Just because its said as "you're talking bollocks" or "you're talking crap" doesn't it in my opinion make it any worse than "the sugar coated" versions. Putting people down for their opinions without name calling and by carefully chosing your words, so it doesnt look so bad ( but seems a lot can still see past that) doesn't make it ok.
Deb

I must say I have to agree whole heartedly with Debs’ statement.

Thankfully, I have rarely seen this action on these boards. What I have often seen are discussions and debates, conducted in a civil manner, yet within these there tends to be the odd post or comment that gets away from the point in question and draws issues onto a personal level.
I will never be able to agree that it acceptable to use derogatory terms in public forums, and I personally find that when this happens any valid point or position is immediately lost.

In our cyber community we are relying solely on the written word and a lot can be potentially lost by not seeing the grin on someone’s face or the twinkle in their eye that goes with their words.

Which is why I have said that the interpretation of words can be a personal thing based on different factors. We will all see the different “attitudes” mentioned in previous posts, and if we discussed these there would be a difference of opinion, because that it what it is , an opinion. Yet when we have darn right rudeness or offensive name calling I think we should all stand united in agreeing that it is unacceptable.

I think Flying mouse summed things up well a few pages back

Caryl wrote:

refuse to dumb down their post for anyone

I find this statement itself patronising

my thoughts exactly

You know sometimes it's better to get verbal abuse because at least you know you're being abused, with the sugar coated stuff, people can hide behind, I didn't really mean it that way...

Deb

Em, as did I and many others at the time of its posting. However as likely as not however we "felt" this was not (I trust) the author's intention. which takes me back again to each individuals intrepretation of the written word.

A useful guide :) http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/plaine...standabl-24756 :lol:

Em wrote:
Well I have to agree with you Em (and Sin and Deb). My initial reaction when that was posted in reply to me was to feel I was being talked down to .. but as Sin says, sometimes that is not the writer's intention. So as I said, I blinked . then took a deep breath and did not respond with verbal abuse or name calling.

I'm know Gower's Guide to Plain English (from which I think the page you offered came from) well .. he was a Civil Servant driven mad by Civil Service jargonese and confusing language :) Simple and clear is I agree best .. although that dosn't mean it needs to be abrupt and delivered without thought to the other person's feelings, which is I think is really the basis of what most of us are saying

Am I being thick here or wasn't it you that said that?

refuse to dumb down their post for anyone

Deb

Oh it was said TO me Deb, not by me .. I gave it as an example .. I would never say that.

The exact words were I believe "I just cannot dumb down my posts for the sake of those who feel I should." I had asked someone what was meant by a term used, and the reply I got included this, coupled with the sentiment that the poster hoped to help the readers to "reach beyond what they think is their boundary," which would in turn help us become better people. My initial reaction was to feel I was being talked down to .. and I'm glad that we agree on the interpretation. I know Sin felt the same .. but as she says it's about interpretation, and it's possible that the intention was not to be patronising ..

Put in the whole context it doesn't sound how I initially saw it. (just shows how use of words can make things seem different lol)

Another thing that just came to mind. a lot have gone on about a few being continually picked on and abused. I'm not so sure thats the case, the main person doing the abusing has certainly abused far more than a few people, myself being one of them, just not on here for all to see. Some are just more vocal about letting it be known I think. Not that thats a bad thing, just saying that it's not just the few thats being abused, a lot of us who have an opinion different to this person are. Infact I'm pretty sure I got called a good few of the names on your list of insults myself lol

Deb

I have no doubt that those who hurl verbal abuse here do not limit their efforst to this forum :) However, I could only comment on what was happening here, where these were posted for all to see .. and frankly I was tiring of it, and I believe it was upsetting to others also. Can't change the world :) .. but can make a stand in places in it :)

Can't change the world .. but can make a stand in places in it


My feelings entirely :)

Can't change the world .. but can make a stand in places in it


You can change your own world ......never stop believing

:)


but getting back to verbal abuse........this generally only continues if people respond to it. Is it best just to ignore such posts? I work with teenagers who can be very abusive at times. They generally give up when they realise I'm not going to respond to them by getting angry or upset.

Em wrote:
That's a very good point Em .. , and in the situation you describe it's clearly an effective response .. and I'm sure you sense there's a "but" marching towards this conversation :) I can't say it upsets me that much .. I'd need to respect those who dish it out for it to do that. Do I get angry? .. perhaps a little, yes. I've tried to deal with the words with humour and dignity, but a well worn pattern was becoming established .. one person would rush in and hurl an epithet or two .. this would then be jumped on by the others .. someone would comment, if not me, and things would escalate and hey presto .. the thread would be locked or moved to Fight Club. And as others have pointed out, it creates an atmosphere where others are discouraged, lest they become the next target; where for someone to agree with me means they may be dismissed as my "cronies" or "sycophant friends"; and as we have heard, where some who were bullied at school have a flood of horrible memories come back to haunt them. As Sin said, we're not dealing with teenagers here .. we're talking about the behaviour of adults. How much does one take before saying "Enough"? It's a moot point, though one which I think was reached when Diane stepped in last week. It's the tip of an unpleasant iceberg. I can do little about what goes on unseen, but I can, with others, address what is on public show.

Please don't get me wrong .. it hasn't spoiled my world :) For most of my career when asked what motivates me I've said "To make a difference" .. I've always believed that's possible, and in many organisations I know I have :) Just there is a point where I prefer to confront an issue rather than avoid or tolerate it, and I certainly wouldn't leave a forum because of it, not as long as there are many people there I like and respect :) The phrase "silent majority" has been used in this thread. I find it hard to believe that the majority of people here would think name calling was acceptable, nor targeting one or two people for its repeated use.

but a well worn pattern was becoming established .. one person would rush in and hurl an epithet or two .. this would then be jumped on by the others .. someone would comment, if not me, and things would escalate and hey presto .. the thread would be locked or moved to Fight Club. And as others have pointed out, it creates an atmosphere where others are discouraged, lest they become the next target; where for someone to agree with me means they may be dismissed as my "cronies" or "sycophant friends";

Really don't like to drag this on, but I do feel that people are all trying to make their point on all sides and being afraid to actually say what they really feel. So they are sort of hinting at it, but the words don't actually come out if you know what I mean, this in itself leads to confusion. Anyway my point here is, that (and i'm really saying this in the nicest way posssible ) I don't agree with the bad abuse you or anyone have got, (as I said before one of these people has gave me my fair share of that abuse in emails after posting something here a while back, totally unrelated to any of this. ) but I do feel that sometimes you provoke the worst in people with your comments to them when they post. Hope you don't take that the worng way but thats how i;'m seeing it. Not that I agree with the verabl abuse, but I do see sometimes where people are coming from. So as I see what you're saying, there is another side to it all and i'd pretty much throw myself out on a limb to say this is how a lot feel. They just don't want to get abuse for saying it.


[/b]Just there is a point where I prefer to confront an issue rather than avoid or tolerate it, and I certainly wouldn't leave a forum because of it, not as long as there are many people there I like and respect The phrase "silent majority" has been used in this thread. I find it hard to believe that the majority of people here would think name calling was acceptable, nor targeting one or two people for its repeated use.

Same here, seeing people talk it in circles for days and getting know where fast trying to say how they feel but it not quite working, has made me speak up. And the phrase "silent majority" arent saying its ok for the name calling. But i'm sure they do feel the same as me. This isn't just about the name calling, we all accept thats wrong, it's the other points people are trying to make and they're just getting disregarded to bring back the abuse issue.

Hope everyone takes this in the calm, rational way I wrote it. It wasn't meant in anyway to get at anyone.way. Just trying to make things clearer from the "silent majorities" point of view :)

ewww the wrong bits got highlighted there lol, sorry

Deb

why does'nt everyone agree to dissagree . every one is entitled to their own view.
but when it involves name calling and insults ,its should not be done on these boards,please people lets put this to bed once and for all!
there will alllways be different opinions between you but that doesnt mean a verbal tennis match for 2 months.
this site is about meat not about pesonal differences.
we are all fans on this site in our own wayand shuold be able to exspress our own views without fear of recriminations
its christmass the season of good will lets see some among meat loaf fans lets start the new year as we mean to go on as a comunity with one common purpose meat loaf
(here endeth my xmass sermon)

Just because its said as "you're talking bollocks" or "you're talking crap" doesn't it in my opinion make it any worse than "the sugar coated" versions. Putting people down for their opinions without name calling and by carefully chosing your words, so it doesnt look so bad ( but seems a lot can still see past that) doesn't make it ok.

I see where your'e coming from on this statement. When people sugar coat their words it is sometimes hard to determine just exactly what they mean. And it is a lot easier to say 'you're talking crap' than mince your words and make it sound nicer, and I'm not saying thats OK but I have to disagree. As I believe its better to mince your words (in an unbiased way) so as not to offend the person youre talking to instead of just hitting them with insults and profanities, it also makes for a more readable forum, that way you can disagree with someone without taking the 'I'm right you're wrong' stance. But , I guess the best thing to do would be 'If you have'nt got anything nice to say then take some time out to calm down and re read what you think may have been wrong' Try to see other points of view And please Don't take that as me saying 'don't post on the board'
Please don't be offended by anything I have written.

Chrissy

I agree with what you're saying Chrissy. Mostly anyway lol.. but I didn't mean people are sugar coating it in a way to soften the blow, but more to not seem like they're having a dig when they are. Think I put that right lol What I mean is i'd rather in a way know what someone means and if they say it out right you do, its when they dig without actually saying it that things get complicated and make for a bad atmosphere. I'd much prefer everyone to feel they can post how they feel without worrying what people will read into it etc. After all as lots have said, we wont always all agree, there's to many different types of people (as listed by David lol) I'd just like for those of us who are more type 1, could feel like they aren't gonna get their heads bitten off everytime they don't just say everything Meat does is right or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I adore Meaty but I don't think every single thing he does is my world. (not that theres anything wrong with it if he is to a lot of people) Infact to Me Meat Loaf means more Meat Loaf and the rest of the band. To me they are all important. Hope i've came across how I meant this, it's in no way meant to put anyone down, just trying to say all of us have a right to say how we feel.


But yep I agree much better not to post than to deliberately put someone down for their posts.

Deb

Chrissy wrote:
I agree completely. It's not sugar coating, just courteously trying to confront the issue rather than the person :)

Deb wrote that in her view I sometimes:
I'm not I hope taking this the wrong way. I would like to respond with a couple of points. As I've said my posts are not intended as patronising or "holier than thou". I speak when I have something to say, I write with conviction and articulately. I write with most conviction when Meat is being sniped at, or when I or others are being attacked. When people speak against me, my opinions or beliefs they do not get verbal abuse from me. That's not my way, and I don't believe I have set any example which should lead anyone to fear that. When I have been talked down to in this forum it has not provoked "the worst" in me, although I might well respond tongue in cheek! I have disagreed with you on a number of points, but I believe I have done this with courtesy, with clear language, without patronising you, and without resorting to abuse. And if I use clear language, but choose it carefully so as not to give you cause for feeling offence, it is done simply and honestly for just that reason, not to "have a dig" at you without saying what I really mean, or to put you down :).

You say you agree about verbal abuse, and those who have been doing this have imo done so for their own agenda and one which has little excuse of "provocation" .. as many have observed, this is a Meat Loaf fansite, and to be hypercritical of him or snipe at him here is to expect some form of response from those of us who come here first and foremost as afficionados of Meat, and who have seen his distress at what he described as "putdowns, Lies and just plan being angry over what I don't know". As to the "silent majority", I don't believe I've ever said "You're wrong!" just posted my own view as articulately as I can, saying that it's my belief or my view.

Just trying to get my head around this one.... think its there....
right here goes.

I for one am not taking anything you've said to me in a bad way at all. You have been everything you say in this topic to me. But I have witnessed you do it to others in other topics. For example: the guy who said Meat was looking old in the press conference ( or how ever it was worded) I didn't think he was being out of order as i'm sure a lot of other people didn't. I saw no reason for your "and your point is?" comment. At Meats age i'm sure he will come to expect this sort of thing lol, i'm 42 and noticing the age comments creeping in all the time as i go through life, it's no biggy and I wouldn't expect people to go around speaking up in my defense for it all the time, it's not nice when it hits home that you're not 21 anymore, but its life. And to be honset the same thing had crossed my mind when i saw the interview. i'm not syaing I thoguht 2oh look Meat looks sooo old" not at all, but i'm sure some people know what I mean. Don't want to make this a whole point about the age thing as that was just an example. And as i've said before i think meat is wonderful, doesn't mean we all have to herp worship him either (not that theres anything bad about that, just as there isnt for those of us that don't.) ewww the more I go on the more i seem to be digging m,yself a hole big enough to get abused lol, maybe this is how others feel when they feel they need to put their point across. A lot of these issues wouldn't be made so big, if people didn't jump on with the "and your point is" type of posts back. I for one would never do it to you, if you posted saying how much you idolise meat, even if I don't feel the same way about him. it's your opinion and thats fine by me. I just think others should be allowed that privalige.


[b]Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:16 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrissy wrote:
Quote:
I believe its better to mince your words (in an unbiased way) so as not to offend the person youre talking to instead of just hitting them with insults and profanities, it also makes for a more readable forum, that way you can disagree with someone without taking the 'I'm right you're wrong' stance.

I agree completely. It's not sugar coating, just courteously trying to confront the issue rather than the person

Deb wrote that in her view I sometimes:
Quote:
.... provoke the worst in people with your comments to them when they post. Hope you don't take that the worng way but thats how i;'m seeing it. Not that I agree with the verabl abuse, but I do see sometimes where people are coming from. So as I see what you're saying, there is another side to it all and i'd pretty much throw myself out on a limb to say this is how a lot feel. They just don't want to get abuse for saying it.


I'm not I hope taking this the wrong way. I would like to respond with a couple of points. As I've said my posts are not intended as patronising or "holier than thou". I speak when I have something to say, I write with conviction and articulately. I write with most conviction when Meat is being sniped at, or when I or others are being attacked. When people speak against me, my opinions or beliefs they do not get verbal abuse from me. That's not my way, and I don't believe I have set any example which should lead anyone to fear that. When I have been talked down to in this forum it has not provoked "the worst" in me, although I might well respond tongue in cheek! I have disagreed with you on a number of points, but I believe I have done this with courtesy, with clear language, without patronising you, and without resorting to abuse. And if I use clear language, but choose it carefully so as not to give you cause for feeling offence, it is done simply and honestly for just that reason, not to "have a dig" at you without saying what I really mean, or to put you down .

You say you agree about verbal abuse, and those who have been doing this have imo done so for their own agenda and one which has little excuse of "provocation" ..

Not sure quite what you mean there, do you mean me? because i have no agenda here. Unlike a lot of people on this board I have no previous conceptions of anyone.


as many have observed, this is a Meat Loaf fansite, and to be hypercritical of him or snipe at him here is to expect some form of response from those of us who come here first and foremost as afficionados of Meat, and who have seen his distress at what he described as "putdowns, Lies and just plan being angry over what I don't know". As to the "silent majority", I don't believe I've ever said "You're wrong!" just posted my own view as articulately as I can, saying that it's my belief or my view.

Yes it is a Meat Loaf fansite, but who defines fan? there are so many different types. Yes we all saw his distress but Meat himself apologied over that, why does it have to keep being dragged out? Many people abused that person for what he said, you included. Not once has anyone who did apologised to him. Except Meat. if he can admit he was wrong why can't many others. I don't want to go into this as the person in question is a very decent person & I respect him very much. He took far more than anyone I have seen on here take for having an opinion. And he responded with dignity, he let it go. Even though he did nothing wrong. I'm sure at some time we've all said something that Meat wouldn't like, even you caryl :) maybe unknowingly, but still been said or done. Would you like to be publicly hung for it?

think i've just about talked myself out on this, seems we just plain don't see it the same. You see it as you're just posting your view, a lot of people see it as you're putting them down. I spose as they say thats the trouble with the internet.

I have 5 children ranging in ages from 21yrs to 18months. Many times i've felt the need to step in and defend them but life is that they need to stand up for themselves when need be & learn to deal with the knocks. Meat is far old enough to do that for himself to :wink:

Please could anyone refrain from taking anything I've said as anti Meat in anyway. I'm here because I love Meat and his music. if I didnt I wouldn't of done 22 shows on the 99 tour and be doing 15 on this one. :D

Deb

Deb

In the example you give I was responding on a celebratory thread to the comment made when people were saying how great it was that Meat was recovered and back on form, "yeah, good news... i have to disagree though, i though meat was looking good, but old " accompanied by a sad face.I actually said "He looks good .. he's 56 .. your point being?" OK, a bit more curt than I am usually, and I should have asked the poster what was being disagreed with, but it was interesting that later he said something to the effect that Meat looked good for his age .. which didn't seem to be the point originally suggested. I don't believe it warranted being called a demented old bag. I didn't, for example, say "Are you suggesting he looks old for his age you miserable git?" :)

Those to whom I referred as having their "own agenda which has little excuse of 'provocation' " are the small group who were habitually calling me and others derogatory names, and those responsible for the list I put at the start of this thread. So, no, I am not suggesting you are one of these. But I did not "abuse" Michael for saying what he did; far from it. I said I honestly believed he did not mean to upset Meat, but that if he had enjoyed the show so much it might have been more sensitive to Meat's feelings not to have included negative comment. Meat aplogised for what he said to Michael, but he did not apologise for taking offence at continuous put-downs.

I've not taken anything you've said as anti-Meat in any way, because you've said nothing anti-Meat. I've never publicly hanged anyone. If you think my posts are patronising and/or "holier than thou" we shall, as you suggest, have to agree to disagree :)

Which takes me nicely back to my previous point.

and also highlights the danger of zooming into one phrase rather than taking the spirit of a post as a whole

I usually let what I perceive to be patronising and condecending posts wash over me, and just object to downright open nastiness. In future maybe I should bring my feelings to the authors attention......

Sorry wrong thread

As a newcomer to the community, I read your comments with some amusement, and although I agree that everyone should choose their words a bit more carefully and not resort to abusive language, in overall what I see is a group of people, really strong characters, with strong opinions and obviously very stong feelings for Meat.
He is quite lucky to have such a dedicated base of fans on this site.

I personaly do not think that describing him as looking 'old' was an abuse or any way negative - he has just had an operation (or a procedure) and have been poorly for weeks. I myself said he looked tired - but does not mean that I love him less - I was just worried for his health.

When we love someone, it is also ok to be honest/ critical even when not everybody may agree with our preception