"I disagree" vs. "I have a different position"

I was just reading another thread saw that somebody wrote "I disagree" - it reminded me of the many times that somebody has said that to me.  And of the many times that I have said it.  

In recent years, I have elected to express "I have a different position" instead.

"I disagree" sorta sounds like you need my permission.  Or that you have to persuade me.  

"I have a different position" sounds like the same thing, but without the "I disagree" baggage.  Instead it comes with a different set of baggage that says "I get to have my own thoughts."  

Mmmmmm ... yummy.

This isn't a rule, or a policy for permies.com or anything like that.   More like this is bit of the english language that allows for things to be smoother in my opinion.   Of course, for it to be smoother, other folks need to try it on for size and agree that this might be the case.  

Just me?

I disagree with your post!

Sorry...couldn't resist. "I disagree" also carries with it a feeling of opposition, perhaps drawing a line in the sand, or having to prove something on both sides. "I have a different position" allows for more than one view, and an opportunity for further discussion.

If it weren't for the clear goals behind the publishing standards, to promote positive discussion and progress on permaculture within the forums without having to deal with all the negative forum issues you usually see on, and that feed into the eventual demise of, other forums, I would have to object to the gentle, massaged influencing of our language.

If you look at it over time, it's manipulation on an Orwellian scale. I really want to be against it, but it produces such good results that I have a hard time rousing my natural contrarian tendencies.

I have to say that I agree, but I don't know how I feel about the implications of that. My inner libertarian is really uncomfortable right now.

-CK

Chris Kott wrote:I have to say that I agree, but I don't know how I feel about the implications of that. My inner libertarian is really uncomfortable right now.

To me, the crucial aspect is that the form of communication we insist on here does NOT apply to the rest of life. Everyone can still communicate in other ways in other aspects of their life. It's only here that they have to follow our rules.  And people choose to come here to post, it's not forced on them.

I have a different opinion,

So often the issue with an offending word is not the word itself, but how we use that word (or so many other things for that matter).  My personal opinion is that it is OK to disagree, but keeping with the standards of this forum, it should be done politely.  For a ridiculous example, if a person thought and stated that hurricane force winds began at 35 MPH, I think it would be perfectly fine to disagree.  In this example, the first person is just flat out wrong and making a statement to correct this misunderstanding should not have to couch itself as having another opinion.  But the key would to be polite.  Personally I think phrases like "I must respectfully disagree" are not menacing statements, they are simply a clear statement.  Moreover, including the "respectfully" or similar language makes clear that the disagreement is with the statement and not the person him/herself.  

But again, these are just my thoughts (opinions) and while I certainly want to keep the level of discussion polite at all times, I think of disagreement as an extension of freedom of speech--a vehicle for expressing one's own opinion, and if done politely (never as an attack) crucial for intelligent discussion.

I hope I have not offended,  I hope I don't lose apples,

Eric

Eric Hanson wrote:But again, these are just my thoughts (opinions) and while I certainly want to keep the level of discussion polite at all times, I think of disagreement as an extension of freedom of speech--a vehicle for expressing one's own opinion, and if done politely (never as an attack) crucial for intelligent discussion.

But this is not speech.  This is the written word, which we choose to publish, or not.  Freedom of speech does not apply. And I've certainly seen plenty intelligent discussion that involves no disagreement whatsoever.

I hope I have not offended,  I hope I don't lose apples,

The very phraseology suggests to me that boundaries in that direction are knowingly being pushed, and challenges issued...

Eric, you can use the word "respect" to bludgeon people. Often, I find that if I am having to start a sentence by assuring people of my kind intentions, that thought is either not completely thought-out, or it doesn't actually come from a plase of kindness.

-CK

Chris Kott wrote:If it weren't for the clear goals behind the publishing standards, to promote positive discussion and progress on permaculture within the forums without having to deal with all the negative forum issues you usually see on, and that feed into the eventual demise of, other forums, I would have to object to the gentle, massaged influencing of our language.

If you look at it over time, it's manipulation on an Orwellian scale. I really want to be against it, but it produces such good results that I have a hard time rousing my natural contrarian tendencies.

I have to say that I agree, but I don't know how I feel about the implications of that. My inner libertarian is really uncomfortable right now.

-CK

I think I understand how Chris feels about this.  I understand the reason behind it, and it works, and it keeps discussions on a good level, but it feels somewhat disingenuous .  I feel much the same way about not implying that anyone is less than perfect.  Everyone is less than perfect.  It makes me feel hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

The other side of the coin is that, as Burra summed up nicely, this is Paul's house, we are all guests, and if he doesn't want people to put their feet on the coffee table, so be it.  I think it's only appropriate to respect a person's wishes when you are in their house.

Chris,

Absolutely, a person can use the word "respect" to bludgeon.  Just as a person can do similar with the word "disagree."  There is probably no single universally inoffensive word that exists to indicate having another perspective.  My original point was that the word itself does not contain that harming or offensive element, the word is harming or offensive in the manner that it is used.  Context is king.

Burra,

Similar to what I stated above,  I think that the manner in which a word is used is what convey's a person's respect or lack of it.  I realize that this is a semi-private forum and I am not trying to invoke a legalistic defense stating my right to free speech was broken (for the record, it was not).  But as long as I have been a part of these forums, this has been a place for an open exchange of views and opinions.  Certainly intelligent discussion can be had without disagreement, but at times should it not?  I mean not to disagree for the sake of bludgeoning another person, I mean disagree because one person has a different opinion.  I think this is the thrust of the argument from the first post of this thread, that we be polite and considerate of others even when we do have contrary opinions.  In my own mind though, this is not about the word "disagree" but rather about the manner in which we express out differing opinions.

When I was quoted as "I hope I have not offended, I hope I don't lose apples", I meant that as exactly what the face value would suggest.  I truly am not trying to offend anyone.  I am not trying to be pushy.  

However, understanding that perhaps this is a more delicate issue than I first thought, and if the standard for this forum is that we no longer use the phrase "disagree", then I will abide by this rule.  

Please understand I am in no way trying to be offensive to anyone.  I mean this earnestly.  My sole reasoning for entering into the discussion on this thread was to convey my thought that a certain concern that the use of a particular word was not so offensive as the manner in which it was used.

If I have in any way offended anyone in with this or previous posts, I truly apologize and I will not use that phraseology any more.


Please accept my apologies,

Eric

I disagree can indicate a view which exists as a negative emotional reaction of personal offense against another view. Whereas my view is different signals a stand alone view which exists regardless of any other views. This is a useful distinction to become aware of, for to disregard it can lead to the unjust accusation of others for the accusers own shortcomings.

Becoming offended is always a personal choice which actually has nothing to do with the perceived offender who only provides an opportunity to become offended for the person who needs to be upset. Becoming upset or offended does not mean a person's view is right. In fact it is far more closely related to a wrong view. A view which is right does not require negative emotional reactions to justify it like a view which is wrong.

Because this forum exists only as words and not actions, everything I described pertains only to what each of us writes.

Burra Maluca wrote:

Eric Hanson wrote:But again, these are just my thoughts (opinions) and while I certainly want to keep the level of discussion polite at all times, I think of disagreement as an extension of freedom of speech--a vehicle for expressing one's own opinion, and if done politely (never as an attack) crucial for intelligent discussion.

But this is not speech.  This is the written word, which we choose to publish, or not.  Freedom of speech does not apply. And I've certainly seen plenty intelligent discussion that involves no disagreement whatsoever.

I hope I have not offended,  I hope I don't lose apples,

The very phraseology suggests to me that boundaries in that direction are knowingly being pushed, and challenges issued...

I find this exchange  odd.
Paul didn't post this as a new ruling against "I disagree" ,and Eric didn't seem to be pushing up against any of the established publishing standards or rules.
I went back to read the thread a second time,  to see if I  missed something, but all I got was Eric being really,really deferential.
That deference  seemed to provoke a negative  response.



Some people are gonna insist water isn't wet.
We need not state our disagreement with that statement directly.
Stating ones position can effectively communicate disagreement,  without using the phrase "I disagree".
Simply remaining silent can speak volumes.

Jim Guinn wrote:I disagree with your post!

Sorry...couldn't resist. "I disagree" also carries with it a feeling of opposition, perhaps drawing a line in the sand, or having to prove something on both sides. "I have a different position" allows for more than one view, and an opportunity for further discussion.

When someone draws a line in the sand between us, I pee on that line which washes it away, and usually causes the other person to back up for some unfathomable reason. So even if they draw a new line in the sand, it would appear that they agreed with my liquidy assertion that the original line was unnecessary. Therefore to confirm this hypothesis, I step forward and pee on the new line as well, and thus the circle of life is fertilized, one line in the sand at a time.

I totally get that the phrase "i disagree" can invoke negative baggage for some readers. The literal definition ( as defined today by Merriam-Webster Dictionary-your results may vary based on time and place ) is both "to differ in opinion" and "to cause discomfort or distress" as in "I disagree with you that those mushrooms are poisonous" and "Those possibly poisonous mushrooms disagree with me".

So while it may be a case of the average person not knowing the actual meaning of the word and possibly getting upset because of that, or they do know the definition and still get upset because "how dare you have a different opinion!", it's good to at least be aware that the potential issue exists and why.

Now, I would expect Paul to use the full beauty of the English language by stating "I have a different fucking position", but that could lead to other types of confusion like, how do you know *my* fucking position-is there a hidden camera?!?

I really like this suggestion to use "I have a different position" instead of "I disagree". I'm not so much into semantics, I'm mainly interested the spirit of discussion. Some words have a better "vibe" to it than others and if they mean about the same I try to go for the version that's more likely to create neutral or positive feelings in the other person. I think this is an excellent example of it as these two phrases mean  exactly the same (to me that is) but the longer version just has a better aura to it.

I'm thankful for these suggestions from Paul  because it might have taken me years to figure out something like this on my own. Particularly as English is not my native tongue. I could very easily pick up a phrase that although perhaps linguistically correct just doesn't send the message that I wanted to send.

I have an only partially different opinion...

I agree that the 'opinion' option is generally softer and nicer to hear, and is thus generally preferable, except...

I think that it also implies there are at least two valid opinions on a given subject. Sometimes, in the physical world we exist in, this is objectively untrue.

I think that there are times it is well worthwhile to sacrifice the extra pleasant phraseology, in order to avoid the slightest validation of an objectively incorrect piece of information.

Numerous subjects discussed on this forum  can and do influence people's decisions, and there are many cases where there is potential for tangible consequences to result from misinformation.

Have any of you read descriptions of a good big party where the host(s) goes about connecting some people and separating others, introducing a diverting conversation thread and distracting from another... All the while coordinating the herd so that the social fabric ripples in a healthy manner and doesn't tear? I have, many times and not just in fiction. And I've seen my parents (who "entertained" in the old sense) do this real time. A good party is a work of art, Hosting is a real vocation, involving great skill, intuition and luck.

It appears to me that a good extended social situation needs some 3rd party managing for the very best results. And it also appears that "hosting" is a very active function, involving far more than just providing the premises and lots of insurance and food and fire extinguishers. AND it appears that the specific details and methods of this management change constantly. The process is very fluid and no set of rules will do it - it _requires_ active, skillful, even inspired management.

All this to say that today's rules of thumb can help a lot, but will wear and evolve over time. It's not the specific rules that make the party sparkle and rejoice but rather how the host(s) use their rules and judgment moment to moment to massage and direct the currents and create a great situation. Their problems will morph and change shape, the existing "points" will give way to others, but their job maintaining a good space continues.

I'd say it's a pretty darn active job and it's they, much, much more than the good reasonable methods and tricks we talk about here, that make the place as it is. So let's take note of their suggestions and discuss things pro and con, but in the end not worry  too much about the fine points of logic and language, but decide to, as a matter of habit and commitment,  help them make this a great gathering. That probably involves  not causing too much trouble too often and basically going along with them (the hosts) cheerfully.


Cheers,
Rufus

Most written and spoken words is for others and not for ourselves just to hear ourselves. If I really want to share something different/new with someone making them defensive seems counter-productive. If my goal is just to hear or see my own beautiful words, and drown out others who are different, then just making someone closed off (defensive and shouting too, or defensive and hiding).

And yes I understanding that if I was in personal talking to my best friend, I could show alot of positive body language communication (laughing) to offset my tongue in cheek 'official" verbal communication that is negative. But here in written cyberland it had to do body language and while we usually aren't best friends. Not only that but the content we write here is for others strangers 2years in the future someone to find via google search and possible learn something new.

Nina Jay wrote:I really like this suggestion to use "I have a different position" instead of "I disagree". I'm not so much into semantics, I'm mainly interested the spirit of discussion. Some words have a better "vibe" to it than others

Semantics refers to the meanings of words.  I'm not good at picking up spirits or vibes (I'm not psychic!), so I almost entirely rely on semantics in this form of communication.

If I have a different experience or idea I might not need to say "I have a different position."  I might just say "My experience is such and such" or "My idea is this"

Dillon Nichols wrote:I have an only partially different opinion...

I agree that the 'opinion' option is generally softer and nicer to hear, and is thus generally preferable, except...

I think that it also implies there are at least two valid opinions on a given subject. Sometimes, in the physical world we exist in, this is objectively untrue.

I think that there are times it is well worthwhile to sacrifice the extra pleasant phraseology, in order to avoid the slightest validation of an objectively incorrect piece of information.

Numerous subjects discussed on this forum  can and do influence people's decisions, and there are many cases where there is potential for tangible consequences to result from misinformation.

I wish I could "like" this more times than I'm capable of.

So how do you prove that the position you present is objectively true, or accurate?

paul wheaton wrote:I was just reading another thread saw that somebody wrote "I disagree" - it reminded me of the many times that somebody has said that to me.  And of the many times that I have said it.  

In recent years, I have elected to express "I have a different position" instead.

"I disagree" sorta sounds like you need my permission.  Or that you have to persuade me.  

"I have a different position" sounds like the same thing, but without the "I disagree" baggage.  Instead it comes with a different set of baggage that says "I get to have my own thoughts."  

Mmmmmm ... yummy.

This isn't a rule, or a policy for permies.com or anything like that.   More like this is bit of the english language that allows for things to be smoother in my opinion.   Of course, for it to be smoother, other folks need to try it on for size and agree that this might be the case.  

Just me?

Ha ha! I wrote “I disagree” in another thread of Paul’s just the other day.... hmm...

Upon reflection, I think you’re right (about the disagreeing, not the topic of the thread...okay, maybe half-right on the topic..?) it really was just a different position. No need to be argumentative.

Disagreeing is a bit like “You wanna take this outside?!” and the different viewpoint is like “It’s really nice outside, let’s go talk there!”

“You’ll have things you’ll want to talk about, I will too...”🎶

Tyler Ludens wrote:So how do you prove that the position you present is objectively true, or accurate?

Much of proof is personal subjective and anecdotal, and so is nontransferrable to others. However, it's easy to know for yourself by your own direct personal experience what is objectively true simply by observing the consequences your own actions set into motion.

They will let you know what's what in no uncertain terms.

William Bronson wrote:I find this exchange  odd.

I find it delicious.  

I think burra has been on these forums for damn near ten years.   Her history with other forums is similar to mine, and her dedication to directing to a certain flavor is exactly the same as mine.   Which is why I put her in charge.  

Eric brought up free speech.  Which is almost universally a sign that that person is about to pop.  You don't see it because you haven't been moderating these forums for many years - especially the darker days.   Burra's response is a magnificently beautiful response to save Eric from a dark path.  Or, more accurately, to save any casual reader from heading down a dark path.  

Burra does this not because she has been trained in the art of moderation ninja stuff.   But because she has seen thousands of conversations go sour from simple things.  Thousand of people from before have shaped her to be this way.  What the years have told is that the very best moderation comes from two huge ingredients:

  - precedent (often obtained by deleting a bunch of stuff that didn't meet our standards)

  - gentle nudging at the earliest signs

What you are witnessing is the mighty mother tree performing the "gentle nudge".  For you it might seem a bit irritating, but for me, it is magnificent art.  

Burra has now done it so much, it's as easy as breathing for her.  Well done Burra.


----

I'm glad that we are able to contemplate this topic today.   I think that ten years ago this conversation would have been too difficult to bring up.  And such a delicate point that it would not have been worth the trouble.   We are able to ponder this topic because of all of the magnificent moderation of the years gone by.

Greg Mamishian wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:So how do you prove that the position you present is objectively true, or accurate?

Much of proof is personal subjective and anecdotal, and so is nontransferrable to others. However, it's easy to know for yourself by your own direct personal experience what is objectively true simply by observing the consequences your own actions set into motion.

They will let you know what's what in no uncertain terms!

I was asking in regard to this statement:

Dillon Nichols wrote:
I have an only partially different opinion...

I agree that the 'opinion' option is generally softer and nicer to hear, and is thus generally preferable, except...

I think that it also implies there are at least two valid opinions on a given subject. Sometimes, in the physical world we exist in, this is objectively untrue.

I think that there are times it is well worthwhile to sacrifice the extra pleasant phraseology, in order to avoid the slightest validation of an objectively incorrect piece of information.

Numerous subjects discussed on this forum  can and do influence people's decisions, and there are many cases where there is potential for tangible consequences to result from misinformation.

I'm asking how one proves that one's position is objectively true to the person to whom one wishes to say "I disagree."

We find more and more exception to supposedly hard scientifically, widely accepted objectively TRUTHS.
When it comes to political party and economic systems we see so many revisions/changes.
When it comes to religion/denomination we find so much 'change/further enlightenment' written in the good book and even more in day to day practice.

If those things see so much complete reversal, changes, revisions, enlightenment. Then I am sure my objective TRUTH that European apples need 600 chill hours and thus can never ever grow in the Caribbean with 0 chill hours will be proven wrong.

Thus a stance that says. My specific observation/My specific stance/MY different position is that most if not all apple trees need chill hours and most if not all attempts to grow European Apples in the 0chill climate of the Caribbean/tropic has been met with failure.

Tyler Ludens wrote:So how do you prove that the position you present is objectively true, or accurate?

Do you need to?

If you share your position, intelligent people will embrace it as your position - possibly worthy of further consideration.  Dipshits will classify it as crazy talk.  

When do you need intelligent people to embrace it as utter fact?

I want to know what the people who think they need to say they disagree do in order to prove to the people that they disagree with that their position is the accurate one.

Dillon Nichols wrote:

I agree that the 'opinion' option is generally softer and nicer to hear, and is thus generally preferable, except...

I think that it also implies there are at least two valid opinions on a given subject. Sometimes, in the physical world we exist in, this is objectively untrue.

I think that there are times it is well worthwhile to sacrifice the extra pleasant phraseology, in order to avoid the slightest validation of an objectively incorrect piece of information.

paul wheaton wrote:

William Bronson wrote:I find this exchange  odd.

I find it delicious.  

Thank you Paul for sharing your view on this, very enlightening.
I have benefited from being moderated on this board, but I'm probably too obtuse to notice the more subtle interventions.
Moderators are more direct with me, all to the better.
I feel free to speak my mind this way.
I never worry about being docked apples or censured.
If I feel like the intervention is too much,  I can always leave.

paul wheaton wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:So how do you prove that the position you present is objectively true, or accurate?

Do you need to?

If you share your position, intelligent people will embrace it as your position - possibly worthy of further consideration.  Dipshits will classify it as crazy talk.  

When do you need intelligent people to embrace it as utter fact?

The very existence of Permies is an example of this.
Presented as a take it or leave it enterprise, the resultss speak for themselves.

This is a place where we can safely allow others to be wrong, with few consequences.
It helps that we are talking to people who by and large can't directly hurt or harm us.
Like taking with that one uncle at family gatherings, but made better via the moderation.

Whats very interesting is that when someone post something that is 'objectively false' like say coconuts can grow in Maine, most people are polite.

But when someone post something that is muddled, such as my religious denomination is better or my political system is better or these race/gender issue is better. That is where we get impolite. When in truth it is very hard to say that xyz religion/political/economic systems requires no faith and is the only true objective path to take.

Instead because we know that things could go either way and we are scared of losing something we then get super defensive. The fact that it could go either way and recognize and admit that and thus get scared and defend it means that we have stopped trying to share info and we are trying to win and prevent a lost

S Bengi wrote:Whats very interesting is that when someone post something that is 'objectively false' like say coconuts can grow in Maine, most people are polite.

I have a coconut growing here in Maine.  It laughs at the cold.  Heck, Travis has a whole forest of them and cuts them for firewood!

Forgive me for that....this is only a test.  

No coconuts were hurt in the making of this test.

For more coconut fun click here :)

Dillon Nichols wrote:
Numerous subjects discussed on this forum  can and do influence people's decisions, and there are many cases where there is potential for tangible consequences to result from misinformation.

Dillon's post got a lot of love from me because I have felt attacked for speaking my truth,or suppressed from speaking my truth, with how other people felt about it being the bludgeon used on me.
I have watched the real world consequences unfold before my eyes, and I have paid dearly  for the foolishness.
None of that happened here.
That's IRL  stuff.
The moderation here seem intended to protect from the most likely dangers of online discussion, the crushing of ideas and emotions.
The "moderators" in my real life are generally not so good intentioned,nor so even handed,  and they are infinitely harder to escape from.

Each of us has to decide for ourselves what is is too dangerous a premise to entertain.


Paul and his trusted minions are arbitrators of what is "objectively" true, and when it's not OK to be wrong here  on Permies.
Toxic Gick, Climate Change and other Cider Press stuff have some strict truths  laid down.
We are free to disagree with  these objective truths, just not here.

Given the history of "objective truths" being overturned,  taking a wide open view of what could be true seems to be an advantageous path, one that Paul is pursuing avidly.

Being less nice because lives are at stake could be worthwhile, even here, but it's a corner case.
Maybe being MORE conciliatory and that much less confrontational, is the way go,  if that will get someone to listen.
I viscerally hate that thought!
Being wilfully wrong should have consequence and condemation, right?
That is the moral standard I grew up with...

Hmm.

Maybe it is better,  ethically, to go that extra step to convince the "dangerously ignorant" by saying "I have different position", rather than "I disagree"

I think it is worth a try.
In most matters especially here on Permies, someone is bound to "disagree", so maybe covering the "different position" angle is a good goal.

Brace yourself, long post ahead, but the short version is that I am now fully supporting Paul's original statement and the comments made by Burra Maluca directed towards my words in earlier posts.

So the long version now,

I was at first surprised by the responses, particularly from moderators, who took a cautious tone with what I thought were very reasonable statements.  I was especially surprised that my mention of free speech was not once, but twice "moderated."  I did send a PM to Burra and got a very informative message back as to why my mention of free speech is so potentially controversial.  First off and for the record, I am a history teacher with a master's degree in history.  I have taught American history for over 20 years, so on the historical grounds, I know what I am talking about.  When I used the phrase free speech, just to be clear, I was not trying to imply something along the lines like "I have free speech and therefore I can say whatever I want."  This is not an example of free speech.  It is, sadly, a freedom abused, a mockery of freedom of speech.  For the record, what I meant by free speech was an open, free exchange of ideas--something I think that Permies fosters very well.  After communicating with Burra, I am completely supporting the moderators' stance on my earlier statements.  Even though my intent all along was to encourage a free exchange of ideas, apparently the phrase "free speech" has become something of a trigger phrase on this site in the past, with people abusing the right to free speech that they don't even have on an internet forum like this.  This attitude "I have free speech therefore I can say whatever I want and you have to publish it" is a terrible abuse of free speech and in fact is not covered by the 1st amendment, especially on a forum such as this one.  Again, to reiterate so there is no confusion, I was hoping to foster the free exchange of ideas, but apparently, the use of the phrase free speech more than a few times in the past has meant a person is about to unleash a torrent of nasty statements.  And again for the record, I was not about to do this, but I had no idea that the term "free speech" had become such a trigger phrase.  Sad.

Secondly, I was informed that while the basic logic behind my previous statements about using the phrase "I disagree" was basically sound, again, this apparently has been among a series of phrases that may seem innocuous at first, but is again abused and used as a maul for attacking another person's perspective.  And in that light, this is actually something of a violation of another person's free speech and certainly a violation of the very concept of a polite, civil discussion.  I hope that other readers can discern from my post that I only wanted to be able to encourage civility in discussion--never an attack based on heated emotions (these statements almost inevitably never end well for anyone in the conversation).  Due to the moderator's past history of users' statements issued prior to things turning ugly, if they deem that "I disagree" tends to foster enmity, then I will certainly abide by that warning.  And once again for the record, I had no idea that these very set of words had been so misused in the past.

I would like to thank William Bronson who had the keen insight to recognize that I was trying to be respectful at all times and the bravery to say so.  Thank you.  William's insight was correct in that at no time did I intend anyone any sort of ill will, but once again, without moderators actually knowing me in person, I can see where my words could have been taken out of context and interpreted as something they were never meant to.

I also want to thank Burra for responding clearly and cogently to my PM where I wondered if I had somehow transgressed.  I was assured that I had not and I now not only understand the moderators' perspectives, but I wholly support them.

The Permies I have always seen has been one of highly civil discourse.  Apparently it was not always so civil and the moderators have learned to put out fires while they are still very small.  My statements were never a fire to be put out, but I now recognize that they may have appeared as such and I would like to thank all the moderators for making this such a wonderful site.

I thank you very, very much,

Eric

Eric,  thank you ,for all you have said.

Eric Hanson wrote:The Permies I have always seen has been one of highly civil discourse.  Apparently it was not always so civil and the moderators have learned to put out fires while they are still very small.

Uncivil comments are not something that happened long ago, and far away. They happen routinely in the present, on this very forum. So if the general readership is viewing the forum as a place where "highly civil discourse" is taking place, it's because of the constant tending of the forums by the staff. And if the staff have a strong disliking for a post that starts off with "I disagree!!!", i'd say it's due to that often being the phrase where a thread pivots into nastiness. I much prefer posts that start with "I believe....". That opening remark leaves room for other people's opinions, it doesn't claim that others are wrong or imperfect, and it doesn't claim to be the absolute truth.

Damn, Eric! I think you just proved it: ANYTHING can happen on Permies! <GG>

Will, I was going to poke you and see if  you remained suspiciously reasonable, but I think I'll just behave. Hard to improve on you guys...

To bad I'm up up here and you're down there and over there. I'd stand you a couple tall cold ones cuz pretty sure you're ready for 'em about now.


Cheers,
Rufus

Tyler Ludens wrote:
I'm asking how one proves that one's position is objectively true to the person to whom one wishes to say "I disagree."

I think it's often possible to just launch into describing one's own knowledge, experience or references on the issue without saying "I disagree" or a synonym. For example:

Strawman wrote:
35 MPH is hurricane force winds!

Rebecca Norman wrote:
My location gets 35 mile per hour winds pretty often, and they are not horribly strong or damaging. The hurricane that hit my area in XX year supposedly had 80 MPH winds. I found this chart of hurricane wind speeds on Wikipedia.

Tyler Ludens wrote:I'm asking how one proves that one's position is objectively true to the person to whom one wishes to say "I disagree."

In my opinion that is impossible, Tyler.

Most conflicts I've seen arise from the mistaken belief that the views of others can be changed by words on a monitor, when only real life possess the power of objectivity to change a view... sometimes with a gentle tap on the shoulder and other times with a two by four over the head. However, anyone here can easily prove what is objectively true for themselves simply by observing how their own life unfolds.

Thank you Eric for your post,  a very enlightening and helpful one in my opinion.

Eric Hanson wrote:  I hope that other readers can discern from my post that I only wanted to be able to encourage civility in discussion--never an attack

I'm just one reader but I believe you only wanted to contribute to free exchange of ideas. I didn't sense any ill will whatsoever.

The Staff replies in this thread have been very enlightening for me, too. They reveal to me the practical side of this whole issue. I got a glimpse into the massive amount of work that the moderators have. I now see this discussion in a different light, ie. not philosophical, but practical.