Changes

::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

== Stephen Fry==