-> I am concerned with the derogatory remarks made towards Matt Smith.
I am as well, although I would prefer in this post not even to discuss
Matt individually, but any theoretical EDUCATOR participant.
-> Let's see, must everyone show his/her pedigree before being allowed
-> to post here (or be taken seriously)? Must one be a teacher in order
-> to post?
These questions have been answered before. No, one need not be a
teacher, but as you can read in the frequently posted echo guidelines,
this IS an area intended for educators. As such, posts that annoy
teachers are probably inappropriate here. Does one need to show his/her
pedigree to post here? No. To be taken seriously by other echo
participants? Probably, yes. Experience and qualifications figure
largely in how much credit I'm willing to grant to something someone
says. Why else in court room cases would we call on experts for witness
about certain things if anyone's opinion was as good as anyone else's?
To post here: your BBS system must be accessible by Netmail (this is a
FidoNet requirement), and you must follow the EDUCATOR guidelines.
-> Most of our posts are anecdotal in nature. Very few of us are
-> pontificating with reams of studies to cite.
This is a good point. However, most of us have more experience in the
field than Matt, which draws his annecdotes into question. As well, you
seem to have missed out on some of his wilder posts which some of us
find nigh impossible to believe.
Also, when a person posts annecdotal reports of a few occurances and
attempts to use this as a persuasive argument to generalize some point,
others are bound to ask them to back up their story. Part of this comes
from the poster's insistence of their version of the truth.
-> I may not always agree with what Matt says, but I think his posts
-> HAVE been reasonably intelligent and well-stated.
-> Perhaps I'm unaware of some past battles, but it does seem like we
-> can discuss and disagree without being disagreeable.
The last statement of yours quoted above IS part of the echo guidelines
and is to be standard practice in this forum (I realize I have quoted
you out of order, but I don't think I misrepresent your point of view).
Now, as to disagreements, discussions and debate....
It is certainly OK to disagree with a participant, and even to criticize
their their posts to an extent. If someone is not responding to the
point you made (i.e. misinterpreting what you meant or simply changing
the topic), you can tell them so. If someone is contradicting themself,
you can tell them so (and you should probably point out why you say that
by examples from their posts so they can respond to your claim of
self-contradiction), if someone is using poor logic, again, you can say
so and POINT OUT what it is in their posts that makes you say that.
Basically, I find it OK to attack the posts. But it is not OK to attack
the person. Of course, there gets to be a fine line here. If a person
often writes illogical messages, and someone keeps telling them so, it
begins to seem like someone is almost calling that person illogical or
stupid. But I can't see that the purpose of discussion or debate is
well-served by disallowing participants to critique another's post.
Can you suggest a way to handle this? I am always open to suggestions,
and prefer to discuss this type of thing in Netmail or e-mail.
Sheila King
Moderator, EDUCATOR
1:218/804
cking@cyberg8t.com
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------