/karen/

Converse nicely

Monday, 10 January, 2005

I feel I ought to be saying something about the massive discussion that has erupted on this post, largely unchecked. (Please note, I generally don't delete comments made by other people unless they are spam or strangers obscenely swearing at me for reasons I cannot begin to fathom. I want to maintain free speech on this blog because I think that intolerance begins when you deprive others of the right to express their view. However, I hope that it's obvious that what other people say isn't necessarily what I think or agree with.)

I should point out that the bone of contention wasn't about what I wrote about but what Haydn wrote. So why did the debate heat up on my blog instead of his? I may have a wider audience reading my blog than he does but that's no reason why you lot couldn't have followed the link and engaged with his ideas there instead of here. (He actually clarified some things from his original post here).

In hindsight I probably should have said a little more about what he wrote instead of just quoting him and then continuing on a related topic but unfortunately I'm a rather lazy person and have this bad habit of just linking to things I find interesting without qualifying why I find it interesting or what I really think about the issue. So I do apologise for doing that and promise to mend my ways.

I don't want to say too much about whether the tsunami was God's judgement—I think that deserves another post (which I may or may not have the time, energy or articulation to write). I think the central problem of the debate is that the debaters don't know each other and this unfamiliarity breeds misunderstanding. I know all of them except for Martin and this existing relationship gives me the context of whatever is said. When Haydn wrote, “Ah, to see how fools close ranks!”, even though Philip questioned it, I knew more or less that Haydn was talking about the media and not about the other commenters simply because I know Haydn and I know he wouldn't be so blatantly rude as to call everyone else who had posted a “fool”. However, I also know Haydn struggles with anger and so, once provoked, his remarks can be quite inflammatory. Notice this usually occurs after he has perceived he's being attacked. Anger, as my counsellor says, is a secondary emotion; it's usually there to cover up the primary one because the primary one is vulnerable. Anger is a defence mechanism so if you hurt me, my first instinct is to hurt you back to protect myself from being hurt again. It takes time and effort to slow down that instinct and even change it (believe me, I'm working on it).

Philip, on the other hand, has this extraordinary knack of getting people annoyed with him. His written emotions and intentions don't match his real emotions and intentions which makes it really hard to engage with what he writes and really hard not to react to what he writes because his style often seems inflammatory, despite whatever intentions he may have. In short, he lacks transparency. What do I mean by that? I guess I'm comparing him to myself: I'm very transparent. People know what I'm feeling when I'm feeling it because I usually don't hide anything (I'm not very good at hiding things). Ben is the opposite; most of the time, you can have no idea of what he is thinking or feeling or even if he's having a panic attack because he covers it up extremely well. I've known Philip for eight years and I still haven't got a clue what makes him tick or what lies behind the veneer of his words. But I think I'm slowly learning that it's not what I think it is (though for a transparent person like me, it's very hard to believe that it's not). This doesn't make things very easy for Haydn or anyone else who engages with Philip.

Anyways, I ought to finish off this post because it's now 1 am and I am getting tired. I'm not going to adjudicate on any discussions that happen on my blog but perhaps I should lay down some ground rules when it comes to posting comments:

Please don't

• use highly inflammatory language because the way you say something will cause others to make judgements about you;
• make claims without evidence/proof: back up any blanket statements you make;
• dismiss the opinions of others offhand but try to engage with them wherever possible and ask for clarification for the parts you don't understand. I realise that might be hard in the close confines of my comment box but do your best;
• fire off accusations at other commenters because this will almost always provoke some sort of retaliation. Rephrase what you want to say in a gentler fashion;
• assume people are coming from the same theological background as you.

Please do

• be considerate of others—their opinions and their feelings. Be other-person-centred, love your neighbour, etc. As I've said before, people don't like being attacked or ignored;
• clarify what you say, especially if you are responding to something in a particular. The <blockquote> tags work in the comment boxes so make good use of them;
• be aware that this is a public site and anyone can read it. Though I think the majority of people who visit this blog are Christian, there are some who aren't. The way you behave on this site is as much of a witness to the God (or lack of a God) you worship as anything you do in the real world. People will unfortunately form their own judgements about your religion based on your actions. That is not to say that you should compromise the gospel because it's unsavoury to outsiders; just that your manner should reflect the Christ who died for you;
• read through what you write before you post so you don't post anything you regret;
• take some time to think—don't just react and write.

I'd love it too if you used correct spelling, grammar and punctuation too but that's asking a bit much really ...

Twitter

Blinks:

Feeds

• Full posts
• Full posts and del.icio.us feed
• Excerpts only
• del.icio.us feed only
• All comments

Social media

• Flickr
• Goodreads
• Last FM
• LibraryThing
• Listal
• Pinterest
• Ravelry
• This Is My Jam
• Twitter