found a mix of nicknames and people who felt the need to write their names and postnomials. And I wondered why this place was different but I gave it little thought to be honest.

And then somebody was upset with me for disagreeing with them and not having my real name on my posts. This made me wonder why it felt so important to 'reveal' our true identities. And I found myself disagreeing that it really mattered.

if the site insisits that we give our correct names, that's fine, but until it's a requirement then I just scratch my chin and wonder why it matters so much.

This is the Internet. This is the way it works. People have a choice.

Another thing to consider is the fact that I was stalked by a bloke from another forum and it was rather disconcerting and worrying to be honest.

Some time ago, I found a whole thread lifted from here in the open internet. None of the names were redacted. It had been cut and pasted onto another site. I told Arlo and he dealt with it.

For all of these reasons, I don't ever use my real name on the internet and this won't change.

If that precludes my use of the site here, so be it.

I do see what you are saying, but the truth is that we aren't in a room and there is an inherent lack of privacy here, not because there is a problem with the site - Arlo cannot be held responsible for somebody choosing to cut and paste threads. And he can't be responsible for the way the internet works and make it anymore secure.

i hope people understand that we all have different reasons for doing the things we do and trust that there is no ulterior motive. But for me, the internet privacy and safety horse bolted ages ago and I shan't use my real name associated with anything but a professional opinion on the internet and here I talk about things other than my professional opinion- so it ain't going to happen.

Have a lovely day-))

[/quote]

I agree with you 100% Ruth. I am incredibly uneasy about posting anything anywhere under my real name. I have had instances where I have been stalked (in a very minor way, but upsetting all the same). One of those was a post on my completely private and locked down FB page which one of my 'friends' screenshotted and shared with a non-friend. Who then passed it on... And it was an innocuous and non-offensive comment to begin with, blown out of enough proportion to make me double check that my doors were locked at night. My FB page is for pictures of my horses now and nothing else.

RE: Rudeness tax

Wren — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:12:03 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Wren"]How about we judge by contribution, rather than identity?[/quote]

Is that what happens in real life? Does any contribution to the scientific community come with a disguised contributor?

In a broader political and social sense is there a mood to accept disguise?

Would you like Mr Guthrie to provide an academic forum with safe space?

[/quote]

As it happens I am a pretty robust and confident person, and my confidence or otherwise has nothing in particular to do with why I'd rather adopt a semi-pseudonym. Barring one or two exceptions it seems to be perfectly well tolerated on here - it's not as though I hide behind it to dish out abuse - and there is a growing group of us doing likewise. Anyway, I've defended my decision to do so on several occasions and I do not wish to do so again. I honestly feel it is completely irrelevant.

And if you mean what I think you are implying by 'broader political and social sense' then I am pretty disgusted that you have chosen to make that comparison.

Your comments both to myself and others about 'safe spaces' are frankly patronising. We do not need 'safe spaces', we need politeness and respect.

I will not be participating further in this line of discussion.

RE: Rudeness tax

ruths — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:04:17 GMT

I signed up really early on in the process with this site and picked a

nickname becuase, erm, thats what you did on an Internet forum.

if the site insisits that we give our correct names, that's fine, but until it's a requirement then I just scratch my chin and wonder why it matters so much.

This is the Internet. This is the way it works. People have a choice.

Another thing to consider is the fact that I was stalked by a bloke from another forum and it was rather disconcerting and worrying to be honest.

Some time ago, I found a whole thread lifted from here in the open internet. None of the names were redacted. It had been cut and pasted onto another site. I told Arlo and he dealt with it.

For all of these reasons, I don't ever use my real name on the internet and this won't change.

If that precludes my use of the site here, so be it.

Have a lovely day-))

RE: Rudeness tax

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 17:14:51 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]She is just as put off from posting there (VetNurse) because she is concerned about responses.[/quote]

Well, you can tell her zero tolerance applies over there too

RE: Rudeness tax

Bob Russell — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:55:09 GMT

Just had a chat with my head nurse. She is just as put off from posting there (VetNurse) because she is concerned about responses. Posts can come over a superior and patronising.

True she does not like posting on Facebook etc but the clear message is that apparently innocuous posts can come over as more negative than than they are meant to be!

She is no shrinking violet so makes you think a bit!

RE: Rudeness tax

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:34:05 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I can do whatever I want![/quote]Self confident b*****d!

RE: Rudeness tax

Bob Russell — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:26:21 GMT

I can do whatever I want!

RE: Rudeness tax

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:23:32 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I would add the saying "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"![/quote]But you can't selectively short quote Bob, it is also 'the highest form of intelligence'.

RE: Rudeness tax

Bob Russell — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 13:11:12 GMT

My very wise father spent much of our earlier years saying "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing".

He was a very smart man and this was one of the smartest things he tried to instil in us. Generally I believe the message got through!

I would add the saying "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"!

I fully accept that the banter between the forum 'regulars' might be a little robust as can happen with familiarity. It is not only the 'shrinking violets' that could be preventing people posting!

As I am going for sayings! "There is no such thing as a silly question".

RE: Rudeness tax

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:35:58 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]"..Politeness is a noble quality, and decorum will always have its place. But when respect comes at the cost of honest criticism, it’s time for us to think again..."[/quote]

There's no reason why respect should come at the cost of honest criticism, or indeed vice versa.

RE: Rudeness tax

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 16:26:02 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]If Mr Guthrie is aiming to forge a high brow academic discussion forum[/quote]

I'm not.

I am aiming to forge a collaborative, welcoming, helpful forum. One which members enter in the knowledge that their ideas or point of view are likely to be challenged, sometimes robustly, but that it is well-meaning.

[quote user="J G Wray"]King contends that freedom of speech is meaningless without the freedom to offend"[/quote]

The biggest problem with that line of argument is that, taken to extreme, it provides bullies with self-justification.

But perhaps more to the point, I think it is a complete misinterpretation of what King (and Fox, the author of that book you so kindly sent me) is trying to say.

They argue (and I agree) that all too often in modern society, people try to shut down debate by shouting: 'I'm offended by what you are saying'. But they are talking about people who claim they find the 'idea' offensive, and therefore the discussion should end, or worse (Charlie Hebdo).

We're not talking about that here. We're talking about offence caused by being obnoxious to the person, not the idea.

In other words ... You and I have a debate. You end up calling me the most offensive thing I can think of. I say you're bloody rude (aka have offended me) and walk off. That's fair game. I mean, why should I sit there listening to someone slag me off?

Alternatively, let's say I was a devout Catholic, vehemently opposed to abortion. You open a discussion about how abortion should be made more accessible. I shout 'you can't talk about that, it's offensive' and walk off. That's NOT fair game.

That's the difference. I don't see people here complaining or shouting 'offence' because someone put forward an idea they found objectionable. I see people who are upset when others appear to try and belittle them.

RE: Rudeness tax

J G Wray — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:57:21 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]Is this a genuine question to which you would like an answer? [/quote]

Yup. If Mr Guthrie is aiming to forge a high brow academic discussion forum, then there's a problem if people go on using disguises. It means they do not trust or respect others, or they would drop the pretence.

To quote Richard King from his book "On Offence: the politics of indignation"

"..Politeness is a noble quality, and decorum will always have its place. But when respect comes at the cost of honest criticism, it’s time for us to think again..."

This is the rest of the Amazon blurb:

A lively and passionate defence of reasoned debate

Everyone has taken and given offence; anyone who claims they haven’t is either lying or uniquely tolerant. Yet in recent years, offence has become more than an expression of annoyance — it’s now a form of political currency. Politicians and religious leaders have mastered the art of indignation to motivate their supporters or deflect unwanted attention, and the news cycle has become increasingly dominated by reports on these tiny tempests.

In this provocative account, Richard King explores how the politics of offence is poisoning public debate. With hurt feelings being paraded like union banners, we’ve ushered in a new mood of censoriousness, self-pity, and self-righteousness. Unofficial censorship has even led to official censorship; blowing the dust off old blasphemy laws, we are moving forward into the past. Yet King contends that freedom of speech is meaningless without the freedom to offend, and that the claim to be offended should be the beginning of the argument, not the end of it..."

RE: Rudeness tax

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:48:50 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Noweia"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I suspect (and it is only a suspicion; I have no evidence) that one of the most common reasons why someone might choose not to display their real name is for fear of ridicule, or having strips torn off them.

[/quote]

This was my reason. I originally had my real name displayed; however after multiple harsh/scathing comments that shook my self confidence I changed it.

[/quote]

Would you like Mr Guthrie to create a safe space for you?

[/quote] Is this a genuine question to which you would like an answer?

Is your question intended to belittle a colleague who has said they lacked confidence in using their real name for whatever reason but still wants to be part of the forum ?

If so why ? What do you hope to achieve by this?

Should every other member of the forum just take it on the chin and if they do not feel comfortable with "harsh or scathing comments " then it is their problem and not ours ?

Do you think other members of the forum should conform to certain standards set by longstanding contributors and grow a thicker skin or just stop posting ?

There is another thread continuing where a professional discussion is being conducted without snide comments. I enjoy your wit and intelligent contributions and perhaps this was not a deliberate cheap shot at a sensitive target which would be unworthy of you.