In article <6o0e3l$97q$1 at Mercury.mcs.net>, finch at MCS.COM (Deirdre
Sholto-Douglas) wrote:
> However, despite the fact your post could be construed as being
> moderately antagonistic, through use of loaded words such as 'hazing'
> and 'amusing', the latter of which could be thought to be an attempt
> to demean or belittle the view of 'pro-hazing side', I admit, you made
> me chuckle. This post is a wonderful example of the very behaviour
> you profess to be railing against.
>> If you don't like such behaviour, why do you engage in it? Mind you,
> I'm not criticising the fact that you do...after all, I'm on the pro
> side and feisty debate, in my eyes, is no more than Good Clean Fun.
> But I'm curious as to how you rationalise the dicotomy between what
> your words are saying and how your words are said.
I am biased, as I agree with Caroline, but there was little confrontation
in her post (IMO).
If you view Caroline's post as antagonistic, then this thread may need to
re-assess the definition of "confrontational." She disagreed with you and
suggested an analogy, but she never belittled you or used personally
demeaning terms. Your comment: "...could be thought to be an attempt to
demean or belittle..." is an extremely subjective interpretation of
Caroline's comments.
Possibly, you may wish to give a detailed example of a confrontation that
you believe students should be trained to handle? Then, we could all
start from the same frame of reference.
B. Martin
