Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    imagine, for a minute, that we are all sitting at dusk in a beautiful
    rose garden with small oriental lanterns strung about.  Our faces dimly
    lit, well fed from some sumptuous repast, we look each other gently in
    the eye and begin to share things from within ourselves.  Slowly,
    delicately, we send out our tendrils of thought, seeking out one
    another's heartfelt beliefs, listening, respecting, caring, nodding
    gently as one word or another touches a chord within us.  Some people
    are silent on occasion, as other speak.  We each contribute those parts
    of ourselves that we feel most require offering to others, the things
    that will most add to the warmth and the sharing and the cogitation
    that we are sharing, as evening descends, and the moon rises off to the
    right.....
    
    That is how I like to see womannotes.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .6, yes, I'd like to see =wn=s like that too.  It's a shame it's
    nothing like that lately.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	RE: .0
    
    	Well Herb, since you used my notes (quoted without using
    	the fact that my name was attached ;^) ), I might as well
    	try to get across what I was asking rather than what YOU
    	assumed I had.
    
    	You made a statement that basically said you agreed with
    	the 10 year old that turned in his parents for drug use.
    	Fine, no problem so far, I then came back to ask where do
    	you draw the line and gave some examples, maybe far-fetched
    	granted, but still some example. What I wanted to know was
    	this okay because you view drugs as a bigger danger than
    	government getting kids to spy on parents, or was it okay
    	just because you view it everyones job to watch everyone and
    	report everytime someone steps out of line. What you did was
    	cut off any and all communications by stating you won't debate
    	the issue. Debate was intended nor desired, I just wanted to
    	have a better feel of where you feel each should draw the line,
    	so to speak. Is it okay to report this but not that? Just saying
    	yeah he did right does not give your opinion on the subject.
    
    	G_B

    
    	Opps, bad typing in last reply.
    
    	Debate was intended
    
    	   Should have read:
    
    	Debate wasn't intended
    
    	Red-faced :^}  :^}
    
    	G_B

re.0

And there is a third case.

Many do not have debate _or_ consensus as a goal in communicating.  Some place
a higher value on the motivations, experiences and viewpoints of a variety of 
individuals than on either winning or agreeing.

My views may change, perhaps in response to what I encounter here.  Conversely,
I may change someone here by what I have to say.  But that is not my motivation
in coming here or in entering discussions here.

I seek to broaden my world by sharing in the insights of others.  It is only
natural that I would test both the assumptions and the conclusions that I find
here against my own reality -- not for any ultimate right or wrong or best case,
but to learn more about others and about myself.

Some questions move me to passionate attempts to persuade; but even so, I claim
no lock a 'truth' beyond my own reality.

I don't believe in a world of consensus because I have met and loved too many
people with whom I could never agree.

   Annie

    re: .12

> Each person comes here with a welath of experience and perceptions; in the
>process of giving and taking, we all leave just a little different. And in the
>majority of cases, we leave a bit richer than when we came.
    
    Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  Thank you Mark....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re:.6
    beautiful description ms. bobbitt
    

I am replying now, before reading the replies, because this topic touches on a
very important issue with me.

As you probably have all gathered already by reading my notes, I tend toward
"debate" - in the sense that I demand logical consistency, that I "attack"
(in the formal sense, not in the sense of being mean or insulting) arguments
when I see flaws, etc.

I was the one who made the comment about a conversation "sparring" partner.

I do *not* see a "sparring" attitude as being contradictory with consensus
reaching.  I spar so that I, and my partner, can figure out for ourselves
what is *right*.  I don't compete, I spar.  And like a sparring partner in
boxing, the goal isn't to win, it is so that one or both of the people become
better at the sport they are playing at.  (Sure, that sport happens to be
for the goal of winning - do *not* bother to draw my analogy out that far
though, it isn't that stretchy - the analogy is limited to the fact that the
sparring occurs not to "win", but for the benefit of those sparring.)

To learn, I *must* have my ideas challenged.  I *want* them challenged.  Through
defending them, I learn about flaws in my own thinking.  I might also be able to
point out to other people flaws in their thinking.  If someone and I disagree,
then we each make arguements and "attack" (see above) the other's arguments.
If I am right and they are wrong, and through my arguments and defense they see
that, then that is Good.  If I am wrong, and they are right, and through their
arguments and defense I see that, then that is Good.   The conclusion (as
opposed to just ending) of a debate *is* consensus.  And that is Good.  And if
consensus cannot be reached, then at least each participant is aware of the
arguments with other positions than their own.

I get *so* angry when I see logic, and debate, pointed out as *reasons* for
a discussion deteriorating into name-calling and pit-bulling.  IT AIN'T SO!
A logical style discussion *can* happen civilly.  It *can* promote understanding
between people.  It *can* include sharing.  And it *can* result in consensus.
If it is not, it isn't because of logic, it isn't because of the style of
debate, it is because the people involved aren't dealing maturely with the
issue.  Logic, arguments, debate, etc are just *tools*!  The blame for misuse
of those tools should lie with those who misuse, not the tools themselves.

I was rather upset to discover that in V-3 (it may have been in V2 but I never
saw it) there was an official policy against "confrontation". *sigh*  Please,
confront me!  If you think I am wrong, TELL ME!  Tell me why.  Maybe I will
agree, maybe I won't.  But I find that the greatest advances in my thinking
and understanding have come as a result of *civilized*, non-fighting, logical
examination of points by different people.

I don't think that just because many people can't manage to keep a debate
civilized, that debate itself should be outlawed.

You can't save people from themselves, even by eliminating the tools with which
they hurt themselves.

D!

(Now to read all the replies)

    The policy addresses "confrontative...styles", D, not "confrontation".
    Subtle stuff, maybe, but important.

    It's a matter of looking at the fossil record, so to speak.  What can
    we deduce about a person's style from reading her or his notes across
    time and topic.

    Some people have a varied repertoire, some don't.  Some people never
    seem to confront, some seem never to do anything but.  Some use rapier
    wit that punctures rather than cuts, some an ax so dull that it
    dishonors the user and embarrasses the spectators, and still others
    never touch a verbal weapon.  Some are bloodlessly academic, some
    nurturing and healing.  Some only write on one topic, some seem never
    to have an unexpressed thought.  And so on.
    
    When all or most of a person's fossil record consists of challenge,
    dispute, categorical statement, and demand, we consider that person to
    be employing a "confrontational...style" within the meaning of 1.7.  

    People who exhibit a less monotonic style are not considered
    "confrontational" even though they may employ--and even enjoy--
    "confrontation".   As in most things, balance is everything. 
    
    						=maggie

I agree entirely with both Herb in .0 and D! in .15.  I think, though, 
that implicit in the notion of "sparring" is that it is a *cooperative*
activity in which both partners will play fair, because both ultimately
are sharing the goal of mutual improvement.

Herb, on the other hand, was referring to the sort of debating which is
a purely competitive activity -- one whose sole objective is "to win".

So, confrontation, questioning, challenge are fine, if they are honest 
attempts to get someone else to examine their views (and to do the same
oneself).  But there are also notes which insult, which belittle, which 
distort and misrepresent the contents of other notes, which demand and 
bully, which take "cheap shots" and indulge in rhetorical extremism.  
Surely no sensible person expects that these tactics will facilitate 
communications with or understanding in their victims.  To me, they 
appear to be either attempts to "score points" with the spectators -- 
that is, to "win" -- or to express personal hostility with no expectation 
of *any* positive consequence.

	-Neil

    I think a communication style, particularly in womannotes, reduces
    fruitfulness of the discussion as soon as it gets the flavor that there
    is a "right" and a "wrong", rather than a "let's explore the
    alternatives" or.  I think debate makes the debators feel perhaps as if
    there has to be a winner or loser, which is why I often choose not to
    debate.  
    
    -Jody
    

   I agree that the moment people (especially in this file) take a "right and
wrong" position rather than a "lets look at alternatives" position, any
discussion on a topic tends to deteriorate. The moment anyone enters this mode,
the least that happens is that the viewpoints of others are trivialized through
sarcasm and subtle (and not- so- subtle) innuendo, and the worst that happens
is the kind of flaming, accusations, and name- calling which are later defined
as "trashnotes".

   Another thing that happens is an increased tendency to be less- than-
tolerant of others when they make mistakes, and to come down on them even when
they try to admit their mistakes (an example of this can be found in 78.119),
because those who are stuck in the kinds of confrontational modes that result
from participation in a "right and wrong" style "discussion" tend to be more
sensitive to other perceived attacks and are likely to miss things said by
others which would show that they are *not* being attacked.

   I, myself, am all- too- familiar with the experience of this defensive mode,
as some of my own entries would indicate. There have been a number of times
where I have felt "on the defensive" and for this reason tended to be more
sensitive to what I considered to be "attacks" on me or some viewpoint I am
attempting to express. When this happens, I have often "struck back" at people
who I didn't need to strike back at; in the process I have brought more "heat"
on myself than I'd previously had.

   Is this my fault for not really "listening" to those who are not attacking?
Or is it the fault of the people who initially attacked me and caused me to
enter this mode in the first place?

   I have no real answer for this, and I think I can safely say that no one
else, here or anywhere, has any real answer either. It could be that there is
no "fault" at all -- it may simply be the operation of human nature in ways
that are unavoidable.

   But the fact is that sarcasm, innuendo, outright attacks, and cutesy little
statements which "pick apart" or trivialize others is nonproductive in any
discussion. They are all manifestations of the "I'm right and you're wrong"
style of communication -- a style which I myself attempt to avoid.

   But in my rambly kind of way I guess I'm trying to ask: what does one do
when s/he is in a situation where s/he is trying to express views in as non-
confrontational way as is possible, yet is "discussing" a subject with a person
(or persons) who insist on making sarcastic comments on hir viewpoint and is
putting hir down in subtle (or not- so- subtle) ways? I myself have a way of
dealing with such persons (which I have used very effectively in the past), but
my way is not a very nice one.

   And frankly, I hate behaving like a jerk. And I am tired of being placed in
situations where I must do so. Such situations reduce the quality of my
entries, and make it difficult for me to communicate real information to anyone
in the future by causing me to be "cubbyholed" into a certain negative
catagory.

   So I seek viable alternatives. Anyone have any?

                                                    -Robert Brown III
                                 

    re: .20

>   But in my rambly kind of way I guess I'm trying to ask: what does one do
> when s/he is in a situation where s/he is trying to express views in as non-
> confrontational way as is possible, yet is "discussing" a subject with a person
> (or persons) who insist on making sarcastic comments on hir viewpoint and is
> putting hir down in subtle (or not- so- subtle) ways?
    
>   So I seek viable alternatives. Anyone have any?
    
    Why yes.  I have a suggestion.  Rise above it, and don't be lured into
    responding from a negative side of yourself.  Don't let it get your
    goat.  Many people here can see level-headedness and appreciate it
    (even though they may not laud it openly or often).  Many people here
    appreciate explanation and discussion, without it becoming a
    shot-match - even if you never hear from them.  Many people respect
    those who respond in certainty, with intellect and calm strength of
    belief behind their words.  There is nothing in the rules of noting
    that says you have to respond to everything that is put before you -
    even if some of those things are sarcastic comments and snide shots. 
    You owe sarcastic comments and the like ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  And that
    may be a good thing to respond with.
    
    -Jody
    
                                

    RE: -1
    
    > You owe sarcastic comments and the like ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  And that
    > may be a good thing to respond with.
    
    I agree... and it leaves the writer of the sarcastic comments exposed.
    Very effective -- but, unfortunately, NOT always easy to implement! 
    It's so hard *not* to cry out, "Unfair!"
    
    Nancy