| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 01/26/2004 : 17:21:57
|
I've wondered to myself and others in the past few weeks, why I am deliberately avoiding to post, in areas where I have a thought or opinion.
The title of this thread relates to the cause, and not to my resulting choice.
A few times in the last month or so, I've received an email or a PM asking for my thought or opinion on a claim issue, that would have made a great topic in CADO. I haven't asked the most current person, but of the others I have asked why they didn't or wouldn't post it to CADO; and was clearly told they didn't want to subject themselves to abuse or ridicule.
I can understand that, and have taken my share of abuse, ridicule and statements made about me in these forums that were of a libellous nature. But it seems I have lost interest in exposing myself to that kind of treatment, when I disagree with another person's stated opinion.
What has brought this mindset to this point of expressing it, is what I have read in the last few days. The pattern is the same, every time, when one poster can not get the other to accede to his point of view. If you look back over many previous forum threads, it is always the same pattern.
Here is the latest, you decide how comfortable, willing or tolerant you would be to have this type of language pounded at you repeatedly, when you fail to come into line with the opposing opinion.
The "O&P" current thread, started 1/24, and 24 hours into it, the typical pattern starts to emerge;
(1) ".... you will come across to those who do know, as ill and misinformed ...."
(2) ".... to suggest otherwise is sadly, to exhibit your own ignorance and naivety ...."
(3) ".... Re Con Man's zany insane idea ...."
The "Contractor City" thread, started 1/24, and the same typical and predictable abuse pattern emerges;
(4) ".... Yes, I will call you a Con Man .... and the ignorance of your misinformation ...."
(5) ".... you have only taken your ignorance to record new heights! ...."
How does it look, when this verbal abuse is gathered together from just a short period of posting?
Is this the type of discussion you are comfortable in joining?
Is this a large part of why only 12% of our members have chosen to make a post?
Why would anybody bother to post, regardless of the thickness of their hide or the breadth of their shoulders, if you can count on this type of abuse and ridicule, if you do not agree or are of a different opinion on an issue?
I am not being critical of the "moderation" system within CADO, but do wonder why this type of personal attack and verbal abuse is allowed to be poured onto anyone who chooses to continue to be in disagreement on an issue? |
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 18:40:41
|
Clayton I just went back and reread the O&P thread again. I disagree (respectfully) with you that there was verbal abuse and personal attacks. I thought JimF did a pretty good job of trying to explain a simple process to someone that did not want to hear the explanation. The recon man apparently "tripped the trigger" of more than just JimF if you go back and reread the thread, I think Ghost, et al was starting to "feel the pain." This is probably pretty normal discourse for most Yanks, who are more prone to let it all hang out. I know it has been really cold up there but maybe you should chill out a little. Try ice fishing, it is good for the tension. As for only 12% of the members posting, that is actually just slightly higher than normal. When non-adjusters show up on the CADO playroom and attempt to stir up trouble as in the past with the roofing forum etc, they should expect to receive a "spirited discourse." I can recall several times in the past year where you got slightly lathered up when someone made a disagreeable post. Keep looking Clayton, you will find the pony in the pile of horses***. And please dont get mad at me again, take this in the manner it was intended.
|
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
 |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 18:40:51
|
Obviously Clayton and I have had our differences in the past, but those disagreements do not negate those areas in adjusting where we have agreed.
As the well known claims manager Hart Hubbard says, "even the thinnest pancake has two sides."
I would agree that a simple reading of Clayton's comments above when taken out of the context within which they were written, do sound excessively critical. But in rereading the entirety of both threads and reviewing the context within which they were written, a different reading I think would be obvious to those without bias.
As an example, to suggest that someone's idea is zany or insane is not the same as saying that the person is zany or insane.
Dissecting an argument is not only what men and women do every day in politics and business in this country, but what we as adjusters do every day in trying to understand the propositions brought forward by creative insureds, and then challenging those which do not make sense.
Suggesting that person is ill informed or misinformed in a specific argument is not the same as saying that a person is generally ill informed or misinformed. I am sure that Reconstruction Man is indeed well informed in many areas of business and contracting, but I hold that his understanding of the premium rate making process is not informed.
By the same token, I am and would be ill informed or misinformed on many topics with which I either have no experience or education. Hopefully I would have enough wisdom to not show my ignorance and naivety of those topics by publicly posting my views.
I would ask others here to reread and review the two threads that Clayton mentions in their entirety, and if you feel that my comments are out of line or inappropriate, then I will publicly apologize to Reconstruction Man and to this audience. And as always. I invite Roy and the Moderators to either call me down or remove or edit any postings which I make which not only do not comply with the CADO Guidelines but the spirit of those guidelines as well.
And to you Clayton, I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable in not expressing your views and as always, I personally welcome the wisdom that you bring to us here through your many years of service to our industry.
And Ghostbuster, if it is my turn for a blast of Ol' Dragon's Breath, this freezing night would make it most welcome and appreciated. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 19:12:49
|
| I have to say that the the level of human vitriol is dismaying. Any face to face at the level frequent here would quickly deteriorate to hatred and maybe to blows. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 21:23:04
|
C'mon guys. We are only talking about words on the printed page (screen). They are only words. I think that the biggest problem is that Clayton seems to have the same view of JimF as Newt Gingrinch has of Bill Clinton or to be fair and ballanced, Michael Moore has of Rush Limbaugh. It really doesn't matter how it is said it's more annoying to Clayton that Jim said it.
Another element going on here has alot to do with an observation I had a few years back when the topic of discussion was political. People were getting really worked up over the fact that people were vehemently and vociferously disagreeing. There are some people in this world, like me, who absolutely love a good argument and will happily and pasionately argue with someone and when all is said and done take that person out for dinner. There are other people in this world, like my mom, who can't stand to be around anyone with whom they disagree or has the gaul to disagree with them. I think alot of that is going on too. |
|
|
|
Red
24 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 21:58:44
|
Clayton
I have read the threads that you mentioned. I don't see anything other than disagreement among persons with different view points. I don't see that Mr Recon knows alot about the adjusters end of the business. It appears to me that he openly tries to ruffle feathers and get an argument going. His words are just as pointed as anyone that responded to him if not more so. Basically from what I out of his remarks was that we adjusters don't know what we are doing and he and his comrads have to come in and redo our work. To make sure the insured gets what they are
entitled to. I personally take offense to that and frankly I am surprised you aren't upset with it.
Of course the reconstruction folks that come in to help the insureds recover never make a mistake they never over charge and oh yeah they never leave the insured before the work is done to the point that the insured has to sue them to try to get their money back. I have read your articles for some time and enjoy them. I know that Jim and you have opposing opinions in someways but I also know you agree on many things. Darn it, it's ok to get different opinions and I bet you remember the things you disagreed on and you probably went to research to see who was 100 percent correct didn't you? That is what we do is exchange ideas. I said all that to say I think this one Clayton you may be over sensitive on. I don't see anything but someone disagreeing and
giving back what is being handed out. The old saying is if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen applies here. I don't mean you I mean Recon Man |
|
|
|
deleted
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 22:04:18
|
| Just looking at the posts from a writing perspective, none of them seem to me to be an attack on the person themselves, but rather an attack on the ideas set forth...I would rather have someone tell me my idea was wrong or that it just plain stinks to my face, than behind my back...some people are uncomfortable with others who speak there minds, because they may not always do it themselves...but I believe that the posts in that thread were made in the spirit of a constructive disagreement...if anyone thinks that this board, or real world conference room, is any different then you are mistaken...I think some people get into this type of work because of the freedom it allows...there are no face to face diatribes with co-workers, because there an no co-workers...this line of work does not have the typical office setting in the 21st century, if it did some of you would realize that this is all a healthy dialog that happens daily in the "normal" work place...don't take things too personally, everyone wants their ideas to be the "right" ones... |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 22:34:59
|
It isn't the "vitriol" that is dismaying, it is the level. I know that I can comment on the fact that my little one man adjusting business has bad debts, hey folks bad debts are a fact of life , without commenting on dental hygene and giving a detailed job history. It goes beyond, way beyond "constructive diagreement." Yes manners are required in a "real world conference room."
Hey, I want someone to call non payers to taw. I'm probably not going to go to the trouble, but I will help someone else and I really want their names posted, just so that I don't put my new Wolverines in the same cow pie.
My buddy says that the deeper the water the bigger the sharks. Translated that means when lots of money flows, as around the aftermath of a hurricane, there are going to be blood suckers.
Best that we mind our manners. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 22:37:58
|
| Oh, and before it starts, I have always thought that my worst critic is my best friend over the long haul. |
|
|
|
deleted
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 22:45:40
|
| Chuck, I hate to disagree with you, but even in the teacher's lounge sh*t hits the fan on a daily basis... |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2004 : 23:08:14
|
Just a few more things to say, and to try and clarify or clear up some items; then I've had my say and it is over with.
Kile, I don't agree with your 1st paragraph, and your 2nd doesn't apply to me. But, I do like a detailed discussion or a good debate or argument; and I particularily enjoy them over an extended cocktail hour and a long dinner, it is a great way to learn a lot more about the person you are communicating with and of the issue at hand. But, I have no use for any of that when the disagreement is directed personally and not to the issue. I just don't see how that belongs in the journey of disagreement that doesn't necessarily have to have a destination.
John, I'm not angry and it is okay to disagree, and in the manner you did it, it is respectful.
Red, it wasn't about why someone disagrees, but it is about the manner in which that was done with unnecessary parts directed to the person and not the issue.
Ciri93, what I pointed out in my opening post is not "healthy dialogue that happens daily in the normal workplace ....". I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying that the excerpts I raised in my opening post are not healthy dialogue, and they would not be tolerated daily in the normal workplace.
The general feeling of those responding seems that the language or tone that I pointed out is okay or acceptable, and that you would be willing to regularly accept that type of thing directed to yourselves. While some others wonder whether this type of communication face to face is proper, but seemingly more tolerated by virtue of its existence on the internet. Well, it isn't to me in any medium. I'm far from perfect as a fellow human, but I try and save such things and worse to illustrate my anger or disgust; normally in a live environment and hopefully rarely enough.
What this issue - the type of language directed to the person and not the topic being discussed - isn't, is that it is not a crusade by me against a person. It is a point I'm trying to make that the issue I've raised does little to encourage participation in threads. The issue, "why does it have to be that way" doesn't seem like a community type language, or language that needs to be directed to a person to emphasize or enforce a technical or other opinion.
That's it, I've said my piece; its over with as far as I'm concerned, just wanted all in the playground to reflect on the view I had. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Why does it have to be that way?
Forum Locked
