I felt compelled this morning to add a few additional thoughts on this thread.
We are nearing 900 members. Since this forum goes back to around Aug 2003, that would put us into around 21 months of operation. That calculates out to around 43 new members each month if we just use an unweighted average. So we are looking at 516 new members in the next 12 months. I would like to suggest that 1400 members and growing is like any small corporation. There will be about 5-7% turn over every year. This is going to pose a rather intensive load to monitor and consider. With new topics being added daily, I can immagine a rather imposing monolith of different personalities and demeanor.
Just an observation mind you, but, I calculate that there will be increased discussion on topics such as this thread and the desire by some to explore other complicated areas of life. Birds of a feather......, like talking about various subjects among our own as a means to establish with others our own belief system. I have thought about this and wanted to share this observation with those that might find it interesting.
Hugs
Danielle Marie
First Admendment - Freedom of Speech
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
-
Loretta Ann
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 2199
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:30 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
Danielle,
What has happened to you? This is certainly not the kind of behavior you have shown us in the past. You are hurting yourself by your performance in this thread. Can you not just let this thread die?
Main Entry: mono•lith
Pronunciation: 'mä-n&l-"ith
Function: noun
Etymology: French monolithe, from monolithe consisting of a single stone, from Latin monolithus, from Greek monolithos, from mon- + lithos stone
1 : a single great stone often in the form of an obelisk or column
2 : a massive structure
3 : an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force
Main Entry: de•mean•or
Pronunciation: di-'mE-n&r
Function: noun
Etymology: 1demean
: behavior toward others: outward manner
My limited education does not enable me to put those two explanations together. How does one obtain an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force that includes a unified behavior or outward manner toward others from such a diverse group of people? And when have you ever seen any group of people organized without a leader?
You are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, making it harder for others to love you. Your monolith of different personalities and demeanor will not be all that different than has been previously experienced here. Even if they are, the present administration seems well equipped to deal with it.
Of the 1400 members only a small percentage are active participators, and that percentage will not increase all that much once things cool down from the present fire that still seems to be smoldering somewhat here.
There needs to be some explanation for this turn in your demeanor.
Love Darlene.
What has happened to you? This is certainly not the kind of behavior you have shown us in the past. You are hurting yourself by your performance in this thread. Can you not just let this thread die?
Main Entry: mono•lith
Pronunciation: 'mä-n&l-"ith
Function: noun
Etymology: French monolithe, from monolithe consisting of a single stone, from Latin monolithus, from Greek monolithos, from mon- + lithos stone
1 : a single great stone often in the form of an obelisk or column
2 : a massive structure
3 : an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force
Main Entry: de•mean•or
Pronunciation: di-'mE-n&r
Function: noun
Etymology: 1demean
: behavior toward others: outward manner
My limited education does not enable me to put those two explanations together. How does one obtain an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force that includes a unified behavior or outward manner toward others from such a diverse group of people? And when have you ever seen any group of people organized without a leader?
You are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, making it harder for others to love you. Your monolith of different personalities and demeanor will not be all that different than has been previously experienced here. Even if they are, the present administration seems well equipped to deal with it.
Of the 1400 members only a small percentage are active participators, and that percentage will not increase all that much once things cool down from the present fire that still seems to be smoldering somewhat here.
There needs to be some explanation for this turn in your demeanor.
Love Darlene.
-
Danielle La Belle
- Account Deactivated at Member's Request
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:49 am
- Location: SC
Darlene:
I recently attended a seminar on "social interaction." The intent of the seminar was to demonstrate and explain variations in "social interaction." The course material was designed to address College level Teachers, that during the course of instruction, will need to monitor, direct, or mold, class discussions on various subject matter.
A portion of our time was spent on "indirect communication." Email, forums, etc. Where, two or more individuals would communicate on an individual topic without the benefit of seeing one another. The "topic" was announced, then seminar participants were sequestered in pairs into cubicles and would respond over a common forum arrangement employing an "internal communication server" at the University.
The results of these practice sessions for the most part, are represented in what happend in this thread. Once, replies began to wander past the original "topic statement," things became heated as individuals became more intenet on "winning" the arguments.
These events and individual particpants were then compared to a single coin. Heads = the left, Tails = the right, the coin's center ridge, the peace keepers, the neutralists, those that supported the administration and those that "did not want to rock the boat, the status quo people.
We all as a culture fall into one of these three categories for the most part.
Using an electronic wall, we make our stature in life equal to others by eliminating the predjudices that come with visual contact. Race, sex, skin color, body proportions, formal education. Here we are equal. Here, as "birds of a feather," we collectively share ideas. We do not expect someone to just randomly agree so as to not "rock the boat." If we were to do that then this would be no better than talking to myself.
"Argumentation," a class at many fine Universities, is attended by all freshman law students. There is a respected "science" to presenting an "argument." Arguing is not argumentation. That is applied with a bigger hammer until the other side cries uncle. Take a postion and beat them senseless! Insult them, punch them verbally until they simple give up.
In regards to "monolithe" i.e.
"Teddy Roosevelt was a monolithe of power as he led the charge up San Juan Hill."
In regards to "demeanor" i.e.
"Teddy Roosevelt was a monolithe of power with a demeanor to match as he led the charge up San Juan Hill."
"Teddy Roosevelt was a "rock" of power with .........
If you change words, you may well change the meaning. By doing so, you "speak" for the contributing writer and the thought may be altered. If we discontinue this thread, we are saying that we cannot act as responsible adults, that we need as children, someone to act as a speaker of our thoughts.
We will now rely on the wit and wisdom of Beauty to selectively offer alternate words and phrases to what might be our disliking. Never the less, that was never my real intention in this thread. To "slap my hand" for this thread has more meaning than all of the entries that came previously before this current entry over this topic.
If you just do not get it, then ride the fence. It is safer.
I am smiling.... Not scolding.....
Hugs
Danielle Marie
[[A supporter of higher learning and experience through interaction with others. As always, nothing has changed.] "I am that I am." I go forth by the grace of my creator.]
I recently attended a seminar on "social interaction." The intent of the seminar was to demonstrate and explain variations in "social interaction." The course material was designed to address College level Teachers, that during the course of instruction, will need to monitor, direct, or mold, class discussions on various subject matter.
A portion of our time was spent on "indirect communication." Email, forums, etc. Where, two or more individuals would communicate on an individual topic without the benefit of seeing one another. The "topic" was announced, then seminar participants were sequestered in pairs into cubicles and would respond over a common forum arrangement employing an "internal communication server" at the University.
The results of these practice sessions for the most part, are represented in what happend in this thread. Once, replies began to wander past the original "topic statement," things became heated as individuals became more intenet on "winning" the arguments.
These events and individual particpants were then compared to a single coin. Heads = the left, Tails = the right, the coin's center ridge, the peace keepers, the neutralists, those that supported the administration and those that "did not want to rock the boat, the status quo people.
We all as a culture fall into one of these three categories for the most part.
Using an electronic wall, we make our stature in life equal to others by eliminating the predjudices that come with visual contact. Race, sex, skin color, body proportions, formal education. Here we are equal. Here, as "birds of a feather," we collectively share ideas. We do not expect someone to just randomly agree so as to not "rock the boat." If we were to do that then this would be no better than talking to myself.
"Argumentation," a class at many fine Universities, is attended by all freshman law students. There is a respected "science" to presenting an "argument." Arguing is not argumentation. That is applied with a bigger hammer until the other side cries uncle. Take a postion and beat them senseless! Insult them, punch them verbally until they simple give up.
In regards to "monolithe" i.e.
"Teddy Roosevelt was a monolithe of power as he led the charge up San Juan Hill."
In regards to "demeanor" i.e.
"Teddy Roosevelt was a monolithe of power with a demeanor to match as he led the charge up San Juan Hill."
"Teddy Roosevelt was a "rock" of power with .........
If you change words, you may well change the meaning. By doing so, you "speak" for the contributing writer and the thought may be altered. If we discontinue this thread, we are saying that we cannot act as responsible adults, that we need as children, someone to act as a speaker of our thoughts.
We will now rely on the wit and wisdom of Beauty to selectively offer alternate words and phrases to what might be our disliking. Never the less, that was never my real intention in this thread. To "slap my hand" for this thread has more meaning than all of the entries that came previously before this current entry over this topic.
If you just do not get it, then ride the fence. It is safer.
I am smiling.... Not scolding.....Hugs
Danielle Marie
[[A supporter of higher learning and experience through interaction with others. As always, nothing has changed.] "I am that I am." I go forth by the grace of my creator.]
Make the most of every day!
-
Loretta Ann
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 2199
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:30 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
Danielle,
I am not going where you have tried to lead me here. You have spoken as a politician would refusing to answer my question and stay with in the context of the post to which I replied.
That is a kind of higher learning that I have no use for. I do not wish to become so higher minded that I am no earthly good. I wish to focus instead on what I can provide in the way of support for my fellow man.
From my prospective this conversation is finished.
Darlene.
I am not going where you have tried to lead me here. You have spoken as a politician would refusing to answer my question and stay with in the context of the post to which I replied.
That is a kind of higher learning that I have no use for. I do not wish to become so higher minded that I am no earthly good. I wish to focus instead on what I can provide in the way of support for my fellow man.
From my prospective this conversation is finished.
Darlene.
-
Beauty
- Retired Site Administrator
- Posts: 3662
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:30 am
- Location: Northern VA
- Contact:
I pleaded with you not to bring my name up again and Sharon also warned you. You not only brought up my name again, but again you commented about what I do in way that I find rude. Sorry, that's my interpretation.Danielle La Belle wrote:We will now rely on the wit and wisdom of Beauty to selectively offer alternate words and phrases to what might be our disliking. Never the less, that was never my real intention in this thread. To "slap my hand" for this thread has more meaning than all of the entries that came previously before this current entry over this topic.
You are suspended for 30 days. If you would like your account terminated please send e-mail to Sharon.
Beauty