Heaven-Minimus-Priska. I agree with your replys. There is no point in attacking the messenger or the person stating their beliefs.
I spent a long time in an org. that most of you are familiar with and that is the exact method used by the more arrogant elders and co's and do's. They got that way dealing with the GB of the wbts. That is their approach to dealing with disagreements and doubts from the rank and file.
An intelligent person and Farkel is certainly intelligent, does not need to stoop to bullying people with words familiar to a school yard bully.
The only way to have real debates and reach conclusions and put these into action is to maintain a degree of civility. If we can't be civil to others and take into consideration that they are different from us and maybe less intelligent in some ways, or more experienced than us, it is no longer a debate. It is castigation.
In my 67 yrs. I only encountered two organizations that did not try to be civil in their debates and actions with others in the org. That was the wbts and the sheriffs office. They were less effective, both of them, due to this lack of civility. Incidently, the most effective officers, were those who were civil to all they encountered, if it was possible. They made more justified arrests, had more confidential informants, achieved more confessions, and more convictions than the non civil officer.
Elders that were civil were more tolerated and helpful than the non civil ones. My primary memory, when I recall elders, is the lack of civility and intelligence in many of them.
Civility is one of the corner stones of society and is highly prized by most.
Civility actually accentuates our intelligence. It raises us above the average person even more. It displays confidence in our own abilities, to get our ideas and beliefs across with out anything other than reasonable, intelligent discussion. It also keeps the listener in a receptive mood, Allowing for their possible acceptance of our position. After all, a coerced or forced acceptance by the listener only causes discomfort and resistance. Passive or active.
I am sure we have all had events in our lives that causes us to react to the "hot button" response. Bringing up a reply based in anger and criticism of another. I do. It is another of the many things I struggle to overcome. It is easy to overcome when I respond in writing. This gives me time to think and reason out the response. It is more difficult if it happens in person and the urge to attack comes out of me with out thought. But with effort I am doing this less and less and it is very satisfying to be able to tell myself "hey I didn't lose it" I really did stick to a civil response. Makes me feel good.
Well that's my two cents. Outoftheorg
