Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Understanding or stone thrower?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 282919" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Star, I think what you've stumbled on is the insulation we get from a site so well moderated as this one. ON this site we look out for one another, there are only rarely problems caused by somebody getting a bit too heated on a topic. In general, the manners on this site are wonderful, compared to the rest of the world.</p><p></p><p>I occasionally research various topics for various reasons. I recall when I was donig some digging on the Cronulla riots I found a website which I had hoped would let me see some of the local issues which led to the heated feelings. What I found was sheer trash, racism and "yobbo" nastiness, people sniping at each other with personl remarks purely because there wasn't a complete agreement with whatever extreme point of view someone had expressed. So if someone wasn't totally on board with "chuck the lot of them out of the country!" they copped abuse in return such as, "You're obviously a small-minded idiot sympathiser..." with words I won't repeat here.</p><p></p><p>I also for a while was following a friend on Australian Idol, so we could push her cause. Again, the crud thrown at me for expressing support for this person, simply because she was in competition with someone else's preferred competitor - nowhere was there a sign of fair play. I simply said, "X sings really well, I hope she can continue on," and copped a flame war in response such as, "She's a loser compared to Y, anyone who likes her is a moron..." (again, substitute unprintable abuse for 'loser' and 'moron'). Her sexuality was openly discussed and questioned. I was in a position to say, "She's NOT gay, but it shouldn't matter if she were," and again there was a lot of crud about how people hide their sexuality but she MUST be gay because of the way she answered back to one of the pushy judges. Again, "gay" was not a word used; they were extremely abusiv (by the way, she is about to have her first baby; she and her husband are very happy. I'm not going anywhere near the Idol website to share this very private news).</p><p></p><p>The thing is, the internet is anarchy, as a rule. "Moderation" has changed meaning. The attitude has become, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Or to apply it to the 'Net - "If you find the website too hurtful, don't go there."</p><p></p><p>The thing is, the people who attack and verbally abuse those who merely express a different (and generally less extreme and considered) opinion, are bullies. Without decent moderation, they get away with it. Decent people avoid those sites, leaving them as wastelands of abuse from unstable minds who enjoy flame wars.</p><p></p><p>I've learned to click away such forums and never return to them. They do not represent community opinion, they do not present valid information. Absolutely no redeeeming value whatsoever.</p><p></p><p>When you find a website where you can express a moderate view, that is of value. If you find your moderate and compassionate views getting flamed, then ignore the flamers. If the site is important to you (as this one is to me) then you can appeal to the moderators, especially if the flaming is not representative of your previous experience on the site.</p><p></p><p>There were acouple of times in the past when even this site led to me being hurt - I got a couple of PMs which were hurtful, because I had expressed something in a post which these people felt was incorrect and could lead to more problems. I got a PM telling me to shut up and stay out of topics I obviously knew nothing about. I didn't report it to the mods because there was a grain of truth in the PM. But only a grain, and it could have been expressed in a much better way.</p><p></p><p>Since then I've learned a lot and I've gained a lot more confidence in myself. Such a PM I would ignore these days. But for people who have less confidence (and on this site, it could be most of us) are more vulnerable to such an attack. Which is why I'm so glad our mods are as vigilant as they are, with such high standards.</p><p></p><p>The debates themselves - I strongly agree with moderation and compassion. I've seen too many cases where people have been publicliy vilified with rumours being sold as fact.</p><p></p><p>The cases you mention, Star - I don't know them personally. But we have our own, here in Australia. We have no death penalty any more. A good thing, because I'm sure Lindy Chamberlain would have been sentenced to death if they could have. I remember every detail of that case - it was a mess. For Australia it was as big as OJ Simpson, the inquests were televised and although the trials themselves were not, the media reported everythnig they could, even to what Lindy wore to court each day. She was pregnant with her 4th child while on trial for the murder of her 3rd. The day she finally had to wear a maternity dress she had worn previously, the media crowed. She had had enough dresses to not repeat the pattern for 2 weeks.</p><p></p><p>When she was found guilty, I was in shock. The case had never added up for me. The claims of the defence never made full sense, there seemed to me conflict with the evidence. But the prosecution case was unsatisfactory also, there was no motive ever given.</p><p></p><p>If we had the death penalty, she would have been executed. As it was, she had a horrible time in prison with guards picking on her, other prisoners giving her a hrd time, until they got to know her a bit better.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure how many years it was before they found the baby's matinee jacket. The absence of that jacket had stengthened the case against her. It was found in the only place it could have been, if her claims were correct. Where the jacket was found - the prosecution case fell apart. She was innocent after all. And not only had been jailed (with a life sentence) but had her newborn baby taken from her (another daughter).</p><p></p><p>Since then - it took more years to clear her name and her husban'ds name. Byt then he was her ex-husband, the marriage couldn't stand the strain. She has remarried but her children stayed with their father. Too much damage was done to the relationship with their mother, especially the daughter's. They tried, they really did. But a family's lives were ripped apart, because nobody was prepared to believe that a baby was taken by a dingo at Uluru. Instead, the mother's lack of tears in court (she was trying to hold herself together for the family) or her floods of tears in the days after the tragedy ("she's crying too much") were never seen as genuine. The tourism industry in the area was out to find her at fault, so they didn't have to blame the environment.</p><p></p><p>And I have to admit - even I thought she was guilty (or rather, had done it perhaps while affected by post-natal depression), because the forensic evidence as presented seemed conclusive and I AM a scientist. But the day I heard the flaws in the scientific evidence, I overturned my opinion.</p><p></p><p>This was a case conducted with every scrap of evidence presented by the media, over and over. Along with myths "the baby's name means "Sacrifice in the wilderness", they're a weird religious cult, those Seventh Day Adventists, they don't believe in blood transfusions", "the baby had been killed days earlier, the people at the campsite who said they saw the baby were either lying or only saw a doll" - all of this totally untrue. I KNEW these rumours were untrue - so why did I choose to believe some of them? I was no better than the rest. When the verdict wasoverturned after the matinee jacket was found - a nation hung their collective heads in shame. THose who did not still choose to beleive in her guilt, because the alternaitve is to recognise their own inhumanity.</p><p></p><p>Whenever I hear of another case especially one rousing public opinion, I have the memory of Lindy Chamberlain's experience in my mind, jogging my memory and reminding me to never judge too hastily.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 282919, member: 1991"] Star, I think what you've stumbled on is the insulation we get from a site so well moderated as this one. ON this site we look out for one another, there are only rarely problems caused by somebody getting a bit too heated on a topic. In general, the manners on this site are wonderful, compared to the rest of the world. I occasionally research various topics for various reasons. I recall when I was donig some digging on the Cronulla riots I found a website which I had hoped would let me see some of the local issues which led to the heated feelings. What I found was sheer trash, racism and "yobbo" nastiness, people sniping at each other with personl remarks purely because there wasn't a complete agreement with whatever extreme point of view someone had expressed. So if someone wasn't totally on board with "chuck the lot of them out of the country!" they copped abuse in return such as, "You're obviously a small-minded idiot sympathiser..." with words I won't repeat here. I also for a while was following a friend on Australian Idol, so we could push her cause. Again, the crud thrown at me for expressing support for this person, simply because she was in competition with someone else's preferred competitor - nowhere was there a sign of fair play. I simply said, "X sings really well, I hope she can continue on," and copped a flame war in response such as, "She's a loser compared to Y, anyone who likes her is a moron..." (again, substitute unprintable abuse for 'loser' and 'moron'). Her sexuality was openly discussed and questioned. I was in a position to say, "She's NOT gay, but it shouldn't matter if she were," and again there was a lot of crud about how people hide their sexuality but she MUST be gay because of the way she answered back to one of the pushy judges. Again, "gay" was not a word used; they were extremely abusiv (by the way, she is about to have her first baby; she and her husband are very happy. I'm not going anywhere near the Idol website to share this very private news). The thing is, the internet is anarchy, as a rule. "Moderation" has changed meaning. The attitude has become, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Or to apply it to the 'Net - "If you find the website too hurtful, don't go there." The thing is, the people who attack and verbally abuse those who merely express a different (and generally less extreme and considered) opinion, are bullies. Without decent moderation, they get away with it. Decent people avoid those sites, leaving them as wastelands of abuse from unstable minds who enjoy flame wars. I've learned to click away such forums and never return to them. They do not represent community opinion, they do not present valid information. Absolutely no redeeeming value whatsoever. When you find a website where you can express a moderate view, that is of value. If you find your moderate and compassionate views getting flamed, then ignore the flamers. If the site is important to you (as this one is to me) then you can appeal to the moderators, especially if the flaming is not representative of your previous experience on the site. There were acouple of times in the past when even this site led to me being hurt - I got a couple of PMs which were hurtful, because I had expressed something in a post which these people felt was incorrect and could lead to more problems. I got a PM telling me to shut up and stay out of topics I obviously knew nothing about. I didn't report it to the mods because there was a grain of truth in the PM. But only a grain, and it could have been expressed in a much better way. Since then I've learned a lot and I've gained a lot more confidence in myself. Such a PM I would ignore these days. But for people who have less confidence (and on this site, it could be most of us) are more vulnerable to such an attack. Which is why I'm so glad our mods are as vigilant as they are, with such high standards. The debates themselves - I strongly agree with moderation and compassion. I've seen too many cases where people have been publicliy vilified with rumours being sold as fact. The cases you mention, Star - I don't know them personally. But we have our own, here in Australia. We have no death penalty any more. A good thing, because I'm sure Lindy Chamberlain would have been sentenced to death if they could have. I remember every detail of that case - it was a mess. For Australia it was as big as OJ Simpson, the inquests were televised and although the trials themselves were not, the media reported everythnig they could, even to what Lindy wore to court each day. She was pregnant with her 4th child while on trial for the murder of her 3rd. The day she finally had to wear a maternity dress she had worn previously, the media crowed. She had had enough dresses to not repeat the pattern for 2 weeks. When she was found guilty, I was in shock. The case had never added up for me. The claims of the defence never made full sense, there seemed to me conflict with the evidence. But the prosecution case was unsatisfactory also, there was no motive ever given. If we had the death penalty, she would have been executed. As it was, she had a horrible time in prison with guards picking on her, other prisoners giving her a hrd time, until they got to know her a bit better. I'm not sure how many years it was before they found the baby's matinee jacket. The absence of that jacket had stengthened the case against her. It was found in the only place it could have been, if her claims were correct. Where the jacket was found - the prosecution case fell apart. She was innocent after all. And not only had been jailed (with a life sentence) but had her newborn baby taken from her (another daughter). Since then - it took more years to clear her name and her husban'ds name. Byt then he was her ex-husband, the marriage couldn't stand the strain. She has remarried but her children stayed with their father. Too much damage was done to the relationship with their mother, especially the daughter's. They tried, they really did. But a family's lives were ripped apart, because nobody was prepared to believe that a baby was taken by a dingo at Uluru. Instead, the mother's lack of tears in court (she was trying to hold herself together for the family) or her floods of tears in the days after the tragedy ("she's crying too much") were never seen as genuine. The tourism industry in the area was out to find her at fault, so they didn't have to blame the environment. And I have to admit - even I thought she was guilty (or rather, had done it perhaps while affected by post-natal depression), because the forensic evidence as presented seemed conclusive and I AM a scientist. But the day I heard the flaws in the scientific evidence, I overturned my opinion. This was a case conducted with every scrap of evidence presented by the media, over and over. Along with myths "the baby's name means "Sacrifice in the wilderness", they're a weird religious cult, those Seventh Day Adventists, they don't believe in blood transfusions", "the baby had been killed days earlier, the people at the campsite who said they saw the baby were either lying or only saw a doll" - all of this totally untrue. I KNEW these rumours were untrue - so why did I choose to believe some of them? I was no better than the rest. When the verdict wasoverturned after the matinee jacket was found - a nation hung their collective heads in shame. THose who did not still choose to beleive in her guilt, because the alternaitve is to recognise their own inhumanity. Whenever I hear of another case especially one rousing public opinion, I have the memory of Lindy Chamberlain's experience in my mind, jogging my memory and reminding me to never judge too hastily. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Understanding or stone thrower?
Top