[at-l] for the Activists.

[The Lehmkuhl Family" <lehmkuhl@gte.net (The Lehmkuhl Family)]

good post Paula,
vera
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anderson, Paula_(MD)" <PMAnderson@apshealthcare.com>
To: "AT-L (E-mail)" <at-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:49 AM
Subject: [at-l] for the Activists.


> ok.  i'm not trying to put anybody down at all here, but just trying to
> explain since I feel that the real reasons for all the fuss are getting
lost
> in the hype and 'pissing contest' mess.
>
> Weary, RnR and all others:
>     Its not WHAT you are saying that is making others upset - its HOW you
> are saying it.
>
> That in a nutshell is what the fuss is all about.  Its not the topic - its
> the method of discussing the topic.
>
> I don't know if anyone else had to take group communication in college -
but
> the longer i'm around, the more I think it should be a required course!
> There was this whole bit about how when you are communicating to people,
how
> the message is interpreted and received, what comprises the actual message
> that others get.  The odd thing was that the majority ( and i don't
remember
> percentages, just it was really huge and surprising to 20 yr olds ) of the
> message that is received is NOT the actual words or even what someone
> thought they were sending.  Messages are mostly made up of all the other
> cues, body language, tone, sentence structure... all that is oddly more
> important than the words.  Humans just give it all more importance when
> receiveing.  Its not something we can change, its just how we as a species
> are put together.
>
> So, here on the net we have a restricted 'receiving' happening.  we cant
get
> the body language, we have to get the tone from how words are put
together,
> punctuation etc and that can often be missinterpreted by whats going on in
> the reading persons day and mood of the moment.  If thats ignored by the
> sender - then the sender just has to live with and recognize that their
> messages aren't being received how they meant and its up to the sender to
> fix it, not the receiver.  just as how we all feel we are responsible
adults
> responsible for our own behavior - we are also responsible for our own
> communication.
>
> I think I'm like most people here when I say we don't mind reading other
> peoples opinons.  We don't mind intriguing discussions about differing
> points of view.
>
> We are interested in discussions.  We AREN'T interested in arguments,
> pissing contests, my opinion is more right than yours.
>
> I seem to remember that a few years ago there were several discussions on
> the list where people had drastically differing opinions.  I enjoyed
reading
> those because the participants were very very careful about how they
phrased
> and stated their opinions.  They weren't arguing, they were discussing
with
> much respect for the other members.  there was no heat, just interest and
> words like "I feel this way, I've always thought this way, and thats an
> interesting opinion you have - what has happened in your life to give you
> that opinion.  not thats a 'bad, stupid' opinion, just that its a
different
> one.  Feeling words, 'I own this' words, 'I think x' , 'I believe x' , not
> 'you are' words, 'your opinion is x' words.   Always, the discussion
showed
> that the participants knew they were speaking to equals and treated each
> other as such.  equals with equal intelligence and an equal right to their
> opinion.  I find these types of discussions stimulating and thought
> provoking in a positive manner.  At the time, I felt I learned a lot.
>
> I know that Weary can have such types of discussions, because i kinda
> remember he participated.  I could be wrong it was a while ago.  I don't
> know RnR, but it seems that his posts feel to me like it does when someone
> gets right up into my face - practically pushing me over - and starts
> yelling and pushing their finger in my chest.  I don't feel respected in
> that situation and go defensive as I feel personally attacked.  Others
> probably feel the same.
>
> In closing, I'm not attacking anyone - just trying to explain how things
are
> comming across to your fellow list members and what I feel the real
problem
> entails.  I'm trying to explain how your messages are being received so if
> thats not what you wanted to send, then you can work on changing your
> methodology so we receive what you intend to send.
>
> As an aside, as others have said, the stated purpose of this list on the
> sign up page isn't trail activism.  Its fellowship and sharing of hiking
> related information.  As Weary explained - WF created ATML to discuss
> activism.  The ATML signup specifies this - so why not discuss activism
> nitty-gritty in the location set aside for it?
>
> Paula A.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l