> Manipulation 101 Course is intended to be a microscope for various vicious
> viruses spreading in discussion groups on the world wide web ("vvv on www").
> It seems to draw quite an emotional feedback from people whose words are
> used as examples. Please note, that the examples are not personal, no names
> are mentioned. This is intentional according to a good rule "praise a
> person, criticize a behaviour". There is no need for the people who
> recognise their words to defend themselves. It is an invitation to discuss
> the problem, and not the person. I suggest to use a useful mantra: "I don't
> care who said it" when responding to this thread.
You know, Tad, if you had STARTED this thread with this introduction we
could have had a useful discussion about the way people interact. We
might have even been able to do it without being as judgemental as you
about the perceived "viciousness" of these viruses you speak of. But, to
be honest, you didn't.
This, David R., is why I grew weary. I see enough bratty name calling in
my day to day life. I don't need to see any more, thank you.
Now, if you really want to re-frame this discussion, I'm all for it. It
could prove a quite constructive use of our time. Why don't you, Tad and
David, restate your "Lessons" in terms of how people attempt to influence
others (for good or bad, after all, we use the same devices for both),
leave off the examples (if we need 'em we'll ask), and let us see what you
have to say about the way dems wacky humans be interactin'.
Prof. Tim