> The point of the "sticks and stones" is that one can learn to choose not = to > be offended (not to describe the current reality). That is indeed the point. And it is a lesson the truth of which needs to be taught from an early age. BUT as stated, it's a lie. Words WILL sometimes hurt, and the degree of hurt varies, and some people have much less control over this than others. ie the truth is that hurt can and should be minimised and is often undesirable and unnecessary and avoidable. But this is not always so (for each of those points) and to demand it's truth is to totally misunderstand human nature. This is NOT a PC "excuse everything away" statement - it's an observation from reality and one which would be agreed with by essentially all psychiatric / psychological / ... professionals. One may not agree with the excesses of the "mind sciences" but to utterly reject what is essentially one of their a foundational concepts is "risky" (at least). > Trust me, I know what it's like to be hurt by words. Most do, to various extents. I've had my own share and also had quite a lot to do with numerous others who have had far worse than I. One issue is that past physical history in all its varied forms can have a completely overwhelming effect on subsequent behavioural issues. Subtle is the mind. [[To take an extreme case - I have a friend who was so do mised regularly by their father throughout much of their childhood. They in many ways appear a normal person for all intents and purposes. In other ways their behaviour and perceptions are seen as bizarre by many. No excuses - but any who would suggest that such a background is not formative in subsequent reactions in life would be, at best, dreaming. Far less and far different than that can be very formative]] > The problem is, if you > measure the damage as perceived by the victim, you very quickly reach the > absurd. Make that " ..if you ONLY ..." and I'll agree. If you mean that a person's perceptions are wholly irrelevant then you can't live on the same planet as me :-). > Yesterday I heard a colleague get upset about the fact that another > engineer questioned his interpretation of the symptoms exhibited by a dev= ice > he was troubleshooting. That's just silly. I'd be surprised if you'd think tht was true in the general case. Each situation needs to be taken on it's merits. "Questioning the interpretation of ..." MIGHT translate into "accusing them of using new or different Physics" as is literally the case in another thread here. Some will laugh at this - others may feel more bound to reract adversely. > In my home country, a dissident > recently spent a year in jail for publicly calling the President an idiot= .. > Does the punishment fit the crime? Probably. If you seek to hold power dictatorially you get a fair idea of what you have to do to maintain your hold. Maintaining an expectation of the severest consequences for the mildest misdemeanour will probably help keep you in power longer. Do you disagree with the above? (Ultimately nothing works). > ... All men are created equal, I agree with the concept as originally framed, but it's open to abuse as an unqualifed statement:-). >> By allowing or condoning him damaging people as certainly as if he had >> broken a finger or two or kicked them in the shins, or worse, >> sometimes much worse, > That is just sheer nonsense. I wish you were right. To say so suggests a misunderstanding of or indifference to the plight of many people. > I dare anyone to come up with the most hurtful > language they can muster, call me the worst names they know, and I would > gladly take that abuse over the pain of a papercut. I think I could manage :-). BUT considering that how "you" react must be how others do and should react just demonstrates that you are not them and that you have an inadequate understanding or experience of the unfortunate realities of life. > "Oh, but *other* people... diversity... the human psyche..." =A0You can l= earn > to choose. Some can. Variably. Othersstruggle or can't. Subtle is the mind. >> is to make those who support his behaviour >> jointly responsible for the trail of damaged people he leaves behind >> him. > A while ago I proposed (and suggested it several times since) a simple > solution that will satisfy, to a reasonable extent, all parties. Olin agr= eed > that it was fair, it would make the victims feel that justice had been do= ne > on their behalf, and it will reduce the admin workload. Why you refuse to > even try the policy on a limited time basis, is beyond me. The detail of what you suggested now totally escapes my recall BUT I do remember that at the time I considered it unworkable and AFAIR tantamount to giving in rather than addressing the problem. (Serious comment.) Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .