Note: I really don't want to keep this going any longer than necessary,
since it is a meta-topic, but, seeing as I see it is still going, I'll reply
one more time.
---
Hi Joe,
I have been enjoying your posts as well lately.
> The above is an example, (be it totally fabricated) is what constitutes a
> personal attack.
I tend to agree, with the _possible_ exception of
> “xxxxx still doubts”
depending on tone and context.
> Another indication that “might suggest” a personal attack is occurring, is
> the repetitive mention a persons name or assumptions made on that person
> over and over and over and over,,,, again, again and again in a single
> post.
Yup. Again, the context and tone are significant factors.
> A persons name is for addressing them only at the top of a letter, or
> crediting a quote or an idea as belonging to that person. Anytime you are
> examining the person and not the issues, that is a personal attack.
In general, this is true, however, In some cases the person's circumstances
or behaviours may be germane to considering the context and unavoidably
involved in the analysis' of an idea. Also, where an idea is being promoted
and there is less than full disclosure of the history and financing behind
it, those matters may need to come to light.
Generally, my policy is to leave names out of my posts, and address only the
ideas, but there are cases where names are appropriate and necessary. This
post is one.
> ...experience and evidence of a writer making claims, and where the line
> should be drawn, or if there even should be an attempt to moderate.
> Line should be drawn at examination the evidence and subject matter, and
> not examining the person.
I agree to the extent that a person's family or sex life is not relevant,
but where a person's bee activities and beekeeping financing are part and
parcel of the question and the conclusions are necessarily based on those
facts, they are relevant.
> This is Bee-L not Human-L
> But I will say, when personal attacks are made,
> it will become Person-L. LOL
Hehehe.
> IMO, The value of what a person has to say, should not always depend upon
> credentials. How many on the list have a collage degree in anything
> related to honeybees? I doubt there are more than a few. How many here
> have credentials in science or somewhere else, and assume these
> credentials are transferable to honeybees?,,, probably 3,000 or so. What
> criteria does one use to determine credentials?
Maybe I used the wrong word:
"A credential is an attestation of qualification, competence, or authority
issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant de jure or de facto
authority or assumed competence to do so.
"Examples of credentials include academic diplomas, academic degrees,
certifications, security clearances, identification documents, badges,
passwords, user names, keys, powers of attorney, and so on. Sometimes
publications, such as scientific papers or books, may be viewed as similar
to credentials by some people, especially if the publication was peer
reviewed or made in a well-known journal or reputable publisher.
I meant it in the broadest sense, and include diplomas from the School of
Hard Knocks, and the League of Dirty Fingernails.
Most of us have some sort of credentials among beekeepers. You do, I do,
and so do all the rest. Some are more impressive than others.
> When my State Apiarist came to inspect my bees. He appeared to be
> extremely interested in hearing about my beekeeping methodry, as well as
> what mechanisms I thought were the reason for ‘some things occurring’ in
> my beehives. Now, he may or may not have chosen to believe me, but he
> was very generous towards sharing his views with me, as well as hearing
> what I have to say and discussing bee topics with me. I don’t recall him
> asking for credentials.
He did not need to. He was looking at them. He saw your bees, he saw your
neighbourhood, and he saw how you handled the bees and equipment and heard
what you thought
> IMO, Bee-L is blessed to have a wide variety of members with different
> backgrounds, this is an asset, and should not be limited by the exclusion
> of those not having what is perceived to be ‘credentials‘.
It is wide open and should be, but some speak very convincingly from limited
experience or without revealing what supports and drives their activities.
Some of us feel it reasonable to make sure that all the facts are apparent
so that those who are unwary can make decisions based on fact, rather than
an incomplete or distorted version of affairs.
> Perhaps, a requirement for credentials could be left out altogether. With
> or without credentials, wouldn’t you expect the issue being discussed to
> stand up to scrutiny?
If a person is used as an example, or claims to be one, the person becomes
part of the issue.
Don't worry. You have creds with me, and I am impressed that you are as
interested in this topic as you are.
Thanks.
allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/loader/loader.htm
---
It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
James Thurber (1894 - 1961)
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
|
