Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#114462 - 11/02/03 08:10 PM Re: silly balls
Faldage Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 13803

#114463 - 11/02/03 08:19 PM Re: silly balls
maverick Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 4757

Izzat a theme park?

#114464 - 11/02/03 08:21 PM Re: silly balls
Buffalo Shrdlu Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 7210
Loc: Vermont
no, that's the rest room at the theme park...

formerly known as etaoin...

#114465 - 11/03/03 11:54 AM Silly Billy's
musick Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 2661
Loc: Chicago
This all reminds me of...

after The Simpson family killed all the animatrons who went bezerk at Itchy and Scratchyland...

Meyers: As Roger Meyers Jr., the owner of the park, I'd like to thank you for stopping the killer robots, and to show my appreciation, here are two free passes.
Homer: But there are five of us.
Meyers: [angry] Here are two free passes!
Homer: That's better.

Dr. Frink kneels over the inert body of a robot.

Frink: Man, if this is happening here, I'd hate to think of what's happening in Euro Itchy and Scratchy Land, n-hey.

[shot of empty parking lot in said park

Booth man: [French accent] Hello? Itchy and Scratchy Land open for business. Who are you to resist it, huh? Come on. My last paycheck bounced. My children need wine.

#114466 - 11/03/03 09:24 PM Re: backs from the lookwards side
moss Offline

Registered: 10/18/01
Posts: 104
silence seems to be a better tool of criticism

Disagree, Musick.

Silence is not "a tool of criticism", especially in a forum or assembly of people. It is a tool of assent, as in "silence gives consent".

Silence only becomes "a tool of criticism" if it is practised by a group upon an individual. In that case, it is not "criticism" but ostracism.

As the passage below indicates, ostracism is employed not so much to censure opinion as to remove a threat to the established power structure.

A reconstruction of Themistocles' Ostracism, from The Greeks documentary:

The institution of ostracism, believed to have been created by Cleisthenes, was not actually used until 487 BC; some 20 years after his reforms.

Designed as a safeguard for protecting democracy, it was a harsh and unforgiving punishment, often meted out to individuals who were becoming too personally powerful, or who threatened the positions of those who already had great influence.

#114467 - 11/04/03 08:07 AM Re: ostracism
AnnaStrophic Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 03/15/00
Posts: 6511
Loc: lower upstate New York
OK, works for me.

#114468 - 11/04/03 08:31 AM Breaking silence
Jackie Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 03/15/00
Posts: 11613
Loc: Louisville, Kentucky
Silence is not "a tool of criticism", especially in a forum or assembly of people. It is a tool of assent Ok, I'm going to disagree with this--or at least put in a disclaimer. Speaking from personal experience, silence can also be the result of a decision that not saying something is better in a particular circumstance than saying something. It is a matter of priorities, and degrees--and I think we each set those for ourselves. I doubt that there is a single reader here (who has read more than just a handful of posts) who has not disagreed with something said. And I for one am very thankful that we have refrained from posting every little disagreement; if that were the case, I imagine that's about all we'd be reading. It, um, may have been rather obvious, of late, that I bristle right up when in my opinion my friends are attacked. At the other end of the spectrum, for ex., when various people disagree over whether a word came from Greek or Latin, I mentally yawn and move on: I have no vested interest in such a thing. And I feel sure that everybody has such things. Yet, even where I do have a vested interest, there are many reasons--for manners' sake, being one--that I refrain from voicing my disagreement. As to degrees: I believe we each have our "threshold" at which we will tolerate no more, and that this varies from person to person.

Edit: hmm, I was giving some thought to why I broke my silence and made this post. It is because I tend not to like generalisms, and particularly dislike having them applied to me. I have discovered, comparatively recently, that my anger is quickly aroused when someone presumes they know my entire motivation. Trust me: you (you, as in the world, not you in particular, moss) don't, unless I have specifically told you. It also makes me angry when I have laid out my entire motive with complete honesty, and someone still says, "Yeah, but what's your real agenda?"

E. Edit (like P.P.S., ya know): DubDub--you did a much better job than I!

#114469 - 11/04/03 08:33 AM Re: ostracism
Wordwind Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 6296
Loc: Piedmont Region of Virginia, U...
What exactly works for you, AnnaS?

And, Moss, I disagree that silence is necessarily consent. By whose absolute measure is silence consent? And, even so, is this law infallible?

Silence is silence, and, so being silent, may be construed to be either critical silence or consensual silence. But we need the facts of the situation at hand to begin to construe whether the silence had been either critical or consensual--or could have been undecided silence that lay somewhere in between. There are times in which people could experience great disapproval of words spoken, yet would remain silent, not to consent to what had been spoken, but because of the inappropriateness of expression at the moment. Consider meetings at work--team meetings, board meetings, conferences--in which co-workers or colleagues publicly express views that one considers to be unprofessional. One may remain silent in the public format of the meeting, but in private would address those concerns later and in a less humiliating venue out of fairness and sensitivity. There must be countless examples in which participants in discussions remain silent, not out of consent, but out of sensitivity to the situation--and with full intention to act at a later time upon the disagreement in a different venue.

We have the silence of Sir Thomas Moore and Jesus writing in the sand among other other instances of silence on points. And we have the law itself trying to determine what silence could have meant.

But finally we cannot interpret silence unless we question it. And since this board isn't a court of law, writing one's meaning out is a possible course to explain silence, but it is not the only course.

I would argue that interpreting silence strictly as consent is making a limited and perhaps erroneous assumption about silence.

#114470 - 11/04/03 09:01 AM Re: ostracism
AnnaStrophic Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 03/15/00
Posts: 6511
Loc: lower upstate New York
What exactly works for you, AnnaS?

Good question, WW. I guess "ignoring" is the best term in this case.

I thought your post was great. Jackie's, too.

Check your E-mail

#114471 - 11/04/03 09:53 AM Re: Breaking silence
of troy Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/17/00
Posts: 5400
Loc: rego park
silence is powerful 'weapon' in a battle.. in the case of an arguement, if two people disagree, and one choices silence... the arguement is ended.

the party that continues to rail, or rant or rave hasn't won the arguement..but its ended all the less-- an arguement (whether polite, and reasoned, or wild and wooly) requires two (or more) --you can't fight with your self (effectively!)

parties outside the arguement can keep silent too, and this isn't taking sides. (and escalating it) ...Parents uses silence all the time with kids bickering.. when kids realize they can 'engage a parent' by bickering.. they will bicker and fight more... so a parent's ignoring the bickering, reduces it.

but long term, parents deal with childrens arguements, by teaching them tolerence, or ways to manage.. (the classic 'sharing' strategy of one person cut (the cake, the candy bar, what ever) and the other person get first choice.)

i think, one cause of problems, is someone, acting good naturedly, who 'comes to the defence' of a other, whom he/she feels has been wronged-PUBLICLY.

i was in a work situation, where an other employee, who i got along with, and felt very comfortable with, 'mock swatted' me (on the behind) with a single sheet of paper rolled loosely into a baton. --we had a bantering type relationship, and the 'swat' while unusual, was not out of the character of our relationship.(it was also barely perceptable)

a third person saw this, and told me, 'you know you don't have take that kind of abuse from him'. i explained, i wasn't abused, and i didn't take abuse..

she persued the matter-- she claimed it made her feel uncomfortable to see me abused.. and that this guy shouldn't be permitted to abuse female employees!(no one else had any complaints about him)
--the guy nearly lost his job.. (it ruined our friendship, even though he knew i was not part of the action-) and it made everyone in the office uncomfortable..

the person who complained had been working there less than 1 month, the guy, had been there for years, 1 had worked there for 18 months or so.

I am sure she felt she was 'looking out for my interest' and 'protecting me' from this abusive man...but i didn't need her protections. she saw one interaction--not the full scope of the relationship, and decided to become a hero.

--i have worked in hostile environments, and i know what they feel like..and i have made complaints to management about abuse, (fortunately it was verbal, and not physical) but this incident has always bothered me. this poor guy went through hell, not for just cause, but because someone, not in full knowledge of the facts(of the relationship) made a snap judgement based on one 10 second interaction.

her silence.. (and the passage of time) would have made it clear to her that there was no abuse. she would still be entitled to her own opinion about the guy, and it might effect her relationship with him. but she could have watched and waited, and (as any one who knows me,knows!) she would have seen i am not a shy, submissive person, who is likely to tolerate abuse.

my other obsession

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Moderator:  Jackie 
Forum Stats
8965 Members
16 Forums
13869 Topics
222496 Posts

Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
Newest Members
thedesertsimmom, LostAuthor, Joe_Lee, David_Lee, soulsurvivor
8965 Registered Users
Who's Online
0 registered (), 24 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters (30 Days)
wofahulicodoc 47
LukeJavan8 32
may2point0 26
delirium 4
Curtis 1
DavidLaurence 1
Top Posters
wwh 13858
Faldage 13803
Jackie 11613
tsuwm 10538
LukeJavan8 8531
Buffalo Shrdlu 7210
wofahulicodoc 6929
AnnaStrophic 6511
Wordwind 6296
of troy 5400

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2016 Wordsmith