Suggested Rules for Invigilations

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Bill Grover, Mar 9, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    In a recent thread (Janko's Apology) a poster suggested that a certain discussion was just :

    an "ego battle,"

    and, that sources should not be challenged,

    and that posts need not be of dissertation level,

    and it is implied that one who rigorously argues for his position is just not showing good character at all.



    Were these guidelines not accepted, then that poster suggests that either the subject should be a forbidden topic or it should be accepted that not all posters who choose to make claims are good at defending those claims they, themselves, choose to make.

    In other words , one should not rigorously challenge another's position or the challenger is just on an ego trip. He is being unfair to the unprepared claimant who should be free rather to say whatever he wants and go unchallenged.

    Yet as I read the forum there many are posts which could be interpreted as ego- based using these criteria ; there are many posts which rigorously question sources as valid.There are posts too which argue using data gained at the dissertation level!

    Consider Rich and his dissertation or Tony and his experience evaluating dissertations or Cory and his fine experience in SA. Shall the results of these , along with all experiences and learnings in various areas by individuals, acquired in other grad academic contexts, be forbidden here so no feelings are hurt? Then we all can equally post. Stop these references to what is learned in grad work or be suspected of just being on ego trips.

    There are quibblings here too about something as (supposedly) insignificant as the usage of the comma in English. What's the next step, cite bigger and better grammars about commas? What's the next step to cite opinion based on PhD work in English? Well why not?

    Oh no, we should not do that. That would be much too academic for a forum dealing with learning.:rolleyes:

    Much better to realize and accept that not all have bigger and better grammars. So, forbid grammars altogether. Not all may have PhDs in English. So, forbide too a discussion of English using knowledge acquired in grad work in English. That might be seen as ego! Use not English learning so that all can equally post about English!

    Let anyone say whatever he wants about grammar and go untouched! Shape up that discussion on commas or we will despise grammar because you are so rigorous about grammar. That makes sense, right?

    In the Viet Nam post a source by Carl is questioned by Decimon. And why should Decimon not have the opportunity to question it ,and why not should Carl not have the right to defend it? Of course they should. But wait, such might be construed as an ego trip!

    Let's not require any source to be questioned, evaluated, explained, or understood. In fact, let's forbid the citation of sources altogether because we all cannot grasp the meaning of those sources. Then we all may post equally.

    And Decimon further uses "unfairly" his VN experience. That experience would make him somewhat of an expert. Others do not have that experience, so it is "unfair" for him to use that as evidence. No expert should be allowed to post using his expertise. That way, we all can post equally.

    Equal posting, that should be our goal. Not expert posting.



    Or is it only Theology which should be so invigilated and nothing else?

    :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2004
  2. Han

    Han New Member

    This board is going down hill, I love checking it for the information, but not the personal combats going on........ How about we talk about DL and the like, everyone can comment, but not about eachother personally? I know, a crazy idea, but let's try it! ;)
     
  3. leo

    leo Member

    Agree!
     
  4. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    Certainly the quality of the the board is most important. I would remove myself if I thought I endangered that.

    I also agree with you that issues not people should be examined. I will examine the content of all my future posts to attempt to determine if in my view I'm evaluating issues not condemning people. However, I cannot prevent others from viewing my determined response to issues as inconsistent with good character or as an attack on persons not the claims of those persons.

    The off topic forum, as I understand, allows the discussion of just about anything: The movie, The Passion, war, France, politics, Mormonism, Islam, Viet Nam,Catholicism, and so forth. If one is distracted or upset by such discussions, I suppose the off topic forum could be avoided by that one. I suppose also a moderator could intervene if that moderator thought the topic or the conversation was inappropriate.

    Are you saying that none of these topics should be discussed in the Off Topic forum or we risk lowering the quality of DI? HERE I'm addressing that issue, not you!

    But, I don't see why , as long as DL discussion in the other forums is thriving, discussions in off topic should be a cause of DI in general "going down hill."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2004
  5. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    For the record, my experience does not qualify me as an expert on the war in Vietnam and I did not so invoke my experience. What I did is to counter some bigotry from a groupthinker who parrots the fabricated atrocities of a group I happen to include.
     
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    We do, and we have, intervened.

    The Off-topic forum is just that....off-topic. If someone wants to limit their participation to strictly DL, then they should ignore the Off-topic section.
     
  7. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    If one or two percent of threads had fights in them, I would be surprised. It's just that everyone reads them.

    As always, I maintain a rational, positive attitude. It's just that some other people say ridiculous, unfounded things.

    This board is as calm as I ever remember it.
     
  8. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ==

    Decimon:

    That experience would indeed make you an expert on what you , yourself, saw and underwent. I did NOT claim that it made you an expert in general on the war OR that you so invoked your experience as such a qualification. You did reference your experience in your argument , though, and so you should!

    My point in this thread, using a discussion of VN as an analogy, is that your reference to your experience should not be condemned in argumentation as unfair on the basis that others have not had it! You are entitled to reference it in argumentation and elicit points from it without being thought of as egocentric or as picking on another who was not there!!!!

    In the same manner , one might know quite a bit about one Greek grammaticism by the experience of studying it or about one doctrine by laboriously being involved with it . Just because one references such experiences does not mean he is picking on others or that he is ego centric!

    Who can easily understand the experiences of a VN vet unless he was there? Who can easily understand the motives and arguments of one who loves genuine rigor in Theology unless he does too?

    But lack of understanding is not good grounds for judging!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2004
  9. Han

    Han New Member

    I love th topics, especially the off topic ones, with the exception of the personal attacks and rants about many on the board. I think this is where the moderators step in.

    I think a great example is Oko and my debate to this day about AACSB, though we debate, we don't get personal, nor do we need to write postings about how we don't personally attack one another. I love the debate!

    I see that they line gets fuzzy with theological debates, since they can be profoundly different in people's eyes, and very much in ones beliefs, and people are so passionate about it. I think it is nice to see such passion, until it turns into this..... just disappointing.

    Maybe a new forum on degreeinfo named: rants??? I don't mean this with sarcasm, and sorry moderators, I know you guys don't need any advice, just a thought.

    I want to chime in from time to time on these postings, just to say urgh!
     
  10. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that Bill Grover is referring to me. I also think that the remark of mine that continues to anger him is accurate. The thread was an ego battle.

    I never suggested anything like that.

    I think that's right. I think that it's unrealistic to expect every Degreeinfo participant to have done a complete literature search and to have read all the material that another participant considers relevant before they dare to express an opinion.

    The issue isn't rigorous argument. The issue is personal attacks on individuals who might not be able to argue as well as the attackers believe that they themselves can.

    You have three choices:

    1. Don't discuss anything at all.

    2. Be able to tolerate the fact that others may not present their points as well as you believe that you can present your own. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with them or that you can't present your own information and methodology. Just don't flame people.

    3. Be a prick to everyone that you perceive as your inferior.

    I'd recommend option number 2.

    Nobody said that you can't disagree. But trying to humiliate your perceived inferiors is, in my opinion, a mistake for many reasons.

    If you are working on a doctorate, perhaps it might be helpful if you looked at Degreeinfo as a teaching opportunity. Don't try to drive people off because you think that you know more than they do. Instead, help them to see things your way by presenting your own ideas in as attractive and persuasive a package as you can. That's part of an educator's task.

    I think that your anger is speaking now.

    I think that everyone should be welcome to post in these threads, regardless of their educational background or their theological commitments. Obviously, there's no reason why anyone else needs to agree with what they say. But they shouldn't be ridiculed or insulted either.

    Self-righteousness needs to be balanced by compassion.

    If you believe that you are a better scholar than others, then respond to their mistakes by saying 'I disagree because of A, B and C'. Let your superior scholarship stand on its own merits.

    Bottom line: It's easier to convince people to agree with you if they see you as a friend rather than as an adversary. It's easier for them to compromise their positions if they don't have to humiliate themselves in doing so.
     
  12. Han

    Han New Member

     
  13. skidadl

    skidadl Member

    BillDayson,

    thanks for posting! it helps to know that there is some that are more concerned with reasonable communication than the usual put down stuff around here. i would be interested to see the actual fruit of some of the lives here in comparison to the great study and supreme posting of these guys. of course being the great theologians that they are i'm sure that they have a good understanding of the great command and all. hmm, i wonder what pleases Christ more? dissertations---being king poster perhaps? or going into all the nations and making disciples, loving you neighbor as yourself? God oppesses the proud and gives grace to the humble. oops, did i say humble?!?

    i'm sure i'll be torn apart for this one. what do i know i'm just a lowly bible reader.
     
  14. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: Re: Suggested Rules for Invigilations

    ===

    Wonder why I always look upon you as the latter? You must not be doing a good job.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2004
  15. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    And which nations do you go to?

    One "theologian" in the thread of concern is a church minister. Are you better than he? Another works for a well known Christian apologist who argues for the veracity of the faith. Are you better than he?

    But all I am doing is for 35 years teaching disabled children and now am writing a dissertation about the One of whom you read in your Bible. I am trying to show to others in the Church that One is true God. What a waste of time-in your opinion!

    I'm sure you prove yourself to be the better Christian ,and ever so humble, by your judgement of us.

    But why wonder what pleases Christ? Surely you know your post and feigned humility do, else why would you write ?

    Oh no. I'm tearing you apart and acting again like king poster. Sorry. Say freely whatever you want.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2004
  16. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    C'mon Bill, take it easy on yourself. You're not really that big of a prick.
    :D
    Jack
    (there are a few people on this forum that you just don't want to agrue with. Bill is one (especially regarding Greek stuff). You can start a new poll to decide on the others (Steve Levicoff and Lawrie Miller also get my vote).
     
  17. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    Jack

    You know I value you as a DL friend. I know I get aggressive. I also know I make mistakes and could be making one here too. If I am, help me to see it.

    If someone will show a pattern on my part of refusing to deal with the other's evidence and just rather instead belittling , then I want to see that pattern. But I do not see it now!


    My hunch is if someone said agnostics are anti -semitic, then they would be drilled to provide evidence. If someone says that Kerry will sell out the country, then that claim would require proofs. Why , then, should I not expect evidence when someone makes claims about the Bible I love? Why on this subject should (imo) false assertations be immune?

    What I see instead is some people being upset when I ask for evidence for their claims about what Scripture teaches. Of course we can all have opinions. But if shown wrong admit it! Bill says "Use A, B, C..." I do!

    Look at the Passion thread where Carl said he based a view on Jesus on Josephus and the Dead Sea Literature. When I asked for specifics, Carl candidly admitted , as I recall, that maybe he was wrong. He continued to feel as did about the movie, though, which is OK.

    But Josephus and the DS Lit do not say Jesus was a zealot rebel. I think Carl said he could not show they did. So I respect Carl for that. I could have been wrong too. Carl could have showed me to be so. Then I would admit it!

    But if I am guilty of dismissing the other's evidence and instead I just try to belittle them instead, then let someone show now a pattern of my doing that.

    Of course, I can try to be more polite in making my points.
     
  18. Since I've been mentioned...

    Since I've been mentioned a couple of times in these posts, let me say this in response:

    I appreciate differences of opinion, and believe that this "off topic" area is a good place to air them. I can also take the heat as well as dish it out. I also appreciate Bill's mention of the fact that I appear to be pragmatic and will change my mind if proven that my statements are, in fact, not based on reality.

    To decimon, who seems to be angry with me, though I wish it were not the case. He calls me a "group thinker", a "fool" and a "bigot" (none of which I believe to be true of myself). But I will say that his responses to me also rang true, and gave me a chance to re-examine my own strongly held beliefs regarding VietNam, US behavior, and the general integrity of our leadership. Not saying I've backed off my viewpoint entirely, but I'm willing to acknowledge a strong counter-argument, although I wish it weren't delivered with such obvious ill-feelings towards yours truly.

    - Carl
     
  19. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    Then read AND understand : 1 Timothy 4:13-15 ; Titus 1:9 ; Acts 20:17-31 ; Ephesians 4:13-15 ; 2 John 9; Romans 16:17; Colossians 1:10;4:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2;2 Thessalonians 2:15.

    Then decide if your understanding of what you read in the Bible equals what these texts require .
     
  20. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: Since I've been mentioned...

     

Share This Page