Agreement

[Robert]

I would consider it rude if there was an ongoing group discussion and someone came up, addressed a comment to one person in particular, and then tried to shut down anyone else who responded to that comment.

Maybe in general, but ther are times when one directs a comment to one person and it is easy to see it was a personal statement meant for another. One can comment, but it is also respectful not to if one knows it was directed toward another.

"Joe, will you get my kids after Sunday School? Mary is late and I can't get there in time."

Someone may chime in, but that is really directed towards one person.

[Bootstrap]

This was the OP.

The thread has turned into a "what I find annoying about certain other people" thread. Like many other threads. Proving Soloist's point. So far, most people are pretty sure they know what other people should do to change that, and they are sure that other people are the problem.

To me, that's the basic problem. People are very interested in discussing what they think is wrong with other people. People are less interested in discussing what we, as Christians, should do to be salt and light, an alternative to what we see around us. Very little energy is put into agreements. Most energy is put into disputes.

Us versus them disputes. And they are the problem, not us.

In another thread, Soloist said this:

I don’t know if you noticed, but we on Mennonet tend to only discuss things we disagree on. There is very little energy put into agreements.

I think that's often true. And it often makes it feel more like a debate society than people in the Kingdom showing what it looks like to be an alternative to the world around us. To me, that's also quite different from what I have experienced in most Mennonite settings or other Christian settings.

Any thoughts about this?

Are the things we disagree about in these discussions the things we think are most important to discuss?

[ken_sylvania]

I would consider it rude if there was an ongoing group discussion and someone came up, addressed a comment to one person in particular, and then tried to shut down anyone else who responded to that comment.

Maybe in general, but ther are times when one directs a comment to one person and it is easy to see it was a personal statement meant for another. One can comment, but it is also respectful not to if one knows it was directed toward another.

"Joe, will you get my kids after Sunday School? Mary is late and I can't get there in time."

Someone may chime in, but that is really directed towards one person.

Yes, I agree with that.

[temporal1]

I would consider it rude if there was an ongoing group discussion and someone came up, addressed a comment to one person in particular, and then tried to shut down anyone else who responded to that comment.

Maybe in general, but ther are times when one directs a comment to one person and it is easy to see it was a personal statement meant for another. One can comment, but it is also respectful not to if one knows it was directed toward another.

"Joe, will you get my kids after Sunday School? Mary is late and I can't get there in time."

Someone may chime in, but that is really directed towards one person.

Yes, I agree with that.

Robert,
You add another layer to forum etiquette, at least, MN.

One thing i appreciate about MN is, when admin-mods speak directly to certain members, it is widely respected as one on one,
others mostly “let it sit.”

In other, instances, where it’s “public” one on one, i frequently see others respond - - OFTEN before the stated person responds.
i try not to be bothered by this, ever, it’s happened to me, both ways - - mostly because, on this forum, who knows if the stated person will respond? - Whether by deliberate choice (Max often is addressed, yet ignores and moves on to another topic, usually laughing and joking) - they may sign off and not see the comnent/question, etc. In other words, as others are saying, it’s fair game.

i believe you prefer to be “not special” in conversation, you shared this with me on MD, but, as admin+owner, you are. So are mods.
Not gods. But, special. To me, you’ve always been special, and still are. you+george were more than special in the past.
i digress.

i’m still not greatly experienced with internet forums. but, no, i do not see personal conversations as being off limits to the peanut gallery. no way. not even on RCC sites i visited in the past. (where protestants were reliably denigrated by Catholics, they really like hating Martin Luther and hold him responsible for all their troubles). i’m not sure any even named Anabaptists, there are tons of folks who know nothing about Anabaptists.

I personally feel that snide comments without naming a person is just as rude if not more so then interjecting into a conversation.

It’s done quite often and is an excuse to avoid being called out on this negative behavior as no one has proof that it’s the case but obvious to anyone involved in the conversation.

As for interjection, this is a public forum and if you want a private conversation, that’s the purpose of the pm.

i think what you’re referring to as “snide comments” is what i’ve thought of as passive-aggressive, which some are so good at, it’s hardly noticeable. i’ll add, there’s a pride factor involved. taking a swipe without getting caught.

i much prefer an honest direct hit over a sneaky swipe. it smarts. but it’s honest.
Wayne once referred to Josh as “a man without guile.” i smiled, and agreed. even having been a target for Josh many times.

i prefer an honest awkward lack of guile to a smart covert stab.

because of direct private interaction with Max, i’m not speculating, but recalling candid words.
i won’t say i understand what’s going on here, but, something’s weird.
members’ questions are valid.

boot,
i apologize if i’ve gone off topic with others on this, but it’s important, and not easily addressed.
so, i hope you’ll tolerate it.

[steve-in-kville]

It is possible to discuss things in a civilized manner, but what I see here is straight up egotistical, more often than not. It's not hard to simply walk away from a thread that goes sideways.

Can you describe that in terms of the behavior you see?

People seem to think they know other people's motives and the inside of their hearts. I doubt that. I don't know if someone is actually egotistical, but I can see specific things that seem to go wrong in threads.

One of them, I think, is acting like you can see into someone else's heart and read their motives ;->

Like when one person quotes a study they found on the web and another person says "you're wrong" and posts another study found on the web. And before we know it, they're not even discussing the thread topic anymore.

[Sudsy]

From the OP -

Are the things we disagree about in these discussions the things we think are most important to discuss?

It seems to me that some who engage in forums seldom begin a topic themselves as they don't want to stick their neck out and get their head chopped off by someone(s). Some seem ready to quickly critique what others are saying on the topic. More of a fighting/confrontational spirit. If there is anything said in the post they disagree with, then this is what they challenge. I suppose those who do this must think this to be important. Perhaps their way of exposing untruths. Or perhaps more of a 'know it all', 'been there, done that', 'my views are the truth of the matter' response.

I believe some do begin threads that are thought to be most important to them to discuss. Why they think they are important God knows their heart. I think our motive(s) for starting a thread is something worth considering before we create one. Am I looking for a fight ? Am I really wanting to know what others think ? I look back on some of my OP and see the old man, the flesh, was doing his thing. I knew there would be disagreements and I was ready to prove my way is the right way. Thankfully God forgives us our sins and gives us fresh starts as His mercies are new every morning.

I expect most topics we will have disagreements in some way or other. Then it is a test of our spiritual intunement with the Holy Spirit and just how or whether the fruit of the Spirit is showing up in our posts or if our responses are fleshly directed. Sometimes walking away from a perceived beginning of a fight is the way we will be lead by the Spirit. It may not sit too well, though, with others who get very frustrated when we take this approach.

I'm quite sure that what I believe the focus should be as important to discuss is not the same for others. However, sometimes I look in on a thread that I don't think as being important and then join in some battle. My bad. There are some topics in Anabaptism that I think are important to discuss and others I have no interest in and likely should stay out of. Other believers are very interested in those topics (sad to say ).

Well, thats my 2 cents on the subject and not expecting agreement.

[temporal1]

^^i admit dismay when the very first response, or 1st page responses, are in dispute, critical.

“Somewhere,” i think, Robert “guided” making an effort to stay on OP topic for the first 4 pages, or so, before bunny trails.
i thought this was a reasonable approach.

Honest bts are not the same as “hits meant to close discussion”.

There are 12 categories on the Home page.
i try to use them all, read them all. i enjoy all the categories.

[Bootstrap]

Like when one person quotes a study they found on the web and another person says "you're wrong" and posts another study found on the web. And before we know it, they're not even discussing the thread topic anymore.

At work, when we look at a study, we're on the same side, with different opinions and insights, looking at the ins and outs of the study. Here, we usually don't even manage to discuss the study itself, the claims it makes, the evidence given for the claim. We used to be able to do that on MD. It's harder on MN.

It's like we're not actually interested in what the study says. Or only in what "my" study says. Often along partisan lines.

[Josh]

Like when one person quotes a study they found on the web and another person says "you're wrong" and posts another study found on the web. And before we know it, they're not even discussing the thread topic anymore.

At work, when we look at a study, we're on the same side, with different opinions and insights, looking at the ins and outs of the study. Here, we usually don't even manage to discuss the study itself, the claims it makes, the evidence given for the claim. We used to be able to do that on MD. It's harder on MN.

It's like we're not actually interested in what the study says. Or only in what "my" study says. Often along partisan lines.

I think part of the problem is that many times, someone proposing to look at a study is doing so in order to support some kind of ideological argument they are making. As long as that remains the premise, of course it's not going to go anywhere. Most people's ideology here is already made up and they aren't interested in hearing any evidence to the contrary.

[steve-in-kville]

Like when one person quotes a study they found on the web and another person says "you're wrong" and posts another study found on the web. And before we know it, they're not even discussing the thread topic anymore.

At work, when we look at a study, we're on the same side, with different opinions and insights, looking at the ins and outs of the study. Here, we usually don't even manage to discuss the study itself, the claims it makes, the evidence given for the claim. We used to be able to do that on MD. It's harder on MN.

It's like we're not actually interested in what the study says. Or only in what "my" study says. Often along partisan lines.

If you've ever had an egotistic boss, we all would understand. I had a boss that would watch me work (this was in construction) and when i finished he would tell me I did it wrong and have me do it over. It was HIS way, even though the way I was doing it was fine.