Tim: >> Years ago, when people knew how to behave, none of us would have >> behaved anything like this in public. There's a phrase missing >> from modern society, "you ought to be ashamed of yourself." >> >> We would have done something about the problem, later on, if we >> were going to bother to. Not carried on like a gibbering idiot >> towards people who had nothing to do with the problem. Rickey Moore: > Interesting, you have the right to 'name calling' but he hasn't the > right to vent a bit? I don't beleive we're 'strangers' per se, in this > 'crowd', and he vented about a problem to people he felt would have > some empathy towards his plight. That's hardly aberrant barroom > behavior, people bitch and vent all the time in any bar I've been in. This isn't a "bar", and what often passes for common behaviour in a bar doesn't pass for acceptable behaviour elsewhere. People *should* know this. We certainly did 20 years ago. If you'd been following the entire thread, and few others, you'd notice that there's a pattern of the preverbial "shit hitting the fan" from one or two very noticeable people the moment something doesn't work the way that they want. It's their first reponse, and repeatedly so, on each issue. Then follows a rant about how they're *not* going to bugzilla it. All that was missing was stamping their foot. The odd one or two people blow steam as a thread progresses, and as a problem resolution doesn't, and most understand that, and pay it little heed. But there's a few that do what I've just described above, and there's few that consider that sort of thing acceptable. I didn't actually name a particular person as behaving in the manner that I describe, so you recognise the behaviour yourself and can match it to the person who did it (in which case it's a bit hypocritical). I described an unacceptable behaviour that gets done. This is the difference between saying, "it's stupid to hit yourself with a hammer," compared to saying, "you are stupid for hitting yourself with a hammer." One lets a person recognise something for themselves, the other calls them names. The first one speaks a fact, whether or not the listener likes the implication. > The phrase "you ought to be ashamed of yourself" is hopefully missing > nowadays by design, as it doesn't work. Tell a kid to not put his > finger in his ear and he'll do it straight-away. It's called > 'shoulding' and it's named specifically amongst the 'Elements of > Criminal Thinking'. We've got 2.7 million human beings actively > incarcerated from the good ole days thinking, maybe there is some need > for some better thinking? *Unfortunately* it's disappeared. I've spent umpteen years working in schools, and watched society fall apart along the way. We started off with kids who knew what they shouldn't or should be doing, and usually managed to discipline themselves very well. Now we have people who have no damn idea about what they should or shouldn't do, and expect others to take care of them, and usually bitch about how others reacted when they behaved badly. You know if *those* 2.7 million people really knew whether or not they should have done what they did, whether less of them might be in there? Probably so. Those who learn to behave themselves don't need someone else to control their behaviour. Blaming someone else for your behaviour, as is the current trend, does nobody any good. There's a big difference between "telling a kid not to put a finger in their ear," and we all know what the initial reaction to that is, to a kid being taught, over time, that you do not grind your finger up your nose in front of other people. The phrase "you ought to be ashamed of yourself" is a reminder to someone who's doing something that they know they shouldn't be doing, or should know that they shouldn't be doing, *is* something that they shouldn't be doing. And it's a far more effective way of telling off a kid who's swearing their head off in a classroom than just telling them to stop it. We used to have people who would be ashamed to be caught swearing, stealing, lying, etc., and that is the right feeling to have, so they generally wouldn't do so. Now we have people who have absolutely no shame about doing such things, and believe they actually have a right to do those sorts of things. > Dan wasn't out to -hurt- anyone and didn't, to my perspectives. But > you call him a 'gibbering idiot'? In my opinion, you do not have the > right to do so and you are the only abuser in this case. Dan got angry > about a circumstance, while you got angry and made it personal. I hope > you can see that. While he may not have thought he was doing so, he was by his actions. I didn't actually call him that, but called a certain type of behaviour that. If someone actually carries out that behaviour, then that's their responsability. I, nor anyone else, really have to put up with outlandish behaviour that we sometimes see on lists like this. Nor do we have to put up with it in silence. It is completely appropriate to protest that sort of thing, and it's completely *inappropriate* to complain that nobody should make any sort of complaint against inappropriate behaviour. That smacks of the old school bully whinge of, "he got me in trouble..." No, he didn't chum, he got himself in trouble. I'm sure such people label the police as being "troublemakers" rather than those who actually crated trouble that had to be dealt with. > Please stop switch. Don't spout jingoistic, ritualistic stuff at me. Don't make excuses for loutish behaviour by louts. And don't complain at a person who's complained about loutish behaviour. -- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
