And we were having such nice discussion. There really is no need for that type of reaction. I think I brought up a good point. You guys have had a long time to get to know each other and we haven't had that opportunity. You guys also haven't had the time to get to know us. I would have thought that you would have at least acknowledge it. I mean, you did post this:
I apologize for the poor choice of words. I am not EN's diplomat, and we all vary in the quality of our diplomacy, even in the best of us.
Not at all. We came here. We participated. Maybe we weren't perfect, or fit nicely into the little niche you guys would like everyone to fit into automatically, but it happens. There is a learning curve. Different sites different social norms. With as many members as ENworld has, I would expect that at least one other group has hit a couple of bumps along the way of getting used to the site.
We don't usually get a whole batch at once, especially ones with a specific culture and expectation to resume their old practices on the new home.
Culture shock on both sides.
Why not? It happens in all fields. Hell, it append in the legal system all the time. You get judges that overturn the rulings of other judges all the time. Tae you car to two different mechanics. You might get one that tells you your car has one thing wrong, and the other guy will tell you it's something completely different. Same thing happens with doctors. That's why it's usually good to get a second, and sometimes third opinion. Let's not forget, even professionals make mistakes.
I've said I'm a menial health professional. Do you believe me? Did it change your opinion about my post in the other thread?
I've said I'm a menial health professional. Do you believe me? Did it change your opinion about my post in the other thread?
Sure. You've explained here a reasonable expectation for a professional to second guess another professional's work.
You've now mentioned that you do have professional expertise in the matter, so that explains your comments as not being uninformed armchair quarterbacking (something we are ALL prone to do with every topic).
Until something comes along to contradict it, I TRUST that you are indeed some kind of mental health professional.
I don't need to see your qualifications. It is possible that you're lying, but I'm not worried about it. I would expect evidence to the contrary would be if you say mental health stuff that doesn't jive with industry terms or other experts on the forum. Kind of like how in my industry, I can tell bad Project Managers because they don't keep lists and track progress against those lists (in any variety of PM methodologies, that is the root of their art).
You word is good enough for government work.
I don't know about that. I mean people continued to participate in the conversation for a reason. My guess is they enjoyed the conversation. It was interesting. I didn't see anything where people were going for each other, insulting each other, or being disrespectful in any way. What's wrong with them continuing the conversation as long as it stays civil, as it has?
While your advice is good, people still need to be treated fairly. It makes it easier for everyone involved.
In that thread, nobody's being bad (and it was an ENner who resumed it after Z and I both tried to tamp it down. But the conversation is looping. When it loops, as an outside observer, we can tell that nobody's changing their own opinion, so it becomes a matter of repeating oneself. The bad threads usually incorporate this pattern, and its hard for the people inside to realize they are entering it.
An additional problem to when we hit that situation, is it devolves the conversation. I disproved Danny's initial proposal of that story right after he posted it. Some dialogue about it still is OK, but now, most of the thread is about that one legal case and no longer about the original topic. On EN, that's threadjacking (and don't forget, even I kept posting about it).
There are lots of times, a little bit of side-tracking is OK. And thread-jacking isn't a crime unto itself. It's more like an accident. It really means a new forked topic needs to start.
A lot of these things are more like accidents. It's more like people don't realize they're beating a dead horse, sidetracking a conversation (and thus making it harder for folks seeking to continue the OT), or getting ruder in their responses (like I messed up last post).
I am pretty certain EN worlders didn't perfectly follow the suggestions I outlined before OTT came along. But more of us seemed to aspire to do so than not. Even those who've misstepped recently.
I know I suck at it, but I'd rather forget any of us had an argument yesterday, and simply try to post better today, and not push somebody else's hot-buttons if I know they exist.
I don't expect to succeed at it, but I expect I will be better to work with than if I don't move past yesterday's mistakes.