A peaceful idea

Well said PinkRibbonAmy

Have a great day

Peter 

Amy,

I guess I have a little different take on this.  If a certain personality is bothersome, or perhaps we don't understand their particular view, especially in light of the fact that we have little to no knowledge of their personal history beyond breast cancer, we do not have all the information involved in whatever controversy is at hand, and we obviously cannot "see" their body language to help interpret specific words, wouldn't it be simpler to just ignore the post.  Put that person on ignore and not respond to them.  Why involve the moderators? It creates more disharmony.  From my personal experiences in life, I would much rather deal with aggressive, straight forward behaviors as opposed to passive/aggressive behaviors.

I have also read quite a few postings from many different people on various threads, where the person posting is angry, aggressive and frightened.  My first knee-jerk response was to lash out, but then I count to three, and look beyond the written word.  Usually what I found was fear in some form or another.  A little more compassion in the face of fear and anger might go a long way, as opposed to notifying the mod's everytime someone lashes out. 

Fear takes many forms, as you well know.  Fear of death, fear of loss, fear of not being known as who we are, fear of being misunderstood, fear of not being heard, fear of pain, etc.

In my opinion only, maybe compassion is a better option than running to the mods.

Brenda in VA

Amy, you are so right about this.  I hope everybody gets the message.

I agree, there indeed is a difference between disagreeing with someone and personally attacking them. But I want to add that there too is a big difference between having to disagree with someone and being disrespectful to them. You don't need to belittle their concerns to state your opinion. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean in any way that you can downplay their feelings. To see things from a different perspective than someone else doesn't make you any better, nor does it make them any sillier.

As for what we should do when things get really nasty (I mean "really"), I think it has to be notified to the moderators although I have never contacted them on this matter except for when I reported spammers. I only think that way because I just want those nasty posts to be deleted before newbies happen to see them. However going out your way to find every little thing that can be offensive is way too much. After all, everything can be offensive if you want them to be.

Just my two cents.

Happy TGIF for everyone!

Hugs,
Fumi

And I quote: 

"Maybe we could have some sort of Ombudsman board here that dealt with disputes, who would intervene.  People who were disrespectful would be required to make public apologies to those who were offended or not allowed to post again."

You've got to be kidding me ....  These aren't the Salem witch trials for pete's sake! 

Lv2cmp:  "I am also working fulltime because I am a lesbian (yes PRAmy a real lesbian that lives with another woman and not just cats)" 

You made me laugh so hard with both that and pointing out the spelling error!  Thanks!  I needed the lift.  (Oh, and there is a spell check option in the toolbar.)

I'm not that new.  I've lurked for a couple of months.  Believe me, this is not the first contentious post I've read here. 

Hi all,



I just wanted to add another point, for what it's worth.



I think we need to cut each other a lot of slack here, for the simple reason that we're operating in an electronic environment, which is much less "information-rich" than phone or in person.



I know that the only irresolvable fights I've had, and the only really bitter interactions I've had, have been on email. I find too, that when I'm writing on this board I get confused about the information coming at me, the format, whom to address, the different voices and tones, the nature of the interaction etc...



I was reading an article the other day that came to mind when I saw this thread:



(with apologies to the NYT for reproducing it)



Misinterpreting email communications



by Colin Rule, posted on October 10, 2007 - 12:59pm.

Daniel Goleman in the 10/7 NYT: "We were having an e-mail exchange about some crucial detail involving publishing rights, which I thought was being worked out well. Then she wrote: “It’s difficult to have this conversation by e-mail. I sound strident and you sound exasperated.”



At first I was surprised to hear I had sounded exasperated. But once she identified this snag in our communications, I realized that something had really been off. So we had a phone call that cleared everything up in a few minutes, ending on a friendly note.



The advantage of a phone call or a drop-by over e-mail is clearly greatest when there is trouble at hand. But there are ways in which e-mail may subtly encourage such trouble in the first place.



This is becoming more apparent with the emergence of social neuroscience, the study of what happens in the brains of people as they interact. New findings have uncovered a design flaw at the interface where the brain encounters a computer screen: there are no online channels for the multiple signals the brain uses to calibrate emotions.



Face-to-face interaction, by contrast, is information-rich. We interpret what people say to us not only from their tone and facial expressions, but also from their body language and pacing, as well as their synchronization with what we do and say.



Most crucially, the brain’s social circuitry mimics in our neurons what’s happening in the other person’s brain, keeping us on the same wavelength emotionally. This neural dance creates an instant rapport that arises from an enormous number of parallel information processors, all working instantaneously and out of our awareness.



In contrast to a phone call or talking in person, e-mail can be emotionally impoverished when it comes to nonverbal messages that add nuance and valence to our words. The typed words are denuded of the rich emotional context we convey in person or over the phone.



E-mail, of course, has a multitude of virtues: it’s quick and convenient, democratizes access and lets us stay in touch with loads of people we could never see or call. It enables us to accomplish huge amounts of work together.



Still, if we rely solely on e-mail at work, the absence of a channel for the brain’s emotional circuitry carries risks. In an article to be published next year in the Academy of Management Review, Kristin Byron, an assistant professor of management at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management, finds that e-mail generally increases the likelihood of conflict and miscommunication.



One reason for this is that we tend to misinterpret positive e-mail messages as more neutral, and neutral ones as more negative, than the sender intended. Even jokes are rated as less funny by recipients than by senders.



We fail to realize this largely because of egocentricity, according to a 2005 article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sitting alone in a cubicle or basement writing e-mail, the sender internally “hears” emotional overtones, though none of these cues will be sensed by the recipient.



When we talk, my brain’s social radar picks up that hint of stridency in your voice and automatically lowers my own tone of exasperation, all in the service of working things out. But when we send e-mail, there’s little to nothing by way of emotional valence to pick up. E-mail lacks those channels for the implicit meta-messages that, in a conversation, provide its positive or negative spin.



On the upside, the familiarity that develops between sender and receiver can help to reduce these problems, according to findings by Joseph Walther, a professor of communication and telecommunication at Michigan State University. People who know each other well, it turns out, are less likely to have these misunderstandings online..."





Just a thought,

Darya

I think discipline measures are best left to the moderators and are not ours to make.  I have full confidence in Melissa and Tami that they will be able to handle this as they see fit and appropriate.  They are the only ones who should be involved in deciding disciplinary actions.  The least qualified person would be someone who created a multiple account to post as a troll and stirred up trouble not long ago.

Jas...........I think your right about that.........and lv2cmpAmy thank you for not always correcting my spelling.....you would never have anytime to post........even spellcheck can't figure out what I'm trying to spell.........

Well!  It is all how we interpret things.  Alot of emotions involved.  Looking at the big picture, we dont have to like everyone, but we do have to get along with each other.  I have to practice this everyday in the field I work in.

So even though the intentions were good, this is just another thread that will eventually decay because we all are different and have different opinions about life in general. This kind of thing isnt new to bco - I think it was over one year ago that the moderators gave us forum to debate issues like this.  Well guess what - it didnt work.  It became so venonmous that they the moderators had to get rid of that forum.

How can you hash things out in full view of thousands of people researching breast cancer?  This whole conversation would be a great chat get together! 

BinVa:  I want you to know I understood everything you were saying and not trying to hurt anyones feelings.

What many of you said is true - just ignore - the moderators tell us to do that all the time.  So I wish you all peace, debates bring out the worst in me, see ya out there supporting someone who is feeling desperation from this blasted disease.

Nicki