Eggshells

2007-3-14 06:11:00

Woody writes:

Question, questioner, can you question JJ?

I think that these who have been with me for a few years would give a resounding yes on this.

I started teaching here in 1998 and for a few years we had a completely unmoderated list. During this time all kinds of people came forward and questioned and challenged me to mental duels.

I figured this was a good thing to deal with even though many in the group grumbled that I spent too much time in dealing with people who seemed to want to argue rather than learn anything. On the other hand, I felt that when most of the challenges and questions were answered then we could have them in the archives so when the questions came up again we could just refer them to the archives and move on.

Since then, the archives have indeed been useful in answering various questions and challenges leaving me free to give out more teachings.

Then after several years, disruptions and even threats became too obnoxious so we switched to a moderated list. This caused a large percentage of disruptive people to just stay away, for such people cannot stand to be moderated in any way.

The moderated list has been more peaceful but this does not mean I am not questioned. You must keep in mind that one can question without being rude. It seems that some think that I am not challenged unless I am insulted or someone lashes out at me emotionally.

Dan, Susan, Larry, Blayne, Bryan, Ruth and many others have questioned the truth of my statements usually in a civil and friendly manner. I have no problem at all with this.

Woody:

One of these days Dan, either you or some or all Keysters are going to stop this walking on egg shells routine and just speak your mind. I realize there is a certain amount of protocol and politeness that is necessary for any group to get along, but I've seen groups that are cooler with speaking one's mind in the Mormons, for goodness sake.

Where are these Mormons? Most of those active in the church are afraid of their own shadow and would never question the word of any General Authority, especially to their face.

I see no evidence of anyone walking on eggshells here. Many of Dean's posts I have let through are very eggshell crunching as well as your own - like this one. The ones rejected are more like bombs that would crack a safe and cause complaints - as well as distract from the class.

Woody:

Thank God Dean is here injecting a little light (or chaos depending on how you see him) here and there showing you can question the teacher a bit and get away with it. I think people have to ask themselves why they get so bent when people talk this way. I also like Ruth's ability to lay it on the line too.

People do not get upset over a respectful challenge, but get upset over rudeness and repetition of that which has already been thoroughly covered.

Also I do not know why it is so difficult for some to understand that this is not a free-for-all list, but a class and we do not want posts that will take us way off course. Dean, for instance, keeps sending posts on conspiracies. I must have rejected dozens of them.

Woody:

Are we after the older way of father and, or son (i.e., teacher grand and unapproachably wise, student pliable and attentive) or the newer way where we find it within ourselves to just be comfortable to be ME (no matter how the other me's around take it)?

If you want to learn to be comfortable being you take a Dale Carnegie course. This is a place where I (the teacher) do not care if you are conformable being you or not. The group as a whole wants people here who want to learn and share and seek to put aside personality issues.

Woody:

May be JJ as an experiment could say sometime, I have to spend some time away from the list for a while, then log in as a regular Keyster and see how well his group is doing with him as an anonymous student. Personally, I find this approach relaxing as hell though it can be a pretty sobering buster (which can be a bit painful in ways).

This is an approach I would not consider using. I believe in a straightforward presentation where things are as they seem.

Woody:

Sorry guys and galls, just venting, been having some rough patches lately. I hope you forgive me...but even if not, I'll still be me.

I hope the rough patches become smooth for you. I know you will always be you and we have no problem with that. All we ask of the members is that they follow the basic guidelines of the list.

Global Warming Enlightenment:

Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited "inaccuracies" in "An Inconvenient Truth."

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

By William J. Broad;
New York Times, March 13, 2007,
Science Section

Note from JJ: This is highly unusual that the New York Times is critical of Gore's version of global warming. Perhaps the tide is beginning to turn.