Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Well, Lola -- here's why. These threads out in the open forum purport to offer (but do not really provide) a space for the sharing of ideas among the various sides of each issue. But there's an enormous difference between people who walk out onto a baseball field to enjoy the game and those who engage in the game only to win -- at any cost. In most win-lose games of any merit there are referees/umps. We don't have that here. No aspersions cast at Timber (lone wolf!), but a referee steps in immediately and says, Foul play and here's why... A2K tends to resort to shutting down the game instead of being specific about fouls committed by individual players. I think that's a problem.

But that's also a side bar. The real problem continues to be the absence of sustained, grown-up discussion -- in which ideas come in from all sides with no labels attached. One major asset of a user group is not so much that like-minded people can get together but that like-behaved people can get together. If I felt the latter were possible in the A2K open forums, I'd be grateful for them!

BTW -- it seems to me a no-brainer that professionals whose profession begins with the prefix "psych" don't talk about patients/clients in a situation like this, even in the vaguest way. I certainly didn't think that's what you were doing, particularly since we've all had dealings (here and elsewhere) with fanatics. Your idea of starting a thread on this is terrific -- certainly hope you do it.

Tartarin,

My comment about my fanatics being personal fanatics was prompted by a re-reading of a post by Sofia last night. I just wanted to clarify for any out there who would not understand, as you have made clear you do. I'm not naming names, because I don't know who would know better and who wouldn't. Just clarifying. I'm happy, however for the reassurance from you that you have this very reasonable expectation of my professional ethics.

The problem, as I see it (and keep this straight ... this is just timber opining here, not MODERATOR pontificating :wink: ), is that the issue most certainly is not who started what with whom in what manner, the issue is that inappropriate posting behavior is inappropriate posting behavior, not merely regardless, but quite in particular irrespective of, who may be therein engaged. Should an individual member merit official sanction, action as appropriate is undertaken without airing the dirty laundry before the membership in general. Nothing is served by "He said-She said-but He said first-but She said worse" games, other than to reinforce and encourage the rancor and partisanship which occaisions such atopical, but tiresomely typical, disputes. I dunno, mebbe Lola can say it better than me.

If I get into a tizzy, Timber, and post something which is really offensive to others, it's helpful to be told right away that I'm over the line. It's also helpful to others, in a situation where everyone is a little out of hand, to know where "too far" is. This would be a step before "official sanction," simply a friendly warning.

What is discouraging is to enter a discussion, find that it has been "locked," look through it, see that several people have been going at it pretty hard but no moderation has been attempted by the moderator -- simply a lock. Its very arbitrariness has a kind of Stalinist feel.

I must commend Tartarin for his fine post. He is right on the money. I am sure that he, like me, has read the debate guidelines.

I was encouraged by the Debate Guidelines. I think they are superb.

What do they say?

"Be Specific. Few things are as ...irritating, not to mention worthless than reading some poorly thought out claim"

and

"Such generalizations are neverl really true"

and

"Verify your claims. Differentiate facts and opinions. If your claim is something that you are unable to verify, note that it is only your opinion"

Great guidelines, don't you agree, Tartarin.

I, for one, am going to abide by them. Others may find it too rigorous or intellectually taxing to do so.

As a Canadian, I'm certainly less effected by politcal trends in the US, though that difference isn't so great that my interest is merely academic.

It's also the case that political trends and ideas down south are reflected up here. For example, it is not uncommon now to hear voices on our right complaining that our supreme court is guilty of 'activism', a claim that almost certainly would never have been voiced without the precedent from the US. I have even heard one prairie fellow on a radio talk show complain that our gun registration laws are a violation of a constitutional ammendment (I add this tidbit in as a demonstration that we have our top drawer idiots here too).

The border is pretty porous to news and ideas, and increasingly, elements on the right (particularly the evangelical community) have been well linked for a decade or more now - same strategies, same arguments, etc. Media conglomerates here, with the same business interests, connections, and philosophies as your own, tend increasingly to mirror the US also.

Thus increasingly, our discourse is starting to sound more like yours. That's unfortunate, as your discourse down there is often pretty unsophisticated and marked by either/or simplicities. But we still have nothing like your Clear Channel radio network, nor such characters as Limbaugh and Coulter, and much less of an audience for such.

Earlier, someone described Molly Ivens as 'radical left'. That's a typical example of what tartarin and lola speak of above - the redefining of centre such that someone might actually consider that an accurate assessment. But it is terribly common now.

And I've been absolutely amazed (not to mention frustrated, disgusted, and angrified) at the crop of voices arriving here who parrot elements of this ideology. And parrot is the right term. Their lack of relevant education (and their unawareness that they lack it) and their anti-intellectualism is nearly carbon copy, one to the next. 'Dittos' is the ironically perfect term. And the logical fallacies which spring untempered from them are as clear an indicator of how lousy they have been educated, or taught to think, as perhaps anything else.

So, open boards such as this become very very difficult to manage. And that is particularly true when the political circumstances around us become acute, when we are no longer just lounging about a salon talking political theory, but when armies are moving and people being barbecued.

Italgato,

Don't get into an argument with Blatham about "ad hominem" matters. He is an engaging sort, gifted with a very good wit and a pleasing sense of irony about most things - even able to see more than one side of many questions, while maintaining his preference. However - "ad hominem" - there he can strain even the most temperate and tolerant of interlocutors.

I would also welcome a thread by Lola on Psychology. I would like to learn. I am especially interested in the survival of Freudian ideas among our Psychologists and, specifically, whether Freudian Psychoanalysis is still practiced among our LEADING psychologists and psychoanalyists.

Someone call the police, I've just been ad hominemized!

Dear Mr. Blatham: I read you recent post. May I respectfully suggest that you read the Guidelines concerning Generalizations.

The guidelines say that they are almost never true.


I hope I am not being untoward or excessively demanding when I suggest that you have a pefect right to your OPINION, as long, as suggested by the guidelines, you label it as opinion.

It is my OPINION that your last post was not an OPINION( you did not say so) but resembled an "ex Catheda" pronouncement by a Canadian Moses.

The guidellines say: Verify your claims.

I would respectfully suggest that you do so.

George OB 1- See my last post.

I await a post on "golbal warming" and the environment. I know you can bring a great deal of light to such discussions.

Cheers- George OB 1

I doubt any of us would object at all, Italgato, if you took some time off from A2K and took some extension courses in psychology and other areas of interest. Maybe they'll give you the knowledge and links you're looking for.

As for "leading," I always suspect your "leader" has to be someone you agree with. Just a warning: today we learned that we lost one of the best in A2K. You may think, just like the captain of Mr. Roberts' tub, that getting rid of Mr. Roberts means you will suffer less irritation and criticism. Let me just tell you that it's going to get twice as bad, at least! Mamajuana would join me, I'm sure, in hoping that I have plenty of opportunities to express the scorn and disgust I feel -- and she felt -- for you.

Let's all agree that very few of us who populate these threads are really 'centrists', no matter how much we may wish to put ourselves in the center of things. We each have points of view and that is what attracts us to forums such as this. Flight to a forum of only like-minded souls will likely yield only tedium and ennui. All of us (excepting only myself) are guilty of the occasional absurd over-generalization - Blatham's suggestion that Canadian political discourse is more intelligent than that in the States; Tartarin's that conservatives are sexually repressed, and so on. There are as many on the other side, but I quickly forgive and forget them precisely because I too have a point of view.

Now you have hurt my feelings, Tartarin. Don't you know that the liberal mantra( you are a liberal are you not) is always to try to preserve "self-esteem" and not to be politically incorrect. You know if you excoriate any religion, ethic group, sexual orientation, etc. you are not being properly respectful of "diversity".

I am crushed that you would view me with "scorn and disgust". Since my main objective is to obtain the respect and love of my fellow man, I beseech you to point out my heresies so that I may be put on the right path.

PS

Please use sources and documentation.

George OB 1- Check the debate Guidelines regarding Specificity, Generalizations, Verification and Opinion.

It is my OPINION that most of the people on these posts( I specifically leave you out of this judgment) either have no idea as to what the guidelines really are, have made up their minds to ignore them, or are unable to contribute following the guidelines.

I think they are superb guidelines . written no doubt by someone who has seen idiotic generalizations, Inspecific claims, lack of verification and inability to state that the screed is ONLY AN OPINION, ruin any change of real debate.

Real debate demands evidence.

Real debate demands verificiation.

george

To be clear, I really don't mean to suggest some overall superiority of canadian political culture to yours as I don't think that way.

But I can identify three elements which screw you guys up down there (we have our own).

First, your education and your culture are too insular. Second, your myths of specialness blind you. Third, your political ideology and machinery are bi-polar.

The reason I am not a fan of your present president is that I perceive him to be an expression of each of these limitations.

Geroge OB l _ There he goes again- Mr. Blatham, I mean- Unsupported Generalizations.

First he says that our Education is Insular.

I suppose he means that in some way-"Narrowly exclusive"

I didn't know that Quebec had been successful in isolating itself from the rest of Canada.

I would say, since Mr/ Blatham gives no documentation, I will give none also, that there is NOTHING in the USA which can match the insularity of the Education given in Quebec. If Mr. Blatham insists, I can find some good sources that prove that statement.

Then, with another "bon-mot" which really has no referent. Mr. Blatham says we have myths of "specialness" in the USA.

A myth is an "unproved collective belief that is accepted uncritically"

Specialness?

Distinguished or different from what is ordinary.

Since Mr. Blatham, as usual, gives Generalizations which he does not define, I must define them for him.

So the USA has an unproven collective belief that we think we are distginguished or different from what is ordinary, according to Mr. Blatham.

Of course, the people in Quebec do not think they are distinguished or different. No. They merely center most of their cultural life on Universite Laval.

That is different from the rest of the country. I am sure that Mr. Blatham knows that the people in Quebec think their culture is more "dsistinguished'

and lat but not least- Political Ideology in the USA is Bi Polar.

Is it as Bi Polar as the split in Canada between the people in the province of Quebec and the rest of the country?

I am very much afraid,, Mr. Blatham that you don't know a great deal about the US.

Occasionally we let some Canadians in to our great Universities like Harvard, MIT and CIT.

When Canadians want a good education, they come to the USA, if they can afford it with their debased currency.

Some of the best from McGill, I have heard, are actually able to survive at HArvard without flunking out.

Hey, I'm a non-Canadian American who thinks Blatham has hit the nail on the head -- or apparently on the thumb, in Italgato's case. I can't see a wrong word or thought in Blatham's assertion.

Fellow politickers, what with the loss of Mamajuana and the creepy, slimy offensiveness which (mis)represents the right here, A2K's "politics" discussions have lost their dignity and interest for me. I'll be in that generous PUPtent, in "Books," and perhaps other areas. I hope we can turn our attention to the rather gloomy reality of America today and what it will take to bring back civility, openness, and a broad world view -- and who is best able to lead that effort.

At the risk of hijacking the baring of souls here (if that's what's going on), please allow me to share the following (possibly inflammatory) cartoon.

Thank you.

Ya know, Italgato, and please don't tsake offense here ... this is meant as purely objective criticism and intended to be constructive ... but, IMHO, to assert blanketly that an opinion or positition incongruent with ones own as necessarilly ignorant is a practice of small coin. Cheapshotting is shoddy debate.