 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Spin Off On Supervising or Monitoring
Inadvertently I initiated a discussion on a touchy subject in an inappropriate thread. Since there are people who obviously have things to say on that touchy subject I try to correct the situation by opening this new thread for pertinent discussion. I personally salute diversity, in all its aspects, and don't approve any kind of censorship, well, almost any kind, this message being a proof that I (sometimes) yield to convention. I believe that interaction with people from all walks of life is an (in?)valuable learning experience for all parties involved, including the protected ones. That was my sermon for today. >Inadvertently I initiated a discussion on a touchy subject in an >inappropriate thread. Since there are people who obviously have things [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That was my sermon for today. Here is what I think is the relevant strand from the other thread: >>On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:36:59 GMT, HVS <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> >>wrought: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >>Internet-based. I'm just not sure that an unmoderated Usenet group -- >>is the most suitable one for Daniel. In my experience Daniel gets on well in this newsgroup. The regulars have an practical appreciation of the range of his abilities when he is communicating here. In some matters for which he has an aptitude he is of above average ability (and not necessarily by a small margin). Fortunately this group has experts in a wide range of specialisms who can converse with Daniel on those matters for which he has a particular aptitude. As his mother, Cathie, says of him: http://alt-usage-english.org/McGrath.html He is an avid subscriber to AUE, and it is one of his main pleasures in life. It actually serves as a lifeline of sorts: when he has a problem with words or language, he can and does ask for help by posting his questions on AUE. This not something we should treat lightly. Unfortunately your comment above: >>I'm just not sure that an unmoderated Usenet group -- >>is the most suitable one for Daniel. could be understood to suggest, in a patronising and prescriptive way, that Daniel is not a suitable person to participate in aue.  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Unfortunately your comment above: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >could be understood to suggest, in a patronising and prescriptive >way, that Daniel is not a suitable person to participate in aue. As for "patronising", I find those who go to considerable lengths to act as if almost all Daniel's posts, including the most intelligent and perceptive ones, are not deeply coloured/skewed/affected by his autism to be far more patronising than suggesting that someone might keep an eye on him to stop him putting his foot in it as royally as he did yesterday. Would he have made that post if he hadn't been autistic? I very much doubt it. So what is patronising about suggesting that his carers -- and, as I understand it, he does live in institutionalised conditions (although I somehow doubt they call it that) Daniel is a very special case, yes, but he's not the only one. We also have bipolars, alcoholics, egomaniacs and, who knows, perhaps also schizophrenics, psychopaths and sociopaths. If they behaved unacceptably would it be patronising to suggest that if they are unable to stop themselves from doing it, then someone should do it for them? Not that Daniel is the only only one to have made a particularly nasty remark at the very worst moment. Far from it (I remember one particularly callous reaction from a semi-regular poster to the news of Charles's stroke, and Charles himself is a bit of a special case, too). But even coming from someone with the best excuse in the world -- and Daniel's certainly got one -- hurtful remarks still hurt and inappropriate behaviour doesn't become any more appropriate. Pretending otherwise or acting as if nothing deeply offensive has happened, now that's patronising. SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) [...] > -- hurtful remarks still > hurt and inappropriate behaviour doesn't become any more > appropriate. Pretending otherwise or acting as if nothing deeply > offensive has happened, now that's patronising. I agree with you on this last point, but I think that suggesting some form of institutional censorship is equally wrong. People who consistently post objectionable messages here are ignored. Members of the group, as Daniel is, are rebuked by those well able to do it. Daniel has been slapped. He's a grownup, though an emotionally immature one, and can take his lumps and come back when the stinging stops. He didn't mean any harm. When my mother died after a long and difficult illness, one of the people at the funeral was the mother of a relative by marriage, an old lady (advised usage) not then many years from her own death, who persisted in cheerful chatter, even telling jokes to the devastated family. At the time, I resented her behaviour and found it incomprehensible; but now, being older myself, I realise that she simply didn't find death terrible. Daniel, for different reasons, isn't bothered either. RRs have made his excuses to anyone who reads the thread, and I can't think that his callousness, so accounted for, will deeply distress Graeme's family. >>Unfortunately your comment above: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Pretending otherwise or acting as if nothing deeply offensive has >happened, now that's patronising. In the case of Daniel's post about Graeme I don't think anyone here was pretending that nothing potentially hurtful had happened. There may have been a slowness to react. I have no reason to think that his post was intended to be hurtful. Other people had been expressing various degrees of sadness. Daniel did the same in a straightforward factual manner with no harm intended, as far as I can see. The incident can reasonable be described as an accident. I recall the making of, but not the details of, the comment about Charles having had a stroke. As bad, and worse, comments are made on other newsgroups with every appearance of being intended to hurt. I find such behaviour inexcusable. I am acutely aware that any one of us can inadvertently cause physical or mental harm to others. As a result I tend to be as compassionate as possible towards the person who has caused the unintended harm as well as to those who have been harmed. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >I am acutely aware that any one of us can inadvertently cause >physical or mental harm to others. As a result I tend to be as >compassionate as possible towards the person who has caused the >unintended harm as well as to those who have been harmed. I agree completely. Hmm. Well. That's it then. Drink, anyone? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.