a reply to: Profusion
I think that really depends on the thread itself, and what the initiating factor behind the thread is. For example, if you post something in the
relationships forum, then it is very likely, not to mention valid, that someone will comment on the matter of you, because relationships are not
single faceted things, the behaviour and mentality of both parties play into the ultimate success or otherwise of the endeavour.
If someone posts a thread which attacks a minority group, then it is necessary to get to the bottom of why a person would want to make that attack,
especially if, as with nearly every such example, the threads basis is so utterly flawed that responding to the subject matter raised is actually
impossible, not because the argument made is sound, but because there are no facts to examine, no truth to cling to as a basis for discussion. At this
point, the mentality of the poster themselves has to be examined, in order to find the actual source of their discomfort, which is next door to never
the group that they are complaining about.
If, however, the subject matter is rather more dry, involving technical data, scientific concepts, and is not marred by the OP's personal opinions in
such a way as to present a logical fallacy which overrides the subject matter, or makes discussion of the topic impossible given the misapprehension
the OP may be operating under, then the discussion can go ahead, without necessitating a query about the OP themselves.
For example, if someone creates a thread whose title is "The Climate Is Changing. What Are We Going To Do About It?", this states a simple truth, and
asks a simple, non-partisan question about how pro-active people are prepared to be. Note, the title makes no mention of the causes of climate change,
does not even suggest anthropogenic origins of the trend, merely acknowledges that the trend exists, and asks a reasonable question stemming from it.
To attack the OP there would be idiotic, because it is clear that the OP has no interest in partisan debate, but does want a practical discussion, a
technical run down of what members think we ought to be doing, with regard to sea wall defence and flood defence besides, long term programs which
will save lives, property and territory from being overwhelmed by water, prevention and mitigation of increasingly dangerous forest and wildfires,
changes to the frequency and strength of tornado activity, hurricanes, general changes in average temperatures for the given seasons, the blurring
lines between the seasons and how these will affect agriculture...
These are not issues to be taken personally, but are practical in origin, therefore must be dealt with practically.
Sometimes though, the mental origin of an opening post, has to be examined in order for a proper understanding of the factors which lead to its
publication, can be had by all parties concerned, which will improve the effectiveness of communication on both the part of the threads author and the
participants in the discussion which issues from that OP.
The crucial thing therefore, is to author threads which deal with information which has no bias, creates no division and forces absolutely no one to
question ones motivation, meaning, or the location and form of the spark of mind which lead to its being authored in the first place.