Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2)
-
One of the problems is to find a good touchstone. tmd here above uses several times the criterion "constructive discussion" to judge that a post can be deleted or that a thread should be stopped. But I'm afraid that everybody has or can have a different notion of that. So in fact tmd is asking for absolute power to judge everything from his point of view which is a nice explanation for the passive-aggression that's caused by that. I even don't think that tmd means 'constructive', I think he means that some posts are 'not nice' enough with 'constructive' as a political-correct cover-up. Not to attack tmd here, he is just an example of this kind of intolerant behavior. And I have to say that Dr. Mark seems to have some problems to keep his emotions under control. I don't mind, I can handle it.
As I see it, if Miles Davis should be alive and should try to post here or (certainly) on TH, his posts should be deleted all and within weeks he should be banned. He should not be 'constructive' enough.
Maybe it's time for an additional rule in the regulations here that it is forbidden to call in a public post for removing a post or for locking a thread. If somebody feels that he is the chosen to act in a certain situation let him do that by private mail to the moderators. To do that in a public post is a tremendous beautiful example of passive-aggression. -
@Shifty said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Thereafter, Administrator politely asked that we please not speculate on the nature of what happened, but you continued to do so. He was right in locking the thread for that reason alone, and doesn't deserve your further "speculation" as to his motive.
In the world of education, there's reading and comprehension. Go back through the posts and see how many times "harassment" is used. There was/is no firm evidence that anyone was harassed. Things went sideways when I said that it was the philharmonic verses these two guys and the reason for dismissal I've already stated. That is not speculation. Just darned! Pt 2 is about how people in charge can pretty much do what they want when it's an employment at will setting and that was correlated in that the owner can shut down, stop, ban, lock, etc. because we are Participants-at Will. Like I said Swifty a comprehension problem.
-
@FranklinD said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
One of the problems is to find a good touchstone. tmd here above uses several times the criterion "constructive discussion" to judge that a post can be deleted or that a thread should be stopped. But I'm afraid that everybody has or can have a different notion of that. So in fact tmd is asking for absolute power to judge everything from his point of view which is a nice explanation for the passive-aggression that's caused by that. I even don't think that tmd means 'constructive', I think he means that some posts are 'not nice' enough with 'constructive' as a political-correct cover-up. Not to attack tmd here, he is just an example of this kind of intolerant behavior. And I have to say that Dr. Mark seems to have some problems to keep his emotions under control. I don't mind, I can handle it.
As I see it, if Miles Davis should be alive and should try to post here or (certainly) on TH, his posts should be deleted all and within weeks he should be banned. He should not be 'constructive' enough.
Maybe it's time for an additional rule in the regulations here that it is forbidden to call in a public post for removing a post or for locking a thread. If somebody feels that he is the chosen to act in a certain situation let him do that by private mail to the moderators. To do that in a public post is a tremendous beautiful example of passive-aggression.
To clarify, I didn't say that I would have closed the thread. And I'm on record in this thread and elsewhere that I don't always agree with the editing decisions here or on TH. However, I agree with the admin's decision to close this thread. This was a unilateral decision made by the Admin. It was nothing I asked for. I wasn't even following the thread in question. I only supported the Admin's decision after-the-fact.
However, FranklinD thinks this makes me "intolerant", asking for "absolute power", and engaging in "politically-correct cover-ups". Ironically, in the context of calling me out for this power grab, FranklinD is asking for additional rules to make certain actions "forbidden". Good for him.
Mike
-
@tmd
you said, "I assumed they would contain inflexible comments from people with preconceived biases, and there would be very little in the way of a constructive discussion. And while this may be an important topic, and while there may be valid opinions, it's just difficult to discuss these topics online in a constructive way.
I just looked at the first thread. My assumption turned out to be true. The admin was right to close the thread. Maybe the rest of us should let it go, too."
And then you say to Franklin;
To clarify, I didn't say that I would have closed the thread. And I'm on record in this thread and elsewhere that I don't always agree with the editing decisions here or on TH.Franklin is exactly right, Here's your words;
"inflexible comments"
"very little in the way of constructive discussion"
"my assumptions turned out to be true" administrator has the right to close the thread"
"the rest of us should let it go too"Franklin is right about your comments and you are not being honest and to defend yourself, you're using lawyer dodges to defend your actions
-
@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@tmd
you said, "I assumed they would contain inflexible comments from people with preconceived biases, and there would be very little in the way of a constructive discussion. And while this may be an important topic, and while there may be valid opinions, it's just difficult to discuss these topics online in a constructive way.
I just looked at the first thread. My assumption turned out to be true. The admin was right to close the thread. Maybe the rest of us should let it go, too."
And then you say to Franklin;
Next you say; To clarify, I didn't say that I would have closed the thread. And I'm on record in this thread and elsewhere that I don't always agree with the editing decisions here or on TH.Franklin is exactly right, Here's your words;
"inflexible comments"
"very little in the way of constructive discussion"
"my assumptions turned out to be true" administrator has the right to close the thread"
"the rest of us should let it go too"Franklin is right about your comments and you are not being honest and to defend yourself, you're using lawyer dodges to defend your actions
Thank you "Dr" Mark.
Mike
-
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Thank you "Dr" Mark.
You're welcome "Dr" Mike
-
@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Thank you "Dr" Mark.
You're welcome "Dr" Mike
Now you're getting it Mark. The strategic use of quotes is an example of passive-aggression. Just like you did in your initial post in this thread.
Mike
Bach Stradivarius 43* Trumpet (1974), Bach 6C Mouthpiece.
Olds L-12 Flugelhorn (1969), Yamaha 13F4 Mouthpiece.
Plus a few other Bach, Getzen, Olds, Carol, HN White, and Besson horns. -
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
You're welcome "Dr" Mike
Now you're getting it Mark. The strategic use of quotes is an example of passive-aggression. Just like you did in your initial post in this thread.
Mike
THANK GOD Passive-aggressive disorder is no longer listed in DSM-5. Not a medical issue at all (at least not one physicians can bill for). My theory is all the psychiatrists sitting on the DSM-5 review board were Passive-aggressive, yes?
Allora Pocket Trumpet 2014
Harrelson Summit 2017
Kanstul 1526 2012
Getzen Power Bore 1961
Getzen Eterna 4-Valve Fulgelhorn 1974
Martin Committee 1946
Olds Super Recording 1940
Olds Recording (LA) 1953
Olds Recording (Fullerton) 1967
Olds Ambassador 1965 -
@Dr-GO said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@Dr-Mark said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
You're welcome "Dr" Mike
Now you're getting it Mark. The strategic use of quotes is an example of passive-aggression. Just like you did in your initial post in this thread.
Mike
THANK GOD Passive-aggressive disorder is no longer listed in DMS-5. Not a medical issue at all (at least not one physicians can bill for). My theory is all the psychiatrists sitting on the DMS-5 review board were Passive-aggressive, yes?
No argument here, Gary. But you bill for it as a Cluster B personality disorder. Passive aggression, rationalization, narcissism, splitting. It's all here in this thread.
Are your clinics still closed Gary? Is telehealth working out for you? So far, we're down 4 MDs in our ER. Lots of surge shifts to cover.
Mike
Bach Stradivarius 43* Trumpet (1974), Bach 6C Mouthpiece.
Olds L-12 Flugelhorn (1969), Yamaha 13F4 Mouthpiece.
Plus a few other Bach, Getzen, Olds, Carol, HN White, and Besson horns. -
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Now you're getting it Mark. The strategic use of quotes is an example of passive-aggression. Just like you did in your initial post in this thread.
Wow! That's really inaccurate to think that the strategic use of quotes is an example of passive aggression. If that were the case, then dissertations, trial lawyers at work, and the Socratic method would all fit under passive-aggressive.
What next to defend yourself verbally against Franklin (which you don't have the capacity to keep up with Franklin in this arena)? Am I always in sync with Franklin? No. But I know when he is right and I know when he's being misstated. Let's not forget what pt 2 is about, should management power be total and absolute or should there be a balance between labor and management over the work floor and how does employment- at- will effect that dynamic with and without Union representation? -
Wow, just think what we might discover, or at least share, if that much typing were expended on topics related to the instrument itself, advances in design, fabrication or materials, new repertoire, innovative approaches to unique situations with students . . . . .
www.trumpet-history.com
A Timeline of Trumpets (Amazon)
2017 AustinWinds Stage466
1962 Mt.V Bach 43
1954 Holton 49
1927 Conn 22B NYS
1957 Holton 27 Stratodyne
1986 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 -
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Are your clinics still closed Gary? Is telehealth working out for you? So far, we're down 4 MDs in our ER. Lots of surge shifts to cover.
Mike
Mike, clinics never were closed. My practice group were one of the first if not the first to use telehealth. So still working the same numbers of half days.
I am seeing a few patients live, all pediatric well infant/child visits and as many of my mental health patients as I can as I try to administer inventory scores to adjust psychiatric medication doses.
We definitely try to keep ALL ill patients out of the building, albeit I did have to get a man with COPD exacerbation in to run a pulse ox, but then when it came back at 86% I had to send him to the ED to get a breathing treatment as we cannot give a treatment that aerosols respiratory secretions into our treatment areas. Really strange times in medicine land!
Allora Pocket Trumpet 2014
Harrelson Summit 2017
Kanstul 1526 2012
Getzen Power Bore 1961
Getzen Eterna 4-Valve Fulgelhorn 1974
Martin Committee 1946
Olds Super Recording 1940
Olds Recording (LA) 1953
Olds Recording (Fullerton) 1967
Olds Ambassador 1965 -
@OldSchoolEuph said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Wow, just think what we might discover, or at least share, if that much typing were expended on topics related to the instrument itself, advances in design, fabrication or materials, new repertoire, innovative approaches to unique situations with students . . . . .
Seriously, what an amazing template this would be to follow...
-
Well, I like to see myself as the "benevolent dictator" here...but, it is my website after all!
-
@administrator said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Well, I like to see myself as the "benevolent dictator" here...but, it is my website after all!
....This Space for Rent
-
@administrator said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Well, I like to see myself as the "benevolent dictator" here...but, it is my website after all!
Thank you! Finally, someone that gets it.
Now, let's expand that concept and call it Ford Motors, or Walt Disney Corp.
While no one will starve, or be evicted if they are banned for cause or no cause at all, the same can't be said if Ford or Disney if it were not for the Union. Granted, Florida is a right-to-work state, Employees (depending on their employment status) have a collective bargaining agreement. Without it, many would starve and or evicted. The great and worse thing about a dictator is that they can be great and protect the people and loved by the people and the next dictator that takes over can see his responsibility as getting rid of people that are different from the dictator's way of thinking ( see China and the Uyghurs).
A dictator (owner of a company) can be very good or very bad. That's why an intermediary (a union with a collective bargaining agreement) is a very important entity for the welfare of the people and the health of a nation. Otherwise, over time we'll be a country of part-time workers with no job security with their credit cards maxed out.
Thank you for understanding what I was getting to. -
@OldSchoolEuph said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
just think what we might discover, or at least share, if that much typing were expended on topics related to the instrument itself, advances in design, fabrication or materials, new repertoire, innovative approaches to unique situations with students . . . . .
With what the administrator just said, it shouldn't go much further. It appears to have went full circle. This won't stop people from chiming in and battling for the sake of battle, but I'm out of here. I got my 10 cents worth of words and a proper response that fits the topic. With that said, I no longer see my input of use on this thread.
-
@Dr-GO said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Are your clinics still closed Gary? Is telehealth working out for you? So far, we're down 4 MDs in our ER. Lots of surge shifts to cover.
Mike
Mike, clinics never were closed. My practice group were one of the first if not the first to use telehealth. So still working the same numbers of half days.
I am seeing a few patients live, all pediatric well infant/child visits and as many of my mental health patients as I can as I try to administer inventory scores to adjust psychiatric medication doses.
We definitely try to keep ALL ill patients out of the building, albeit I did have to get a man with COPD exacerbation in to run a pulse ox, but then when it came back at 86% I had to send him to the ED to get a breathing treatment as we cannot give a treatment that aerosols respiratory secretions into our treatment areas. Really strange times in medicine land!
Glad you're still operating. Around here, the clinics are hit-or-miss. And I just got the news that we're now down 5 ER physicians, which is half of our group. We're stretched pretty thin right now. Yes, these are strange times. Stay safe.
Mike
-
@administrator said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
Well, I like to see myself as the "benevolent dictator" here...but, it is my website after all!
Agreed.
-
@tmd said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
@FranklinD said in Please Help Me Understand Something (Pt 2):
However, FranklinD thinks this makes me "intolerant", asking for "absolute power", and engaging in "politically-correct cover-ups". Ironically, in the context of calling me out for this power grab, FranklinD is asking for additional rules to make certain actions "forbidden". Good for him.
Mike
Sorry Mike, you just don't understand a (any) legal system. I asked for a rule because a rule diminishes power. Maybe a little bit counter intuitive but the first function of a rule is to limit the power of the institution that controls us. Without any rules there will be power at will, with rules there are rules to be followed, BTW it's a very important principle in American law, it's called 'the rule of law'. In the sociology of law it's some kind of law that the weak want strong and detailed rules to protect them against the strong, the strong want weak rules with vague criterions like 'constructive', 'positive' , 'right behavior' and so on, so they can stretch these vague notions and have more benefit of their surplus of power. So far about your 'constructive'. So I think that it's better to formulate a clear rule: delete posts in which is asked for deleting or banning and all posts in which such a call is supported. Why? The first kind of posts don't belong on a public forum but has to be done in private, the second kind of supporting posts don't serve any logical goal and can only be seen as expressions of passive aggression. Is such a rule necessary? Yes, because the moderators cannot delete posts in which the message of aggression is hidden behind the back of another poster or even behind the back of a moderator ("...However, I agree with the admin's decision to close this thread").
Considering this alI I see not any ground for your 'ironically'.tmd: ... But you bill for it as a Cluster B personality disorder. Passive aggression, rationalization, narcissism, splitting. It's all here in this thread.
You forgot ignorance, but of course you could not know that.
