>snip<

>If anybody would care to debate me on this...please..... step up to the plate...

(sound of knuckles cracking.. *g*)

Hi John,

I think that there is a good case for a basic level of civility.

Let me make a couple of presumptions 'visible' to give you a better notion of my frame of mind/reference.

1. I think that people are more than machines. That is, there is this thing we call personality and also something we call the human spirit, though often expressed in wildly different fashions.

2. From the above presumption I can deduce the notion that communication between people is far more than a simple mechanical recitation of fact(s). I can also deduce that a simple mechanical recitation of facts without a delivery of those facts within the guidelines of the notion of man being more than a machine will eventually fail.

3. Given the two above positions it strikes me as being entirely reasonable to observe the effectiveness or lack thereof within those guidelines. I can attest that I have made those observatins and I have found the former presumptions to be entirely within the range of what we call "normal" communications. And I've observed the opposite as well.

4. If I take a personal goal of being THE BEST at effectively communicating with others; whether it is knowledge of God, Human nature, medical knowledge, historical knowledge, FoxPro, or anything in between, I must also do my best to communicate in such a manner as to provide for those to whom I am communicating the best possible opportunity to learn what I wish to teach/explain.

5. If I do not make it my goal to be the best possible communicator (see above) then the sincerity of my attestations to the contrary are rightly to be questions. That is, am I speaking to hear myself speak or speaking to be heard?

6. This, of course, begs the question as to the "level" of my communications. If I am constantly berating others for not understanding, or being stupid, or some other form of criticism then it is entirely reasonable to presume that I indeed am not speaking for the benefit of others. Rather it may reasonably be presumed that I am speaking only to hear myself.

7. This does little or nothing to really help and the rational and reasonable response to this 'type' of communication is to question the motives of the speaker. This also often gets quite personal and ugly - which is prima facia evidence of the reality that the communication was ineffective to begin with.

To sum this up: If you or I really do care that what we say is for the benefit of others then we will always do everything within our powers to communicate at the level of the hearer, not the speaker - for the reason that we hold their welfare more highly than our own.

Yes, there are times when we need to be stern with others but that is after all other avenues have been exhausted. Being snarly or cranky only shows our own emotional immaturity it seems.

And yes, we all do this at times. That's why we must always be FIRST TO FORGIVE and later to take other courses of action.

So, you are quite correct. Being an MVP does not require that you be civil at all times.

Being human does.

Best,

DD