The Flaming Has to Stop

Anything relating to the operation of this site.
Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

The Flaming Has to Stop

Postby Daffy » Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:19 pm

This forum has become very ill-tempered in the last couple of weeks. Every other thread seems to degenerate into insults and petty name-calling.

This is supposed to be a forum for friendly and civil conversation about a serious subject - the SES, St James, St Vedast and their sister organisations round the world. Strong views and vigorous ways of expressing them are fine, but personal attacks on other users are not acceptable, particularly when it is simply because they hold different views to yours.

Please remember that every time you succumb to the temptation to abuse another user, it discourages EVERYONE from contributing. Who wants to carry on a conversation while a shouting match is going on?

When you think about it, why waste energy flaming people you've never even met before?

A modicum of common courtesy will ensure that the board continues to attract new users and keep its existing ones.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Civil Discussion and Debate

Postby anti_ses » Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:41 pm

I am one of those who have been put off posting any opinions on this site, since I have become accustomed to slanderous responses and personal attacks. I simply do not have the time to communicate with people who are intent on using personal attacks in an attempt to forward their argument. Those who have suffered due to their association with the SES have a trump card in this respect: they have a "right" to be angry and therefore can be forgiven for any unfounded abuse or illogical deductions. And, of course, those who do not see the SES as a purely evil organisation must be in some way indoctrinated, brainwashed or blind.

These attitudes are becoming increasingly prevalent in this forum. Any criticism of a statement made by "victims" is construed as a defence for the SES. Former members of the SES who do not see the SES as a purely evil organisation appear to have no right to debate or partake in a critical discussion because their ability to think critically must apparently have been diminished. All this is hidden behind criticisms of the language one uses, criticisms of people being insensitive to the victims and, recently, ad hominem attacks, often disregarding the logic of any arguments made.

Finally, I feel that anyone who wishes to take part in reasonable discussion should be aware of the fundamentals of logical fallacies (www.fallacyfiles.org is a good start). The articles on argumentum ad hominem, ad odium and ad logicam are particularly relevant.

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Postby grimep » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:06 pm

sorry, er... "anti"_ses... but are you seriously saying that to be able to engage in reasonable discussion one must first learn some logic theory that the average adult isn't party to??

your statement about SES victims demonstrates to me you either don't really know what that feels like or are unable to empathise.

Is it any wonder things get fractious on here, when we all know what the SES's line is towards people who have left and / or suffered psychological or family problems? And given that this board or organisation(s) arising from it could generate very strong negative publicity, it is hardly beyond the bounds of the imagination to think that there are current members of the hierarchy posting on here? Given that, and the fact that for many of us these people are the problem, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't robust and frank exchanges.

C'mon people- this isnt a forum for exchanging recipes or gardnening tips... real peoples' lives have been f*cked up.

Daniel Gregory
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:12 pm

Postby Daniel Gregory » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:44 pm

Agree with you there grimep.

'be aware of the fundamentals of logical fallacies...' I am not intellectual enough to know what you are talking about. Does this mean I should stop reading or contributing to these threads. Or does six years at St Vedast mean I can continue?!?!

Keep talking everyone and please more contributers to this little club.

Danny :lol!:

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:58 pm

grimep wrote:sorry, er... "anti"_ses... but are you seriously saying that to be able to engage in reasonable discussion one must first learn some logic theory that the average adult isn't party to??

Actually, most of it is common sense, e.g. attacking a person is different to attacking an idea propounded by the person. I never thought anyone would need to "learn" any such logic theory to make a coherent argument. However, I was proved wrong by what I have read here over the past few weeks. As an example, the speech marks you put around "anti" suggest my last post conflicts with my anti-SES views, which is untrue.

grimep wrote:your statement about SES victims demonstrates to me you either don't really know what that feels like or are unable to empathise.

You have deduced quite a lot from nothing. I would be wary of making such a statement with so little evidence.

grimep wrote:And given that this board or organisation(s) arising from it could generate very strong negative publicity, it is hardly beyond the bounds of the imagination to think that there are current members of the hierarchy posting on here?

Yet again, there is no foundation whatsoever for such an accusation.

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Postby grimep » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:41 pm

anti_ses wrote:
grimep wrote:And given that this board or organisation(s) arising from it could generate very strong negative publicity, it is hardly beyond the bounds of the imagination to think that there are current members of the hierarchy posting on here?


Yet again, there is no foundation whatsoever for such an accusation.


What accusation? That current members of the hierarchy might be posting here?? Are you kidding??? And if you're not kidding, would you mind explaining how you know that noone from the hierarchy might be anonymously posting on here, trying to play a damage-limitation / mitigation / obfuscation role????

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:03 pm

how you know that noone from the hierarchy might be anonymously posting on here, trying to play a damage-limitation / mitigation / obfuscation role????


If they are it would behoove them better, methinks, to post in plain english.

Oh dear *slaps hand to forehead* I might have given them a tip!

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Postby grimep » Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:20 pm

a different guest wrote:
how you know that noone from the hierarchy might be anonymously posting on here, trying to play a damage-limitation / mitigation / obfuscation role????


If they are it would behoove them better, methinks, to post in plain english.

Oh dear *slaps hand to forehead* I might have given them a tip!



Quiet you! Being female, of low intellect and a descendant of a penal colony, you have no right to comment on how us eductated middle class patriarchal uber-spiritual types conduct our business!

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:28 pm

LOL grimep - that post will have me chuckling for the rest of the day!

Now excuse me while I get on with some domestic servitude.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:13 am

My opinion is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If you make an accusation, the onus is on you to prove it, not for me to attempt to disprove it. Again, this seems quite obvious to me, but clearly it isn't how others think. Sarcasm has good entertainment value, but it is counterproductive when it does not back a valid point.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:14 am

Thank you Daffy, for bringing it up in its own thread. I, too, am taking some time off of my domestic chores (nothing like scrubbing the floor in an ankle-length dress after having been up since 5 am! I sure don't miss those days on retreats.) to reiterate what I brought up in my own introductory post as an ex-member of the NYC school.

I am a member of several bulletin boards and am fully aware that many threads often include comments and inside discussions that are off-topic. However, on a board dealing with a situation as serious as this, I am not as forgiving of off-comment discussions and/or flaming.

My entire life, as well as the lives of my parents and friends, were seriously effected by the school. I was so happy to find this board to be able to talk about these issues, and find other people for mutual support in finding ourselves again. There's nothing the SES would like more than to have this board's members squabbling among themselves because it prevents them from being able to discuss the real issues at hand.

Nothing is all bad or all good. I could say many great things about specific SES members, activities, philosophies, experiences, etc. But that isn't why I'm here. I'm here because I've already proven the SES to be guilty. Otherwise, I'd either still be in it, or would not care about talking about it because it didn't really effect me.

As far as I can tell, most members aren't here to debate whether what happened to them really happened, whether it was all that bad, etc. If we wanted that sort of discussion, or if we wanted to be side-tracked with long philosophical or logical discussions about issues that aren't really in hand, we could go talk to the tutors at the SES. That was certainly my experience there, particularly in pushing people not to form real opinions, but to say "not good, not bad" even when something IS clearly good or bad.

Back to Daffy's point, I hadn't posted before because I got the feeling that the atmosphere here was less than supportive due to so much flaming. I'm sure that many people here have pent-up anger, etc. due to their years in the schools or SES. Let's try to direct that where it belongs, and not at each other!

Thanks, NYC Gal

p.s. I'd also like to say, for the record, that I created my username on the spot directing it at the SES. However, my husband informs me that there is actually a philosophical/religious school of thought which is very "in-your-face" athiest which calls itself Free Thinkers. I am not one of those people. I realize that many people react to being raised by religion that they don't like by doing the opposite as an adult. I am actually quite spiritual, just very anti-organization, and to me, athiesm is just as much about faith as deism.

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Postby grimep » Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:14 am

anti_ses wrote:My opinion is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If you make an accusation, the onus is on you to prove it, not for me to attempt to disprove it. Again, this seems quite obvious to me, but clearly it isn't how others think. Sarcasm has good entertainment value, but it is counterproductive when it does not back a valid point.


didn't accuse you of anything, apart from seeming to be unable to empathise, and that isn't exactly an "accusation" in the true sense of the word, re-read my post.

you've jumped to the defensive rather prematurely really. Telling.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:03 pm

grimep wrote:
anti_ses wrote:My opinion is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If you make an accusation, the onus is on you to prove it, not for me to attempt to disprove it. Again, this seems quite obvious to me, but clearly it isn't how others think. Sarcasm has good entertainment value, but it is counterproductive when it does not back a valid point.


didn't accuse you of anything, apart from seeming to be unable to empathise, and that isn't exactly an "accusation" in the true sense of the word, re-read my post.

you've jumped to the defensive rather prematurely really. Telling.


You missed the point. The "accusation" to which I refer is the suggestion (OK, perhaps "accusation" was too strong a word: in any case, I was not talking about any accusation against myself) that there might be people from the SES hierarchy posting on these message boards. This point of view is based on no evidence whatsoever.

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Postby grimep » Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:21 pm

anti_ses wrote:You missed the point. The "accusation" to which I refer is the suggestion (OK, perhaps "accusation" was too strong a word: in any case, I was not talking about any accusation against myself) that there might be people from the SES hierarchy posting on these message boards. This point of view is based on no evidence whatsoever.


Hang on... OK, lets start again, I'm usually dog-tired by the time I have the luxury of spending time on an internet forum so might not be getting the plot here. I've had to blink a few times at the above quote and must confess it leaves my quite flabbergasted, so even though its a very simple paragraph and I don't think I could possibly have misunderstood, please may I just go over it in slow motion?

rewind

So... you're saying that you think there are no people from the SES hierarchy (for want of a better definition, Tutor upwards) who are active posters on this message board? A board to which Boddy himself has posted on? And you are saying there is no "evidence whatsoever" to support that supposition? From what authority are you writing?? Why would you make such an assertion?

How are you so sure? Has everyone in the organisation been instructed not to partake?

Either way, that's an opinion. I think many people would find it pretty safe to assume that members read and have posted in the past, and that there may be some who still do. Even if there has been a blanket command from the top to stay away, surely there might be at least one free-thinker who might try and put the organisation's case anonymously??

Either way, this is all getting a little irrelevant. I don't quite understand why you would be saying that there are absolutley no people from the SES posting here, unless you yourself are an active member and are party to such information. Note, this isn't flaming, I'm examining the evidence and drawing a conclusion.

you wrote
anti_ses wrote: Those who have suffered due to their association with the SES have a trump card in this respect: they have a "right" to be angry and therefore can be forgiven for any unfounded abuse or illogical deductions. And, of course, those who do not see the SES as a purely evil organisation must be in some way indoctrinated, brainwashed or blind.


I disagree with the premise of that paragraph. No. People who have suffered don't have a "right" to be angry, they have a RIGHT to be.
To your second assertion (if that's the correct term, sorry, I'm not going to read up on the theories and semantics of debating just to write on here), that people posting here denying the SES is purely evil are brainwashed. I think you are being a bit disingenuous there... perhaps a poster who is extremely riled or has seriously suffered in one way or another might lash out verbally at someone who seems to be defending the SES.. given the levels of suffering and recollections of abuse on many levels and the messes made of people's families that we read on here and experienced first hand, is it any wonder? And there will be others who are not quite so on-the-edge who might probe a pro-SES stance in a more cool manner... so what. Your generalisation on such polarised views seems to me to be pushing its own agenda.

The original post here was for people to stop making personal attacks, but your post seems to want to expand on that by making a couple of assertions I do not agree with and had to challenge.

A tactic for those wishing to excuse the SES or discredit the stories of those who have suffered might be to highlight the emotional state of the detractors.

That is why I accused you of writing a post that seemed to display a complete lack of empathy with those who have suffered.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:35 pm

Anti-ses, I would be genuinely interested to learn about your anti-ses views.


Return to “Housekeeping”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests