Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktApologies for making this a full blown post. I wanted to comment on shrink’s “Peace be upon you” post, but my iPad will not allow me to post comments for some reason. Anyway…
For the record, and for those of you who might be wondering just what it is shrink (or “-“, as he is now apparently known) is talking about, this thread and this comment in particular is what apparently “wrecks it for everybody” and “drives away the people worth having” (ie shrink himself, or Teilhard de Chardin as he was called before he became “-“).
I leave it to you to decide just what or who “the problem” really is.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I refer you to rule #5 . . . Talk them down off the ledge instead of getting up there with them. And Peace be upon you is my title, I can't stand untitled posts.While you may be right, Shrink did not actually say explicitly any of the things you said. You may be 100% sure you know what he's talking about, but he's actually kind of vague. This is where one might ask for clarification before we respond in kind.For the record, there is a tone in your earlier response to Shrink that I don't like and that I believe productive conversation can do without. You can make your point without making pronouncements on ther people's history, capabilities, etc. That's just not how you talk to people your actually trying to have a conversation with, even when you disagree. perhaps especially when you disagree.This goes for everybody. Shrink, you don't always play nice, either, and sometimes it seems that you like to make Rorsach blots out of conversations, so people can see their own things to get angry about. Maybe I'm wrong, but I occasionally see bait in your posts. We can all do better, myself definitely included, but not if we don't try. And not with a 1 strike and your out law, especially not without trying to talk it out.Of course, Shrink stars this dialog on the weekend when I've got the least amount of time to participate. Thanks a lot!
LikeLike
And "the problem" is not a who, the problem is a what. This isn't Gossip Girls. At least not most of the time. 🙂
LikeLike
Kevin:I don't think civility requires us to pretend not to know what/who shrink was talking about just because he was vague about it. And I do think that others here who might not have been around when he left deserve to be given a chance to understand what prompted this. And I didn't respond "in kind". I just linked to the discussion that prompted shrink's departure.
LikeLike
And I can post comments all of a sudden! Weird system.
LikeLike
Jeeze, I'm trying to work on a hobby post today. Personally, I think you guys just got off to a rocky start and brought some of the old grievances over here from the Plumline, understandable I suppose, but not all that productive.I thought you both said things that first weekend that were slightly out of line and I suppose we could go back and say "he started it" and have a big debate with everyone taking sides. Good idea, really. Come on, let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt on this one and maybe just try a little harder moving forward. Maybe just be aware that each of you gets on the others last nerve and begin the conversation knowing that up front or something.I think we can have an impression of libertarianism without being incredulous that someone might actually be one, and I also think we can have a discussion about finance without being a banker or a stock broker. If we're only going to discuss issues from our own personal professional experiences that's going to end up being a pretty one sided or maybe two sided conversation. If we have a legal thread does that mean only mark, qb and ashot can legitimately participate?Let's give ourselves a chance to work out the kinks and play by our limited rules moving forward and see how it goes. How about giving each other another chance?
LikeLike
I think one word that we all need to keep in mind is condescending. A lot of really smart, successful people tend to regard others from that perch. It's neither a liberal or conservative fault, it's a human one. You could go look at the Plumline right now and see the evidence for yourself. We don't have to necessarily call someone stupid to give the impression that we think they are. And I'm just using that example in a generic way, not accusing anyone here of doing it. It's just something we all need to be aware of, IMO.
LikeLike
"I don't think civility requires us to pretend not to know what/who shrink was talking about just because he was vague about it."Is it going to kill you to ask for clarification and a little greater specificity before whipping out old one eyed Willy the wonder snake and starting the pissing contest? I ask that only for the sake of greater clarification. 😉 (Yes, I am imperfect, I'm always getting my dander up).In my sorry excuse for an opinion, I think this has minor conversation value, especially with someone whose clearly (rightly or wrongly) been offended: "is what apparently "wrecks it for everybody" and "drives away the people worth having" (ie shrink himself, or Teilhard de Chardin as he was called before he became "-")." . . . that goes beyond the links and starts putting words in his mouth. Accurate or not, I think that's not helpful to dialog. I'm not even talking a civility, I just think it's of very low communicative value when people are not getting along. But I could be wrong. Anyway, I'm loaded with stuff to do, please note I'm afraid everything I have to say sounds harsher than I mean it to, so if it sounds like I'm being difficult or nasty, I apologize, even when I mean to be all conciliatory it's difficult for me not to be abrasive, maybe. Later! It's a busy day for me.
LikeLike
"We don't have to necessarily call someone stupid to give the impression that we think they are. "Excellent point. And it's not necessary to directly insult someone to start a pissing contest. I know, I've done it many times!
LikeLike
"I thought you both said things that first weekend that were slightly out of line and I suppose we could go back and say "he started it" and have a big debate with everyone taking sides. Good idea, really. Come on, let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt on this one and maybe just try a little harder moving forward. Maybe just be aware that each of you gets on the others last nerve and begin the conversation knowing that up front or something."lmsinca: You say these things so much better than I do. I should just stop trying. Excellent, excellent, excellent.I really do have to go. I keep saying that, but I gotta, gotta stop. I just had to say that. Yay, lmsinca!
LikeLike
" If we're only going to discuss issues from our own personal professional experiences that's going to end up being a pretty one sided or maybe two sided conversation"No, it's going to suck. Imagine if a teacher refused to converse with her students because they didn't know the topic beforehand. Or two otherwise equally prepared business people didn't discuss a merger because the other one didn't already know the ins and outs of the other person's business? That's crazy! At least, that's my lay person's diagnosis of the condition.Now I really have to go.
LikeLike
Have a great day Kevin. It looks like we're have one of those two sided conversations right now, lol. I'm moving on to hobbies unless someone decides to weight in besides your or I.
LikeLike
Dang, I need an editor too.
LikeLike
I started something, but had to go pick up the kids from Saturday school. Just goes to show you what DC is like. A traffic jam on King Street reaching back a couple of miles. Fortunately, I know the alternate routes and detoured (dropping by the grocery store in the process). I like Scott and will enjoy spirited debates. There was an early dust-up that I thought was well within blog parameters. Shrink was once a part of a group that spun off of the Fix and left. I'm not judging, but I don't think this is simply a matter of someone else's behavior.BB
LikeLike
FB, thanks for your comments on the MedPac post. I'd forgotten about that pharmaceutical nightmare. I think that's important and also the patent issues surrounding biologics. Some of the companies that produce them actually buy off the generic companies to keep them from competing when the patent expires.Thanks for your input here as well. I hope it'll all blow over and we can proceed with no regrets.
LikeLike
lms: I also think we can have a discussion about finance without being a banker or a stock broker.I agree. Has someone suggested otherwise?
LikeLike
Any new group has to work out its dynamics. Just because it didn't work out for Shrink, doesn't mean it's not going to work out. Incidentally, I've a couple of posts in the works. One on autism. Another on science. Being on my own has curtailed my available time. I love my kids, but oh do I need a break.BB
LikeLike
Scott, I know you're a sticker for precision in wording, but no matter how precise we are sometimes we give the wrong impression of what we're trying to say. That's why it's always better to get clarification. I should know, I've been giving you clarification for years and even then I'm not always clear. 🙂 Long story short, your accusation that shrink was being a cynic regarding something he had no experience with could have been interpreted as I stated above. I'm just thinking out loud here and trying to put myself in his shoes, since he's not here. You might notice I also referenced somewhat obliquely something he said.I'm trying to encourage us all to get beyond this, and whether or not shrink comes back is up to him, but I don't think it should cause a wrinkle in your suit to assume that maybe you could have handled it a little differently yourself.You asked the question of us this morning and we answered. I'd like to see you both stick around and am hoping you guys can figure out a way forward. And I think it's also time to drop it especially since shrink's not even here to negotiate with you or us.FB, I'll look forward to those posts and now I'm going to go read your raw fish post. I like some sushi, but not all.
LikeLike
I could handle retry much every situation I'm ever in better than I do. Alwaysntryingmto improve. Full disclosure.
LikeLike
lms:I am happy to drop it. In fact I thought it was already dropped befor shrink's new post. And I didn't ask anybody anything…I only directed people to where they could find the fateful exchange to make up their own minds. But I have to confess to some irritation at the repeated insinuation by both you and Kevin that i dismissed shrink or suggested he shouldn't talk about banking because he wasn't a banker. That is not even close to what i said, particularly in context. I was responding directly to a deeply cynical statement by shrink. He was not trying engage in a serious discussion, or expressing a thought out criticism, only to have me tell him not to talk about banking because he is ignorant of it. He himself was attempting to dismiss the discussion with the cynical claim that the only reason the UBS trader was fired was because he lost money, and if he had made money while violating limits and hiding his positions, he would have been promoted. That is textbook cynicism, and it deserved to be called that.Now, I have no interest in re-litigating this with shrink, and as you well know through e-mails I am perfectly willing to accept that perhaps I could have handled it better. But I do wish that both you and Kevin would stop implying that I did something that I manifestly did not do.
LikeLike
scottOkay, there wasn't a question mark at the end of your post. But you did put up a post presumably to begin a discussion. Would you prefer we just ignore it? I tried to speak to the issue from the best of my ability. I don't quite understand how being a cynic delegitimizes a discussion or even how being wrong regarding a position does that, when the person in question believes they're right.I was simply trying to provide some perspective. And honestly, we all get irritated by statements and critiques from others. I appreciate you letting me know and next time I'll be more sensitive.This is a learning experience for all of us.
LikeLike
Also scottWhatever is discussed through emails with me is confidential so I am not, not now or ever, going to share that with anyone in the group. You're free to tell others what you've said but I won't take that liberty.
LikeLike
lms:No, I wasn't trying to start a discussion. I was simply responding to what had already been said, and, as I said in the post, the only reason it was a post at all was because I couldn't add it as a comment to the original post. And I didn't say being a cynic or being wrong delegitimizes anything. Lastly, I wasn't suggesting that you reveal anything about private e-mails. I was suggesting only that you should know from private e-mails that I don't dismiss the notion that I could have handled things differently.
LikeLike
scottI leave it to you to decide just what or who "the problem" really is.This sounded like an invitation to me. And sometimes even someone like you, who is very careful with words and tries to get others to do the same, is misinterpreted. We all are.
LikeLike
Not trying to be irritating, or imply anything didn't state explicitly, though I should say (as I think I did) in my initial reading it came across a little different than when I subsequently returned to the exchange. My point, to be clear, has not been about what you meant, just how it sounded. I know how I'd read it if it had been directed at me. I know how I read it, even though it wasn't. All I'm saying. No doubt, I could have communicated more clearly myself.Well, still no sign of Shrink in this conversation. It was just a drive by bomb throwing, after all. My tendency would be to conclude the original post was not, in fact, a good faith effort to engage in a productive dialog. Sigh.
LikeLike
A suggestion: Why don't the three of us just call a truce since we're discussing an issue that the fourth person of interest doesn't seem to be concerned with one way or another. Let's either consider it an exercise in futility or practice for the next one.I apologize for any part I played in prolonging the discussion and causing any hard feelings. I am quite sincere scott.
LikeLike
All right, good as truced. Futility, indeed. As always, I pledge to do a teensy bit better, next time. 🙂
LikeLike
lms/Kevin:All good. We three are here, trying, and not going anywhere. I just wanted to be honest with you about my thinking. No worries.
LikeLike
Great Scott. And I'm looking forward to your next post. I've stayed away from anything too controversial yet, I'm gonna let you do that, just kidding.
LikeLike